A web application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 65-74

  Broekx, Steven ^a,b   Liekens, Inge ^a   Peelaerts, Wim ^a   De Nocker, Leo ^a   Landuyt, Dries ^a,b   Staes, Jan ^c   Meire, Patrick ^c   Schaafsma, Marije ^d   Van Reeth, Wouter ^e   Van den Kerckhove, Olivier ^f   Cerulus, Tanya ^g  

^a FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^e RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

^f Technum   (Belgium)

^g Flemish Government   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Ecosystem services; Environmental impact assessment; Web application

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; LAND USE; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE); WEB SERVICES; WORLD WIDE WEB;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS; INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT; LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGE; VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; WEB APPLICATION; WEB-BASED APPLICATIONS; RESTORATION PROJECT;

ECOSYSTEMS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; VALUATION; ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; COMPLEXITY; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; LAND COVER; LAND USE CHANGE; WORLD WIDE WEB; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; PROJECT ASSESSMENT;

BELGIUM; FLANDERS;

EID: 84921446287     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P, Louviere J, Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 1997;32(1):65-84.
2. Aertsens J, De Nocker L, Gobin A. Valuing the carbon sequestration potential for European agriculture. Land Use Policy 2013;31:584-94.
3. Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E. Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools - suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 2011;19(2-3):145-56.
4. Allacker K, De Nocker L. An approach for calculating the environmental external costs of the Belgian building sector. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(5):710-21.
5. André F, Ponette Q. Comparison of biomass and nutrient content between oak (Quercus petraea) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) trees in a coppice-with-standards stand in Chimay (Belgium). Ann For Sci 2003;60:489-502.
6. Anthoff D. Results from the FP6 NEEDS Project; external costs of greenhouse gas emissions; 2007.
7. Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Johnson GW, Voigt B. ARIES: artificial intelligence for ecosystemservices: a guide to models and data, version 1.0. Vermont: THE ARIES consortium; 2011.
8. Bateman IJ, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2002.
9. Bateman IJ, Georgiou S, Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and BTB. Bioscience 2006;56(4):311-25.
10. Bateman IJ, Georgina M, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resour Econ 2011a;48:177-218.
11. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, et al. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resource Econ 2011b;50(3): 365-87.
12. Bateman IJ, Abson D, Andrews B, Crowe A, Darnell A, Dugdale S, et al. Valuing changes in ecosystem services: scenario analysis. In: UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Technical Report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC; 2011c.
13. Behrendt A, Schalitz G, Müller L, Schindler U. Effects of different drain depths on nutrient leaching of lowland soils in north-east Germany. Drainage VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Drainage Symposium, Sacramento, California; 2004. p. 241-5.
14. Berger U, Hildenbrandt H, Grimm V. Age-related decline in forest production: modelling the effects of growth limitation, neighbourhood competition and self-thinning. J Ecol 2004;92(5):846-53.
15. Bickel P, Friedrich R, editors. ExternE - Externalities of Energy Methodology 2005 Update; 2005.
16. BIM. Vadecum voor wegverkeerslawaai in de stad. Brussels: BIM; 2002.
17. Borjesson P. Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden II: economic valuation. Biomass Bioenergy 1999;16:155-70.
18. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 2007;63:616-26.
19. Broekx S, Smets S, Liekens I, Bulckaen D, De Nocker L, Nocker L. Designing a long-term flood risk management plan for the Scheldt estuary using a risk-based approach. Nat Hazards 2010;57:245-66.
20. Broekx S, Meynaerts E, Wustenberghs H, D'Heygere T, De Nocker L. Setting up a cost effective programme of measures to improve surface water status in the Flemish region of Belgium with the Environmental Costing Model. In: Pulido-Velazquez M, Heinz I, Lund J, Andreu J, Ward F, Harou J, editors. Modeling the Economics, Science and Engineering of Water Management. Applications to Water Policy in the EU and beyond. Springer (Environment and Policy series); in press.
21. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 2000;32:137-52.
22. Brouwer R, Martin-Ortega J, Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ 2010;86(3):552-68.
23. Brunekreef B, Forsberg B. Epidemiological evidence of effects of coarse airborne particles on health. Eur Respir J 2005;26(2):309-18.
24. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services: a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 2009;15:1-22.
25. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 2012;21:17-29.
26. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA. Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests. Oecologia 1997;111:1-11.
27. Cashmore M. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24(4):403-26.
28. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003.
29. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N. Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 2006;58(4):850-61.
30. Cools J, Broekx S, Vandenberghe V, Sels H, Meynaerts E, Vercaemst P, et al. Coupling a hydrological water quality model and an economic optimization model to set up a cost-effective emission reduction scenario for nitrogen. Environ Model Software 2011;26:44-51.
31. Daily GC. Valuing and safeguarding Earth's life support systems. In: Postel S, Bawa K, Kaufman L, Peterson CH, Carpenter S, Tillman D, et al, editors. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997. p. 365-74.
32. Daily GC, Matson PA. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008;105:9455-6.
33. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. A typology for the classification, description, and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecol Econ 2002;41: 393-408.
34. Defra. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem service. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2007.
35. Finnveden G, Nilsson M, Johansson J, Persson Å, Moberg Å, Carlsson T. Strategic environmental assessment methodologies - applications within the energy sector. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2003;23(1):91-123.
36. Fisher B, Turner RK. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 2008;141:1167-9.
37. Fisher B, Turner RK, Burgess ND, Swetnam RD, Green J. Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Prog Phys Geogr 2011;35(5):595-611.
38. Fleischer A, Tsur Y. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. Eur Rev Agric Econ 2000;27(3):385-98.
39. Freeman III AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2003.
40. Geneletti D. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 2011;7(3):143-9.
41. Goossen CM, Langers F. Geluidbelasting in het centraal Veluws Natuurgebied: een quick scan van de geluidbelasting in het Centraal Veluws Natuurgebied in zijn geheel en in afzonderlijke delen die belangrijk zijn voor recreatie. Wageningen: Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte; 2003.
42. Gren I-M. Costs and benefits of restoring wetlands: two Swedish case studies. Ecol Eng 1995;4:153-62.
43. Haines-Young R, Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). London: European Environment Agency; 2011 [URL http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/Issue8a.pdf].
44. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 2001;15(3):435-62.
45. Hanley N, Barbier E. Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar Pub; 2009.
46. Hein L. Economic benefits generated by protected areas: the case of the Hoge Veluwe Forest, the Netherlands. Ecol Soc 2011;16(2):13.
47. Huisman W. Sound propagation over vegetation-covered ground; 1990.
48. Hytönen J, Saarsalmi A. Long-term biomass production and nutrient uptake of birch, alder and willow plantations on cut-away peatland. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:1197-211.
49. IMDC. First results in preparation of the Flemish flood risk reduction plans for the Flemish Environment Agency; 2012.
50. Jenkins WA, Murray BC, Kramer RA, Faulkner SP. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecol Econ 2010;69:1051-61.
51. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S. Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
52. Kemmers RH, Mekkink P. Omvormingsbeheer naaldbos en herstel duinroosjesvegetatie Amsterdamse Waterleidingduinen. Wageningen: Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte; 2002.
53. Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, De Groot RS, Verburg PH, Heller I, et al. Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ Manage 2009;44:1099-120.
54. Koerselman W, Meuleman FM. The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. J Appl Ecol 1996;33:1441-50.
55. Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Indic 2012;21:54-66.
56. Kuik O, Brander L, Tol RSJ. Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: a meta-analysis. Energy Policy 2009;37:1395-403.
57. Liekens I, Schaafsma M, De Nocker L, Broekx S, Staes J, Aertsens J, et al. Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 2013;30(1):549-59.
58. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JF. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
59. Maclean DA, Wein RW. Changes in understory vegetation with increasing stand age in New Brunswick forests: species composition, cover, biomass, and nutrients. Can J Bot 1977;55:2818-31.
60. Mansfield C, Pattanayak SK, McDow W, McDonalds R, Halpin P. Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J For Econ 2005;11(3): 177-99.
61. McConnell V, Walls M. The value of open space: evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2005.
62. Meersman J, De Ridder F, Canters F, Debaets S, Van Molle M. A multiple regression approach to assess the spatial distribution of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) at the regional scale (Flanders, Belgium). Geoderma 2008;143:1-13.
63. Meinke H, Nelson R, Kokic P, Stone R, Selvaraju R, Baethgen W. Actionable climate knowledge: from analysis to synthesis. Clim Res 2006;33:101-10.
64. Michiels H, Mayeres I, Int Panis L, De Nocker L, Deutsch F, Lefebvre W. PM2.5 and NOx from traffic: human health impacts, external costs and policy implications from the Belgian perspective. Transp Res D Transp Environ 2012;17(8):569-77.
65. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
66. Milne R, Brown T. Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great Britain. J Environ Manage 1997;49:413-33.
67. MIRA-T. Indicatorrapport 2008 Milieurapport Vlaanderen, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij; 2009.
68. Mirasgedis S, Hontou V, Georgopoulou E, Sarafidis Y, Gakis N, Lalas DP, et al. Environmental damage costs from airborne pollution of industrial activities in the greater Athens, Greece area and the resulting benefits from the introduction of BAT. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(1):39-56.
69. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1989.
70. Moons E, Saveyn B, Proost S, Hermy M. Optimal location of new forests in a suburban area. J For Econ 2008;14:5-27.
71. Morgan RK, Hart A, Freeman C, Coutts B, Colwill D, Hughes A. Practitioners, professional cultures, and perceptions of impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2012;32(1): 11-24.
72. Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. Practitioner perspectives on the role of science in environmental impact assessment. Environ Manage 2003;31(6):683-95.
73. Nabuurs G. Spatial distribution of whole-tree carbon stocks and fluxes across the forests of Europe: where are the options for bio-energy? Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24: 311-20.
74. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7:4-11.
75. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Green 2006;4:115-23.
76. Oosterbaan A, Tonneijck AEG, De Vries EA. Kleine landschapselementen als invangers van fijn stof en ammoniak. Wageningen: Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte; 2006.
77. Pinay G, Gumiero B, Tabacchi E, Gimenez O, Tabacchi-Planty AM, Hefting MM, et al. Patterns of denitrification rates in European alluvial soils under various hydrological regimes. Freshw Biol 2007;52:252-66.
78. Ponette Q, Ranger J, Ottorine J, Ulrich E. Aboveground biomass and nutrient content of five Douglas-fir stands in France. For Ecol Manage 2001;142:109-27.
79. Rabl A, Holland M. Environmental assessment framework for policy applications: life cycle assessment, external costs and multi-criteria analysis. J Environ Plan Manag 2008;51(1):81-105.
80. Seitzinger S, Harrison JA, Bohlke JK, Bouwman AF, Lowrance R, Peterson B, et al. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 2006;16:2064-90.
81. Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Grêt-Regamey A, Lautenbach S, et al. Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 2011;21:145-54.
82. Spadaro JV, Rabl A. Estimating the uncertainty of damage costs of pollution: a simple transparent method and typical results. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(2-3): 166-83.
83. Spadaro JV, Rabl A. Corrigendum to "Estimating the uncertainty of damage costs of pollution: A simple transparent method and typical results" [Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 166-183]. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29(1):78.
84. TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations; 2010.
85. Theebe MAJ. Planes, trains, and automobiles: the impact of traffic noise on house prices. J Real Estate Financ Econ 2004;28:209-34.
86. Tiwary A, Sinnett D, Peachey C, Chalabi Z, Vardoulakis S, Fletcher T, et al. An integrated tool to assess the role of new planting in PM10 capture and the human health benefits: a case study in London. Environ Pollut 2009;157:2645-53.
87. Tol RSJ. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 2005;33:2064-74.
88. Tol RSJ. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes, 2. The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal; 2008. p. 2008-25.
89. Turner RK, Morse-Jones S, Fisher B. Ecosystem valuation: a sequential decision support system and quality assessment issues. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010;1185(1):79-101.
90. Udo J, Janssen LHJM, Kruitwagen S. Stilte heeft zijn prijs. Economisch Stat Berichten 2006;91:14-6.
91. Uri V, Tullus H, Lohmus K. Nutrient allocation, accumulation and above-ground biomass in grey alder and hybrid alder plantations. Silva Fenn 2003;37:301-11.
92. van Grinsven HJM, Rabl A, de Kok TM. Estimation of incidence and social cost of colon cancer due to nitrate in drinking water in the EU: a tentative cost - benefit assessment. Environ Health 2010;9:58.
93. van Hees AFM. Biomassa-ontwikkeling in niet meer beheerde bossen. Ned Bosbouw Tijdchr 1997;73:2-5.
94. Zandersen M, Tol RSJ. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J For Econ 2009;15:109-30.