Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Nordic Watersheds

Barton, David N.; Lindhjem, Henrik; Magnussen, Kristin; Holen, Silje

doi:10.6027/tn2012-506

Cited by 10 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first step in the evaluation procedure is to recognize and understand the ES by means of scientific and traditional knowledge (Barton et al 2012). Then the values of the ES are estimated and quantified by direct (market based) and indirect methods (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem services in Norway

Skre¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study is reviewing public reports and research articles in order to estimate and validate ecosystem services in Norway, and investigate conflicts between stakeholders representing different ecosystem services, by means of direct and indirect methods, for different main ecosystem categories,e.g. mountain ecosystems, forests,agricultural areas, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems and urban areas. The ecosystem services (ES) are based on the three main well-known categories (providing, regulating and cultural services). The provisional services in Norway include some very important ES like fish & seafood production, timber and pulp products, bioenergy and genetic resources, while the regulating services in Norway include important services like flood and landslide protection, pest and disease control in forestry and farming, carbon fixation in forests and air quality regulation. These services are also influenced by climate, pollution, urbanization and invasive species. Finally, the cultural services, like recreation & ecotourism, health and well-being, knowledge & learning and spiritual enrichment, are included. The values of the ES are estimated and quantified by direct (market based) and indirect methods (e.g. preferences).The relative importance of these ES is estimated by questionnaires and cost/benefit analysis, and administrative measures are suggested to compensate for threats and lack of sustainability. However, non-renewable resources like oil, gas and minerals are not included in the present overview. Among the ES in mountains, the value of outdoor activity as estimated from preference studies is totally dominating over the value of hunting and reindeer husbandry. Among the ES in forests the highest values are related to the health ‡ © Skre O. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. benefit from recreation, followed by the value of carbon fixation. The willingness to protect certain forests with high biodiversity is also high. Among ES from agricultural areas the provisional services (food and food processing) are dominating, while in freshwater ecosystems the value of wild salmon fishing measured by payment willingness, is dominating over the willingness to pay for improved water quality. Finally, the most important ES in Norway in monetary terms are found in marine ecosystems. Among the urban ES, the value of outdoor recreation and improved air quality represent the highest values. The most frequent conflicts in Norway are probably those dealing with energy production (windmills, hydropower production, oil drilling) and sea farming vs. biodiversity and recreation, between mass tourism and nature conservation and between sheep farming and conservation of big predators like wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem services in Norway

Skre¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the project VALUESHEDS ("Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Nordic Watersheds" by Barton et al 2012) and several other projects concerning ecosystem services in the Nordic countries, emphasis has been on describing and mapping the ecosystem services provided by different ecosystems. Now there is a need to further explore how to apply the concept and valuation of ecosystem services in practical water resources management.…”

Section: Magnus Cederlöf Chairman Of the Working Group On Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main contribution of this report is to provide examples on how the ES framework has been used in a Nordic WFD-context. While the VALUESHEDS report (Barton et al 2012) mainly discussed basic methodological and principal issues, this report will focus on the practical issues and provide examples. We will not provide a complete overview of Nordic studies of ecosystem services, or valuation of ecosystem services, as such an overview was given in Barton et al (2012).…”

Section: Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the VALUESHEDS report (Barton et al 2012) mainly discussed basic methodological and principal issues, this report will focus on the practical issues and provide examples. We will not provide a complete overview of Nordic studies of ecosystem services, or valuation of ecosystem services, as such an overview was given in Barton et al (2012). The approach in this report is to pick examples in order to demonstrate uses in different countries and with different purposes, hoping that they may inspire and potentially be useful for managers in the Nordic countries.…”

Section: Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the project VALUESHEDS ("Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Nordic Watersheds" by Barton, Lindhjem, Magnussen and Holen 2012) and several other projects concerning ecosystem services (ES) in the Nordic countries, emphasis has been on describing and mapping the ecosystem services different ecosystems provide (e.g. watersheds in VALUESHEDS; freshwater ecosystem services in Maes et al 2012; or all ecosystems in the Nordic TEEB 3 (Kettunen et al 2013) and the TEEBS for separate countries (NOU 2013:10 for Norway, SOU 2013:68 for Sweden, the ongoing Finnish and Danish processes).…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations