Marine trade-offs: comparing the benefits of off-shore wind farms and marine protected areas

The drive to increase renewable electricity production in many parts of Europe has led to an increasing concentration of new wind energy sites at sea. This results in a range of environmental impacts which should be taken into account in a benefit–cost analysis of such proposals. In this paper, we use choice modelling to investigate the relative gains and losses from siting new windfarms off the coast of Estonia, relative to the option of creating a new marine protected area. We find that, while respondents are generally opposed to converting marine shoals to conventional wind farms and prefer the establishment of marine protected areas instead, benefits from constructing ‘environmentally-friendly’ wind farms – an alternative program which is also considered by the government – are not statistically different with respect to consumers' welfare to those associated with creating a new marine protected area. Methodologically, the paper makes a contribution by showing the ability of the latent class mixed logit model to represent both within-and between-class preference heterogeneity, and thus its power to provide a more sophisticated representation of preference heterogeneity than stand-alone latent class or mixed logit approaches. The paper is also presents the first use of the latent class mixed logit model in willingness-to-pay space for environmental goods.PostprintPeer reviewe

Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors

This study was carried out as a part of the GES-REG project (Good Environmental Status through REGional coordination and capacity building), funded by Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007–2013, co-funded by the Environmental Investment Centre of Estonia. MC gratefully acknowledges the support of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Foundation for Polish Science. NH thanks MASTS (www.masts.ac.uk) for funding part of his work.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.PostprintPeer reviewe

A study of People’s Preferences of the Environmental Status of Lake Harku and the Benefits Offered by the Lake and Its Surrounding

The article examines the demand of people for the improvement of the condition Lake Harku. Lake Harku is located in a densely populated area on the border of the city of Tallinn and it is in a poor state as a water body according to the EU classification. Two stated preference methods, contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiment (CE), were used for assessing the monetary value people place on the improvement of the ecosystem services of the lake as non-market environmental goods. The results of the work confirmed there is significant willingness to pay for the improvement of the condition of the water body. From a methodological point of view, an important finding is that the CV method yielded lower result than the estimated payment option of the CE

Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors

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

Arctic Freshwater Natural Capital in the Nordic Countries

Current indicators of economic growth (e.g., GDP) do not adequately consider sustainability, while environmental indicators alone fail to acknowledge the economic needs of a society. Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) can be the tool that fills the gap separating current economic and environmental indicators. Development of NCA has progressed considerably and is being widely deployed in the Nordic countries, but development and deployment remain uneven. This report provides background on NCA and its associated accounting frameworks, demonstrates the applicability of NCA for sustainably utilizing freshwater resources in the Nordic Arctic and provides recommendations for maximizing the value of environmental accounting as an economic, environmental, and sustainable development tool

Farmers’ preferences for nutrient and climate-related agri-environmental schemes: A cross-country comparison

201