IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v8y2014icp65-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application

Author

Listed:
  • Hooper, Tara
  • Cooper, Philip
  • Hunt, Alistair
  • Austen, Melanie

Abstract

Local-scale planning decisions are required by the existing Environmental Impact Assessment process to take account of the implications of a development on a range of environmental and social factors, and could therefore be supported by an ecosystem services approach. However, empirical assessments at a local scale within the marine environment have focused on only a single or limited set of services. This paper tests the applicability of the ecosystem services approach to environmental impact appraisal by considering how the identification and quantification of a comprehensive suite of benefits provided at a local scale might proceed in practice. A methodology for conducting an Environmental Benefits Assessment (EBA) is proposed, the underlying framework for which follows the recent literature by placing the emphasis on ecosystem benefits, as opposed to services. The EBA methodology also proposes metrics that can be quantified at local scale, and is tested using a case study of a hypothetical tidal barrage development in the Taw Torridge estuary in North Devon, UK. By suggesting some practical steps for assessing environmental benefits, this study aims to stimulate discussion and so advance the development of methods for implementing ecosystem service approaches at a local scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:8:y:2014:i:c:p:65-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.02.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614000163
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.02.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward B. Barbier, 1994. "Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 155-173.
    2. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    3. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    4. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    5. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    6. Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie, 2013. "Tidal barrages in the UK: Ecological and social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 289-298.
    7. Pittock, J. & Cork, S. & Maynard, S., 2012. "The state of the application of ecosystems services in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 111-120.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susana Lincoln & Paul Buckley & Ella L. Howes & Katherine M. Maltby & John K. Pinnegar & Thamer S. Ali & Yousef Alosairi & Alanoud Al-Ragum & Alastair Baglee & Chiden Oseo Balmes & Radhouane Ben Hamad, 2021. "A Regional Review of Marine and Coastal Impacts of Climate Change on the ROPME Sea Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-34, December.
    2. Hooper, Tara & Börger, Tobias & Langmead, Olivia & Marcone, Oceane & Rees, Siân E & Rendon, Olivia & Beaumont, Nicola & Attrill, Martin J. & Austen, Melanie, 2019. "Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Holland, Robert A. & Scott, Kate & Hinton, Emma D. & Austen, Melanie C. & Barrett, John & Beaumont, Nicola & Blaber-Wegg, Tina & Brown, Gareth & Carter-Silk, Eleanor & Cazenave, Pierre & Eigenbrod, Fe, 2016. "Bridging the gap between energy and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 181-189.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    2. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    3. Ho¨lzinger, Oliver & Horst, Dan van der & Sadler, Jon, 2014. "City-wide Ecosystem Assessments—Lessons from Birmingham," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 98-105.
    4. Arantza Murillas‐Maza & Jorge Virto & María Carmen Gallastegui & Pilar González & Javier Fernández‐Macho, 2011. "The value of open ocean ecosystems: A case study for the Spanish exclusive economic zone," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(2), pages 122-133, May.
    5. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    6. Turpie, J.K. & Forsythe, K.J. & Knowles, A. & Blignaut, J. & Letley, G., 2017. "Mapping and valuation of South Africa's ecosystem services: A local perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 179-192.
    7. Garcia, X. & Pargament, D., 2015. "Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 154-166.
    8. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    9. Kragt, Marit E. & Robertson, Michael J., 2014. "Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-157.
    10. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    11. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    12. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    13. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    15. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    16. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    17. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    19. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2009. "First-movers, non-movers, and social gains from subsidising entry in markets for nature-based recreational goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2363-2371, June.
    20. Villamagna, Amy M. & Angermeier, Paul L. & Niazi, Nicholas, 2014. "Evaluating opportunities to enhance ecosystem services in public use areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 167-176.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:8:y:2014:i:c:p:65-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.