Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Review and Semi-Structured Expert Interviews
- Technical requirements and fence management requirements for effective ungulate exclusion [22]:What types of fences have you used to exclude ungulates from riparian areas and coastal wetlands?
- Types of costs incurred, cost estimates and variation:What is the current approximate cost per km of fence installed?What is the approximate cost of levelling and other fenceline preparation methods?What additional factors affect the cost of fencing of coastal wetlands?
- Non-cost factors affecting the financial viability of fencing:What is the life expectancy of the fence?What other factors need to be taken into consideration?
2.2. Cost–Benefit Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Effective Exclusion Fencing
3.1.1. Fence Types
- Mesh netting is a prefabricated wire mesh that is quick to erect and acts as a physical barrier to domestic, feral and native animal movement. Mesh netting comes in a variety of heights and with different mesh openings. Mesh openings tend to be graduated, with larger holes higher on the mesh and smaller holes towards the bottom of the mesh. Mesh netting can come with a skirting or ‘apron’, which lies flat on the ground and is designed to stop animals from digging underneath. High-tensile plain wire is often added above mesh netting to support the fence strength. Mesh fencing requires high-tensile plain support wire wherever the fence spans over waterways.
- Barb wire fences consist of multiple strands of twisted barbed high-tensile wire. The barbs embedded in the wire are sharp, deterring animals from pushing up against the fence or rubbing against it. Cattle fences typically consist of 5–7 strands of barb wire.
- Electric fencing uses plain wire carrying an electric current, which induces avoidance behavior in animals. Electric fences need to be continuously charged to between 5000 and 10,000 volts to prevent animals from touching the wires. This requires an adequate and reliable power supply. Electric fences are typically arranged as multiple strands of plain wire; some carry electricity, while the other strands act as earth wires. Electric fences are cheaper to build than mesh netting fences but are less effective in situations where vegetation growth impacts reliability of charge; they also require more monitoring effort [33]. Adhering to principles of safe operation, e.g., through the installation of warning signs, is paramount where people may interact with electric fences [34].
- Electric fences can be combined with mesh netting or barb wire fences. This increases the effectiveness of the fence but also increases costs.
3.1.2. Matching Fence Type to Ungulates
- Deer can jump high fences. Where deer are to be excluded, extra fence height is required, with a minimum height of 1.8 to 2.0 m recommended. Maximum mesh size is 300 × 200 mm for red deer (Cervus elaphus) and 200 × 200 mm for fallow deer (Dama dama) [39].
- Feral goats can pass over, through or under fences. Fence height recommendations range from 1.1 to 1.3 m. External diagonal bracing posts should be avoided as they assist goats in climbing over fences. Mesh size of 150 × 150 mm is deemed adequate. Any gap between the ground and fence should be no more than 80 mm. A strand of barbed wire at the bottom of the wire mesh is recommended to prevent goats from pushing under the fence. Fences with aprons are also suitable.
- Feral pigs preferably pass through or dig under fences. Fence height recommendations vary from 0.9 to 1.2 m. Posts should be no more than 5 m apart. Mesh fence with aprons is recommended. Pigs will seek to break through fences, in particular, if a high-value food or water resource is on the other side [38,40].
- Water buffalo are prevalent across coastal areas of the Northern Territory. Fences designed for cattle are suitable for buffalo; fences need to be well maintained as buffalo tend to tackle sub-standard fences with their horns.
3.1.3. Measures Supporting the Effectiveness of Exclusion Fences
3.2. Factors Impacting the Efficiency of Exclusion Fencing
3.2.1. Monetary Benefits from Blue Carbon
3.2.2. Monetary Cost of Fencing
- Groundwork is necessary to facilitate access for fence construction and, in the case of mesh netting, ensure gap-free placement for maximum fence effectiveness.
- Material per-meter costs are principally determined by the choice of the fence type and configuration. Netting and wire, posts and strainers are major components of the material cost aspect. Additional material costs are incurred for gates, cattle grids and swing netting required for waterway crossings.
- Installation costs comprise labor costs for the crew of people installing the fence and the costs for specialized machinery hire and cartage, if required.
- Maintenance costs are associated with regular inspections performed to identify any damage or breaches and repairs to reinstate fence effectiveness. Vegetation management may be required to retain access to the fence and prevent potential damage to the fence.
- Costs may be associated with the initial removal of ungulates from protected wetlands. Repeated removal of domestic and feral ungulates straying into the protected area is essential.
3.2.3. Additional Considerations About the Benefits and Costs of Ungulate Exclusion Fences
- Flying and gliding fauna, e.g., bats and gliders, are particularly prone to becoming entangled in barb wire. For this reason, the use of plain top wires is recommended and, according to the fencing contractors, used in most conservation fences.
- Fences present barriers to the movements of non-target species. Fences can disrupt migration patterns of native fauna and cause behavioral change. Fencing contractors reported options for installing ‘gates’ in the fence or pieces of poly pipes below the fence to facilitate the movement of small native fauna such as fish, platypuses and turtles [79]. However, no similar solutions exist for larger marsupials and dingos.
- Fences per se do not reduce the populations of ungulate pest animals. Fencing one area can result in increased grazing pressure and impact in other areas.
3.3. Payback Time for Investment in Exclusion Fencing
3.4. BCRs Under Uncertainty
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Define a conceptual framework for conservation fencing based on the notions of effectiveness and efficiency;
- Articulate technical and material requirements of effective exclusion fencing for different ungulates;
- Provide insights into the options and complexity of decisions associated with the installation of ungulate exclusion fences and associated costs;
- Compile a systematic and contemporary understanding of material and installation costs of exclusion fencing in different environmental conditions;
- Provide probabilistic estimates of the BCR of conservation fencing for blue carbon under uncertainty for a range of scenarios that broadly represent the Australian conditions.
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AUD | Australian Dollar (Reference Date is October 2024) |
ACCU | Australian Carbon Credit Unit, also referred to as a carbon credit |
BCR | Benefit–cost ratio, representing net present value of income generated by an investment relative to net present value of investment and associated costs |
cpi | Carbon price index, representing the annual percentage change in the price of a carbon credit |
CSR | Carbon sequestration rate, representing the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered by a natural ecosystem, measured in t CO2e ha−1 yr−1 |
MCS | Monte Carlo Simulations, a method that uses predefined parameter distributions to randomly assign parameter values in simulation models. |
References
- Refulio-Coronado, S.; Lacasse, K.; Dalton, T.; Humphries, A.; Basu, S.; Uchida, H.; Uchida, E. Coastal and Marine Socio-Ecological Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 648006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, K.; Lal, K.K.; Asbridge, E.F.; Dwyer, P.G. Coastal wetland rehabilitation first-pass prioritisation for blue carbon and associated co-benefits. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2022, 74, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pendleton, L.; Donato, D.C.; Murray, B.C.; Crooks, S.; Jenkins, W.A.; Sifleet, S.; Craft, C.; Fourqurean, J.W.; Kauffman, J.B.; Marbà, N.; et al. Estimating Global “Blue Carbon” Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, L.; Ge, Z.; Zhou, X.; Li, S.; Li, X.; Tang, J. Conversion of coastal wetlands, riparian wetlands, and peatlands increases greenhouse gas emissions: A global meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 1638–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, X.; Liu, Y.; Xie, T.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Q. Impact of Ecological Restoration on Carbon Sink Function in Coastal Wetlands: A Review. Water 2025, 17, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, S.F.; Arias-Ortiz, A.; Baldocchi, D.; Eagle, M.; Friess, D.A.; Gore, C.; Noe, G.; Nolte, S.; Oikawa, P.; Paytan, A.; et al. When and where can coastal wetland restoration increase carbon sequestration as a natural climate solution? Camb. Prism. Coast. Futures 2024, 2, e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Tanner, C.C.; Holland, P.; Qu, Z. Dynamic economic valuation of coastal wetland restoration: A nature-based solution for climate and biodiversity. Environ. Chall. 2025, 20, 101182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, M.W.; Kerley, G.I.H. Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickman, R.D. Fences or ferals? Benefits and costs of conservation fencing in Australia. In Fencing for Conservation: Restrictions of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? Somers, M.J., Hayward, M.W., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 43–64. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, J.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Smart, L.S.; Lopes, C.C.; Hamilton, J.; Kleypas, J.; Simpson, S.; McGowan, J.; Pessarrodona, A.; Alleway, H.K.; et al. Blue carbon pathways for climate mitigation: Known, emerging and unlikely. Mar. Policy 2023, 156, 105788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, S. Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell-James, J.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Lovelock, C.E. Land Tenure, Ownership and Use as Barriers to Coastal Wetland Restoration Projects in Australia: Recommendations and Solutions. Environ. Manag. 2023, 72, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, A.R.; Macreadie, P.I.; Rowland, P.I.; Wartman, M. What drives landholders to engage in coastal wetland programs? A synthesis of current knowledge and opportunities for future research. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2025, 7, e70030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DCCEEW. Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/accu-scheme (accessed on 17 June 2025).
- DCCEEW. Towards an Emissions Reduction Fund Method for Blue Carbon. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/towards-an-emissions-reduction-fund-method-for-blue-carbon (accessed on 17 May 2025).
- Rowland, P.I.; Lovelock, C.E. Global impacts of introduced ungulates on wetland carbon and biodiversity: A review. Biol. Conserv. 2024, 290, 110432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araya-Lopez, R.; Possignham, H.P.; Wartman, M.; Macreadie, P.I.; Duarte de Paula Costa, M. Prioritizing tidal marsh restoration in grazing lands. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 380, 124952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte de Paula Costa, M.; Wartman, M.; Macreadie, P.I.; Ferns, L.W.; Holden, R.L.; Ierodiaconou, D.; MacDonald, K.J.; Mazor, T.K.; Morris, R.; Nicholson, E.; et al. Spatially explicit ecosystem accounts for coastal wetland restoration. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 65, 101574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NAILSMA; UQ. Reducing Emissions Through Management of Introduced Hooved Animals (Ungulates) Stakeholder Consultation Draft. Available online: https://ungulatecarbon.com.au/index.html (accessed on 21 June 2025).
- RotechRural. Fencing Contractors. Available online: https://rotechrural.com.au/fencing-contractors/ (accessed on 22 October 2024).
- Braysher, M. Managing Australia’s Pest Animals: A Guide to Strategic Planning and Effective Management; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, VIC, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- OBPR. Cost-Benefit Analysis Guidance Note; Office of Best Practice Regulation: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lefley, F. The payback method of investment appraisal: A review and synthesis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1996, 44, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chabba, M.; Bhat, M.G.; Sarmiento, J.P. Risk-based benefit-cost analysis of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction with considerations of co-benefits, equity, and sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 198, 107462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroese, D.P.; Rubinstein, R.Y. Monte carlo methods. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2012, 4, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tung, Y.K. Probability distribution for benefit-cost ratio and net benefit. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 1992, 118, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Cui, S. Investigating the Number of Monte Carlo Simulations for Statistically Stationary Model Outputs. Axioms 2023, 12, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobes, L.; Crane, M.; Higgins, T.; Van Dijk, A.I.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Increased livestock weight gain from improved water quality in farm dams: A cost-benefit analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagger, V.; Stewart-Sinclair, P.; Rossini, R.A.; Adame, M.F.; Glamore, W.; Lavery, P.; Waltham, N.J.; Lovelock, C.E. Lessons learned on the feasibility of coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon and co-benefits in Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 369, 122287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green Energy Regulator. ACCU Volume Weighted Average Spot Price September 2019 to November 2024. Available online: https://cer.gov.au/markets/reports-and-data/quarterly-carbon-market-reports/quarterly-carbon-market-report-september-quarter-2024/australian-carbon-credit-units-accus. (accessed on 8 May 2025).
- Core Markets. ACCU Spot Price Chart. Available online: https://coremarkets.co/resources/market-prices (accessed on 4 November 2024).
- Long, K.; Robley, A. Cost Effective Feral Animal Exclusion Fencing for Areas of High Conservation Value in Australia: A Report; Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Finner, M.F. Electric fencing: Safe and effective operation. Trans. ASAE 1966, 9, 58–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemcke, B. The Australian Water Buffalo Manual; Department of Primary Industry and Resources: Darwin, NT, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sailer, D. I Ho’ola I Ka Nahele: To Heal a Forest. A Mesic Forest Restoration Guide for Hawaii.; US Army Garrison Hawai’i Natural Resource Program Reports, Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, Hawai’i-Pacific Islands Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit: Honolulu, Hawaii, 2006; p. 195. [Google Scholar]
- Macalister, A.; Butler, D. Ungulate-Proof Fences in the Marlborough Sounds; R&D Environmental Ltd: Marlborough, New Zealand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, J. Exclusion Fencing of Feral Pigs; NQ Dry Tropics: Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Forsyth, D.M. Using Exclusion Fencing to Manage Feral Deer Impacts in Australia; PestSmart: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- HCPSL. Exclusion Fencing for Feral Pig Control; NQ Dry Tropics: Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- DELP. Guidelines for Riparian Fencing in Flood-Prone Areas; Department of Environment, Land, Water, and Planning: East Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Giumelli, J.; White, B. Exclusion Fencing Keep Fereals at Bay; Report No. 072; Kondinin Group: Kalamunda, WA, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Southern Wire. 2022 National Rural Fencing Product Guide; Southern Wire: Bassendean, WA, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Waratah. Waratah Fencing Manual. Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Available online: www.fsccmn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Waratah-Fencing-Manual.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2024).
- Westonfence. Exclusion Fencing. Parkes, NSW, Australia. Available online: https://westonfence.com.au/exclusion-fencing/ (accessed on 21 October 2024).
- Landmark. Fencing Handbook; Landmark: Castle Hill, NSW, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- GAA. Galvanised Steel Versus Stainless Steel. Galvanizers Association of Australia: Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Available online: https://gaa.com.au/2022/11/17/galvanized-steel-versus-stainless-steel/ (accessed on 3 November 2024).
- Young, L.C. Ungulate Fencing and Management Plan for Lualualei Valley, Oahu, Hawaii; Final Project Report; Pacific Rim Conservation: Honolulu, Hawaii, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Negus, P.M.; Marshall, J.C.; Clifford, S.E.; Blessing, J.J.; Steward, A.L. No sitting on the fence: Protecting wetlands from feral pig damage by exclusion fences requires effective fence maintenance. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 27, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ens, E.; Daniels, C.; Nelson, E.; Roy, J.; Dixon, P. Creating multi-functional landscapes: Using exclusion fences to frame feral ungulate management preferences in remote Aboriginal-owned northern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, L. Why shooting fearal animals from the sky might be the best way to protect ecosystems. The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, C. Aerial shoot sets sights on 20,000 feral animals roaming southern Arnhem Land. ABC News, 5 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bode, M.; Brennan, K.E.; Morris, K.; Burrows, N.; Hague, N. Choosing cost-effective locations for conservation fences in the local landscape. Wildl. Res. 2012, 39, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, J.; Epanchin-Niell, R.; Siikamäki, J. Conservation planning: A review of return on investment analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2015, 9, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte de Paula Costa, M.; Lovelock, C.E.; Waltham, N.J.; Moritsch, M.M.; Butler, D.; Power, T.; Thomas, E.; Macreadie, P.I. Modelling blue carbon farming opportunities at different spatial scales. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hagger, V.; Waltham, N.J.; Lovelock, C.E. Opportunities for coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon with co-benefits for biodiversity, coastal fisheries, and water quality. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 55, 101423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovelock, C.E.; Adame, M.F.; Bradley, J.; Dittmann, S.; Hagger, V.; Hickey, S.M.; Hutley, L.B.; Jones, A.; Kelleway, J.J.; Lavery, P.S.; et al. An Australian blue carbon method to estimate climate change mitigation benefits of coastal wetland restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2023, 31, e13739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quevedo, J.M.D.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Progress of blue carbon research: 12 years of global trends based on content analysis of peer-reviewed and ‘gray literature’ documents. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 236, 106495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart-Sinclair, P.J.; Bulmer, R.H.; Macpherson, E.; Lundquist, C.J. Enabling coastal blue carbon in Aotearoa New Zealand: Opportunities and challenges. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1290107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RAE. Coastal Blue Carbon—A New Opportunity for Coastal Conservation; Restore America’s Estuaries: Seattle, WA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Gorham, C.; Lavery, P.S.; Kelleway, J.J.; Masque, P.; Serrano, O. Heterogeneous tidal marsh soil organic carbon accumulation among and within temperate estuaries in Australia. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macreadie, P.I.; Ollivier, Q.R.; Kelleway, J.J.; Serrano, O.; Carnell, P.E.; Ewers Lewis, C.J.; Atwood, T.B.; Sanderman, J.; Baldock, J.; Connolly, R.M.; et al. Carbon sequestration by Australian tidal marshes. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ouyang, X.; Lee, S. Updated estimates of carbon accumulation rates in coastal marsh sediments. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 5057–5071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reef Catchments. Pig Exclusion Fencing in the Mackay Whitsunday Isaac NRM Region; Reef Catchments: Mackay, QLD, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Fencing Quotes Online. Rural Fencing Services. Available online: https://fencingquotesonline.com.au/fence-types/rural-fencing/ (accessed on 15 October 2024).
- UTSA. Perimeter Area. Available online: https://mathresearch.utsa.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Perimeter_Area (accessed on 26 May 2025).
- Bode, M.; Wintle, B. How to build an efficient conservation fence. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carey, B.; Stone, B.; Norman, P.; Shilton, P. Chapter 14: Property infrastructure. In Soil Conservation Guidelines for Queensland, 3rd ed.; Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Barbier, E.B. The Value of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Services. In Coastal Wetlands, 2nd ed.; Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R., Hopkinson, C.S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 947–964. [Google Scholar]
- Delle Grazie, F.M.; Gill, L.W. Review of the ecosystem services of temperate wetlands and their valuation tools. Water 2022, 14, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verschuuren, B. Sociocultural importance of wetlands in northern Australia. In Proceedings of the Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sitesand Cultural Landscapes, Tokyo, Japan, 15–17 March 2006; pp. 141–150. [Google Scholar]
- Groom, R.; Hutley, L.; Brown, B.; Lovelock, C.; Vickers, R. Report: Blue Carbon in the Northern Territory, Australia; Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University: Darwin, NT, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Pert, P.L.; Hill, R.; Robinson, C.J.; Jarvis, D.; Davies, J. Is investment in Indigenous land and sea management going to the right places to provide multiple co-benefits? Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, C.J.; Smyth, D.; Whitehead, P.J. Bush tucker, bush pets, and bush threats: Cooperative management of feral animals in Australia’s Kakadu National Park. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 1385–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greiner, R.; Stanley, O. More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greiner, R.; Stanley, O.; Austin, B. Sustainable Indigenous Livelihoods from North Australian Land and Water Resources: Towards a Research and Development Agenda and Implementation Strategy April 2012; Charles Darwin University, North Australian Indigenous Land & Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), Northern Territory Government: Darwin, NT, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, J.; Campbell, D.; Campbell, M.; Douglas, J.; Hueneke, H.; LaFlamme, M.; Preuss, K.; Walker, J.; Walsh, F. Livelihoods inLand: Promoting Health and Wellbeing Outcomes from Desert Aboriginal Land Management; Desert Knowledge CRC: Alice Springs, NT, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, D.; King, R.; Allen, B.L. Impacts of exclusion fencing on target and non-target fauna: A global review. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1590–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waltham, N.J.; Schaffer, J.; Walker, S.; Perry, J.; Nordberg, E. Simple fence modification increases land movement prospects for freshwater turtles on floodplains. Wildl. Biol. 2022, 2022, e01012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assmuth, A.; Autto, H.; Halonen, K.-M.; Haltia, E.; Huttunen, S.; Lintunen, J.; Lonkila, A.; Nieminen, T.M.; Ojanen, P.; Peltoniemi, M.; et al. Forest carbon payments: A multidisciplinary review of policy options for promoting carbon storage in EU member states. Land Use Policy 2024, 147, 107341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clean Energy Regulator. Using an ACCU Scheme Project to Meet Regulatory Requirements. Available online: https://cer.gov.au/schemes/australian-carbon-credit-unit-scheme/how-to-participate/apply-to-participate/newness-regulatory-additionality-and-government-program-requirements/using-accu-scheme-project-to-meet-regulatory-requirements (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- Thamo, T.; Pannell, D.J. Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration: Perspectives on additionality, leakage, and permanence. Clim. Policy 2016, 16, 973–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carnell, P.; McLeod, R.; Young, M.; Gillies, C.; Obst, C.; Macreadie, P.; Ierodiaconou, D.; Reeves, S.; Eigenraam, M.; Janes, H.; et al. Prioritising the restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems using ecosystem accounting. Res. Sq. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Fang, W.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liang, J.; Chang, J.; Chen, L.; Wang, H.; Zhang, P.; et al. Carbon sequestration potential of wetlands and regulating strategies response to climate change. Environ. Res. 2025, 269, 120890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muenzel, D.; Martino, S. Assessing the feasibility of carbon payments and payments for ecosystem services to reduce livestock grazing pressure on saltmarshes. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 225, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selinske, M.J.; Howard, N.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Hardy, M.J.; Knight, A.T. “Splitting the bill” for conservation: Perceptions and uptake of financial incentives by landholders managing privately protected areas. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2022, 4, e12660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, S.; Beaver, S.; Baljak, C.; Cox, A.; Howden, M. Carbon farming co-benefits: A review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes. Rangel. J. 2024, 46, RJ24015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, L. An analysis of economic incentives in wetlands policies addressing biodiversity. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 240, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torabi, N.; Bekessy, S.A. Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 15, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Social Carbon. Resilient Planet, Sustainable Livelihoods. Available online: https://www.socialcarbon.org/ (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- Ruykys, L.; Carter, A. Removal and eradication of introduced species in a fenced reserve: Quantifying effort, costs and results. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2019, 20, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cacho, O.J.; Lipper, L.; Moss, J. Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greiner, R.; Patterson, L.; Miller, O. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric. Syst. 2009, 99, 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, L.C.; Szabo, J.K.; de Oliveira Roque, F.; Pereira, A.D.M.M.; da Cunha, C.N.; Damasceno-Júnior, G.A.; Morato, R.G.; Tomas, W.M.; Libonati, R.; Ribeiro, D.B. Record-breaking wildfires in the world’s largest continuous tropical wetland: Integrative fire management is urgently needed for both biodiversity and humans. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saintilan, N.; Rogers, K.; Kelleway, J.; Ens, E.; Sloane, D. Climate change impacts on the coastal wetlands of Australia. Wetlands 2019, 39, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friess, D.A.; Howard, J.; Huxham, M.; Macreadie, P.I.; Ross, F. Capitalizing on the global financial interest in blue carbon. PLoS Clim. 2022, 1, e0000061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalani, B.; Aminpour, P.; Gray, S.; Williams, M.; Büchi, L.; Haggar, J.; Grabowski, P.; Dambiro, J. Mapping farmer perceptions, Conservation Agriculture practices and on-farm measurements: The role of systems thinking in the process of adoption. Agric. Syst. 2021, 191, 103171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze, C.; Zagórska, K.; Häfner, K.; Markiewicz, O.; Czajkowski, M.; Matzdorf, B. Using farmers’ ex ante preferences to design agri-environmental contracts: A systematic review. J. Agric. Econ. 2024, 75, 44–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Target Species | Minimum Fence Height (cm) | Graduated Mesh | Fence Skirting Recommended (Width in cm) | Electric Top Wire Recommended if Feasible |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cattle (Bos taurus, Bos indicus) | 115 | No | No | Yes |
Goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) | 115–125 | Yes, no gaps at ground | Yes, 60–110 | Yes, additional hotwires may be needed to control male goats |
Sheep (Ovis aries) | 145 | Yes | No | Yes |
Deer (Cervcus elaphus, Dama dama) | 185–200 | Yes | No | Yes |
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) | 90–120 | Yes, no gaps at ground | Yes, 60–110 | No |
Water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) | 120 | No | No | Yes |
Cost Elements | Baseline Cost Estimates | Cost Variations: Considerations and Comments |
---|---|---|
Material and installation cost | 17 AUD m−1 to 25 AUD m−1 for fenceline with combination of timber posts and steel pickets 42 AUD m−1 for fenceline requiring concrete posts with galvanized pickets, or for galvanized steel posts and pickets 70 AUD m−1 for stainless steel or all-concrete post fences 200 AUD m−1 for gates and assemblies 800 AUD m−1 to 1000 AUD m−1 for creek crossings | Costs are approximately 50:50 materials and installation. Cost estimates are based on use of standard high-tensile galvanized mesh from one of the Australian suppliers. Cost is, to some extent, dependent on length of fence: Short fences typically cost much more per meter as mobilization cost is the same irrespective of the length of the fence. Scale-induced cost savings cease upwards of approximately 1 km length, as long fences typically involve longer on-site transport distances. There is virtually no difference in the installation cost between 5-strand barb wire and mesh netting; while material for barb wire fence is comparatively less, there is more labor required for installation. An apron adds approximately AUD 5 m−1 to the material cost. Raising fence height to exclude deer requires more wire, larger posts and bigger strainer assemblies; this approximately doubles the cost of the fence. Each gate, waterway crossing and square (or sharp) corner requires two strainer assemblies (i.e., one on either side). The cost of a steel strainer assembly is approximately AUD 600. A mild corner only requires a stronger corner post, plus a support post. Floodway installations are required wherever fast-flowing water occurs. AUD 10,000 buys a 12 m creek crossing with fixed pipe, chains and hanging panels. Installation of a fence in an ecologically sensitive or very wet site may mean that all posts need to be driven by hand, resulting in higher labor costs. Fence installations in remote locations incur higher labor cost due to travel time and travel-related expenses. A machinery delivery charge is applicable to bring machinery such as excavators, tractors, attachments and tools on-site. The standard float cost for an excavator is AUD 4000. Machinery and tools also incur daily hire costs. Material costs have increased approximately 70% over the past 3 years since COVID-19. Contractors have not yet passed on the full cost increase to customers. Ongoing freight cost increases and other inflationary pressures are anticipated in future years, adding around 10% per year to costs going forward. |
Fenceline preparation | AUD 2.50 to AUD 5.00 m−1 | This baseline cost is for minor leveling and clearing. Most exclusion fences require a 6 m wide clearing for access for installation of apron mesh netting and ongoing fence maintenance. An excavator plus operator costs approximately 1600–2400 AUD/day, depending on the size of the machine, and clears 1 km per day in ideal conditions. If country is heavily timbered, clearing may require a bulldozer, which increases per-meter cost. |
Maintenance cost | Depreciate fence over 10 years | The rule of thumb is to depreciate an exclusion fence in coastal or saline conditions over 10 years. Timber, treated or untreated, will generally only last 10 years. Maintenance costs can be expected to be low in the first 10 years, s.t. favorable conditions, as only regular inspections for potential breaches are required. As a guide, annual maintenance costs are 2% of installation costs. High maintenance costs—equivalent to depreciation costs and possibly higher—are likely to occur once the fence starts to deteriorate beyond 10 years. The economic lifespan of a fence is determined by material use. Fences made of stainless-steel posts and mesh netting will last much longer, as will fences with all-concrete posts, which withstand fire, termites and also floods. In heavily timbered conditions, maintenance includes the suppression of tree regrowth with long-lasting herbicides to ensure continued access to a fenceline and reduce the risk of damage from fallen trees. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Greiner, R. Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167295
Greiner R. Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167295
Chicago/Turabian StyleGreiner, Romy. 2025. "Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167295
APA StyleGreiner, R. (2025). Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution. Sustainability, 17(16), 7295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167295