On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Marine Policy

Volumn 38, Issue , 2013, Pages 25-40

  Bertram, Christine ^a   Rehdanz, Katrin ^a,b  

^a KIEL INSTITUTE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Ecosystem services; Environmental valuation; EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Europe

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; EUROPEAN UNION; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; MARINE POLICY; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT;

EUROPE;

EID: 84874563428     PISSN: 0308597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Nunes P.A.L.D., Ding H., Markandya A. The economic valuation of marine ecosystems, FEEM Working Paper 2009, No. 68.
2. Luisetti T., Turner R.K., Bateman I.J., Morse-Jones S., Adams C., Fonseca L. Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: managed realignment case studies in England. Ocean Coast Manage 2011, 54:212-224.
3. COWI. Scoping study on the requirements for economic assessment in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Final Report, European Comission DG Environment, June 2010.
4. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers-Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature, 2009.
5. OSPAR. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 1992.
6. HELCOM. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention), 1974.
7. WFD (Water Framework Directive). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000.
8. MSFD (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, 2008.
9. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
10. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Pushpam Kumar (Ed.). Earthscan, London, UK; 2010.
11. Turner R.K., Hadley D., Luisetti T., Lam V.W.Y., Cheung W.W.L. An introduction to socio-economic assessment within a Marine Strategy Framework, CSERGE, UEA 2010, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
12. Selman M., Greenhalgh S., Diaz R., Sugg Z. Eutrophication and hypoxia in coastal areas: a global assessment of the state of knowledge, World Resources Institute, Policy Note, 2008.
13. Coll M., Piroddi C., Steenbeek J., Kaschner K., Ben Rais Lasram F., et al. The biodiversity of the mediterranean sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(8):e11842. 10.1371/journal.pone.0011842.
14. Remoundou K., Koundouri P., Kontogianni A., Nunes P.A.L.D., Skourtos M. Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective. Environ Sci Policy 2009, 12:1040-1051.
15. EC (European Commission). working group on economic and social assessment. Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance document, A Legally Non-Binding Document, December 2010.
16. Eftec/Enveco. OSPAR regional economic and social assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Interim Report, MFD 0902, for DEFRA, July 2010.
17. Pearce D.W., Turner R.K. Economics of natural resources and the environment 1990, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, UK.
18. Arcadis Belgium. Inventory of the socio-economic activities affecting the Belgian marine waters and the related developments within the European Marine Strategy Framework (Directive 2008/56/EC), FPS Health, Food Chain Safety & Environment - DG Environment - Marine Environment Service, Project number 11-005435, Final Report, 2010.
19. Bateman I.J., Mace G.M., Fezzi C., Atkinson G., Turner K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessment. Environ Resour Econ 2011, 48(2):177-218.
20. Freeman A.M. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resour Future, Washington, DC, USA; 2003.
21. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK, 2007.
22. EEA (European Environmental Agency). Europe's environment-the fourth assessment. Chapter 5. Copenhagen, Denmark; 2007.
23. HELCOM. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea-an integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region, Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 2009, No. 115B.
24. EEA (European Environmental Agency). Priority issues in the Mediterranean environment, EEA Report No. 4/2006, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.
25. BSC (Black Sea Commission). Implementation of the strategic action plan for the rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea (2002-2007), 2009.
26. Claussen U., Zevenboom W., Brockmann U., Topcu D., Bot P. Assessment of the eutrophication status of transitional, coastal and marine waters within OSPAR. Hydrobiologia 2009, 629:49-58.
27. OSPAR. Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission, London, 2010.
28. Kosenius A.K. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:528-538.
29. Vesterinen J., Pouta E., Huhtala A., Neuvonen M. Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. J Environ Manag 2010, 91:984-994.
30. Ahtiainen H. Valuing international marine resources: a meta-analysis on the Baltic Sea. MTT Discussion Papers 2009, 1-2009.
31. Huhtala A., Ahtiainen H., Ekholm P., Fleming-Lehtinen V., Heikkilä J., Heiskanen A.S., Helin J., Helle I., Hyytiäinen K., Hällfors H., Iho A., Koikkalainen K., Kuikka S., Lehtiniemi M., Mannio J., Mehtonen J., Miettinen A., Mäntyniemi S., Peltonen H., Pouta E., Pylkkö M., Salmiovirta M., Verta M., Vesterinen J., Viitasalo M., Viitasalo-Frösen S., Väisänen S. The economics of the state of the Baltic Sea-pre-study assessing the feasibility of a cost-benefit analysis of protecting the Baltic Sea ecosystem, 2009.
32. Hyytiäinen K., Ahtiainen H., Heikkilä J., Helin J., Huhtala A., Iho A., Koikkalainen K., Miettinen A., Pouta E., Vesterinen J. An integrated simulation model to evaluate national policies for the abatement of agricultural nutrients in the Baltic Sea. MTT Discussion Papers 2009, 2-2009.
33. Atkins J.P., Burdon D An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in Randers Fjord, Denmark. Mar Pollut Bull 2006, 53:195-204.
34. Atkins J.P., Burdon D., Allen J.H. An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements. Mar Pollut Bull 2007, 55:591-602.
35. Soutukorva A. The value of improved water quality-a random utility model of recreation in the Stockholm archipelago, Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Programme, Project 1.2.1, Subproject on Benefits, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
36. Kosenius A.K. Estimating the benefit from algal bloom reduction-an application of contingent valuation method, University of Helsinki, Master's Thesis 2004, Helsinki, Finland.
37. Olsson B. Stated preferences for improved cod stock in Sweden, Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Programme, Department of Economics, Gothenburg University Working Paper, 2004.
38. Eggert H., Olsson B. Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: a choice experiment applied to water quality, Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Programme, 2003.
39. Hökby S., Söderqvist T. Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ Resour Econ 2003, 26:361-383.
40. Söderqvist T., Scharin H. The regional willingness to pay for a reduced eutrophication in the Stockholm archipelago, Beijer Discussion Paper 2000, No. 128.
41. Markowska A., Zylicz T. Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 1999, 30:301-316.
42. Turner R.K., Georgiou S., Gren I.M., Wulff F., Barrett S., Söderqvist T., Bateman I., Folke C., Langaas S., Zylicz T., Mäler K.G., Markowska A. Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic: an interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecol Econ 1999, 30:333-352.
43. Frykblom P. Halved emissions of nutrients, what are the benefits? A contingent valuation survey applied to Laholm Bay. Ph.D. Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden, 1998. Information from SEPA (2008).
44. Gren I.M., Söderqvist T., Wulff F. Nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea: ecology, costs and benefits. J EnvironManag 1997, 51:123-143.
45. Sandström M. Recreational benefits from improved water quality: a random utility model of Swedish seaside recreation, Stockholm School of Economics, Working Paper 1996, No. 121.
46. Zylicz T., Bateman I., Georgiou S., Markowska A., Dziegielewska D., Turner R.K., Graham A., Langford I. Contingent valuation of eutrophication damage in the Baltic Sea region. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 1995, 95-103.
47. Longo A., Taylor T., Petrucci M., Markandya A., Hecq W., Choquette V. Valuation of marine ecosystem threshold effects: theory and practice in relation to algal bloom in the North Sea, Report 1.4, EU Research Project, 2007.
48. Le Goffe P. The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality: a contingent appraoch. J EnvironManage 1995, 45:305-317.
49. Taylor T., Longo A. Valuing algal bloom in the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria: a choice experiments approach. J Environ Manag 2010, 91:1963-1971.
50. Knowler D., Barbier E.B., Strand I. The Effects of Pollution on Open Access Fisheries: a Case Study of the Black Sea, FEEM Working Paper 1997, No. 89.
51. Torres C.M., Riera A., Garcia D. Are preferences for water quality different for second-home owners?. Tourism Econ 2009, 15(3):629-651.
52. Alberini A., Zanatta V., Rosato P. Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice. Ecol Econ 2007, 61:530-541.
53. Kontogianni A., Langford I.H., Papandreou A., Skourtos M.S. Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour Manag 2003, 17:317-336.
54. SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Angency, Hrsg.). The economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. Existing information and gaps of knowledge, Report 5874, December 2008.
55. Söderqvist T. Why give up money for the Baltic Sea? Motives for people's willingness (or reluctance) to pay. Environ Resour Econ 1998, 12:249-254.
56. Neumann T., Schernewski G. Cost-effective versus proportional nutrient load reductions to the Baltic Sea: spatial impact analysis with a 3D-ecosystem model. Water Pollution VI, Modelling, Measuring and Prediction 2001, Wessex Institute of Technology, UK. C.A. Brebbia (Ed.).
57. Ledoux L., Turner K. Valuing ocean and coastal resources: a review of practical examples and issues for further action. Ocean Coast Manage 2002, 45:583-616.
58. Borja A., Elliott M., Carstensen J., Heiskanen A.S., van den Bund W. Marine management-towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 2010, 60:2175-2186.
59. Nielsen K., Sømod B., Ellegaard C., Krause-Jensen D. Assessing reference conditions according to the European Water Framework Directive using modelling and analysis of historical data: an example from Randers Fjord, Denmark. Ambio 2003, 32(4):287-294.
60. Gren I.M. Cost-effective nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. Managing a Sea-The Ecological Economics of the Baltic 2000, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. I.M. Gren, K. Turner, F. Wulff (Eds.).
61. Turner K., Mäler K.G., Pethig R., Wulff F., Johansson P.-O., Krysanova V., Vitkovskis R., Semeniene D., Zylicz T. The Baltic Drainage Basin Report: Summary of Final Report, 1995.