Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Costs and benefits associated with marine oil spill prevention in northern Norway
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering. Anthesis Enveco AB, Sverige. (SEED)
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Environmental Strategies Research (fms). (SEED)
Kemikalieinspektionen.
Enveco.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: The Polar Journal, ISSN 2154-896X, E-ISSN 2154-8978, Vol. 7, no 1, p. 165-180Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this study is to analyse conflicts regarding natural resources and ecosystem services involving different stakeholder groups using cost–benefit analysis (CBA). The paper is formed around a specific case study in Lofoten–Vesterålen in northern Norway, investigating costs and benefits of decreasing the probability of a major oil spill from shipping in the area. Benefits of decreasing the probability of a spill are far greater than costs, which means that measures to improve maritime safety would be economically profitable for society. Figures showing the effects of the impacts on fisheries and tourism sectors indicate that, compared to the total value for society, the market values of decreasing the probability of a spill are very small. On the other hand, non-market values associated with the protection of ecosystem services are of a much greater magnitude. These results suggest that the neglecting of non-market ecosystem service values in economic assessments for the Arctic may cause a biased picture of costs and benefits associated with measures to prevent environmental degradation. When feeding into decisions, such assessments may lead to too little preventive action from an economic perspective.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2017. Vol. 7, no 1, p. 165-180
Keywords [en]
Cost–benefit analysis, ecosystem services, Arctic, non-use values, oil spill, natural resource conflict
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-218736DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2017.1310491Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85017207515OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-218736DiVA, id: diva2:1161445
Note

QC 20171130

Available from: 2017-11-30 Created: 2017-11-30 Last updated: 2017-11-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hasselström, LinusHåkansson, Cecilia
By organisation
Water and Environmental EngineeringEnvironmental Strategies Research (fms)
In the same journal
The Polar Journal
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 58 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf