Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Full Length Article

Opportunities for coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon with

co-benefits for biodiversity, coastal fisheries, and water quality
Valerie Hagger a, *, Nathan J. Waltham b, Catherine E. Lovelock a
a
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
b
Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Coastal wetlands are known to sequester significant amounts of carbon dioxide, while also providing valuable
Carbon sequestration ecosystem services. We assessed the economic feasibility of restoring coastal wetlands for climate change miti­
Ecosystem services gation by reinstating tidal flows on floodplain, agricultural land of the Wet Tropics catchments in Queensland,
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Australia. We assessed whether potential carbon credits would be sufficient to incentivise conversion of the land,
Restoration prioritization
or whether additional ecosystem service payments would be required. We explored the co-benefits for biodi­
Mangroves
Saltmarsh versity, fisheries, and nitrogen removal using a prioritisation approach to identify profitable restoration solutions
that maximise these benefits. We identified 5,046 ha of potential restorable area that could abate 221,006 tonnes
of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) annually from carbon sequestration in vegetation and soils and avoided
greenhouse gas emissions. Cost-benefit analysis over 25 years demonstrate that 3,399 ha (67%) would be
profitable under conventional farm management practice using the current Australian carbon price ($13.85 per
tonne CO2-e), which increased to 4,534 ha (90%) at a higher carbon price ($25 per tonne CO2-e). The profit­
ability of coastal wetland restoration was enhanced by a higher carbon price, which can be achieved by bundling
ecosystem services, or through stacking ecosystem service payments. Prioritising restoration sites by cost-
effectiveness and co-benefits can achieve multiple ecosystem services for a substantial profit.

1. Introduction sediments, plant uptake for production, and denitrification (Duarte and
Krause-Jensen 2018; Jickells et al. 2016; Reis et al. 2017). They also
Investment in restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems is provide habitat for coastal fisheries (Jänes et al. 2020; Sheaves et al.
increasing due to concerns around habitat loss, water quality, loss of 2017) and a wide range of biodiversity (Rog et al. 2017; Sievers et al.
fisheries, coastal inundation and erosion, and climate change (McLeod 2019). Historically, large losses of coastal wetlands have occurred
et al. 2018). Coastal wetlands, including mangroves, saltmarshes, and globally including in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) catchments (Adame
tidal freshwater (brackish) forests like those dominated by Melaleuca et al., 2019a; Alongi 2002). These losses have reduced the capacity of
spp. (paperbark trees) have significant capacity to sequester carbon di­ estuarine systems to remove nutrients (Adame et al., 2019a), support
oxide, termed “blue carbon” (Lovelock and Duarte 2019; Serrano et al. biodiversity (Waltham et al., 2019), and sustain fish catches (Barbier
2019). Although their global area is much smaller than that of terrestrial 2003; Malik et al. 2017), which may be ameliorated through coastal
forests, the per hectare carbon stocks and rates of sequestration are wetland restoration (Creighton et al. 2015).
greater, because of the accumulation of organic carbon in their soils Australia has large blue carbon stocks (Serrano et al. 2019), which
(Duarte et al. 2013; McLeod et al. 2011). Additionally, emissions of have been degraded and converted since European colonisation, and
methane and nitrous oxides tend to be low in saline soils compared to which provide opportunities for financing restoration through carbon
freshwater ecosystems and agriculture (Kroeger et al. 2017), further credits (Bell-James and Lovelock 2019; Kelleway et al. 2017) and other
contributing to the climate change mitigation potential of coastal payments for ecosystem services, such as Reef Credits (Waltham et al.,
wetland restoration (Needelman et al. 2018). 2019). In the Wet Tropics region of Australia, expansion of sugarcane
Coastal wetlands provide additional ecosystem services, such as and grazing on the floodplains occurred from the 1960s with drainage
improving water quality from land run-off through nutrient retention in and construction of bund walls (Manders et al. 2009). The combination

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Hagger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101423
Received 15 June 2020; Received in revised form 15 February 2022; Accepted 3 March 2022
Available online 21 March 2022
2212-0416/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

of land-use change, fertiliser application for agriculture, and loss of Agreement, in addition to the Reef 2050 Plan and UNESCO World
coastal wetlands has reduced the water quality of the GBR, which in Heritage status of the GBR.
combination with climate change threatens its health and resilience
(Waterhouse et al. 2017). Thus, restoration of low-lying agricultural 2. Methods
land to coastal wetlands is proposed as a cost-effective measure to
reduce dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) in water run-off (Waltham 2.1. Study area
et al., 2021). Furthermore, many landholders are willing to undertake
projects that improve water quality in return for financial payment (Reef Our study area is the Wet Tropics region in north-east Australia,
Credit Interim Steering Committee 2019). comprising multiple catchments of the World Heritage listed GBR,
Although systems for payments for greenhouse gas (GHG) removals including the Barron, Daintree, Herbert, Johnstone, Mossman,
from coastal wetland restoration are available under the global volun­ Mulgrave-Russel, Murray, Endeavour, and Tully catchments, stretching
tary carbon market (Needelman et al. 2018) and recently in Australia 450 km along the coast and occupying 21,764 km2 of land (Fig. 1). The
(Lovelock et al. 2021), whether these payments are sufficient to incen­ Wet Tropics is one of the most biodiverse places in the world. Coastal
tivise restoration is not certain. In a modelling study, payments for ranges separate the western areas from the narrow coastal floodplain.
carbon credits associated with landward migration of coastal wetlands The dominant land uses include grazing to the west, sugarcane along the
during sea level rise (SLR) was sufficient to pay the cost of expanding coastal floodplain, and some horticulture across the region. The region
the coastal reserve network (lands managed for conservation) under has an average annual rainfall of 1450 mm, which occurs predominantly
lower SLR scenarios (28 and 55 cm over 2013–2100), however was in the summer months (McInnes et al., 2015). The rivers deliver
inadequate under higher SLR scenarios (98 and 128 cm over sediments, nutrients, and pesticides to the reef in pulsed flows
2013–2100) (Runting et al. 2017). The increase in the reserve network (Brodie et al. 2017). Tides in the region are semidiurnal with a range of
was greater when a higher carbon price was assumed, but combining
carbon payments with a potential fisheries payment (e.g. “stacking”
payments for ecosystem services) facilitated only a modest increase of
the reserve network over carbon payments alone (Runting et al. 2017). If
carbon payments are sufficient to pay for coastal restoration activities,
including compensating landholders for the forgone income from agri­
cultural production, then prioritising sites that deliver water quality,
fisheries, and biodiversity co-benefits are also important to maximise
return on investment and address additionality requirements of stacking
or bundling payments for ecosystem services (Torabi and Bekessy 2015).
Prioritisation of mangrove restoration sites in Mexico, which considered
carbon sequestration, water depuration, and coastal protection,
found that there were few trade-offs among ecosystem services
(Adame et al. 2015). This study however focused on relatively small
areas and did not consider financial benefits to landholders.
The purpose of our study was to assess the economic feasibility of
restoring coastal wetlands for climate change mitigation. We focussed
on sugarcane and grazing land in the Wet Tropics catchments, stretching
along 450 km of the north-east coast of Australia, which are the major
agricultural land uses on the floodplain in the region. Aquaculture is
also practiced on the floodplains and thus we included abandoned
aquaculture ponds, as reinstatement of tidal flows on these land uses
has facilitated mangrove regeneration in other tropical regions
(Castillo et al. 2018; Sidik et al. 2019). In coastal wetlands, above-
ground biomass and soil carbon stocks vary regionally and temporally
with species, age, climate, and coastal geomorphology (Atwood et al.
2017; Macreadie et al. 2017; Osland et al. 2017; Twilley et al. 2018;
Xiong et al. 2019). Furthermore, landholder income from agricultural
production varies with soil type and farm practice (van Grieken et al.
2019). The realised climate benefits of coastal restoration therefore
require spatiotemporally explicit approaches to assess economic feasi­
bility. We assessed whether potential carbon credits earned by coastal
wetland restoration over 25 years, accounting for forgone income to
landholders from agricultural production, could incentivise conversion
of the agricultural land use, or whether additional ecosystem service
payments would be required. We developed a prioritisation approach
based on cost-effectiveness and potential biodiversity, fisheries, and
nitrogen removal co-benefits, to identify profitable restoration solutions
that deliver multiple ecosystem services at a regional scale. We also
explored the trade-offs in achieving multiple ecosystem services versus
climate benefit alone. Access to evaluations of cost-effectiveness will
become more critical as managers seek government and private funding
to scale up coastal restoration during the United Nations Decade on
Ecosystem Restoration (Waltham et al., 2020), to meet Sustainable
Development Goals, the Convention on Aichi Biodiversity Target 15, and Fig. 1. Distribution of restoration opportunity across the Wet Tropics catch­
national climate change mitigation commitments to the Paris ments, Queensland, Australia.

2
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

1.5–3 m (Bureau of Meteorology 2020). The coastal wetlands in the parcels one hectare and larger from land-use mapping (DSITI 2016) that
region are dominated by mangrove communities low in the intertidal fell within the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) level (supplementary
zone which transition to scrub mangroves, and saltmarsh and salt flats at S.1), and therefore could theoretically receive tidal waters, and which
the highest intertidal zone (Bunt and Bunt 1999). Melaleuca wetlands were historically a coastal wetland, determined from pre-clear vegetation
and vine forests occupy the land at higher elevation to the mangroves, mapping (DES 2018) (mangrove, saltmarsh, sedgeland, Melaleuca
although these have been cleared extensively in the region from con­ wetland, vine forest wetland, waterholes, and estuaries; supplementary
version to agriculture and urban development (Adame et al., 2019a). S.2). We assumed natural recovery of vegetation would follow hydro­
logical restoration, which is considered best-practice for wetland resto­
ration and the most cost-effective (Bayraktarov et al. 2016; Lewis 2009).
2.2. Identifying restoration sites We compared the extent of potential restorable area against all agricul­
tural land uses mapped within the HAT (supplementary S.1) to explore
We identified sugarcane, grazing, and abandoned aquaculture land

Table 1
Avoided greenhouse gas emissions estimated for sugarcane, grazing, and abandoned aquaculture land, greenhouse gas removals and emissions for coastal wetlands,
and IPCC method choice.
Land use / wetland Activity Emission Factor Removal Factor IPCC method choice
(kg ha− 1 yr− 1) (Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1)

Agriculture - avoided emissions

Sugarcane CO2 soil carbon loss Table S.1 - Tier 1/2 – default stock change factors and
Australian baseline map of soil organic carbon
N2O fertiliser application 0.0199 - Tier 2 - Australian EF for sugarcane and Wet Tropics
N fertiliser rates
N2O crop residues 0.01 - Tier 2 – Australian EF for sugarcane and north
Queensland sugarcane production rates
N2O N mineralisation due to loss of 0.002 - Tier 2 – Australian EF for sugarcane and soil carbon
soil carbon loss as above
N2O cultivation of histosols 0.008 - Tier 1/2 – default EF for mid-latitude soils and Wet
Tropics soils mapping for histosols
N2O leaching and runoff of fertiliser 0.0075 - Tier 2 – Australian EF for sugarcane and Wet Tropics
application N fertiliser rates
N2O leaching and runoff of crop 0.0075 - Tier 2 -Australian EF and north Queensland
residues sugarcane production rates
N2O leaching and runoff of N 0.0075 - Tier 2 - Australian EF for sugarcane and soil carbon
mineralisation due to a loss of soil loss as above
carbon
CH4 field burning of agricultural 0.0035 - Tier 2 - Australian EF for sugarcane and north
residues Queensland sugarcane production rates
N2O field burning of agricultural 0.0076 -
residues
Abandoned aquaculture CH4 aquaculture ponds 416 - Tier 1 - default EF from tropical climate and Wet
Tropics land use mapping for aquaculture
Grazing CO2 soil carbon loss Table S.1 - Tier 1/2 – default stock change factors and
Australian baseline map of soil organic carbon
N2O fertiliser application 0.004 - Tier 2 – Australian EF for irrigated pasture and Wet
Tropics N fertiliser rates for soil types
N2O urine and dung deposition 0.004 - Tier 2 – Australian EF for irrigated pasture and
stocking densities for Wet Tropics soil types
N2O atmospheric deposition of 0.004 - Tier 2 - Australian EF for irrigated pasture and Wet
fertiliser Tropics N fertiliser rates for soil types
N2O leaching and runoff of fertiliser 0.0075 - Tier 1/2 – default EF with Australian parameters,
and Wet Tropics N fertiliser rates for soil types
All CH4 canals and drains 183 - Tier 1 – default EF for tropical climate and
Queensland canal lines mapping

Coastal wetlands – removals and emissions

Mangrove CO2 soil carbon removals - − 1.54 Tier 3 – accumulation rate for mangroves in tropical
Australia
Saltmarsh - − 0.35 Tier 2 – accumulation rate for saltmarsh in
subtropical Australia
Melaleuca wetland - − 0.62 Tier 3 – accumulation rate for Melaleuca wetlands in
north Queensland
Mangrove CO2 above-ground biomass removals
≤ 25 years - Log model (Table S.2) Tier 3 – modelled accumulation rate from mangrove
stocks in tropical Australia
> 25 years - − 3.72 Tier 2 – accumulation rate for mangroves in the
tropics globally
Saltmarsh ≤ 10 years - − 0.14 Tier 2 – modelled accumulation rate from saltmarsh
stocks in subtropical Australia
Melaleuca wetland ≤ 25 years - Log model (Table S.2) Tier 3 – accumulation rate for Melaleuca wetlands in
> 25 years - − 5.00 north Queensland; Modelled from stocks for ≤ 25
years.
Brackish wetlands (Melaleuca, CH4 emissions in low salinity 193.72 - Tier 1 – default EF for rewetted soils
sedgeland, waterholes) environments

3
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

any other land use conversion opportunities in the floodplain. et al. 2016; Reis et al. 2019) (selection of indicators and methods in
Land that was mapped as vine forest and sedgeland prior to clearing supplementary S.5-S.7).
and occurred within the HAT level were assumed to transition to Mel­
aleuca wetland and saltmarsh, respectively, as clearing and agriculture 2.5. Estimate of restoration success
results in subsidence of organic soils (White and Kaplan 2017) and these
communities typically occur in the higher intertidal zone (mean high Our restoration success was based on whether restoration sites were
water springs to HAT level). These transitions are conservative for car­ intersected by an existing drain and could thus be hydrologically
bon accounting as although vine forest may transition to mangroves, the restored by removal of the drainage structure. We also considered the
amount of carbon sequestered in mangroves and Melaleuca wetlands are frequency of tidal flushing, which can enhance natural recruitment and
similar (Table S.8). biotic interactions such as predation and competition (Lewis et al. 2019;
All spatial analysis was undertaken in ArcMap 10.6 (ESRI 2018) and Zhang et al. 2018). Seawater ingress can also decrease invasion by
data analysis in R 3.6.1 (R Core Team 2019). aquatic weeds and expensive perpetual maintenance including herbi­
cide treatment of weeds and mechanical removal that are mandated by
2.3. Estimating climate change mitigation state laws (Abbott et al. 2020) (methods in supplementary S.8).

2.3.1. Avoided greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture 2.6. Cost benefit analysis
The avoided GHG emissions from ceasing sugarcane, grazing, and
abandoned aquaculture were estimated for activities on agricultural The net present value (NPV) generated from conversion of agricultural
soils and flooded land (Table 1), following International Panel of land to coastal wetlands was calculated for each site using a discounted cash
Climate Change (IPCC) 2006 guidelines and 2019 wetlands refinement, flow analysis (equation 1 in S.9) (Prato and Hey 2006; Roebeling et al. 2007).
using Australian emission factors and regional data where possible (Tier NPV considers financial benefit from climate change mitigation, restoration
2), supplemented with IPCC default emission factors (Tier 1) where and maintenance costs, and forgone revenue from sugarcane or grazing (we
country-specific factors were not available (methods in Table S.1). To assumed no forgone revenue from abandoned aquaculture). NPV was eval­
allow repeatability, a Tier 1/2 approach was adopted for activities uated over 25 years to reflect project permanence, using a discount rate of 4%
involving soil carbon loss, using the same soil carbon stock data as the per annum, the most recent recommended rate for public investments in
Australian Full Carbon Accounting Model (Tier 3), therefore differences Australia (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure
between approaches are expected to be minimal (supplementary S.3). Transport and Cities 2018). We also conducted sensitivity analyses to assess
how a longer 100 year permanence period, or a higher 7% discount rate
2.3.2. Greenhouse gas removals and emissions from coastal wetlands changes the NPV (Firn et al. 2015). A weighted average carbon price of AU
Carbon sequestration in soils and AGB of potential restoration sites $13.85 per Mg CO2-e (calculated over the last three auctions held by Aus­
were estimated from carbon stocks and accumulation rates for mature tralia’s Clean Energy Regulator) was applied to annual CO2-e removals and
mangroves, saltmarsh, and Melaleuca wetlands in tropical Australia, or avoided emissions to determine the financial benefit of restoration. Higher
the nearest climatic region (Adame et al., 2019b; Serrano et al. 2019; prices can be obtained on the voluntary market for projects with high social
Xiong et al. 2019), and methane emissions from the IPCC 2013 wetlands or environmental value, for example savannah burning projects run by the
supplement (Kennedy et al. 2014) (Table 1; methods in Table S.2). Due Aboriginal Carbon Fund (AU $25 Mg CO2-e) (Department for the Environ­
to the lack of national data for methane emissions in brackish wetlands, ment and Energy, 2018a). Therefore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to
Tier 1 approaches were adopted, however this may be an overestimate evaluate the effect on NPV using this higher carbon price.
as recent data reveals the presence of methane-oxidising bacteria on Farm Gross Margins (FGMs) (AUD ha− 1 yr− 1) reported for different
Melaleuca trees that reduce methane emissions (Jeffrey et al. 2021) soil types for conventional practice farming (C) for sugarcane
(supplementary S.4). Carbon accumulation was assumed to initiate (van Grieken et al. 2019) and grazing (Roebeling et al. 2007) were used
when natural vegetation becomes established, in year 1 after tidal hy­ (supplementary S.10). We conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess how
drology is reinstated (year 0). Under this assumption, each site follows best practice farming (B) for sugarcane, which result in higher FGMs,
the same trajectory, however recovery is likely to vary under different changed the NPV.
environmental conditions and threats. The incorporation of an estimate The NPV analysis used restoration costs reported for mangroves
of restoration success in the cost-effectiveness analysis addresses some of and saltmarsh for developed nations (Australia, USA and UK)
this uncertainty by placing a higher weighting on sites more likely to be (supplementary S.11) (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). Assuming hydrological
restored effectively. At each site, CO2 removals were estimated over 25 restoration involves mainly earthworks, the lower (saltmarsh) cost
and 100 years, and CH4 emissions (as CO2-e) was deducted from the (AU $7,174 ha− 1) was used with sensitivity analysis conducted to assess
wetland removals. Climate change mitigation per site was calculated as how an upper (mangrove) cost (AU $59,586 ha− 1) effects the NPV. We
the sum of the wetland net removals and the avoided emissions per year applied cost reduction rates based on economies of scale for larger
(as CO2-e). terrestrial restoration sites (Strassburg et al. 2019) (Table S.6). Given
natural recovery requires minimal maintenance, AU$750 ha− 1 yr− 1 for
2.4. Estimating biodiversity, fisheries and nitrogen removal co-benefits the first five years of the project was applied (Waltham et al., 2021).
NPV was calculated for the base scenario and sensitivity analyses
We estimated the value of restoration sites for biodiversity as con­ (Table 2).
nectivity among estuarine, freshwater and terrestrial habitats which
facilitates the movement and migration of animals, dispersal of plant 2.7. Cost-effectiveness analysis
propagules, and ecosystem functions (Buelow and Sheaves 2015;
Sheaves 2009), and patch size which is important for maintaining spe­ We used a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis to prioritise sites,
cies diversity (Bryan-Brown et al. 2020; Rosenzweig 1995). The combining cost-utility (Austin et al. 2015; Hajkowicz et al. 2008; Klein
importance of sites to fisheries were represented as the provision of et al. 2017; Laycock et al. 2009) and ecosystem service multi-
nursery habitat (area within the lower intertidal zone) and connectivity functionality approaches (Allan et al. 2015; Manning et al. 2018). The
with existing fish habitat (proximity to watercourses) (Abrantes et al. CE analysis considers NPV, restoration success, and the attainment of
2015; Baker et al. 2019; Sheaves et al. 2014; Sheaves et al. 2012). The biodiversity, fisheries, and DIN removal co-benefits given five indicators
potential for sites to remove DIN was based on likely denitrification (wetland connectivity, patch size, lower intertidal zone, distance to
activity associated with residence time and DIN availability (Jickells stream, and DIN load) in non-financial value, and aggregates them into a

4
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Table 2
Net Present Value (NPV) scenarios, including base and variations of permanence, discount rates, farm practices (conventional [C] or best [B]), carbon price, and
restoration cost for sensitivity analyses.
Scenario NPV equation Permanence (years) Discount rate (%) Farm practice Carbon price (AUD Mg CO2-e) Restoration cost (AUD ha− 1)

1 Base 25 4 C $13.85 $7,174

2 Higher restoration cost 25 4 C $13.85 $59,586
3 Higher discount rate 25 7 C $13.85 $7,174
4 Best practice farm management 25 4 B $13.85 $7,174
5 Longer permanence 100 4 C $13.85 $7,174
6 Higher carbon price 25 4 C $25 $7,174

utility function (equation 2 in S.12) (Hajkowicz et al. 2008). CE analyses benefit in turn (40% each) and 6.7% each to the other three indicators.
were conducted for the NPV scenario at the current carbon price (S1) Under each NPV and CE scenario, sites were ranked from highest to
and higher carbon price (S6). Indicators of ecosystem services were each lowest. As NPV can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a profit), sites
given equal weights (20%). To analyse the sensitivity of priority rank­ with a profit were prioritised over sites with a cost.
ings to varying importance of co-benefits, the CE analysis was repeated
to give a higher weighting to the two indicators representing each co-

Fig. 2. (a) Restoration opportunity and (b) mean climate benefit with standard error bars across the Wet Tropics catchments, (c) range of net present value (NPV) at
restoration sites represented as box and whisker plots with minimum, quartiles, median, and maximum for different NPV scenarios (median values reported), and (d)
number of profitable sites per catchment for different NPV scenarios (25 or 100 years, 4 or 7% discount rate, conventional [C] or best [B] farm practice, lower or
upper restoration cost; $13 or $25 carbon price).

5
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

2.8. Statistical analysis Table 3

Annual avoided greenhouse gas emissions from ceasing agriculture, and
To explore the profitability of restoration, the number of sites with greenhouse gas removals and emissions from restoration of 5046 ha of coastal
positive values were calculated across the NPV scenarios. Relationships wetlands (above-ground biomass (AGB) per year has been averaged from 25
between NPV and CE rankings were assessed using hierarchical cluster years as it varies with growth).
analysis and non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) based on Land use / wetland type Emission / removal Mg CO2-e
resemblance matrices to analyse the sensitivity to different assumptions, yr− 1

and assess trade-offs in scenarios (Harris et al. 2014). Each table of NPV Agriculture - avoided emissions
or CE scenarios (rows) with site rankings (columns) was transformed Sugarcane CO2 soil carbon loss 15,874
N2O fertiliser application 3,377
into a proportion table with each site given a proportion for that sce­
N2O crop residues 211
nario. A Bray-Curtis resemblance matrix was constructed on the tables N2O N mineralisation due to soil 35,992
using the vegdist function in the vegan package (Oksanen et al. 2019). A carbon loss
complete hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using the hclust N2O cultivation of histosols 552
function in the R stats package (R Core Team 2019) and dendogram N2O leaching and runoff of fertiliser 251
application
plotted, to compare the resemblance matrix among scenarios. To iden­
N2O leaching and runoff of crop 68
tify the benefit of the NPV and CE prioritisation approaches and any residues
trade-offs in achieving multiple ecosystem services, we compared the N2O leaching and runoff of N 26,562
sum of the restorable area, financial benefit (NPV), climate benefit, co- mineralisation due to soil carbon loss
CH4 field burning 0.9
benefits, and restoration success in the top 20 sites ranked in the NPV
N2O field burning 0.3
and CE prioritisations for S1 and S6 versus the top 20 sites ranked purely Abandoned aquaculture CH4 aquaculture ponds 17
by climate benefit or co-benefits. Grazing CO2 soil carbon loss 9,066
N2O fertiliser application 371
3. Results N2O urine and dung deposition 319
N2O atmospheric deposition of 37
fertiliser
3.1. Restoration opportunity N2O leaching and runoff of fertiliser 209
Sugarcane and grazing CH4 canals and drains 192
We identified 316 potential restoration sites on floodplain sugarcane, Sub-total 93,101
grazing and abandoned aquaculture land (Fig. 1), totalling 5046 ha that
could be suitable for hydrological restoration to coastal wetlands. The Coastal wetlands –
majority of the potential restorable area was in the Herbert catchment removals and
emissions
(49%), followed by Johnstone (21%) and Mulgrave-Russell (13%;
Mangrove AGB mangrove 15,692
Fig. 2a). Many of the sites were small, with only a few large sites (>100 Soil carbon mangrove 3,524
ha) (Fig. S.1 for the distribution of restoration site sizes). The potential Saltmarsh AGB saltmarsh 413
restorable area comprised 7.6% of all land within the HAT boundary and Soil carbon saltmarsh 903
62% of the total agricultural land within the HAT boundary. Sugarcane Melaleuca wetland AGB Melaleuca 113,723
Soil carbon Melaleuca 8,396
and grazing comprised most of the agricultural land use in the HAT Brackish wetlands CH4 from flooding − 14,746
(52% and 36% respectively; Table S.7). The potential restorable area Sub-total 127,905
comprised sugarcane (2963 ha; 58.7%) and grazing (2081 ha; 41.2%), Net carbon abatement 221,006
with only 2 ha (0.05%) abandoned aquaculture (two sites) and was
historically mostly Melaleuca wetland (2435 ha), followed by vine forest
profitable over 25 years using the lower restoration cost, current carbon
(1255 ha), mangrove (640 ha), sedgeland (276 ha), vineforest (1255
price (AU $13.85 per Mg CO2-e), conventional farm practice and dis­
ha), freshwater waterholes (8.3 ha), and estuary (4.8 ha).
count rate of 4% (base scenario, S1). The number of profitable sites
varied per catchment (Fig. 2d) and about 75% were on sugarcane land.
3.2. Climate benefit
The number of profitable sites declined to 58 (3,264 ha) with higher
discount rate (S3). A higher number of sites (99, 3,467 ha) were prof­
Restoration of all potential sites could abate 221,006 Mg CO2-e
itable when calculated over a longer permanence (100 years) and 4%
annually, of which 58% would be from carbon sequestration in vege­
discount rate (S5). The highest number of sites (268 on 4,534 ha) were
tation and soils (removals), and 42% from avoided emissions associated
profitable when calculated using a higher carbon price (AU $25 per Mg
with conversion of the land use (Table 3). The highest removals arises
CO2-e) over 25 years at 4% discount rate (S6). The number of profitable
from restored Melaleuca wetlands, because of the high extent of cleared
sites declined when calculated using best farm practices that yield
Melaleuca wetland and vine forest assumed to transition to Melaleuca
higher sugarcane production and FGMs (S4; 40 sites, 2,219 ha), or
wetland. On a per hectare basis the highest removals comes from
higher restoration cost (S2; 1 site on 108 ha) (Fig. 2c).
restored mangroves, because whilst total ecosystem carbon sequestra­
Comparison among NPV rankings showed that NPV calculated at 7%
tion is similar to Melaleuca wetland, CH4 emissions are assumed to be
discount rate (S3) was most dissimilar to the other scenarios (Fig. 3a).
zero (Table S.8). The highest avoided emissions comes from N2O and
The next split in the ranking of NPV was determined by farm practice
CO2 emissions associated with soil carbon loss from sugarcane cropping.
and FGMs (S4). There was little dissimilarity in NPV rankings between
The climate benefit varied widely across restoration sites, from
the base scenario (S1) and the scenarios with the longer project
− 0.05 to 75.1 (mean 47.3) Mg CO2-e ha− 1 yr− 1. It also varied across
permanence (S5), higher restoration costs (S2), and higher carbon price
catchments (Fig. 2b), being highest in Tully and Mulgrave-Russell, and
(S6).
lowest in Herbert.

3.3. Net present value 3.4. Cost-effectiveness prioritisation

NPV over 25 years per restoration site varied between − 1,434,203 Seventy-two sites had positive CE scores using the current carbon
AUD and + 4,968,173 AUD, depending on the scenario assessed price (S1), but this increased to 268 sites with a higher carbon price (S6).
(Fig. 2c). We found that 72 (of 316) sites totalling 3,399 ha were Varying the weightings of different ecosystem services altered the CE

6
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Fig. 3. Dendograms from hierarchical cluster analysis showing relationships among (a) net present value (NPV) scenarios (25 or 100 years, 4 or 7% discount rate,
conventional [C] or best [B] farm practice, lower or upper restoration cost, $13 or $25 carbon price; Table 1), and (b) cost-effectiveness (CE) scenarios based on NPV
at 25 years, 4% discount rate, C farm practice and lower restoration cost with current carbon price (S1) or with higher carbon price (S6), with different weighting
combinations (equal weighting of indicators, and higher weighting of biodiversity (BD), fisheries, or Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) removal indicators).

rankings (Fig. 3b), so that a high weighting for DIN removal was methods (Berry 2017; Needelman et al. 2018). We revealed that climate
different to the other weighting combinations, particularly in the high benefit from avoided emissions are substantial, accounting for nearly half of
carbon price scenario. However, there was little dissimilarity between the value of restoration in the study region, mainly due to avoided CO2 and
the other weighting combinations (as shown by clustering branches on N2O emissions associated with soil carbon loss and N mineralisation during
the dendrogram, Fig. 3b). sugarcane cropping, because of high initial soil carbon stocks to 30 cm
deep estimated from the Australian soil organic carbon map (Fig. S.1)
3.5. Variation in site prioritisation by different ecosystem services (Viscarra Rossel et al. 2014). The high values are consistent with data on
organic carbon in the top 30 cm of soils at sugarcane farms in the Wet Tropics
The top 20 sites varied depending on whether NPV, climate benefit (Meier and Thorburn 2016; Page et al. 2013), and are likely highly organic
or utility (co-benefits) alone were used to rank sites (Table S.9). Whilst to 50 cm deep as found in Melaleuca wetlands in north Queensland
restoring the top 20 sites ranked purely by climate benefit provided the (Adame et al., 2019b).
most carbon abatement, the profit obtained was 14% lower than The site prioritisations by NPV were sensitive to assumptions of
restoring the top sites ranked by NPV (using the current carbon price, discount rates and farm gross margins, with declining profitability at 7%
S1). Similarly, the top 20 sites ranked purely for co-benefits provided discount rate and best farm management practices, similar to other
60% less profit compared to when sites were ranked by NPV. When a analyses for restoration of terrestrial ecosystems (Bryan et al. 2014;
higher carbon price was assumed (S6), the number of profitable sites Polglase et al. 2013). The industry focus across the Great Barrier Reef
increased 4-fold providing a much wider choice of profitable sites and catchments is to improve farm management practice for water quality.
NPV increased by 254%, with comparable climate benefit and co- In 2018, 26.7% of sugarcane for nutrients and 20.8% of pasture grazing
benefits. The selection of the top 20 sites based on CE provided for erosion were managed for “best practice” in the Wet Tropics, up 0.5%
similar results to those selected when prioritising by NPV. However, since 2016 for sugarcane (no increase for grazing) (Australian and
when assuming a higher carbon price there was a slight improvement in Queensland Government 2019). Adoption of “best practice” is driven by
co-benefits but a small decrease in profit and climate benefit from the government payment programs to reduce nitrogen surplus, such as Reef
top 20 sites. Consideration of co-benefits only changes the prioritisation Trust (Star et al. 2018). Improvements in farm management practice
of sites when there is a larger choice of profitable sites available because could render restoration unfeasible, because of farm profit increases, as
of a higher carbon price (Fig. S.4). shown in the best practice scenario (S4). When we assumed a higher
restoration cost (median AU $59,586 ha− 1 for hydrological restoration
4. Discussion of mangroves in Australia and the USA; Bayraktarov et al. (2016)
restoration was rendered unfeasible, highlighting the importance of
In the Wet Tropics region of Australia, we found that there are oppor­ selecting sites that are suitable for natural recovery via reinstatement of
tunities to restore 5,046 ha of historically cleared coastal wetlands on sug­ tidal flows with minimal on-ground interventions required (Lewis et al.
arcane and grazing land (and small areas of abandoned aquaculture) by 2019). In some instances, expansion of sugarcane into the floodplain has
reinstating tidal flows. Restoring this entire area could abate 221,006 Mg resulted in disturbance of shallow acid sulphate soils through drainage
CO2-e annually – more than 1% of Australia’s land sector emissions and tidal exclusion, such as at East Trinity, east of Cairns (Manders et al.
(Department for the Environment and Energy, 2018b). Restoring 90% of this 2009). This severely degraded wetland has been successful restored
area would be profitable under future blue carbon payments that incorpo­ using controlled lime-assisted tidal exchange, which is more cost-
rated carbon sequestration in vegetation and soils, and avoided emissions, effective than conventional liming treatments (Luke et al. 2017). As
and utilised a higher carbon price (e.g. similar to that obtained for savannah more tidal restoration projects are implemented under Australia’s blue
fire management projects in Australia). Profitability of restoration was carbon method, incorporation of more recent data on restoration costs
reduced to 67% of the area when utilising the current carbon price. Our from practitioners and land managers in the cost-benefit analysis will
approach is consistent with other widely accepted blue carbon accounting improve the selection of sites. The profitability of restoration projects

7
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

will also depend on any additional costs incurred, such as for permitting may periodically decrease salinity in wetlands (Negandhi et al. 2019)
which can be complex and costly with coastal and marine restoration and may cause mangrove mortality if water becomes ponded for
(Shumway et al. 2021) and for registering and verifying carbon projects. extended periods. Increases in annual rainfall may change ecotone
Applying the CE prioritisation to restore the top 20 sites results in a boundaries between mangroves and saltmarsh toward greater coverage
21 million AUD increase in profit using the higher carbon price with a of mangroves (Duke et al. 2019). Sea level rise is also likely to increase
slightly reduced climate benefit (2% less CO2-e abatement) compared to the area for coastal wetlands (Schuerch et al. 2018) and carbon storage
when sites were ranked purely by climate benefit, with a small increase (Rogers et al. 2019). Our preliminary assessment indicates moderate
in biodiversity, fisheries, and DIN removal co-benefits (4% more utility) SLR (increase in HAT of 0.32 m) would almost double the potential
and restoration success. Likewise, a study in the Mexican Caribbean restorable area. Farm gross margins are also sensitive to productivity of
found that selecting cost-effective areas for mangrove restoration on the current land use (Tables S.4, S.5). Some sites in our study region may
basis of carbon sequestration largely guaranteed the provision of other already be experiencing saltwater intrusion, resulting in low sugarcane
ecosystem services, including coastal protection and water depuration yields. The abandoned aquaculture sites had minimal or no revenue and
(Adame et al. 2015). By selecting restoration sites with high co-benefits yet returned a small loss with the current carbon price, because the sites
based on our indicators, restored coastal wetlands are likely to be larger were small and did not attain economies of scale (Fig. S.3), indicating
in size, well connected to existing estuarine and freshwater wetlands and that land parcel size is an important factor in determining profitability of
fish habitat, frequently inundated with tidal flows, and receiving higher restoration projects, as has been observed in mangrove restoration
DIN loads. This can (1) facilitate the movement and dispersal of animals projects (Bayraktarov et al. 2016).
and plants, and promote ecosystem functioning (Sheaves 2009) and Long-term economic feasibility of restoration projects will also
species diversity (Li et al. 2013), (2) provide nursery habitat for juvenile depend on the CO2-e abatement of the restored wetland, which varied
fisheries (Abrantes et al. 2019) and connectivity between marine, across catchments, being highest in Tully and Mulgrave-Russell per unit
estuarine and freshwaters for fish species to complete their life cycles area, but in total was highest in Herbert because of the larger floodplain
(Nagelkerken et al. 2015), and (3) intensify denitrification rates from area and greater availability of restorable area. Uncertainties in esti­
higher water residence times and accumulation of organic matter in mated climate change mitigation would be reduced with improved local
lower compared to higher in the intertidal zone mangroves, and data of AGB carbon accumulation and GHG emissions of restoration
anthropogenic N enrichment (Jickells et al. 2016; Reis et al. 2019; Reis trajectories of coastal wetlands. Furthermore, whilst we prioritised sites
et al. 2017). Focussing on these indicators might miss other opportu­ that were lower in the intertidal zone and therefore likely to have higher
nities, for example, floodplain ecosystems are presumed to have equal recovery success, planning of restoration projects would also benefit
trophic importance for fisheries productivity as estuarine ecosystems from explicit consideration of hydrology, geomorphology, vegetation
(Abrantes et al. 2019). An alternative approach could be to select an transitions, and climate change impacts to better predict the recovery of
interacting mosaic of habitats (Sheaves et al. 2014), supporting sys­ wetlands (Macreadie et al. 2019), and the impacts of reintroduced tidal
tematic conservation planning frameworks to prioritise restoration for flows on neighbouring landowners (Bell-James and Lovelock 2019).
biodiversity (Tobón et al. 2017). Our indicators were selected to Here, we developed a method to estimate climate change mitigation
represent the likely provision of ecosystem services based on the factors of coastal wetland restoration projects across floodplain agricultural
known to influence biodiversity, fisheries and DIN removal in coastal regions and prioritise projects that are profitable and yield co-benefits
wetlands and data availability at the regional spatial scale to measure for biodiversity, fisheries, and nitrogen removal. We showed that
those indicators. Ecosystem accounting in blue carbon projects is an there is potential for profitable restoration of coastal wetlands on sug­
emerging field and valuing co-benefits will require stakeholder consul­ arcane and grazing land in tropical Australia under a blue carbon market
tation to identify and weight important ecosystem services and verifying if avoided emissions from conversion of the existing land use are
measurements in restoration projects (Manning et al. 2018). accounted for, which could provide an economical solution to mitigate
High carbon price has also been found to be a strong driver of achieving climate change for landholders. The outcomes of this study suggest that
biodiversity restoration targets through carbon forest plantings (Carwardine a higher carbon price through bunding ecosystem services or stacking of
et al. 2015). Our analyses indicate that at the current Australian carbon price ecosystem service payments is needed to increase incentives for coastal
($13.85 Mg CO2-e) the incentives for many landholders to convert agricul­ wetland restoration.
tural land to coastal wetlands would be limited. Increasing the incentives of
restoration would be dependent on receiving a higher carbon price, that can
be achieved by selling to voluntary buyers including industry or state gov­ Declaration of Competing Interest
ernment programs, e.g. Queensland’s Land Restoration Fund (Queensland
Government, 2020) that pay more for carbon projects with environmental, The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
social, and economic co-benefits (bundling of ecosystem services), rather interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
than to the Australian government which purchases least-cost abatement. the work reported in this paper.
Or, through stacking payments for ecosystem services (PES) under voluntary
markets, such as Reef Credits (Reef Credit Interim Steering Committee 2019) Acknowledgements
with global or domestic carbon credits. Horizontal stacking of PES is un­
dertaken in China, where the landowner receives different payments for We thank Maria Fernanda Adame, Yanmei Xiong and Oscar Serrano
distinct areas of land (Yost et al. 2020), however opportunities for vertical for supplying carbon data, John Dwyer for advice on research devel­
stacking of PES are emerging, which would increase participation in schemes opment, and Hugh Possingham for the economic analysis. Funding was
(Reed et al. 2017), e.g. Reef Credits scheme for nutrients with Emission provided by a CSIRO INRM scholarship (VH), an Australian Research
Reduction Fund for carbon in Australia. Our approach can be used to Council linkage grant LP170101171 (VH and CEL), and the Australian
demonstrate additionality requirements of stacking or bundling ecosystem Government National Environment Science Program (Tropical Water
services to incentivise projects through voluntary markets (Canning et al. Quality Hub) (NJW).
2021).
The success of land-based blue carbon projects are vulnerable to
fluctuating carbon prices, climate variability, and climate change (Wylie Data availability
et al. 2016). In the Wet Tropics region, seasonal variation in rainfall is
high, and predicted to be more variable in the future, with an increase in Due to the sensitivity of landholder information, spatial data has not
heavy rainfall events (McInnes et al., 2015). More high rainfall events been made available.

8
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Appendix A. Supplementary data Castillo, J.A.A., Apan, A.A., Maraseni, T.N., Salmo, S.G., 2018. Tree biomass quantity,
carbon stock and canopy correlates in mangrove forest and land uses that replaced
mangroves in Honda Bay, Philippines. Reg. Stud. Marine Sci. 24, 174–183.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Creighton, C., Boon, P.I., Brookes, J.D., Sheaves, M., 2015. Repairing Australia’s
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101423. estuaries for improved fisheries production – what benefits, at what cost? Mar.
Freshw. Res. 66, 493–507.
Department for the Environment and Energy, 2018a. Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming
References Initiative—Savanna Fire Management—Sequestration and Emissions Avoidance)
Methodology Determination 2018. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Abbott, B.N., Wallace, J., Nicholas, D.M., Karim, F., Waltham, N.J., 2020. Bund removal Department for the Environment and Energy, 2018b. National Inventory Report 2016,
to re-establish tidal flow, remove aquatic weeds and restore coastal wetland Volume 2 Canberra.
services—North Queensland, Australia. PLoS ONE 15 e0217531. Department of Environment and Science, 2018. Biodiversity status of pre-clearing
Abrantes, K.G., Barnett, A., Baker, R., Sheaves, M., 2015. Habitat-specific food webs and regional ecosystems – Queensland, Version 11. State of Queensland, Brisbane.
trophic interactions supporting coastal-dependent fishery species: an Australian case Department of Science Information Technology and Innovation, 2016. Land use mapping
study. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 25 (2), 337–363. - 1999 to 2015 - Wet Tropics NRM region. State of Queensland, Brisbane.
Abrantes, K.G., Sheaves, M., Fries, J., 2019. Estimating the value of tropical coastal Duarte, C.M., Krause-Jensen, D., 2018. intervention options to accelerate ecosystem
wetland habitats to fisheries: Caveats and assumptions. PLOS ONE 14 e0215350. recovery from coastal Eutrophication. Front. Marine Sci. 5.
Adame, M.F., Hermoso, V., Perhans, K., Lovelock, C.E., Herrera-Silveira, J.A., 2015. Duarte, C.M., Losada, I.J., Hendriks, I.E., Mazarrasa, I., Marbà, N., 2013. The role of
Selecting cost-effective areas for restoration of ecosystem services. Conserv. Biol. 29 coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature
(2), 493–502. Clim. Change 3 (11), 961–968.
Adame, M.F., Arthington, A.H., Waltham, N., Hasan, S., Selles, A., Ronan, M., 2019a. Duke, N.C., Field, C., Mackenzie, J.R., Meynecke, J.-O., Wood, A.L., 2019. Rainfall and
Managing threats and restoring wetlands within catchments of the Great Barrier its possible hysteresis effect on the proportional cover of tropical tidal-wetland
Reef, Australia. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 29 (5), 829–839. mangroves and saltmarsh–saltpans. Mar. Freshw. Res. 70, 1047–1055.
Adame, M.F., Reef, R., Wong, V.N.L., Balcombe, S.R., Turschwell, M.P., Kavehei, E., ESRI, 2018. ArcGIS Desktop 10.6.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.,
Rodríguez, D.C., Kelleway, J.J., Masque, P., Ronan, M., 2020. Carbon and nitrogen Redlands, CA.
sequestration of melaleuca floodplain wetlands in Tropical Australia. Ecosystems 23 Firn, J., Martin, T.G., Chadès, I., Walters, B., Hayes, J., Nicol, S., Carwardine, J.,
(2), 454–466. Souza, L., 2015. Priority threat management of non-native plants to maintain
Allan, E., Manning, P., Alt, F., Binkenstein, J., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., Böhm, S., ecosystem integrity across heterogeneous landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 52 (5),
Grassein, F., Hölzel, N., Klaus, V.H., Kleinebecker, T., Morris, E.K., Oelmann, Y., 1135–1144.
Prati, D., Renner, S.C., Rillig, M.C., Schaefer, M., Schloter, M., Schmitt, B., Hajkowicz, S., Spencer, R., Higgins, A., Marinoni, O., 2008. Evaluating water quality
Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Solly, E., Sorkau, E., Steckel, J., Steffen-Dewenter, I., investments using cost utility analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 88 (4), 1601–1610.
Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka, M., Weiner, C.N., Weisser, W.W., Werner, M., Harris, L.R., Watts, M.E., Nel, R., Schoeman, D.S., Possingham, H.P., Armsworth, P.,
Westphal, C., Wilcke, W., Fischer, M., Knops, J., 2015. Land use intensification alters 2014. Using multivariate statistics to explore trade-offs among spatial planning
ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional scenarios. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (6), 1504–1514.
composition. Ecol. Lett. 18 (8), 834–843. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure Transport and Cities,
Alongi, D.M., 2002. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environ. 2018. Building Up & Moving Out, Inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in
Conserv. 29 (3), 331–349. the development of cities. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Atwood, T.B., Connolly, R.M., Almahasheer, H., Carnell, P.E., Duarte, C.M., Ewers Jänes, H., Macreadie, P.I., Zu Ermgassen, P.S.E., Gair, J.R., Treby, S., Reeves, S.,
Lewis, C.J., Irigoien, X., Kelleway, J.J., Lavery, P.S., Macreadie, P.I., Serrano, O., Nicholson, E., Ierodiaconou, D., Carnell, P., 2020. Quantifying fisheries
Sanders, C.J., Santos, I., Steven, A.D.L., Lovelock, C.E., 2017. Global patterns in enhancement from coastal vegetated ecosystems. Ecosyst. Serv. 43.
mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat. Clim. Change 7 (7), 523–528. Jeffrey, L.C., Maher, D.T., Chiri, E., Leung, P.M., Nauer, P.A., Arndt, S.K., Tait, D.R.,
Austin, Z., McVittie, A., McCracken, D., Moxey, A., Moran, D., White, P.C.L., 2015. Greening, C., Johnston, S.G., 2021. Bark-dwelling methanotrophic bacteria decrease
Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of methane emissions from trees. Nat. Commun. 12, 2127.
biodiversity conservation programmes. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 (6), 1359–1375. Jickells, T.D., Andrews, J.E., Parkes, D.J., 2016. Direct and indirect effects of estuarine
Australian and Queensland Government, 2019. Agricultural Land Management Practice reclamation on nutrient and metal fluxes in the global coastal zone. Aquat. Geochem.
Adoption Results, Reef Water Quality Report Card 2017 and 2018. State of 22 (4), 337–348.
Queensland, Brisbane. Kelleway, J., Serrano, O., Baldock, J., Cannard, T., Lavery, P., Lovelock, C.E.,
Baker, R., Barnett, A., Bradley, M., Abrantes, K., Sheaves, M., 2019. Contrasting seascape Macreadie, P., Masqué, P., Saintilan, N., Steven, A.D.L., 2017. Technical review of
use by a coastal fish assemblage: a multi-methods approach. Estuaries Coasts 42 (1), opportunities for including blue carbon in the Australian Government’s Emissions
292–307. Reduction Fund. CSIRO, Australia.
Barbier, E.B., 2003. Habitat–fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemp. Kennedy, H., Alongi, D.M., Karim, A., Chen, G., Chmura, G.L., Crooks, S., Kairo, J.G.,
Econ. Policy 21, 59–77. Liao, B., Lin, G., 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M.I., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H.P., Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands.
Mumby, P.J., Lovelock, C.E., 2016. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland.
restoration. Ecol. Appl. 26 (4), 1055–1074. Klein, C.J., Beher, J., Chaloupka, M., Hamann, M., Limpus, C., Possingham, H.P., 2017.
Bell-James, J., Lovelock, C.E., 2019. Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: Prioritization of marine turtle management projects: a protocol that accounts for
an Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change threats to different life history stages. Conserv. Lett. 10 (5), 547–554.
mitigation. Land Use Policy 88, 104192. Kroeger, K.D., Crooks, S., Moseman-Valtierra, S., Tang, J., 2017. Restoring tides to
Berry, N., 2017. Plan Vivo Guidance and Resources Climate Benefit Estimation. Plan reduce methane emissions in impounded wetlands: a new and potent Blue Carbon
Vivo, Edinburgh, UK. climate change intervention. Sci. Rep. 7, 11914.
Brodie, J.E., Lewis, S.E., Collier, C.J., Wooldridge, S., Bainbridge, Z.T., Waterhouse, J., Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., White, P., 2009. Evaluating the cost-
Rasheed, M.A., Honchin, C., Holmes, G., Fabricius, K., 2017. Setting ecologically effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biol. Conserv. 142
relevant targets for river pollutant loads to meet marine water quality requirements (12), 3120–3127.
for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: a preliminary methodology and analysis. Ocean Lewis, R.R., 2009. Methods and Criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. In:
Coast. Manag. 143, 136–147. Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R., Brinson, M.M. (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands -
Bryan, B.A., Nolan, M., Harwood, T.D., Connor, J.D., Navarro-Garcia, J., King, D., An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier.
Summers, D.M., Newth, D., Cai, Y., Grigg, N., Harman, I., Crossman, N.D., Lewis, R.R., Brown, B.M., Flynn, L.L., 2019. Chapter 24 - Methods and Criteria for
Grundy, M.J., Finnigan, J.J., Ferrier, S., Williams, K.J., Wilson, K.A., Law, E.A., Successful Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation. In: Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski, E.,
Hatfield-Dodds, S., 2014. Supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services Cahoon, D.R., Hopkinson, C.S. (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands. Elsevier, pp. 863–887.
from Australia’s agricultural land under global change. Global Environ. Change 28, Li, M.S., Mao, L.J., Shen, W.J., Liu, S.Q., Wei, A.S., 2013. Change and fragmentation
166–181. trends of Zhanjiang mangrove forests in southern China using multi-temporal
Bryan-Brown, D.N., Connolly, R.M., Richards, D.R., Adame, F., Friess, D.A., Brown, C.J., Landsat imagery (1977–2010). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130, 111–120.
2020. Global trends in mangrove forest fragmentation. Sci. Rep. 10, 7117. Lovelock, C.E., Duarte, C.M., 2019. Dimensions of Blue Carbon and emerging
Buelow, C., Sheaves, M., 2015. A birds-eye view of biological connectivity in mangrove perspectives. Biol. Lett. 15 (3), 20180781.
systems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 152, 33–43. Lovelock, C.E., Sippo, J., Adame, M.F., Dittmann, S., Hickey, S., Hutley, L., Jones, A.,
Bunt, J.S., Bunt, E.D., 1999. Complexity and variety of zonal pattern in the mangroves of Kelleway, J., Lavery, P., Macreadie, P., Maher, D., Mosely, L., Rogers, K., 2021. Blue
the Hinchinbrook area, Northeastern Australia. Mangroves Salt Marshes 3, 165–176. Carbon Accounting Model (BlueCAM) Technical Overview. Prepared for the Clean
Bureau of Meteorology, 2020. Tide predictions for Australia. Commonwealth of Energy Regulator.
Australia. Luke, H., Martens, M.A., Moon, E.M., Smith, D., Ward, N.J., Bush, R.T., 2017. Ecological
Canning, A.D., Jarvis, D., Costanza, R., Hasan, S., Smart, J.C.R., Finisdore, J., restoration of a severely degraded coastal acid sulfate soil: A case study of the East
Lovelock, C.E., Greenhalgh, S., Marr, H.M., Beck, M.W., Gillies, C.L., Waltham, N.J., Trinity wetland, Queensland. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 18 (2), 103–114.
2021. Financial incentives for large-scale wetland restoration: beyond markets to Macreadie, P.I., Ollivier, Q.R., Kelleway, J.J., Serrano, O., Carnell, P.E., Ewers Lewis, C.
common asset trusts. One Earth 4 (7), 937–950. J., Atwood, T.B., Sanderman, J., Baldock, J., Connolly, R.M., Duarte, C.M., Lavery, P.
Carwardine, J., Hawkins, C., Polglase, P., Possingham, H.P., Reeson, A., Renwick, A.R., S., Steven, A., Lovelock, C.E., 2017. Carbon sequestration by Australian tidal
Watts, M., Martin, T.G., 2015. Spatial priorities for restoring biodiverse carbon marshes. Sci. Rep. 7 (1).
forests. Bioscience 65, 372–382.

9
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Macreadie, P.I., Anton, A., Raven, J.A., Beaumont, N., Connolly, R.M., Friess, D.A., Runting, R.K., Lovelock, C.E., Beyer, H.L., Rhodes, J.R., 2017. Costs and Opportunities
Kelleway, J.J., Kennedy, H., Kuwae, T., Lavery, P.S., Lovelock, C.E., Smale, D.A., for Preserving Coastal Wetlands under Sea Level Rise. Conserv. Lett. 10 (1), 49–57.
Apostolaki, E.T., Atwood, T.B., Baldock, J., Bianchi, T.S., Chmura, G.L., Eyre, B.D., Schuerch, M., Spencer, T., Temmerman, S., Kirwan, M.L., Wolff, C., Lincke, D.,
Fourqurean, J.W., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Huxham, M., Hendriks, I.E., Krause- McOwen, C.J., Pickering, M.D., Reef, R., Vafeidis, A.T., Hinkel, J., Nicholls, R.J.,
Jensen, D., Laffoley, D., Luisetti, T., Marbà, N., Masque, P., McGlathery, K.J., Brown, S., 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature
Megonigal, J.P., Murdiyarso, D., Russell, B.D., Santos, R., Serrano, O., Silliman, B.R., 561 (7722), 231–234.
Watanabe, K., Duarte, C.M., 2019. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. Serrano, O., Lovelock, C.E., Atwood, T.B., Macreadie, P.I., Canto, R., Phinn, S., Arias-
10, 3998. Ortiz, A., Bai, L.e., Baldock, J., Bedulli, C., Carnell, P., Connolly, R.M., Donaldson, P.,
Malik, A., Mertz, O., Fensholt, R., 2017. Mangrove forest decline: consequences for Esteban, A., Ewers Lewis, C.J., Eyre, B.D., Hayes, M.A., Horwitz, P., Hutley, L.B.,
livelihoods and environment in South Sulawesi. Reg. Environ. Change 17 (1), Kavazos, C.R.J., Kelleway, J.J., Kendrick, G.A., Kilminster, K., Lafratta, A., Lee, S.,
157–169. Lavery, P.S., Maher, D.T., Marbà, N., Masque, P., Mateo, M.A., Mount, R., Ralph, P.
Manders, J., O’Brien, L., Morrison, D., 2009. Acid Sulfate Soils of Cairns, North J., Roelfsema, C., Rozaimi, M., Ruhon, R., Salinas, C., Samper-Villarreal, J.,
Queensland. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane, QLD. Sanderman, J., Sanders, C.J., Santos, I., Sharples, C., Steven, A.D.L., Cannard, T.,
Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Soliveres, S., Allan, E., Maestre, F.T., Mace, G., Trevathan-Tackett, S.M., Duarte, C.M., 2019. Australian vegetated coastal
Whittingham, M.J., Fischer, M., 2018. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. ecosystems as global hotspots for climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun. 10 (1).
Ecol. Evol. 2 (3), 427–436. Sheaves, M., 2009. Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem
McInnes, K., et al., 2015. Wet Tropics Cluster Report, Climate Change in Australia mosaic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 107–115.
Projections for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions. CSIRO and Sheaves, M., Johnston, R., Connolly, R.M., Baker, R., 2012. Importance of estuarine
Bureau of Meteorology, Australia. mangroves to juvenile banana prawns. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 114, 208–219.
Mcleod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E., Sheaves, M., Brookes, J., Coles, R., Freckelton, M., Groves, P., Johnston, R., Winberg, P.,
Schlesinger, W.H., Silliman, B.R., 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an 2014. Repair and revitalisation of Australia‫׳‬s tropical estuaries and coastal wetlands:
improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering opportunities and constraints for the reinstatement of lost function and productivity.
CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (10), 552–560. Marine Policy 47, 23–38.
McLeod, I.M., Purandare, J., Gillies, C., Smith, A., Burrows, D., 2018. Symposium report: Sheaves, M., Baker, R., Abrantes, K.G., Connolly, R.M., 2017. Fish biomass in tropical
Inaugural Australian Coastal Restoration Symposium. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 19 (1), estuaries: substantial variation in food web structure, sources of nutrition and
E1–E5. ecosystem-supporting processes. Estuaries Coasts 40 (2), 580–593.
Meier, E.A., Thorburn, P.J., 2016. Long Term Sugarcane Crop Residue Retention Offers Shumway, N., Bell-James, J., Fitzsimons, J.A., Foster, R., Gillies, C., Lovelock, C.E., 2021.
Limited Potential to Reduce Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates in Australian Wet Tropical Policy solutions to facilitate restoration in coastal marine environments. Marine
Environments. Front. Plant Sci. 7. Policy 134, 104789.
Nagelkerken, I., Sheaves, M., Baker, R., Connolly, R.M., 2015. The seascape nursery: a Sidik, F., Fernanda Adame, M., Lovelock, C.E., 2019. Carbon sequestration and fluxes of
novel spatial approach to identify and manage nurseries for coastal marine fauna. restored mangroves in abandoned aquaculture ponds. J. Indian Ocean Region 15 (2),
Fish Fish. 16 (2), 362–371. 177–192.
Needelman, B.A., Emmer, I.M., Emmett-Mattox, S., Crooks, S., Megonigal, J.P., Sievers, M., Brown, C.J., Tulloch, V.J.D., Pearson, R.M., Haig, J.A., Turschwell, M.P.,
Myers, D., Oreska, M.P.J., McGlathery, K., 2018. The Science and Policy of the Connolly, R.M., 2019. The role of vegetated coastal wetlands for marine megafauna
Verified Carbon Standard Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration. conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 (9), 807–817.
Estuaries Coasts 41 (8), 2159–2171. Star, M., Rolfe, J., McCosker, K., Smith, R., Ellis, R., Waters, D., Waterhouse, J., 2018.
Negandhi, K., Edwards, G., Kelleway, J.J., Howard, D., Safari, D., Saintilan, N., 2019. Targeting for pollutant reductions in the Great Barrier Reef river catchments.
Blue carbon potential of coastal wetland restoration varies with inundation and Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 365–377.
rainfall. Sci. Rep. 9, 4368. Strassburg, B.B.N., Beyer, H.L., Crouzeilles, R., Iribarrem, A., Barros, F., de Siqueira, M.
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, F., Sánchez-Tapia, A., Balmford, A., Sansevero, J.B.B., Brancalion, P.H.S.,
P.R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H., Szoecs, E., Wagner, Broadbent, E.N., Chazdon, R.L., Filho, A.O., Gardner, T.A., Gordon, A., Latawiec, A.,
H., 2019. vegan: Community Ecology Package. Loyola, R., Metzger, J.P., Mills, M., Possingham, H.P., Rodrigues, R.R.,
Osland, M.J., Feher, L.C., Griffith, K.T., Cavanaugh, K.C., Enwright, N.M., Day, R.H., Scaramuzza, C.A.d.M., Scarano, F.R., Tambosi, L., Uriarte, M., 2019. Strategic
Stagg, C.L., Krauss, K.W., Howard, R.J., Grace, J.B., Rogers, K., 2017. Climatic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
controls on the global distribution, abundance, and species richness of mangrove Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 (1), 62–70.
forests. Ecol. Monogr. 87 (2), 341–359. Tobón, W., Urquiza-Haas, T., Koleff, P., Schröter, M., Ortega-Álvarez, R., Campo, J.,
Page, K.L., Bell, M., Dalal, R.C., 2013. Changes in total soil organic carbon stocks and Lindig-Cisneros, R., Sarukhán, J., Bonn, A., 2017. Restoration planning to guide
carbon fractions in sugarcane systems as affected by tillage and trash management in Aichi targets in a megadiverse country. Conserv. Biol. 31 (5), 1086–1097.
Queensland, Australia. Soil Res. 51, 608–614. Torabi, N., Bekessy, S.A., 2015. Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes:
Polglase, P.J., Reeson, A., Hawkins, C.S., Paul, K.I., Siggins, A.W., Turner, J., opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders. Ecosyst. Serv. 15,
Crawford, D.F., Jovanovic, T., Hobbs, T.J., Opie, K., Carwardine, J., Almeida, A., 84–92.
2013. Potential for forest carbon plantings to offset greenhouse emissions in Twilley, R.R., Rovai, A.S., Riul, P., 2018. Coastal morphology explains global blue carbon
Australia: economics and constraints to implementation. Interdiscip., Int. J. Devoted distributions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 (9), 503–508.
Description, Causes Implications of Climatic Change 121 (2), 161–175. van Grieken, M.E., Roebeling, P.C., Bohnet, I.C., Whitten, S.M., Webster, A.J.,
Prato, T., Hey, D., 2006. Economic analysis of wetland restoration along the Illinois Poggio, M., Pannell, D., 2019. Adoption of agricultural management for Great
River. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (1), 125–131. Barrier Reef water quality improvement in heterogeneous farming communities.
Queensland Government, 2020. Land Restoration Fund Co-benefits Standard, Version Agric. Syst. 170, 1–8.
1.2, Brisbane, QLD. Viscarra Rossel, R.A., Webster, R., Bui, E.N., Baldock, J.A., 2014. Baseline map of organic
R Core Team, 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R carbon in Australian soil to support national carbon accounting and monitoring
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 20 (9), 2953–2970.
Reed, M.S., Allen, K., Attlee, A., Dougill, A.J., Evans, K.L., Kenter, J.O., Hoy, J., Waltham, N.J., Burrows, D., Wegscheidl, C., Buelow, C., Ronan, M., Connolly, N.,
McNab, D., Stead, S.M., Twyman, C., Scott, A.S., Smyth, M.A., Stringer, L.C., Groves, P., Marie-Audas, D., Creighton, C., Sheaves, M., 2019. Lost Floodplain
Whittingham, M.J., 2017. A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem Wetland Environments and Efforts to Restore Connectivity, Habitat and Water
services. Global Environ. Change 43, 92–106. Quality Settings on the Great Barrier Reef. Front. Marine Sci. 6.
Reef Credit Interim Steering Committee, 2019. Reef Credit Guide Version 1.0. Terrain Waltham, N.J., Elliott, M., Lee, S.Y., Lovelock, C., Duarte, C.M., Buelow, C.,
NRM, NQ Dry Tropics and GreenCollar. Simenstad, C., Nagelkerken, I., Claassens, L., Wen, C.K.-C., Barletta, M., Connolly, R.
Reis, C.R.G., Nardoto, G.B., Oliveira, R.S., 2017. Global overview on nitrogen dynamics M., Gillies, C., Mitsch, W.J., Ogburn, M.B., Purandare, J., Possingham, H.,
in mangroves and consequences of increasing nitrogen availability for these systems. Sheaves, M., 2020. UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030—What Chance
Plant Soil 410 (1-2), 1–19. for Success in Restoring Coastal Ecosystems? Front. Marine Sci. 7.
Reis, C.R.G., Reed, S.C., Oliveira, R.S., Nardoto, G.B., 2019. Isotopic evidence that Waltham, N.J., Wegscheidl, C., Volders, A., Smart, J.C.R., Hasan, S., Lédée, E.,
nitrogen enrichment intensifies nitrogen losses to the atmosphere from subtropical Waterhouse, J., 2021. Land use conversion to improve water quality in high DIN
mangroves. Ecosystems 22 (5), 1126–1144. risk, low-lying sugarcane areas of the Great Barrier Reef catchments. Marine Pollut.
Roebeling, P.C., Webster, A.J., Biggs, J., Thorburn, P., 2007. Financial-economic analysis Bull. 167.
of current best management practices for sugarcane, horticulture, grazing and Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Bartley, R., Eberhard, R., Brodie, J., Star, M., Thorburn,
forestry industries in the Tully-Murray catchment. Report to the Marine and Tropical P., Rolfe, J., Ronan, M., Taylor, B., Kroon, F., 2017. 2017 Scientific Consensus
Sciences Research Facility. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Cairns. Statement, Land Use Impacts of Great Barrier Reef Water Quality and Ecosystem
Rog, S.M., Clarke, R.H., Cook, C.N., Cowie, R., 2017. More than marine: revealing the Condition. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
critical importance of mangrove ecosystems for terrestrial vertebrates. Divers. White, E., Kaplan, D., 2017. Restore or retreat? saltwater intrusion and water
Distrib. 23 (2), 221–230. management in coastal wetlands. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3, e01258.
Rogers, K., Kelleway, J.J., Saintilan, N., Megonigal, J.P., Adams, J.B., Holmquist, J.R., Wylie, L., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Moore, A., 2016. Keys to successful blue carbon projects:
Lu, M., Schile-Beers, L., Zawadzki, A., Mazumder, D., Woodroffe, C.D., 2019. lessons learned from global case studies. Marine Policy 65, 76–84.
Wetland carbon storage controlled by millennial-scale variation in relative sea-level
rise. Nature 567 (7746), 91–95.
Rosenzweig, M.L., 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

10
V. Hagger et al. Ecosystem Services 55 (2022) 101423

Xiong, Y., Cakir, R., Phan, S.M., Ola, A., Krauss, K., Lovelock, C., 2019. Global patterns of Zhang, Y., Cioffi, W., Cope, R., Daleo, P., Heywood, E., Hoyt, C., Smith, C., Silliman, B.,
tree stem growth and stand aboveground wood production in mangrove forests. For. 2018. A global synthesis reveals gaps in coastal habitat restoration research.
Ecol. Manage. 444, 382–392. Sustainability 10 (4), 1040.
Yost, A., An, L., Bilsborrow, R., Shi, L., Chen, X., Yang, S., Zhang, W., 2020. Mechanisms
behind concurrent payments for ecosystem services in a Chinese nature reserve.
Ecol. Econ. 169.

11