The economic benefits of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Finnish marine waters of the Baltic Sea

Marine Policy

Volumn 99, Issue , 2019, Pages 181-189

  Nieminen, Emmi ^a   Ahtiainen, Heini ^b,d   Lagerkvist, Carl Johan ^c   Oinonen, Soile ^a  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b Helsinki Commission   (Finland)

^c SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^d FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Baltic Sea; Contingent valuation; Cost of degradation; Ecosystem services; Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD); Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT; EUTROPHICATION; MARINE POLICY; STRATEGIC APPROACH; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; BALTIC SEA; FINLAND;

EID: 85055914409     PISSN: 0308597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Börger, T., Beaumont, N.J., Pendleton, L., Boyle, K.J., Cooper, P., Fletcher, S., et al. Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: the role of valuation. Mar. Policy 46 (2014), 161–170.
2. Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Patterson, D., Jobstvogt, N., Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: is it currently fit for purpose?. J. Ocean Coast. Econ., 2, 2015, 1.
3. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (2008), 948–952.
4. Mulazzani, L., Malorgio, G., Blue growth and ecosystem services. Mar. Policy 85 (2017), 17–24.
5. Lillebø A.I., Pita, C., Garcia Rodrigues, J., Ramos, S., Villasante, S., How can marine ecosystem services support the Blue Growth agenda?. Mar. Policy 81 (2017), 132–142.
6. Lai, T.-Y., Salminen, J., Jäppinen, J.-P., Koljonen, S., Mononen, L., Nieminen, E., et al. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland. Ecol. Model. 377 (2018), 51–65.
7. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Hanley, N., Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 19 (2001), 103–118.
9. Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., Huhtala, A., et al. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea – a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. J. Environ. Econ. Policy, 2014, 1–28.
10. Hyytiäinen, K., Ahlvik, L., Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Huhtala, A., Dahlbo, K., Policy goals for improved water quality in the Baltic Sea: when do the benefits outweigh the costs?. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2015, 1–25.
11. Czajkowski, M., Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Budziński, W., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., et al. Valuing the commons: an international study on the recreational benefits of the Baltic Sea. J. Environ. Manag. 156 (2015), 209–217.
12. Kosenius, A.-K., Ollikainen, M., Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—a three-country choice experiment. Mar. Policy 58 (2015), 15–27.
13. Kosenius, A.K., Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 528–538.
14. Östberg, K., Hasselström, L., Håkansson, C., Non-market valuation of the coastal environment – uniting political aims, ecological and economic knowledge. J. Environ. Manag. 110 (2012), 166–178.
15. Bertram, C., Dworak, T., Görlitz, S., Interwies, E., Rehdanz, K., Cost-benefit analysis in the context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: the case of Germany. Mar. Policy 43 (2014), 307–312.
16. European Commission, Background document summarising experiences with respect to economic analysis to support member states with the development of their programme of measures for the marine strategy framework directive. European Commission DG Environment. 2015.
17. Kontogianni, A., Tourkolias, C., Damigos, D., Skourtos, M., Zanou, B., Modeling expert judgment to assess cost-effectiveness of EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive programs of measures. Mar. Policy 62 (2015), 203–212.
18. Oinonen, S., Hyytiäinen, K., Ahlvik, L., Laamanen, M., Lehtoranta, V., Salojärvi, J., et al. Cost-effective marine protection - a pragmatic approach. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0147085.
19. Borja, A., Elliott, M., Andersen, J.H., Cardoso, A.C., Carstensen, J., Ferreira, J.G., et al. Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: what is it and how do we know when we have attained it?. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 76 (2013), 16–27.
20. Hattam, C., Atkins, J.P., Beaumont, N., Bӧrger, T., Bӧhnke-Henrichs, A., Burdon, D., et al. Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification. Ecol. Indic. 49 (2015), 61–75.
21. Hasler, B., Ahtiainen, H., Hasselström, L., Heiskanen, A.-S., Soutukorva, Å., Martinsen, L., Marine Ecosystem Services: Marine Ecosystem Services in Nordic Marine Waters and the Baltic Sea – Possibilities for Valuation. 2016, Nordisk Ministerråd, Copenhagen.
22. Broszeit, S., Beaumont, N.J., Uyarra, M.C., Heiskanen, A.-S., Frost, M., Somerfield, P.J., et al. What can indicators of good environmental status tell us about ecosystem services?: reducing efforts and increasing cost-effectiveness by reapplying biodiversity indicator data. Ecol. Indic. 81 (2017), 409–442.
23. Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 35 (2011), 575–594.
24. Drakou, E.G., Kermagoret, C., Liquete, C., Ruiz-Frau, A., Burkhard, K., Lillebø A.I., et al. Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies. International. J. Biodivers. Sci., Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13 (2017), 51–67.
25. Norton, D., Hynes, S., Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecosyst. Serv. 10 (2014), 84–96.
26. Tuhkanen, H., Piirsalu, E., Nõmmann, T., Karlõševa, A., Nõmmann, S., Czajkowski, M., et al. Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552 (2016), 367–375.
27. Pakalniete, K., Aigars, J., Czajkowski, M., Strake, S., Zawojska, E., Hanley, N., Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 584–585 (2017), 29–40.
28. Sagebiel, J., Schwartz, C., Rhozyel, M., Rajmis, S., Hirschfeld, J., Economic valuation of Baltic marine ecosystem services: blind spots and limited consistency. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73 (2016), 991–1003.
29. Primmer, E., Saarikoski, H., Vatn, A., An empirical analysis of institutional demand for valuation knowledge. Ecol. Econ. 152 (2018), 152–160.
30. Börger, T., Broszeit, S., Ahtiainen, H., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Luisetti, T., et al. Assessing costs and benefits of measures to achieve Good Environmental Status in European regional seas: challenges, opportunities, and lessons learnt. Front. Mar. Sci., 3, 2016, 192.
31. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics, 2005, 821–936.
32. Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A., et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4 (2017), 319–405.
33. Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., DelMistro, R., Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 39 (2003), 229–244.
34. Ben-Akiva, M., Gershenfeld, S., Multi-featured products and services: analysing pricing and bundling strategies. J. Forecast. 17 (1998), 175–196.
35. Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Hattam, C., Piwowarczyk, J., Schasfoort, F., Austen, M.C., The role of interdisciplinary collaboration for stated preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services. Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci. 201 (2018), 140–151.
36. Boyle, K.J., Morrison, M., MacDonald, D.H., Duncan, R., Rose, J., Investigating internet and mail implementation of stated-preference surveys while controlling for differences in sample frames. Environ. Resour. Econ. 64 (2016), 401–419.
37. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1628–1637.
38. Hoehn, J.P., Lupi, F., Kaplowitz, M.D., Stated choice experiments with complex ecosystem changes: the effect of information formats on estimated variances and choice parameters. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 35 (2010), 568–590.
39. Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D., Breffle, W.S., A test for payment card biases. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 31 (1996), 178–185.
40. Anderson, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Elisabet, R.E., Valuation using multiple price list formats. Appl. Econ. 39 (2007), 675–682.
41. Vossler, C.A., Holladay, J.S., Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: mechanism design and convergent validity. J. Public Econ. 165 (2018), 133–145.
42. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., List, J.A., Consequentiality: a theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1 (2014), 171–207.
43. Carson, R., Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. 2012, Edward Elgar Publishing.
44. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (2007), 181–210.
45. Guagnano, G.A., Altruism and market-Like behavior: an analysis of willingness to pay for recycled paper products. Popul. Environ. 22 (2001), 425–438.
46. Kumakawa, T., Altruism and willingness to pay for environmental goods: a contingent valuation study. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot., 5(6), 2017.
47. Husted, B.W., Russo, M.V., Meza, C.E.B., Tilleman, S.G., An exploratory study of environmental attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico. J. Bus. Res. 67 (2014), 891–899.
48. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1989, Rff Press.
49. Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar. Policy 38 (2013), 25–40.
50. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 643–653.
51. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. 2015, Springer.
52. HELCOM. State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011–2016. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 155. 〈www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic-assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials/〉.