The Freshwater Trust research published in Agricultural Water Management (vol. 327) highlights a critical (and often overlooked) truth: how we select projects matters just as much as what we fund. Most conservation programs rely on simple or opportunistic project selection. We found:
- The most cost-effective approach (prioritizing projects by benefit per dollar) consistently delivers the lowest program costs
- Less efficient strategies can cost 2–4x more—especially as participation increases
- Higher landowner participation only reduces costs if you’re prioritizing efficiency. If you’re not, more participation can actually amplify inefficiencies.
- Benefit valuation matters. Under- or over-valuing environmental benefits can significantly shift program costs and even determine whether goals are achievable
Main takeaway: If we want conservation programs to scale effectively, we need to move beyond “first-come, first-served” and toward data-driven, efficiency-first decision making.
The effect of project selection strategy on irrigation-system upgrade program cost: The cost of not quantifying conservation
Abstract: This study evaluates four project-selection strategies for irrigation-system upgrade conservation programs. The strategies encompass a spectrum of cost-effectiveness, ranging from entirely non-quantitative approaches to Pareto-optimal methods. Program costs include expenditures for materials and labor associated with irrigation system upgrades, while program benefits are defined as reductions in edge-of-field phosphorus runoff. We investigate the sensitivity of program costs to uncertainty in landowner participation (recruitment percentage) and benefit valuations. We provide a comprehensive quantification of program costs capturing the effects of these uncertainties using a Monte Carlo sampling approach. Findings indicate that, under the most cost-effective strategy, program costs decline as participation increases. Furthermore, across all scenarios, the cost differential between less efficient strategies and the most cost-effective strategy widens with increasing participation rates. These results underscore the critical importance of employing cost-effective project-selection strategies, particularly under conditions of high participation.
