A frequent justification in the literature for using stated preference methods (SP) is that they are the only methods that can capture the so-called total economic value (TEV) of environmental changes to society. Based on follow-up interviews with SP survey respondents, this paper addresses the implications of that argument by shedding light on the construction of TEV, through respondents' perspective. It illuminates the deficiencies of willingness to pay (WTP) as a measure of value presented as three aggregated themes considering respondents' unintentionality, their retraction once they understood that their WTP could be decisive in cost-benefit analysis and the inherent incompleteness of WTP. We discuss why the TEV discourse persists, how it conceals rather than reveals broader notions of value and in what ways our results support the development of alternative approaches that truly endorse plurality in environmental valuation and decision-making.

Det av Trafikverket finansierade forskningsprojektet Samhällsekonomisk värdering av intrång i natur- och kulturmiljöer (SVING) (TrV 2022/11023) syftar bland annat till att visa hur ekosystemtjänster (EST) kan analyseras i de samhällsekonomiska analyserna (SEA) i Trafikverkets samlade effektbedömningar (SEB) av investeringsåtgärder avseende vägar och järnvägar. Att arbeta med ekosystemtjänster är ett vetenskapligt vedertaget sätt att undersöka hur de ekologiska systemen bidrar till människors välfärd. Ekosystemtjänster har under de senaste decennierna vidare blivit ett etablerat koncept i internationell och nationell miljöpolitik.

Ekosystemtjänster kan åtminstone delvis hanteras på liknande sätt i SEA och miljöbedömningar. SVING har därför undersökt hur arbetet med ekosystemtjänster ser ut i nuläget inom både SEA/SEB och miljöbedömningar genom att gå igenom centrala dokument utgivna av Trafikverket samt intervjua experter vid Trafikverket. Undersökningens syften är närmare bestämt:

1.       Att gruppera ekosystemtjänster på ett sätt som kan vara operationellt vid bedömningar av åtgärder

2.      Att utreda hur ekosystemtjänster i nuläget hanteras i SEA i SEB:ar respektive i miljöbedömningar av åtgärder

3.      Förklara varför en EST-ansats är användbar i en SEA

4.      Diskutera hur arbetet med EST skulle kunna effektiviseras genom samverkan mellan SEA/SEB och miljöbedömningar

Undersökningens resultat redovisas i denna delrapport. I delrapporten presenteras en EST-grundlista som tagits fram utifrån Naturvårdsverkets gällande EST-förteckning, som i sin tur är baserad på The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), som är en internationellt vedertagen EST-förteckning. SVING:s EST-grundlista grupperar ekosystemtjänsterna på ett sätt som syftar till att vara överskådligt och operationellt vid bedömningar av väg- och järnvägsprojekt.

Ekosystemtjänster har definierats och klassificerats på ett sätt som syftar till att ge en heltäckande bild av hur de ekologiska systemen bidrar till människors välfärd. EST-ramverk som CICES är därför per definition anpassade efter samhällsekonomiska analyser, eftersom dessa syftar till att undersöka hur ett projekt påverkar den samlade välfärden i samhället, inklusive de samhällsekonomiska konsekvenserna av projektets påverkan på naturen och dess ekologiska system.

När det gäller hur EST i nuläget hanteras i SEA i SEB kan konstateras att ekosystemtjänster inte nämns som begrepp i den så kallade ASEK-rapporten. ASEK står för Analysmetod och samhällsekonomiska kalkylvärden för transportsektorn, och ASEK-rapporten beskriver hur SEA inom transportsektorn bör göras. Ekosystemtjänster behandlas dock indirekt i ASEK-rapporten, främst genom de olika ”miljöeffekter” som beskrivs i rapporten. Vidare fångar ASEK-rapportens monetära kalkylvärden i några enstaka fall in vissa ekosystemtjänster. ASEK-rapporten konstaterar att samhällsekonomiskt relevanta effekter på naturen dock generellt är problematiska att uttrycka i monetära termer och därför i många fall istället måste beskrivas verbalt och bedömas kvalitativt. Hur sådant bör ske beskrivs mer i detaljnivå i en särskild rapport om ”ej beräknade effekter” i SEA. Noteras bör att ASEK-rapporten är överordnad rapporten om ”ej beräknade effekter i SEA”, likväl, till skillnad från ASEK-rapporten nämns ekosystemtjänster i rapporten om ”ej beräknade effekter i SEA”. De hanteras dock inte systematiskt. Däremot ingår många olika effekter som direkt eller indirekt kopplar till en eller flera EST i SVING:s EST-grundlista. Vi konstaterar att detta medför en risk att ekosystemtjänster dubbelräknas om man försöker tvinga in EST i de givna effektkategorierna i SEA/SEB, men framför allt finns det en överhängande risk för att vissa EST inte inkluderas eller helt enkelt glöms bort i en SEA och därmed i en SEB.

När det gäller miljöbedömningar är Trafikverkets arbete med ekosystemtjänster något mer utvecklat än för SEA/SEB, åtminstone när det gäller miljöbedömningar inom ramen för planläggningsprocessen för väg- och järnvägsprojekt. Ekosystemtjänster finns nämligen med i Trafikverkets vägledning för miljöbedömning, inte i form av en förteckning, men däremot genom en rad exemplifieringar som gäller hur ekosystemtjänster kan inkluderas under olika rubriker i miljökonsekvensbeskrivningen (MKB:n). Vägledningen nämner att ett alternativ till en sådan inkludering är att ha en samlad redovisning av effekter på ekosystemtjänster. Oavsett sättet att ta upp ekosystemtjänster är det en grannlaga uppgift att undvika dubbelredovisning av en och samma konsekvens. Det ska även observeras att till skillnad från en SEA har en miljöbedömning inte som slutmål att göra en samhällsekonomisk bedömning. Konsekvenser för människors välbefinnande kan i högsta grad vara relevanta för miljöbedömningen, men sättet att värdera dessa konsekvenser i en miljöbedömning följer inte nödvändigtvis samhällsekonomiska principer. Miljöbedömningen behandlar även andra typer av konsekvenser och värderar dem utifrån ett flertal olika bedömningsgrunder, exempelvis olika normer, preciserade mål, riktvärden och myndighetsrekommendationer. Att arbete med ekosystemtjänster kommit längre i miljöbedömningar jämfört med SEA/SEB illustreras av EST-analysen i MKB:n för Ny järnväg Göteborg-Borås, där de flesta EST-klasserna i SVING:s EST-grundlista är representerade i de i MKB:n beskrivna ekosystemtjänsterna. Det sker dock ingen kvantitativ bedömning av konsekvenserna för ekosystemtjänsterna, utan enbart en kvalitativ sådan. Fallet Ny järnväg Göteborg-Borås illustrerar också hur ekosystemtjänster har inkluderats i en hållbarhetsbedömning.

Utifrån undersökningens resultat och slutsatser har ett antal rekommendationer formulerats som har med EST-ansatsen att göra i relation till SEA, SEB och miljöbedömningar. 

A frequent justification in the literature for using stated preference methods (SP) is that they are the only methods that can capture the so-called total economic value (TEV) of environmental changes to society. Based on follow-up interviews with SP survey respondents, this paper addresses the implications of that argument by shedding light on the construction of TEV, through respondents’ perspective. It illuminates the deficiencies of willingness to pay (WTP) as a measure of value, presented as three aggregated themes considering respondents’ unintentionality, their retraction once they understood that their WTP could be decisive in cost-benefit analysis and the inherent incompleteness of WTP. We discuss why the TEV discourse persists, how it conceals rather than reveals broader notions of value and in what ways our results support the development of alternative approaches that truly endorse plurality in environmental valuation and decision making.

Systematic literature syntheses are a key element in the scientific realm, considering the steadily growing amount of available knowledge. Involving stakeholders in the research process brings a wide range of advantages, like broadening the perspectives on the problem in question, increasing the relevance of results for policy- and decision-making, the public and other end-users and thus enhancing the impact and acceptance of research. While participatory approaches are on the rise, reflections on stakeholder involvement in systematic syntheses on environmental management are scarce. We reflect on the process of involving stakeholders with expertise also from outside academia during three literature syntheses with different foci of marine and coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Our analysis is based on notes, e-mails, minutes and recordings of internal project meetings, interviews and workshops involving both researchers and stakeholders. We discuss the challenges the participatory approach introduced and develop lessons learned to support the planning of stakeholder engagement for future literature syntheses. We conclude that stakeholder identification, communication, collaboration and knowledge translation are highly time- and resource-intensive processes. Furthermore, appropriate training and experience are necessary for the design, execution and evaluation of participatory methods tailored to each project stage. Therefore, we underline the importance of adequate consideration of the required resources during project planning and implementation. To encourage and support valuable stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange between the research community and actors of policy and practice, more appreciation of such efforts by funding institutions and within the wider scientific community is needed.

The marine and coastal ecosystems of the Baltic Sea are exposed to an intensifi[1]cation and diversification of anthropogenic activities and related environmental pressures. Human interest in marine resources and space often overlap with environmental protection objectives, causing conflicts. Research can assist capacity building to enable knowledge-based decision-making in marine management and policy to help solve these issues. Three participatory systematic maps were carried out on marine and coastal ecosystem services (ES), monetary and non-monetary valuation methods applied to value them, and the interrelation of ES and human health and well-being in the Baltic Sea region. Policy advisors were engaged throughout the review process. The aim was to map existing scientific knowledge and identify knowledge gaps for the scientific communityand to support the implementation and update of the key marine protectionpolicies in the region. This chapter introduces the review methodology, providesan overview of knowledge gaps and missing links in ES research, and addressesfuture steps to connect the dots.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is one of the major areas of growth in consumption seen over the last two decades. The falling prices of ICT and increasing energy efficiency of ICT may lead to reduced spending on ICT and electricity in the future. However, lower spending in one area can trigger higher spending elsewhere, leading to 'rebound effects' which can reduce or even cancel out the environmental benefits associated with lower consumption of a given product or service, and reducing the efficacy of environmental policy. In this study we use Multi-Regional Input Output analysis to investigate trends in the consumption of, and environmental and social impacts associated with la products in Sweden and the EU. We find that ICT spending is linked to prosperity, with a clear fall as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, but a recovery since. There is some evidence that the environmental impact associated with ICE has begun to decouple from consumption in Sweden, but not at an EU level. Environmental rebound effects associated with reduced ICT consumption are strong close to, and in most cases far above 100% (so called backfire effects). This backfire effect is strongest for energy use and total material footprint, which are both close to 200% in Sweden. This means that an increased spending on ICE products and services while keeping the overall consumption level constant, would decrease environmental impacts. Environmental rebound effects are much lower for reduced energy spending (as low as 2 percent), particularly at an EU level. Rebound effects in social indicators are assessed for the first time for 10' products. We find that value added in the EU is relatively insensitive to changes in spending patterns related to ICT and energy (rebound effects similar to 100%), however rebound effects in employment are seen, particularly resulting from decreased energy spending. At an EU level, reallocation of spending resulting from lower energy consumption results in a net increase in employment, while in Sweden the reverse is true. We conclude that policies focused on reducing energy spending are likely to have a greater overall environmental effect than measures which result in reduced consumer spending on ICT. However, in light of the conflicting social rebound effects at an EU and Swedish level, the importance of understanding the broader consequences of policy decision across a broad range of measures in advance of their implementation is once again highlighted.

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.

Changes in the Arctic are fuelled by a variety of drivers, including global warming, economic growth, improved access to natural resources, technological advances and globalisation processes. Further, the region is characterised by a diverse set of international agreements, national legislations and common pool resources. This presents challenges for actors to suggest, evaluate and agree on sustainable development alternatives. We propose an analytical framework to better understand (1) the types of trade-offs associated with Arctic futures and (2) actors’ incentives for strategic behaviour. In the framework, game theory illuminates incentives and strategies among actors, cost-benefit analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services help identify socially desirable outcomes and institutional analysis provides insight on how governance structures can support or interfere with policy intervention. We apply the proposed framework by analysing possible oil development futures for Lofoten in Northern Norway. For example, institutional analysis and estimates of costs and benefits of reducing oil spill risk and their distribution among actors are used for discussing incentive structures, including the use of side payments as a mechanism to mitigate conflicting interests. 

There is a societal need for using monetary estimates of social impacts of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in different assessment tools, such as cost-benefit analysis and life-cycle assessment. A number of estimates are available in the literature. Since these differ by several orders of magnitude, there is ambiguity and confusion about which to use. This review aims to give some guidance on this issue. The variation in carbon value estimates depends on several uncertain aspects – which will remain uncertain – including climate sensitivity, assumptions about future emissions, and decision makers' ethical standpoints. Hence, there is no single correct monetary value for CO₂: it will depend on the ethical standpoint of the user. Due to this, estimates of social costs of CO₂ emissions cannot be used for calculating an optimal emission level, although they can inform such assessments. It is suggested that marginal abatement cost values are used for emissions capped by binding targets in short-term assessments, and that social cost of carbon values should be used for all other emissions. Benchmark principles for choosing a monetary carbon value are suggested along with associated estimates. Depending on the choices made with regard to ethical standpoints and assumptions about future emissions and climate sensitivity, estimates can be significantly higher than the ones typically used in assessment tools today. The estimates need continuous updating, and there is need for better understanding and communication around the limitations and uncertainties involved.