Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors

Abstract

Many marine ecosystems are under increasing pressure from multiple stressors. In the Baltic Sea, these stressors include oil and chemical spills from shipping, nutrient run-off from land and the introduction of non-indigenous species. All of these pressures have been growing over recent years. Increasing pressures lead to reductions in environmental quality, which produce negative effects on human well-being. In this paper, the choice experiment method is used to estimate the benefits to people in Estonia resulting from reductions in pressure from multiple stressors in the Baltic Sea. The main results show that, firstly, respondents have a positive, statistically-significant willingness to pay to reduce each of the three stressors analysed. Secondly, the average willingness to pay for the improvement in the quality of all Estonian marine waters to achieve Good Environmental Status is around 65 euro per household per year, with a 95% confidence interval of 48-77 euro. Thirdly, the greatest share of value of this total economic benefit is derived from the willingness to pay for reductions in the risk of large scale oil and chemical spills.

Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management

“…Numerous studies have evaluated the WTP for improving the quality of water bodies (e.g., García-Llorente et al, 2012;Doherty et al, 2014;Ahtiainen et al, 2013, Hanley at al., 2015, Tuhkanen et al, 2016, Pakalniete et al, 2017. Considering the poor chemical and ecological state of the Oka river estuary and the Gernika aquifer (Gobierno Vasco, 2004), which also affect bathing waters, high WTP for improving water quality comes as no surprise.…”

The cost of degradation of the Dutch North Sea environment : a study into the costs of avoiding degradation and the applicability of the Ecosystem Services approach

“…Which ecosystem state provides which services, and which pressures impact the states and the potential underlying ecosystem services). In ecosystem approach studies to determine the costs of degradation studies (Pakalniete et al, 2013;Tuhkanen et al, 2015) the link between the ecosystem state and the provided services is not known.…”

“…For each study is indicated to which GES descriptor the study is related. Three studies focus explicitly on all main concerns with respect to reaching GES in a country, the Latvian study (Pakalniete et al, 2013), the Estonian study (Tuhkanen et al, 2015) and the UK study (HMGovernment, 2012a;2012b). These studies are explained in a bit more detail in this paragraph.…”

“…The other valuation studies carried out are related to achieving the GES status for one or more GES descriptors. Tuhkanen et al (2015) estimated the economic benefits of achieving GES levels in the Estonian study in terms of reduction of the following three main concerns with respect to the Estonian waters: i) the risk of oil and chemical spills (cases of large-scale pollution of marine waters and probability that pollution reaches the shore), ii) water quality (nutrient pollution) and, iii) invasive species. An average Estonian household would be willing to pay €65 per year to reach GES in the Estonian Marine Waters, 26% can be attributed to large-scale oil spills, 30% to the reduction in the probability that in the case of a spill pollution will reach the shore, 27% to the improvement in water quality and 16% to the reduction of the risk of introducing new non-indigenous species.…”

“…Defined like this, it is possible to apply an ecosystem services type approach, without mentioning anything about ecosystem services (see for example Pakalniete et al, 2013 andTuhkanen et al, 2015). But the objective of the ecosystem services approach is to calculate the costs of degradation in terms of the difference in the value of the ecosystem services between GES and BAU.…”