IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v7y2014icp76-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, L.
  • Provins, A.
  • Holland, M.
  • Mills, G.
  • Hayes, F.
  • Emmett, B.
  • Hall, J.
  • Sheppard, L.
  • Smith, R.
  • Sutton, M.
  • Hicks, K.
  • Ashmore, M.
  • Haines-Young, R.
  • Harper-Simmonds, L.

Abstract

Levels of reactive nitrogen (N) in the atmosphere have declined by around 25% in Europe since 1990. Ecosystem services provide a framework for valuing N impacts on the environment, and this study provides a synthesis of evidence for atmospheric N deposition effects on ecosystem services. We estimate the marginal economic value of the decline in N deposition on six ecosystem services in the UK. This decline resulted in a net benefit (Equivalent Annual Value) of £65m (£5m to £123m, 95% CI). There was a cost (loss of value) for provisioning services: timber and livestock production of −£6.2m (−£3.5m to −£9.2m, 95% CI). There was a cost for CO2 sequestration and a benefit for N2O emissions which combined amounted to a cost for greenhouse gas regulation of −£15.7m (−£4.5m to −£30.6m). However, there were benefits for the cultural services of recreational fishing and appreciation of biodiversity, which amounted to £87.7m (£13.1m to £163.0m), outweighing costs to provisioning and regulating services. Knowledge gaps in both the under-pinning science and in the value-transfer evidence prevent economic valuation of many services, particularly for cultural services, providing only a partial picture of N impacts which may underestimate the benefits of reducing N deposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, L. & Provins, A. & Holland, M. & Mills, G. & Hayes, F. & Emmett, B. & Hall, J. & Sheppard, L. & Smith, R. & Sutton, M. & Hicks, K. & Ashmore, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Harper-Simmonds, L., 2014. "A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 76-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:7:y:2014:i:c:p:76-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041613000600
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.001?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. 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.
    2. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Christie, Mike & Rayment, Matt, 2012. "An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 70-84.
    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. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    2. Taboada, Angela & García-Llamas, Paula & Fernández-Guisuraga, José Manuel & Calvo, Leonor, 2021. "Wildfires impact on ecosystem service delivery in fire-prone maritime pine-dominated forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    4. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Jones, Laurence & Milne, Alice & Hall, Jane & Mills, Gina & Provins, Allan & Christie, Michael, 2018. "Valuing Improvements in Biodiversity Due to Controls on Atmospheric Nitrogen Pollution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 358-366.
    6. Lin, Jingyu & Huang, Jinliang & Hadjikakou, Michalis & Huang, Yaling & Li, Kun & Bryan, Brett A., 2021. "Reframing water-related ecosystem services flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    2. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    3. Venn, Tyron J. & Quiggin, John C., 2006. "Accommodating Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values in Resource Assessment," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139919, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. 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.
    5. Venn, Tyron J. & Quiggin, John, 2007. "Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 334-344, March.
    6. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    7. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    8. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    9. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.
    10. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Baulcomb, Corinne & Fletcher, Ruth & Lewis, Amy & Akoglu, Ekin & Robinson, Leonie & von Almen, Amanda & Hussain, Salman & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "A pathway to identifying and valuing cultural ecosystem services: An application to marine food webs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 128-139.
    12. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    13. Isabel Mendes, 2004. "Valuing Ecosystems - A Methodological Applying Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2004/11, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    14. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    15. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    17. Masiero, Mauro & Franceschinis, Cristiano & Mattea, Stefania & Thiene, Mara & Pettenella, Davide & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 136-153.
    18. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.

    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:7:y:2014:i:c:p:76-88. 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.