IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v43y2014icp307-312.html

Cost-benefit analysis in the context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: The case of Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Bertram, Christine
  • Dworak, Thomas
  • Görlitz, Stefan
  • Interwies, Eduard
  • Rehdanz, Katrin

Abstract

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU member states (MS) to develop and implement marine strategies containing programs of measures to protect and preserve the marine environment. Prior to their implementation, impact assessments, including Cost-Benefit-Analyses (CBA), need to be carried out. While the costs of introducing such measures are often relatively easy to determine, the economic valuation of the benefits derived from environmental improvements is much more challenging, particularly in the marine context. Still, it remains an important prerequisite for conducting CBA. The aim of this paper is to evaluate to what extent benefits can be quantified for use in CBA focusing on the German marine waters. The results indicate that there are still considerable gaps in the scientific knowledge about many of the pressures mentioned in the MSFD. Moreover, few economic studies exist that evaluate the benefits of marine protection measures, and many of them are not applicable in the German context. In addition, there is the risk that some benefits accruing from marine protection measures are systematically omitted in CBA. This raises the question to what extent comprehensive CBAs as required by the MSFD are possible in Germany, but also in other EU MS.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertram, Christine & Dworak, Thomas & Görlitz, Stefan & Interwies, Eduard & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2014. "Cost-benefit analysis in the context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: The case of Germany," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 307-312.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:307-312
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13001437
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.016?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    2. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 25-40.
    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. Basurko, Oihane C. & Gabiña, Gorka & Andrés, Marga & Rubio, Anna & Uriarte, Ainhize & Krug, Iñigo, 2015. "Fishing for floating marine litter in SE Bay of Biscay: Review and feasibility study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 103-112.
    2. Khedr, Salma & Rehdanz, Katrin & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter & Dijkstra, Hanna & Duijndam, Sem & Okoli, Ikechukwu C., 2023. "Public preferences for marine plastic litter management across Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    3. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    4. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    5. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    6. Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & White, Mathew P. & Hattam, Caroline & Lannin, Aisling & Harvey, Andrea & Spencer, Anne, 2016. "Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in the marine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 144-152.
    7. Börger, Tobias & Beaumont, Nicola J. & Pendleton, Linwood & Boyle, Kevin J. & Cooper, Philip & Fletcher, Stephen & Haab, Tim & Hanemann, Michael & Hooper, Tara L. & Hussain, S. Salman & Portela, Rosim, 2014. "Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-170.

    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. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    3. Ilde Rizzo & Anna Mignosa (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14326.
    4. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    5. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Benno Torgler & Bruno S. Frey & Clevo Wilson, 2007. "Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence from 30 Countries," Working Papers 2007.84, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    8. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    9. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    10. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    11. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    12. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    15. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Rikke Søgaard & Jes Lindholt & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 397-405, November.
    17. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    18. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.
    19. Leonardo Becchetti & Furio Camillo Rosati, 2007. "Global Social Preferences and the Demand for Socially Responsible Products: Empirical Evidence from a Pilot Study on Fair Trade Consumers," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 807-836, May.
    20. Kaczmarski, Jesse I., 2022. "Public support for community microgrid services," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:marpol:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:307-312. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    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.