IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v45y2014icp359-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues and challenges in spatio-temporal application of an ecosystem services framework to UK seas

Author

Listed:
  • Hull, Steve
  • Dickie, Ian
  • Tinch, Rob
  • Saunders, Justine

Abstract

The concepts of ecosystem services and human welfare provide strong integrative frameworks that can be used to inform marine policy and management decisions that support sustainable development. A theoretical framework has been developed and applied to create a model for UK seas to measure changes in final ecosystem services, in terms of human welfare. The model that has been developed is explicitly spatial and temporal to facilitate its use in supporting marine planning decisions. The development and application of this framework to UK seas necessarily requires many assumptions to be made. The paper describes the development and population of the framework and discusses the practical limitations and challenges in seeking to develop and apply such models. Significant differences in long-term values of different services were identified under the different scenarios. All scenarios highlight the projected decline in oil and gas revenues which provide particular intense values at sites of extraction. These values are partially replaced by revenues from offshore renewables in some of the scenarios. Values associated with carbon sequestration, maritime transport, tourism and pollution assimilation are also very significant but more spatially diffuse. The study has demonstrated that it is possible to develop spatio-temporal models to evaluate changes in final ecosystem service benefits using existing data, although the approach necessarily requires many assumptions to be made.

Suggested Citation

  • Hull, Steve & Dickie, Ian & Tinch, Rob & Saunders, Justine, 2014. "Issues and challenges in spatio-temporal application of an ecosystem services framework to UK seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 359-367.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:359-367
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1300208X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.011?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. R. Turner & G. Daily, 2008. "The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(1), pages 25-35, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    3. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    4. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    5. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    6. 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.
    7. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    8. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    9. 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.
    10. Perrings, Charles, 2014. "Environment and development economics 20 years on," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 333-366, June.
    11. Rawlins, Jonathan M. & De Lange, Willem J. & Fraser, Gavin C.G., 2018. "An Ecosystem Service Value Chain Analysis Framework: A Conceptual Paper," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 84-95.
    12. Patrick POINT, 2012. "Valuation of wetland ecosystems services. Some methodological principles (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2012-19, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    13. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    14. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    15. Wainger, L. & Loomis, J. & Johnston, R. & Hansen, L. & Carlisle, D. & Lawrence, D. & Gollehon, N. & Duriancik, L. & Schwartz, G. & Ribaudo, M. & Gala, C., 2017. "Ecosystem Service Benefits Generated by Improved Water Quality from Conservation Practices," C-FARE Reports 260679, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    16. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    17. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    18. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    20. Presnall, Carrie & López-Hoffman, Laura & Miller, Marc L., 2015. "Adding ecosystem services to environmental impact analyses: More sequins on a “bloated Elvis” or rockin' idea?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 29-38.

    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:45:y:2014:i:c:p:359-367. 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.