Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Constructed wetlands for water quality improvements: Benefit

transfer analysis from Ohio
N.B. Irwin a, *, E.G. Irwin a, J.F. Martin b, P. Aracena c
a
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
b
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Ohio Sea Grant at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
c _
Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water resources provide many benefits that generate value for residents and recreation users alike but
Received 14 June 2017 run-off from agricultural and impervious surfaces can impair water quality, reducing any generated
Received in revised form value. A possible solution to this problem is the construction of treatment wetlands to remove excessive
15 October 2017
nutrients from water bodies. This study uses environmental and economic data to approximate the costs
Accepted 23 October 2017
Available online 7 December 2017
of constructing and operating free surface water wetlands to remove phosphorus and estimates the
amenity and recreational benefits of the resulting improvements in water quality for 24 lakes in Ohio. A
ten percent improvement in water quality from a decrease in phosphorus loadings generates positive net
Keywords:
Constructed wetlands
benefits for all lakes in the sample with a lifetime cost benefit ratio of 2.92. The study also examines the
Willingness-to-pay potential use of constructed wetlands as the sole strategy to achieve a reduction goal for phosphorus
Homeowner loadings and find that the costs of doing so are prohibitive. Constructed wetlands can be a cost-effective
Recreation users component of a comprehensive strategy for small-scale nutrient reduction and water quality improve-
Phosphorus ments for surface water bodies, but other treatment methods would be required to achieve any proposed
targeted improvements.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as Ohio, the associated issues of agricultural run-off are of partic-

The United States has an amazing array of surface water re-
sources that provide a diverse set of environmental benefits valued
by its residents, which includes a mixture of market-based goods e
such as drinking water e and non-market based goodsdi.e., goods
not bought or sold in a conventional market place but still valued by
nearby residents. However, pollutant run-off from agricultural and
urban land can impair these aquatic environments, increasing both
the cost of water treatment and posing risks to human health while
diminishing the value of these ecosystem services. Despite some
success in addressing point-source water pollution, non-point
sources such as run-off are still a significant source of surface wa-
ter contamination in the United States. Of the estimated nearly
700,000 impaired kilometers of surface water in the country, non-
point sources are responsible for over 54 percent of the impairment
(U.S. EPA, 2009).
In areas where farming is an important economic activity, such
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: irwin.114@osu.edu (N.B. Irwin).
ular importance. Annual nutrient loadings from agricultural sour-
ces in Ohio are responsible for impairing more than 1600 km of
surface water while hydro-modification for agricultural use impairs
an additional 1600 km (Ohio Water Resources Inventory, 2000).
Combined with urban run-off, this accounts for 57 percent of the
total kilometers of impaired waterways in the state. While Ohio has
worked on improving water quality in its rivers and large streams e
80 percent met designated aquatic life goals by 2010 e less than 13
percent of lakes met the target in the same period (Ohio Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, 2012). The use of
constructed treatment wetlands provides a possible method of
increasing the number of lakes meeting this goal.
Constructed wetlands (hereafter, wetlands) are an engineered
form of wetland that utilizes the natural environment e soil, or-
ganisms, and vegetation e as a form of water treatment, mimicking
a naturally occurring wetland. These wetlands act as a filter to
remove excessive pollutant and sediment loadings and can be
especially effective with non-point sources of contamination
(Mitsch, 1992; Kadlec and Wallace, 2008). Compared to traditional
gray infrastructure, wetlands present an opportunity to harness

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.050
0301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1064 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071
green infrastructure to deliver water quality improvements with
significantly smaller lifetime operational and maintenance costs
(Wadzuk et al., 2010). This has led to the adoption of wetlands as a
water treatment mechanism in agricultural settings (Brander et al.,
2013), for industrial wastewater (DiMuro et al., 2014), and for
combined sewer system overflows (Tao et al., 2014). Wetlands can
also mitigate agricultural-induced lake eutrophication (Bechmann
et al., 2005; Kovacic et al., 2006).
This study estimates the feasibility of constructed wetlands as a
means of providing water quality improvements via the phos-
phorus removal while estimating the pass-through benefits of the
improvements to homeowners and recreation users using each
group's unique willingness-to-pay for the improvement. Over-
utilization of phosphorus in the agricultural production cycle can
lead to an increase in harmful algal blooms and controlling phos-
phorus run-off is a pressing statewide issue within Ohio (Ohio Lake
Erie phosphorus Task Force II Final Report, 2013).
Utilizing estimates from two existing meta-analyses on water
quality improvements, one on recreation users (Johnston et al.,
2005) and another for homeowners (Irwin et al., 2011) and a
dataset of 24 lakes in Ohio, this study demonstrates that wet-
lands can be an effective means of water quality improvement on
a small-scale, providing amenity and recreational value e bene-
fits e that exceed construction and lifetime maintenance costs
for wetlands with a lifetime cost benefit ratio of 2.92 or an
average per capita benefit of $68. The feasibility of constructed
wetlands to meet a hypothetical phosphorus minimum is studied
but the monetary cost and land necessary to achieve such a
target makes it prohibitive in meeting any such target. This
particular result provides useful guidance for policy makers
considering the possible use of green infrastructure projects e
such as wetlands e as a water quality improvement strategy for
polluted waterways.
This study is a unique contribution to the literature and is
notable for several reasons. It is the first to link two similar but as
of yet not unified strands of literature on WTP for water quality
improvement from homeowners and recreation users. Previous
literature has focused on the two groups separately but not
together, which ignores the fact multiple user groups share water
resources and recreation users value clean water (Carson and
Mitchell, 1993). Finally, the study links WTP models to ecolog-
ical engineering models of wetland construction and function,
which allows for precise cost estimates for constructed wetlands
and subsequent benefit accrual of the water quality
improvements.
2. Data and methodology
Water quality data was obtained for 24 lakes in Ohio (Fig. 1)
from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, which consisted of observations
from 1989 through 2011 and included information on lake surface
characteristics and location (Table 1). As used in other studies (e.g.
Grove et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Lim et al., 2006; Kyoung et al.,
2007; Engel et al., 2015), information on lake watershed area and
volume are gathered from the Long-Term Hydrological Impact
Analysis (L-THIA) model at Purdue University. L-THIA computes
annual watershed runoff volumes using the curve number method
and provides data on watershed land-use by type.
The second set of data utilized relates to population, housing
price, and income from the 2000 U.S. Census, which is adjusted to
2010 prices. ArcGIS is used to determine the set of census block
groups within 0.4 km of each lake or its “neighborhood”. Neigh-
borhood population is summed across block groups to arrive at the
total population and number of households while Census
information at the same spatial scale provides the average housing
prices and income in each neighborhood (Table 1).1
The final set of data gathered was yearly recreational visitors for
each lake. In an ideal setting, this data would be obtained from staff
at each lake or from public records. However, not every lake in the
sample keeps a record of site visitors. To overcome this issue data
from Ohio State Parks 2010 Annual Report is used, which contains
the number of total visitors for day use and overnights stays for 70
Ohio State Parks, including several study lakes. Listed park offices
for lakes not in the report were contacted and asked for a yearly
estimate of recreation users. Using both methods, the visitors are
identified for 58 percent of the sample.
To obtain an estimate of lake visitors for the remaining 10 lakes,
an approximation approach using existing data is utilized. The
number of visitors per lake with extent data is divided by the total
population of each lake neighborhood to obtain in an estimated
average number of recreation users per neighborhood population.
The method provided an estimate of 40 visitors per neighborhood
resident, which is used to complete the visitor data for the missing
lakes. Deriving the number of visitors as a function of the sur-
rounding population leads to estimates that may overstate the
number of visitors for lakes near highly populated areas and may
undercount the visitors to lakes in less populated areas. However,
one expects more visitors to lakes adjacent to larger population
centers due to tradeoffs with regard to travel distance and recrea-
tion values (Cameron, 1992; Whitehead et al., 2000). The core re-
sults of the study are robust to restricting the sample to those
where definitive visitor information is available.
3. Methodology
The methodological approach in this study consists of esti-
mating both the costs of wetland construction for water quality
improvements and the WTP value for households and for recrea-
tion users, respectively, which are discussed in turn below.
3.1. Wetland construction cost estimates
Wetlands provide a strategy to improve water quality via the
removal of phosphorus, which can lead to excessive algal growth
that decreases lake clarity, quality, functionality, and recreation
value. This study focuses singularly on phosphorus for simplicity of
the wetland model but treatment wetlands can also remove other
nutrients as well during the course of operation, most notably ni-
trogen. It is assumed that wetlands remove some amount addi-
tional amount of nitrogen in conjunction with phosphorus removal,
but wetlands are built with the explicit goal of phosphorus
reduction. Observations for phosphorus and secchi disk depth
(SDD) in all the lakes are pooled and the following model is esti-
mated to ascertain the relationship between water clarity and lake
phosphorus:
logPit ¼ a þ BSDD logSDDit þ ti þ εit (1)
where P is the level of phosphorus in lake i at time t, SDD is the
measurement of water clarity in meters, t is a lake specific effect,
and ε is an error term. From equation (1) and the point estimate of
BSDD ¼ 0:555132; P-value:<0.0001 & R2 ¼ 0.68, the amount of
nutrient removal necessary for a ten percent improvement in water
clarity is calculated. This study assumes this water clarify
improvement is synonymous with a water quality improvement.
Subsequent to determining the amount of phosphorus removal
1
Additional lake information is available as supplemental Table A1.
 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071 1065

Fig. 1. Location of the study lakes in Ohio.

Table 1
Sample lake and neighborhood characteristics.

Lake Name Watershed Area Watershed Runoff Average Initial SDD Average Initial Total Neighborhood Neighborhood Est. Yearly County
(hectares) Volume (m3/yr) Depth (meters) Phosphorus (mg/L) Population Income (USD) Visitors Type

Atwood Lake 18,120 4,650,301 1.07 0.04 9902 $48,647 196,943 Metro,
Micro
Buckeye Lake 11,385 11,308,364 0.4 0.11 33,464 $48,117 230,665 Metro
Charles Mill Lake 55,772 52,924,574 0.29 0.2 14,738 $54,552 293,127 Metro,
Micro
Clear Fork 8740 6,820,686 1.13 0.04 21,484 $61,319 5000 Metro
Reservoir
Deer Creek Lake 71,532 97,721,144 0.91 0.06 14,537 $54,767 523,167 Metro,
Micro
Delaware Lake 99,791 131,434,165 0.55 0.09 4705 $54,319 275,352 Metro,
Micro
Grand Lake St. 29,091 34,888,825 0.35 0.15 12,693 $51,015 238,499 Micro
Marys
Grant Lake 6776 8,276,392 0.32 0.25 7777 $49,557 154,678 Metro
Griggs Reservoir 270,208 383,166,152 0.83 0.08 93,739 $78,108 1,864,389 Metro
Hargus Lake 1657 1,468,670 1.6 0.06 7559 $69,608 150,342 Metro
Hoover Reservoir 48,850 52,970,287 0.85 0.04 22,766 $97,862 452,797 Metro
Indian Lake 25,899 31,377,040 0.24 0.09 9320 $42,870 768,158 Micro
Knox Lake 8047 6,857,949 0.64 0.1 2857 $51,783 56,824 Micro
Lake Logan 3810 1,184,500 0.63 0.05 4373 $33,425 114,189 Metro
Lake Loramie 20,103 28,500,425 0.18 0.45 11,399 $62,259 212,600 Micro
Lake Snowden 1035 554,931 2 0.05 3588 $50,427 71,363 Micro
Leesville Lake 12,496 2,160,431 1.24 0.02 3524 $37,885 70,090 Metro
Miami Whitewater 758 394,838 0.4 0.09 4740 $55,000 94,275 Metro
Forest Lake
Nettle Lake 5051 4,030,612 0.77 0.07 4642 $50,708 92,326 Rural
O'Shaughnessy 253,368 357,807,479 0.64 0.08 15,878 $120,368 315,800 Metro
Reservoir
Pleasant Hill Lake 51,135 35,953,714 0.75 0.08 10,768 $50,551 214,167 Metro,
Micro
Rex Lake 98 22,005 1.01 0.08 12,528 $61,607 249,172 Metro
Waynoka Reservoir 1588 1,409,191 1.12 0.05 3779 $48,912 75,161 Metro
West Reservoir 2259 1,086,710 0.85 0.03 9783 $49,030 194,576 Metro
1066 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071
for the ten percent improvement in water quality, the total cost of
the wetland project is calculated. The cost is the summation of
three different components: (i) the cost of physically constructing
the wetland, (ii) the operations and maintenance cost of the
wetland, and (iii) the cost of purchasing the land. One of the biggest
factors in the overall cost of wetland construction is building the
wetland itself. The size of the wetland is a function of the level of
treatment necessary to achieve the desired level of water quality.
The standard model developed by Kadlec and Wallace (2008) for a
free water surface wetland,2 allows for the calculation of the cost
per land unit of a wetland:
C ¼ $194; 000A0:69
where C is the estimated capital cost of wetland per hectares in
2010 dollars and A is the wetland area, also in hectares.
The area, A, needed to deliver the ten percent improvement in
water quality is estimated by the k-C model from Kadlec and
Wallace (2008) and Crites et al. (2006), which estimates the area
necessary for a wetland based on the yearly watershed runoff and
the concentrations of phosphorus:


Q Ce  C *
A¼ *ln
KA;T Ci  C *
where Ce , Ci , and C * are the outlet target, inlet, and background
phosphorus concentrations in milligrams per liter, respectively
while KA;T is the temperate dependent first-order areal rate in
meters per year and Q is the annual influent hydraulic flow rate in
cubic meters per year. It is assumed the background levels of
phosphorus and the first-order areal rate constant for total phos-
phorus are 0.02 mg/L and 12 m/yr, consistent with related work
(Reed et al., 1995; Crites, 1994; Aracena, 2013).
The lifetime cost of lifetime operations and maintenance for
each wetland is calculated using a conservative 40-year lifespan,
which is at the lower end of estimated life, via the following
equation for each wetland:
! !!
N

X

A*Z A*Z A*Z
O&MCost ¼ ðA*ZÞþ þ þ…þ
ð1þrÞ ð1þrÞ1 ð1þrÞt
t¼0
The total operations and maintenance cost for the wetland is the
sum of both the present and future costs of maintenance assuming
equal maintenance costs across time. A is the total hectares in the
wetland which is multiplied by the average cost per year of
maintenance, Z is the inflation adjusted per hectare estimated cost
of maintenance from Kadlec and Wallace (2008), N the 40 year
lifespan of the wetland, and r is a five percent discount rate over the
life of the wetland. The choice of this particular discount rate is to
ensure estimates are as conservative as possible.
The final cost component is the cost of land acquisition. Land
values from Zhang et al. (2012) are utilized, which are collected
from the tax assessor's office for selected counties in Ohio based on
agricultural land sales. Counties are subdivided into groups based
on population: metro e counties part of an metropolitan statistical
area with an urban population center of at least 50,000 e micro-
politan e counties part of a micropolitan statistical area with an
urban population center with population less than 50,000 but more
than 10,000 e and rural, the remainder. The average price per
2
A free water surface wetland is selected over a vertical flow wetland due to a
generally lower lifetime maintenance and operations costs when compared to
vertical flow wetlands (Kadlec and Wallace, 2008).
hectare of land necessary for each wetland is calculated, providing
an estimate of the cost of purchasing the land. For lakes that extend
into multiple counties, the average land value from each of the
constituent county types is utilized. Table 2 provides each of the
estimated component costs and the estimated total cost for
building wetlands capable of generating a ten percent improve-
ment in water quality.
3.2. Homeowner WTP
Willingness-to-pay for a water quality improvement among
neighborhood homeowners is calculated by utilizing an existing
(2) meta-analysis by Irwin et al. (2011).3 In this work, the authors
analyze previously published hedonic valuation studies that look at
the independent property price effects of changes in water quality
and levels of fecal coliform within neighborhoods and subsequently
perform a WTP exercise using a large set of lakes in Ohio. This study
uses hedonic price function models to estimate homeowner capi-
talization of water quality improvements. As the sample overlaps
with this study and the crux of both works are similar in both
neighborhood size and research methodology, the following model
from that work is used:
 
(3)
lnðWTPÞ ¼ f SDD; house price; HH income; q (5)
where the natural log of WTP e in 2010 USD e is a function of SDD,
average house price in the neighborhood, average household in-
come in the neighborhood, and a fixed value, q. Both a log-linear
and log-log version of this model are estimated for robustness,
which take the following form with the point estimates from Irwin
et al. included, respectively:
lnðWTPÞ ¼ 7:5 þ 0:0002*SDD þ 0:00000317*houseprice
 0:000024*HH income (6)
 
lnðWTPÞ ¼ 1:06 þ 0:1908*lnðSDDÞ þ 0:855*ln house price
 0:20504*lnðHH incomeÞ
(7)
Table 3 provides the results for the summation of marginal WTP
(4) for lake adjacent residents, calculated as the WTP multiplied by the
number of residents. We assume the housing market equilibrium
remains unchanged by the water quality improvement.
3.3. Recreation user WTP
The final step is calculating the WTP for a water quality
improvement for lake recreation users. An existing meta-analysis of
previously published recreation user studies in the United States by
Johnston et al. (2005) is utilized to build a model that estimates
recreation user WTP for a ten percent improvement in water
quality. The Johnston et al. paper estimates WTP across a variety of
recreation uses and using all types of water bodies e rivers, lakes,
saline lakes, estuaries. While the water body population differs
from this study, the types of recreation opportunities at large water
bodies are roughly similar across the country and it is assumed the
recreation users preference in Ohio mirror the national population.
The paper also estimates the WTP e in 2010 USD e for a unit in-
crease on a ten-point ladder of water quality, which is generalized
here to a ten percent change in water quality for consistency with
the previous section. The following model is used:
3
See supplemental table B for additional information.
 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071 1067

Table 2
Wetland construction costs by component.

Lake Name Wetland Construction Cost Land Acquisition Cost þ O&M Costs Total Wetland Cost

Atwood Lake $582,132 $399,158 $981,290

Buckeye Lake $680,975 $571,346 $1,252,321
Charles Mill Lake $1,839,853 $2,115,619 $3,955,473
Clear Fork Reservoir $701,536 $596,516 $1,298,052
Deer Creek Lake $3,525,923 $5,430,537 $8,956,460
Delaware Lake $3,832,722 $6,128,533 $9,961,255
Grand Lake St. Marys $1,421,074 $1,250,807 $2,671,881
Grant Lake $502,607 $367,905 $870,512
Griggs Reservoir $8,273,419 $21,316,548 $29,589,967
Hargus Lake $188,725 $88,964 $277,689
Hoover Reservoir $2,892,939 $4,648,858 $7,541,797
Indian Lake $1,438,658 $1,273,300 $2,711,958
Knox Lake $492,191 $269,044 $761,235
Lake Logan $178,053 $81,767 $259,820
Lake Loramie $1,148,629 $918,806 $2,067,436
Lake Snowden $109,174 $30,337 $139,511
Leesville Lake $1,130,642 $1,191,301 $2,321,943
Miami Whitewater Forest Lake $68,930 $20,667 $89,597
Nettle Lake $364,381 $160,949 $525,330
O'Shaughnessy Reservoir $7,738,960 $19,350,152 $27,089,112
Pleasant Hill Lake $1,595,036 $1,720,141 $3,315,176
Rex Lake $9720 $1209 $10,929
Waynoka Reservoir $201,249 $97,646 $298,895
West Reservoir $242,145 $127,671 $369,816

Table 3
Homeowner and recreation user WTP estimates.

Lake Log-Linear Model Log-Log Model

Neighborhood WTP Recreation User WTP Neighborhood WTP Recreation User WTP

Atwood Lake $933,245 $21,289,971 $738,256 $10,032,636

Buckeye Lake $3,417,369 $24,930,395 $2,606,449 $11,719,175
Charles Mill Reservoir $1,473,389 $31,759,448 $1,020,132 $15,383,499
Clear Fork Reservoir $2,209,176 $543,142 $2,010,006 $271,508
Deer Creek Lake $1,402,358 $56,688,366 $969,973 $27,485,923
Delaware Lake $543,776 $29,830,967 $397,508 $14,433,740
Grand Lake St. Marys $1,244,145 $25,805,672 $972,706 $12,295,405
Grant Lake $769,860 $16,726,903 $576,268 $7,915,805
Griggs Reservoir $12,998,272 $203,832,051 $13,622,033 $110,178,240
Hargus Lake $913,068 $16,383,346 $1,014,298 $8,512,079
Hoover Reservoir $3,325,352 $49,879,817 $3,162,438 $29,559,829
Indian Lake $874,554 $82,856,199 $600,546 $38,008,452
Knox Lake $301,817 $6,150,144 $237,182 $2,940,813
Lake Logan $420,549 $12,272,352 $312,662 $5,387,419
Lake Loramie $1,217,981 $23,102,657 $1,020,820 $11,599,281
Lake Snowden $362,919 $7,719,725 $329,731 $3,668,098
Leesville Lake $318,668 $7,545,681 $240,285 $3,381,988
Miami Whitewater Lake $546,817 $10,216,131 $471,615 $4,958,776
Nettle Lake $421,542 $9,988,494 $303,284 $4,752,346
O'Shaughnessy Reservoir $2,668,756 $35,089,529 $2,355,734 $23,092,648
Pleasant Hill Lake $1,047,663 $23,168,824 $916,241 $11,015,249
Rex Lake $1,380,928 $27,070,081 $1,340,665 $13,550,004
Waynoka Reservoir $394,875 $8,125,911 $391,184 $3,833,963
West Reservoir $1,001,085 $21,037,174 $901,519 $9,931,164

time, total WTP is calculated over wetland life at a five percent

lnðWTPÞ ¼ f ðinc; single; freshwater; WQnon; NonFishÞ
where the natural log of WTP is a function of the average income for
lake visitors, inc; a binary variable if it is a single lake and if it is
freshwater, single and freshwater; a non-specified use water quality
improvements, WQnon; and a binary variable for water quality
benefits that benefit additional species beyond fish, NonFish.
WQnon, is used as it best fits a general water quality improvement
and NonFish as it implies water quality improvements improve all
types of recreation associated with a lake. The average income of
visitors is assumed to be similar to neighborhood income. As an
individual recreation user's marginal WTP values are constant over
(8) discount rate. Total WTP (summation of marginal WTP for all vis-
itors) for each lake is located in Table 3 with both log-linear model
and log-log models, for consistency with the previous section. The
fully specified model with the point estimates from Johnson et al. is
as follows for the log-linear and log-log models, respectively:
lnðWTPÞ ¼ 6:0043 þ 0:000000383*inc þ 0:295  0:0069 þ 0:24
 0:1541
(9)
1068 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071
lnðWTPÞ ¼ 6:0782 þ 0:00000504*lnðincÞ þ 0:542 þ 0:0901
þ 0:3093  0:1375
(10)
It is likely that some of the lake visitors are residents of the
nearby neighborhood. Since hedonic models are used to estimate
the homeowner WTP, the resulting house price capitalization effect
takes into account the benefit of recreation opportunities. This
means including neighborhood residents as visitors in the recrea-
tion user model leads to double counting and overestimating the
benefits of the wetland project. To prevent double counting one
would normally utilize previously published work to determine the
appropriate mixture of visitors to residents for recreational use but
as no such work exists, it is assumed that half of the estimated total
visitors are non-residents, meaning WTP for recreation users esti-
mates are halved from the model calculation. The key findings are
robust to changing the assumptions as to the proportion of non-
resident recreation users to resident recreation users from a 40/
60 or 60/40 visitor mix.
4. Results and discussion of wetland construction, value, and
public benefits
As shown in Table 2, there is a large range of costs from wetland
construction. These estimates differ considerably as required
wetland size is a function of watershed size, land use within each
watershed, and the cost of purchasing the land around each lake.
Lakes in areas of high population, with a large portion of the
watershed in agricultural use, or with large watersheds see higher
cost estimates for wetland construction than other lakes. The total
cost of constructing wetlands for the entire set of lakes is over $107
million, according the models.
Estimates for homeowners WTP also vary tremendously across
the study, depending on the neighborhood population and average
income level of the households. Some lakes show a large range in
the value of benefits between the log-linear and the log-log models,
indicating they are particularly sensitive to model choice, which
reinforces the decision to estimate WTP with both models. As these
values represent the capitalization of improved water quality into
house prices for those living in the nearby neighborhood, they do
not capture any additional benefits such as reduced costs of water
treatment for municipal drinking water supplies.
The WTP estimates for recreation users in each lake are larger
than the values of neighborhood benefits, as the number of recre-
ation users for each lake is significantly greater than the number of
households in the neighborhood. The WTP values also show evi-
dence of model sensitivity, with the log-linear model providing
consistently higher estimates than the log-log model. The results
from the recreation user results alone demonstrate the value that
even marginal improvements to water quality can have on the
ecosystem services provided by an inland lake. There are likely
additional benefits not measured in this approach that accrue to
recreation users from the constructed wetlands as well, such as
increased biodiversity and wildlife observation, but these benefits
are not included in this WTP estimate.
The net benefits e the total WTP minus the total wetland cost e
is reported in Table 4. All lakes have positive benefits from the
water quality improvements in the log-linear model while in the
log-log model, 23 of the 24 lakes have positive net economic gains,
with only O'Shaughnessy Reservoir showing a negative net value. It
is likely this result is driven in part by the fact O'Shaughnessy has a
relatively small number of households, compared to other lakes in
metropolitan counties, leading to a smaller value for neighborhood
WTP. Overall, total benefits average just under $500 million dollars
across both models, which demonstrate the value water quality
improvements can have for homeowners and recreation users.
Figuring conservatively, constructed wetlands could provide a
lifetime cost benefit ratio of 2.92 or a return of $2.92 for every $1
invested. Wetlands are clearly an effective means of both reducing
nutrient loadings in surface water and providing positive economic
returns for homeowners and recreation users. Since other public
benefits from improved water quality are not considered e i.e. the
removal of nitrogen e it is likely the estimates understate the full
economic value of constructed wetlands.
It is important to note that the study does not account for the
additional costs of wetlands as a natural source of methane emis-
sions (Matthews and Fung, 1987; Whiting and Chanton, 1993). It is
assumed that the cost in terms of additional methane created by
the new wetlands is negligible but this particular issue is one of
concern for any widespread use of wetlands for water quality
improvement.
4.1. Use of constructed wetlands to meet targeted reduction in
nutrient loadings
As constructed wetlands are types of green infrastructure, they
offer an environmentally conscious approach to reducing the con-
centration of nutrients in lakes. Particularly in Ohio, there is an
added urgency to address nutrient runoff due to the increasing
number of toxic algal blooms in Lake Erie and in many of Ohio's
inland lakes. Some stakeholders have called for greater regulations
to reduce phosphorus run-off and some have urged for greater
investments in green infrastructure such as wetlands to reduce
these loadings.
To explore the feasibility of using wetlands to meet a targeted
minimum standard for phosphorus in lakes, the wetland cost
models are utilized to provide an estimate of total project cost for
the 24 lakes in the study to meet a hypothetical standard for
phosphorus concentrations. Two different theoretical statewide
standards are used: a maximum of 50 mg per liter (mg/L) and a
maximum of 25 mg/L. These values come from a 2010 report to the
Environmental Protection Agency by Tetra Tech, Inc. (2010) and
describe the recommended course of action to improve water
quality and prevent harmful algal blooms in Grand Lake St. Marys, a
lake in the study. Table 5 shows the total wetland cost and the
required amount of land needed for construction in comparison to
the baseline ten percent water quality improvement. As the sole
interest of this section is the feasibility of wetlands as a means to
meet phosphorus loading target, estimates for WTP are not
provided.
In the first scenario with the maximum phosphorus level of
50 mg/L, seven of the lakes in the study meet the standard. Of the
lakes not meeting the standard, there are substantial cost differ-
ences in meeting the phosphorus target. Some lakes have total
costs under $100,000, but both the Griggs and O'Shaughnessy
Reservoirs see wetland costs well over $225 million. A significant
contributor to these high costs is the area needed for wetland
construction, as both Griggs and O'Shaughnessy require over
2000 ha of land for each wetland. Compared to the baseline costs of
achieving a ten percent improvement in water quality, this is a ten-
fold increase in the number of hectares required and an eight-fold
increase in total cost. The total cost of compliance for all the lakes in
this scenario is just under $870 million.
In the second scenario with an even more stringent standard of
a maximum phosphorus concentration of 25 mg/L, only Leesville
Lake meets the standard. For the non-compliant lakes, both the
costs and total hectares required are significantly higher than with
the less restrictive standard, with two lakes requiring wetland in-
vestments of over $0.75 billion each. The amount of land required
 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071 1069

Table 4
Net benefits of wetlands.

Lake Cost of Wetlands Log-Linear Model Log-Log Model

Total WTP Net Benefits Total WTP Net Benefits

Atwood Lake $981,290 $22,223,216 $21,241,926 $10,770,892 $9,789,602

Buckeye Lake $1,252,321 $28,347,764 $27,095,443 $14,325,624 $13,073,303
Charles Mill Reservoir $3,955,473 $33,232,837 $29,277,364 $16,403,631 $12,448,158
Clear Fork Reservoir $1,298,052 $2,752,318 $1,454,266 $2,281,514 $983,462
Deer Creek Lake $8,956,460 $58,090,724 $49,134,264 $28,455,896 $19,499,436
Delaware Lake $9,961,255 $30,374,743 $20,413,488 $14,831,248 $4,869,993
Grand Lake St. Marys $2,671,881 $27,049,817 $24,377,936 $13,268,111 $10,596,230
Grant Lake $870,512 $17,496,763 $16,626,251 $8,492,073 $7,621,561
Griggs Reservoir $29,589,967 $216,830,323 $187,240,356 $123,800,273 $94,210,306
Hargus Lake $277,689 $17,296,414 $17,018,725 $9,526,377 $9,248,688
Hoover Reservoir $7,541,797 $53,205,169 $45,663,372 $32,722,267 $25,180,470
Indian Lake $2,711,958 $83,730,753 $81,018,795 $38,608,998 $35,897,040
Knox Lake $761,235 $6,451,961 $5,690,726 $3,177,995 $2,416,760
Lake Logan $259,820 $12,692,901 $12,433,081 $5,700,081 $5,440,261
Lake Loramie $2,067,436 $24,320,638 $22,253,202 $12,620,101 $10,552,665
Lake Snowden $139,511 $8,082,644 $7,943,133 $3,997,829 $3,858,318
Leesville Lake $2,321,943 $7,864,349 $5,542,406 $3,622,273 $1,300,330
Miami Whitewater Lake $89,597 $10,762,948 $10,673,351 $5,430,391 $5,340,794
Nettle Lake $525,330 $10,410,036 $9,884,706 $5,055,630 $4,530,300
O'Shaughnessy Reservoir $27,089,112 $37,758,285 $10,669,173 $25,448,382 -$1,640,730
Pleasant Hill Lake $3,315,176 $24,216,487 $20,901,311 $11,931,490 $8,616,314
Rex Lake $10,929 $28,451,009 $28,440,080 $14,890,669 $14,879,740
Waynoka Reservoir $298,895 $8,520,786 $8,221,891 $4,225,147 $3,926,252
West Reservoir $369,816 $22,038,259 $21,668,443 $10,832,683 $10,462,867

Table 5
Maximum phosphorus reduction costs.

Lake Alternative Scenario 1: All lakes to 50 mg/L Alternative Scenario 2: All lakes to 25 mg/L Baseline Scenario: 10% Improvement

Cost of Wetlands Hectares of Per Hectare Cost of Wetlands Hectares of Per Hectare Cost of Hectares of Per Hectare
Wetland Needed Cost Wetland Needed Cost Wetlands Wetland Needed Cost

Atwood Lake currently meets e e $6,115,660 43.3 $141,239 $981,290 12.1 $80,778
standard
Buckeye Lake $13,952,930 100.4 $138,973 $34,138,239 269.1 $126,861 $1,252,321 15.2 $82,130
Charles Mill $82,728,514 781.9 $105,804 $158,800,354 1572.2 $101,005 $3,955,473 64.4 $61,433
Reservoir
Clear Fork currently meets e e $10,690,516 74.5 $143,497 $1,298,052 15.9 $81,537
Reservoir standard
Deer Creek Lake $22,324,581 186.6 $119,639 $165,778,724 1645.9 $100,722 $8,956,460 165.3 $54,192
Delaware Lake $94,603,046 903.3 $104,730 $279,825,913 2866 $97,636 $9,961,255 186.5 $53,407
Grand Lake St. $41,391,392 415.2 $99,690 $87,102,347 936 $93,058 $2,671,881 44.3 $60,337
Marys
Grant Lake $18,951,837 140.8 $134,601 $33,602,013 264.7 $126,944 $870,512 9.8 $88,659
Griggs Reservoir $228,147,154 2059 $110,805 $814,241,307 7780.1 $104,657 $29,589,967 568.9 $52,013
Hargus Lake $947,712 4.5 $210,603 $4,291,810 26.3 $163,187 $277,689 2.4 $116,958
Hoover Reservoir currently meets e e $68,844,843 575.5 $119,626 $7,541,797 124.1 $60,787
standard
Indian Lake $21,674,729 202.3 $107,142 $64,112,549 670.6 $95,605 $2,711,958 45.1 $60,160
Knox Lake $6,656,849 52.6 $126,556 $17,113,689 155 $110,411 $761,235 9.5 $79,919
Lake Logan $44,988 >0.01 $203,358 $3,058,993 17.8 $171,854 $259,820 2.2 $119,064
Lake Loramie $60,862,955 633.7 $96,044 $97,643,554 1059.1 $92,195 $2,067,436 32.5 $63,557
Lake Snowden currently meets e e $1,344,695 7.7 $174,636 $139,511 1.1 $129,894
standard
Leesville Lake currently meets e e currently meets e e $2,321,943 31.8 $73,032
standard standard
Miami $680,757 2.8 $243,128 $1,690,667 8.9 $189,963 $89,597 0.6 $162,445
Whitewater
Lake
Nettle Lake $2,607,328 18.2 $143,260 $8,990,670 78.5 $114,531 $525,330 6.2 $85,272
O'Shaughnessy $248,207,448 2250.1 $110,310 $795,306,542 7592.3 $104,752 $27,089,112 516.4 $52,456
Reservoir
Pleasant Hill Lake $25,405,850 215.7 $117,783 $79,818,206 752.3 $106,099 $3,315,176 52.4 $63,326
Rex Lake $58,508 >0.01 $186,278 $154,982 0.4 $387,455 $10,929 >0.01 $338,805
Waynoka currently meets e e $3,535,728 21 $168,368 $298,895 2.6 $114,696
Reservoir standard
West Reservoir currently meets e e $1,479,259 7.7 $192,112 $369,816 3.4 $108,537
standard
1070 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071
to meet this phosphorus reduction target would require approxi-
mately 0.5 percent of all current agricultural land in the state or
0.25 percent of Ohio's total land area. The cost of compliance in
these set of lakes exceeds $2.7 billion, which clearly indicates that
meeting the phosphorus goals using constructed wetlands would
be cost prohibitive.
This more stringent case underscores the fact that relying solely
on a land-intensive green infrastructure strategy for achieving
phosphorus reduction is not a cost-effective strategy. Instead, a
comprehensive approach to nutrient reduction and water quality
improvement are necessary. These could include voluntary actions,
regulations and incentives to achieve reductions in fertilizer ap-
plications and improvements in nutrient retention and controls at
the filed level, as detailed by the Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task
Force II Final Report (2013).
5. Conclusions
Improving the water quality of inland lakes is an important step
to ensure lasting economic value from water resources and to
provide a sustainable future for all residents. The goal of this study
was to explore the potential public benefits and costs of water
quality improvements provided by constructed wetlands. A ten
percent improvement in water quality generates benefits that are
positive in all lakes, with a lifetime cost benefit ratio of 2.92 or an
average per capita benefit of $68. Wetlands can be an effective
component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce nutrient load-
ings and improve water quality but may be too cost prohibitive and
land-intensive to utilize as the sole method.
These results are subject to important limitations. The results
provide an estimate of the public benefits of water quality im-
provements for only a small sample of lakes, likely underestimating
the benefits and costs across all lakes in a state. There are also
additional ecosystem service benefits that are not discernible to
individuals and thus not reflected in the estimated benefits, such as
improved health and quality of life from an water quality indicating
the estimates present a lower bound of the value for improved
water quality. The results are also dependent on the assumptions of
the hedonic model, i.e. the change in water quality is marginal and
the housing market remains in equilibrium. Despite these limita-
tions, the results provide substantial quantitative and actionable
evidence for policy makers of the meaningful potential for con-
structed wetlands to provide water quality improvements that are
valued by both homeowners and recreation users.
Acknowledgments
The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this
research manuscript.
This research was generously funded by the Ohio Environmental
Council. Additional funding support through the Climate, Water,
and Carbon Program at OSU and the Ohio Sea Grant Program. The
views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Environmental Council or
Ohio State University.
The authors thank Joseph Conroy, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Wildlife for data assistance. Data were
collected with financial support of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Program (F-69-P, Fish Management in Ohio), adminis-
tered jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Thanks as
well to Johnathan Witter, Jamie Rice, and Lannae Fath for additional
research assistance. Any remaining errors are our own.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.050.
References
Aracena, P., 2013. Estimating Economic Benefits of Water Clarity to Downstream
Lakes from Constructed Wetlands. MS Thesis. The Ohio State University, Co-
lumbus, Ohio.
Bechmann, M.E., Berge, D., Eggestad, H.O., Vandsemb, S.M., 2005. Phosphorus
transfer from agricultural areas and its impact on the eutrophication of lake-
sdtwo long-term integrated studies from Norway. J. Hydrol. 304 (1), 238e250.
Brander, L., Brouwer, R., Wagtendonk, A., 2013. Economic valuation of regulating
services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecol.
Eng. 56, 89e96.
Cameron, T.A., 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the
valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 68 (3), 302e317.
Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1993. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to
pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 29
(7), 2445e2454.
Crites, R.W., 1994. Design criteria and practice for constructed wetlands. Water Sci.
Technol. 29 (4), 1e6.
Crites, R.W., Middlebrooks, J., Reed, S.C., 2006. Natural wastewater treatment sys-
tems, First Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
DiMuro, J.L., Guertin, F.M., Helling, R.K., Perkins, J.L., Romer, S., 2014. A financial and
environmental analysis of constructed wetlands for industrial wastewater
treatment. J. Ind. Ecol. 18 (5), 631e640.
Engel, B.A., Ahiablame, L.M., Leroy, J.D., 2015. Modeling the impacts of urbanization
on lake water level using L-THIA. Urb. Clim. 14, 578e585.
Grove, M., Harbor, J., Engel, B., Muthukrishnan, S., 2001. Impacts of urbanization on
surface hydrology, Little Eagle Creek, Indiana, and analysis of LTHIA model
sensitivity to data resolution. Phys. Geogr. 22 (2), 135e153.
Irwin, E.G., Pingledis, A., Fath, L., 2011. Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water
Quality Improvements to Homeowners in Ohio: a Benefits Transfer Analysis.
Working paper.
Johnston, R.J., Besedin, E.Y., Iovanna, R., Miller, C.J., Wardwell, R.F., Ranson, M.H.,
2005. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource im-
provements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can. J. Agric.
Econ. 53 (2e3), 221e248.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2008. Treatment Wetlands, second ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kovacic, D.A., Twait, R.M., Wallace, M.P., Bowling, J.M., 2006. Use of created wet-
lands to improve water quality in the Midwestdlake Bloomington case study.
Ecol. Eng. 28 (3), 258e270.
Kyoung, J.L., Engel, B.A., Muthukrishnan, S., Harbor, J., 2007. Effects of initial
abstraction and urbanization on estimated runoff using CN technology. JAWRA
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (3), 629e643.
Lim, K.J., Engel, B.A., Tang, Z., Muthukrishnan, S., Choi, J., Kim, K., 2006. Effects of
calibration on L-THIA GIS runoff and pollutant estimation. J. Environ. Manag. 78
(1), 35e43.
Matthews, E., Fung, I., 1987. Methane emission from natural wetlands: global dis-
tribution, area, and environmental characteristics of sources. Global Bio-
geochem. Cycles 1 (1), 61e86.
Mitsch, W.J., 1992. Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural
riparian wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Ecol. Eng. 1 (1),
27e47.
Ohio Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Final Report,
2012. Division of Surface Water. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II, Final Report, 2013. Joint Report by Ohio
Department of Agriculture, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Lake Erie Commission.
Ohio Water Resource Inventory, 2000. Causes & Sources of Impairment. FS-2-EAS-
2000. Division of Surface Water. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Reed, S.C., Crites, R., Middlebrooks, E.J., 1995. Natural Systems for Waste Manage-
ment and Treatment, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tao, W., Bays, J.S., Meyer, D., Smardon, R.C., Levy, Z.F., 2014. Constructed wetlands
for treatment of combined sewer overflow in the US: a review of design chal-
lenges and application status. Water 6 (11), 3362e3385.
Tetra Tech, Inc, 2010. Recommended Actions for Grand Lake St. Marys, Ohio. Pre-
liminary Agency Report. Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA, Columbus.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. 2004 National Water Quality In-
ventory. EPA Publ. 841-F-08-003, Washington, DC.
Wadzuk, B.M., Rea, M., Woodruff, G., Flynn, K., Traver, R.G., 2010. Water-quality
performance of a constructed stormwater wetland for all flow conditions.
JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 46 (2), 385e394.
Wang, Y., Choi, W., Deal, B.M., 2005. Long-term impacts of land-use change on non-
 N.B. Irwin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 1063e1071 1071

point source pollutant loads for the St. Louis metropolitan area, USA. Environ.
Manag. 35 (2), 194e205.
Whitehead, J.C., Haab, T.C., Huang, J.C., 2000. Measuring recreation benefits of
quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resour. Energy
Econ. 22 (4), 339e354.
Whiting, G.J., Chanton, J.P., 1993. Primary production control of methane emission
from wetlands. Nature 364 (6440), 794e795.
Zhang, W., Irwin, E.G., Nickerson, C., 2012. The expanding ethanol market and
farmland values: identifying the changing influence of proximity to agricultural
delivery points. In: Paper Presented at the 2012 Agricultural and Applied Eco-
nomics Associated Annual Meeting, Settle WA, August 12e14, 2012.