ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 07 Oc obe 2016
doi: 10.3389/ ma s.2016.00192
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 1Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Edi ed by:
Jacob Ca s ensen,
Aa hus Uni e si y, Denma k
Re iewed by:
Joana Pa ício,
Execu i e Agency o SMEs (EASME),
Belgium
Be i Hasle ,
Aa hus Uni e si y, Denma k
*Co espondence:
Tobias Bö ge
[email p o ec ed]
Special y sec ion:
This a icle was submi ed o
Ma ine Ecosys em Ecology,
a sec ion o he jou nal
F on ie s in Ma ine Science
Recei ed: 20 June 2016
Accep ed: 21 Sep embe 2016
Published: 07 Oc obe 2016
Ci a ion:
Bö ge T, B oszei S, Ah iainen H,
A kins JP, Bu don D, Luise i T,
Mu illas A, Oinonen S, Pal igue a L,
Robe s L, Uya a MC and Aus en MC
(2016) Assessing Cos s and Bene i s
o Measu es o Achie e Good
En i onmen al S a us in Eu opean
Regional Seas: Challenges,
Oppo uni ies, and Lessons Lea n .
F on . Ma . Sci. 3:192.
doi: 10.3389/ ma s.2016.00192
Assessing Cos s and Bene i s o
Measu es o Achie e Good
En i onmen al S a us in Eu opean
Regional Seas: Challenges,
Oppo uni ies, and Lessons Lea n
Tobias Bö ge 1, 2*, S e anie B oszei 2, Heini Ah iainen3, Jona han P. A kins4,
Da yl Bu don 5, Tiziana Luise i 6, A an za Mu illas 7, Soile Oinonen 8, Lucille Pal igue a 6,
Louise Robe s5, Ma ia C. Uya a7and Melanie C. Aus en2
1Depa men o Geog aphy and Sus ainable De elopmen , Uni e si y o S And ews, S And ews, UK, 2Plymou h Ma ine
Labo a o y, Plymou h, UK, 3Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland, 4Hull Uni e si y Business School,
Hull, UK, 5Ins i u e o Es ua ine & Coas al S udies, Uni e si y o Hull, Hull, UK, 6Cen e o En i onmen , Fishe ies, and
Aquacul u e Science, Lowes o , UK, 7AZTI Tecnalia, Pasaia, Spain, 8Finnish En i onmen Ins i u e (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland
The EU Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e (MSFD) equi es Membe S a es o
assess he cos s and bene i s o P og ammes o Measu es (PoMs) pu in place o
ensu e ha Eu opean ma ine wa e s achie e Good En i onmen al S a us by 2020. An
in e disciplina y app oach is needed o ca y ou such an assessmen whe eby economic
analysis is used o e alua e he ou pu s om ecological analysis ha de e mines he
expec ed e ec s o such managemen measu es. This pape applies and es s an exis ing
six-s ep app oach o assess cos s and bene i s o managemen measu es wi h po en ial
o suppo he o e all goal o he MSFD and discusses a ange o ecological and
economic analy ical ools applicable o his ask. En i onmen al cos -bene i analyses
a e conside ed o selec ed PoMs in h ee Eu opean case s udies: Bal ic Sea (Finland),
Eas Coas Ma ine Plan a ea (UK), and he Bay o Biscay (Spain). These con as ing
case s udies a e used o in es iga e he applica ion o en i onmen al cos -bene i
analysis (CBA) including he challenges, oppo uni ies and lessons lea n om using
his app oach. This pape demons a es ha he e a e oppo uni ies in applying he
six-s ep en i onmen al CBA amewo k p esen ed o assess he impac o PoMs.
Howe e , gi en demons a ed limi a ions o knowledge and da a a ailabili y, applica ion
o o he economic echniques should also be conside ed (al hough no applied he e) o
complemen he mo e o mal en i onmen al CBA app oach.
Keywo ds: MSFD, en i onmen al cos -bene i analysis, bene i ans e , ecosys em se ices
INTRODUCTION
The impo ance o biodi e si y in p o iding ecosys em se ices and human wellbeing is globally
ecognized (MEA, 2005; Haines-Young and Po schin, 2010; Mace e al., 2012), wi h in e na ional
ag eemen s and legisla ion in oduced o add ess biodi e si y loss (e.g., Con en ion o Biological
Di e si y, 1992). Fo he 27 coun ies in he EU, he e is legisla ion aimed a hal ing biodi e si y
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
loss and p omo ing he sus ainable use o he ecosys em se ices
ha he na u al en i onmen suppo s (e.g., Common Fishe ies
Policy, Habi a s and Bi ds Di ec i es, Wa e F amewo k
Di ec i e). Rega ding he ma ine en i onmen , he EU Ma ine
S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) was
p omulga ed in 2008 as a means o ensu e ha Eu opean
ma ine wa e s achie e Good En i onmen al S a us (GES) by
2020. To his end, he MSFD equi es Membe S a es o de ine
en i onmen al a ge s and associa ed indica o s and o de elop
and implemen P og ammes o Measu es (PoMs) ha will
ensu e he achie emen o GES.
To comply wi h MSFD, all EU Membe S a es unde ook
a baseline assessmen o he cu en s a e o he ma ine
en i onmen in hei ju isdic ions in 2012. These assessmen s
we e ca ied ou conside ing he 11 MSFD Desc ip o s o
de ining GES in ma ine wa e s (Table 1), wi h each Desc ip o ,
ha ing an associa ed se o c i e ia (29 in o al) and indica o s
(56 in o al; EC, 2010). Du ing his ini ial assessmen , se e al
Membe S a es de ined e e ence condi ions and a ge s ha
de e mine GES o hese indica o s (e.g., Anon, 2012). P io o
he implemen a ion o he a ious PoMs he MSFD equi es ha
each Membe S a e unde akes an impac assessmen , including
en i onmen al cos -bene i analysis (CBA), on any measu e hey
a e planning o implemen o suppo he ealiza ion o GES
(A icle 13.3; EC, 2015).
In p inciple, en i onmen al CBA can be used o quan i y and
compa e all o he cos s and bene i s esul ing om a pa icula
policy measu e in mone a y e ms (Boa dman e al., 2006). To
his end, posi i e and nega i e en i onmen al, economic, and
social impac s acc uing o ele an s akeholde s, including he
gene al public, ha e o be assessed, quan i ied, and whe e possible
alued mone a ily. E en i ce ain e ec s canno be alued in
mone a y e ms en i onmen al CBA equi es a leas a lis ing
and acknowledgmen o “all cos s and bene i s o a policy”
(Hanley, 2001). The e ec s ha can be mone ized can hen be
compa ed in a pa ial CBA (EC, 2015). This analysis should
include goods and se ices wi h ma ke alue, bu also hose
which a e no aded in ma ke s and hence ha e no ma ke
p ices (Hanley and Ba bie , 2009; EC, 2015). En i onmen al
CBA equi es an in e disciplina y app oach in ol ing he
collabo a ion o na u al and social scien is s (Hyy iäinen e al.,
2015). Cos s o en i onmen al managemen measu es may
include adminis a ion and en o cemen cos s, income losses
esul ing om a speci ic policy measu e o oppo uni y cos s.
The bene i s a e ypically mo e di e se and include di ec
e ec s o en i onmen al change on p ices o ma ke able goods,
household incomes and i ms’ p o i s, in addi ion o changes in
he p o ision o hose ecosys em se ices which a e ou side he
ma ke .
The equi emen o socio-economic analysis by he MSFD,
in pa icula he implemen a ion o en i onmen al CBA, has
been discussed wi hin he li e a u e (COWI, 2010; Be am
and Rehdanz, 2013; Be am e al., 2014) along wi h a ocus
on he app op ia e me hods o i s implemen a ion (Tu ne
e al., 2010; WG-ESA, 2010; Reinha d e al., 2012; In e wies
e al., 2013a,b). Be am and Rehdanz (2013),Hanley e al.
(2015), and Oinonen e al. (2016) discuss he limi a ions o
TABLE 1 | MSFD Desc ip o s (acco ding o Annex 1, 2008/56/EC).
Desc ip o de ini ion Sho name
D1 Biological di e si y is main ained. The quali y
and occu ence o habi a s and he dis ibu ion
and abundance o species a e in line wi h
p e ailing physiog aphic, geog aphic and
clima ic condi ions.
Biological di e si y
D2 Non-indigenous species in oduced by human
ac i i ies a e a le els ha do no ad e sely al e
ecosys ems.
Non-indigenous
species
D3 Comme cially exploi ed ish and shell ish. Comme cially exploi ed
ish and shell ish
D4 All elemen s o he ma ine ood webs, o he
ex en ha hey a e known, occu a no mal
abundance and di e si y and le els capable o
ensu ing he long- e m abundance o he
species and he e en ion o hei ull
ep oduc i e capaci y.
Food webs
D5 Human-induced eu ophica ion is minimized,
especially ad e se e ec s he eo , such as
losses in biodi e si y, ecosys em deg ada ion,
ha m ul algae blooms and oxygen de iciency in
bo om wa e s.
Human-induced
eu ophica ion
D6 Sea- loo in eg i y is a a le el ha ensu es ha
he s uc u e and unc ions o he ecosys ems
a e sa egua ded and ben hic ecosys ems, in
pa icula , a e no ad e sely a ec ed.
Sea loo in eg i y
D7 Pe manen al e a ion o hyd og aphical
condi ions does no ad e sely a ec ma ine
ecosys ems.
Hyd og aphical
condi ions
D8 Concen a ions o con aminan s a e a le els
no gi ing ise o pollu ion e ec s.
Con aminan s
D9 Con aminan s in ish and o he sea ood o
human consump ion do no exceed le els
es ablished by Communi y legisla ion o o he
ele an s anda ds.
Con aminan s in ish
and o he sea ood
D10 P ope ies and quan i ies o ma ine li e do no
cause ha m o he coas al and ma ine
en i onmen .
Ma ine li e
D11 In oduc ion o ene gy, including unde wa e
noise, is a le els ha do no ad e sely a ec
he ma ine en i onmen .
Ene gy, including
unde wa e noise
economic alua ion in he con ex o he MSFD and poin
ou ha ce ain challenges h ea en he e ec i eness o his
policy ins umen . These la e s udies highligh he challenges
o ansla ing changes in ecosys em se ice p o ision in o wel a e
bene i s changes. As such, exis ing alua ion s udies in he ma ine
en i onmen ocus oo much on di ec ecosys em bene i s (e.g.,
ec ea ion), which a e ela i ely easie o alue, and o en igno e
less angible e ec s on human wel a e (e.g., aes he ic o spi i ual
wellbeing; A kins e al., 2013).
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 2Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
I has been ecognized ha a majo challenge o using
en i onmen al CBA in an MSFD amewo k is “ he lack
o knowledge on he links be ween po en ial measu es,
imp o emen o ma ine ecosys ems and co esponding
economic and social alue” (EC, 2015, p. 29). One eason o his
may be he po en ial non-linea o m o links be ween changes
in ecosys em p ope ies and unc ions, ecosys em se ices and
bene i s. A second eason ela es o he po en ial cumula i e
e ec s on se ices and bene i s esul ing om concomi an
implemen a ion o se e al measu es. This la e issue also
implies a isk o double coun ing when implemen ing an
en i onmen al CBA. While i has been sugges ed ha ecosys em
se ice classi ica ions a e a way o map and assess hese links
(In e wies e al., 2013b; Be am e al., 2014; Maes e al., 2014), a
comp ehensi e concep ual amewo k does no exis o he use
o ecosys em se ice app oaches in he assessmen s o bene i s
a ising om he implemen a ion o a PoMs unde he MSFD.
An addi ional challenge is he limi ed numbe o alua ion
s udies ela ed o ma ine ecosys ems (A kins e al., 2013), wi h
mos o such s udies ocussing on coas al ecosys ems, such as
beaches (e.g., Nunes e al., 2015), seag ass beds (e.g., Bö ge
and Piwowa czyk, 2016), and ishe ies (e.g., C illy and Es eban,
2013).
Adding o exis ing guidance o applying en i onmen al CBA
o ma ine ecosys ems o he MSFD (WG-ESA, 2010; EC, 2015),
his pape p esen s applica ions o en i onmen al CBA om
h ee Membe S a es: Finland, he Uni ed Kingdom (UK), and
Spain. Each case s udy akes a di e en app oach o his ask,
based on di e ing condi ions a each si e, da a a ailabili y, and
he na u e o he desc ip o (s) unde s udy. To make case s udies
compa able an es ablished six-s ep p ocess o en i onmen al
CBA will be applied an es ed (a e Hanley and Ba bie ,
2009). In his way, s eng hs and challenges o each s udy
can be in e oga ed in a sys ema ic way and s eng hs and
weaknesses highligh ed. As a seconda y objec i e, his pape
also sc u inizes he applicabili y o ecosys em se ice app oaches
o acili a e he assessmen o ecosys em bene i s unde he
MSFD. I conside s he challenges o he alua ion o ecosys em
bene i s speci ic o he MSFD and he unc ion o ecosys em
se ices as a link be ween an impac assessmen o en i onmen al
managemen measu es and mone a y alua ion. Al hough, no
explici ly equi ed by he MSFD, he use o an ecosys em
se ices app oach o his ask has been sugges ed (WG-ESA,
2010; Koss e al., 2011) because i can: (1) assess ade-o s
be ween he p o isions o di e en se ices; (2) mi iga e he
isk o double-coun ing by concen a ing on inal ecosys em
se ices (Fishe e al., 2009); (3) suppo he mapping o
changes in he p o ision o ecosys em se ices spa ially; and
(4) acili a e alue ans e by o e ing es ablished ecosys em
se ices classi ica ions. I will he eby ex end and speci y he
analyses in Be am and Rehdanz (2013) and Be am e al.
(2014) and p opose an ecosys em se ices app oach as a po en ial
s ep o wa d. This pape is pa icula ly ele an o six o he
MSFD Desc ip o s: D1 Biological di e si y; D2 Non-indigenous
species; D3 Comme cially exploi ed ish and shell ish; D4 Ma ine
ood webs; D6 Sea loo in eg i y; and D11 Ene gy including
unde wa e noise.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The MSFD and En i onmen al Cos -Bene i
Analysis
This sec ion p esen s he s eps equi ed o assess bo h he cos s
and bene i s o PoMs unde he MSFD. A numbe o CBA
amewo ks ha e been ci ed wi hin he li e a u e (e.g., Boa dman
e al., 2006; De a, 2007; Hanley and Ba bie , 2009) and ha e
been success ully applied wi hin a ma ine con ex , o example in
he case o seabed es o a ion ollowing he cessa ion o ma ine
agg ega e ex ac ion (Coope e al., 2010). The p esen analysis
is based on Hanley and Ba bie ’s (2009) ecommenda ions o
en i onmen al CBA which in ol es he ollowing six s eps:
S ep 1: De ini ion o p ojec o policy measu e;
S ep 2: Iden i ica ion o he impac s o he p ojec o policy;
S ep 3: Valua ion o hese impac s in economic (i.e., mone a y)
e ms;
S ep 4: Discoun ing o lows o cos s and bene i s occu ing o e
ime;
S ep 5: Applica ion o he p esen alue es ; and
S ep 6: Sensi i i y analysis.
S ep 1
In he con ex o he MSFD, he de ini ion o measu es o
be implemen ed may include echnical, legisla i e, economic,
and policy-d i en ac ions (EC, 2015). He e, i is he PoMs o
achie e GES which a e he ocus o any en i onmen al CBA
o be conduc ed in an MSFD amewo k. Acco ding o he
MSFD, managemen measu es can be classi ied as exis ing o
new measu es. Exis ing measu es (A icle 13.1 and 13.2) a e
hose which a e based on non-MSFD legisla ion and which
ha e been ully o pa ially implemen ed (Ca ego ies 1.a and
1.b, espec i ely). New measu es (A icle 13.3) a e hose which
a e addi ional o measu es based on exis ing legisla ion and
build upon hem o a e comple ely new (Ca ego ies 2.a and 2.b,
espec i ely).
The di e en ypes o measu es a ailable and/o implemen ed
unde pin he selec ion o case s udies in his pape . In he Finnish
case a ca alog o new measu es (Ca ego ies 2.a and 2.b) which
a e abou o be adminis e ed by he ele an au ho i ies a e used
o he analysis. In he UK case, ocus is en i ely on po en ial
new measu es (Ca ego y 2.b), which we e no included in he
package o measu es o he i s cycle o MSFD implemen a ion
in he UK. In he Spanish case s udy, he measu es in es iga ed
all in o Ca ego y 1.b, which a e based on he Common Fishe ies
Policy (CFP), bu con ibu e o he achie emen o GES unde
he MSFD. By selec ing h ee con as ing case s udies ac oss
Eu ope, his allows o a compa a i e s udy o app oaches o
en i onmen al CBA based on di e en ca ego ies o MSFD
PoMs.
S ep 2
Once he managemen measu es ha e been speci ied in de ail,
hei po en ial impac s on ecosys ems and human ac i i ies can
be iden i ied and whe e possible quan i ied. This is pa icula ly
challenging in he ma ine en i onmen because o he open
access, ansbounda y mo emen o esou ces and pollu ion,
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 3Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
and combina ions o di e en p essu es wi h di e en and
cumula i e impac s a ising om he gene al complexi y o
ma ine and coas al ecosys ems and he ac i i ies unde aken
he ein. These ac o s inc ease he unce ain ies in an assessmen
o he e ec i eness and bene i s o he managemen measu es
(EC, 2015). Rega dless o which me hod is applied, i is always
necessa y o de e mine a baseline o he cu en s a us and u u e
p ojec ions ha would esul wi hou addi ional managemen
measu es. The e a e a numbe o ools ha can be employed
sepa a ely o in combina ion a his s age (Bu don e al., 2015),
such as:
•Ecosys em and bio-economic modeling: Models p ojec
he sho and long- e m ecological, economic and social
impac s in a quan i a i e way (Peck e al., 2016). A se
o indica o s is de ined oge he wi h speci ic e e ence
alues, and analysis includes i and how many objec i es
can be achie ed. Di e en models enable an indica o -based
app oach o p o ide assessmen s o he successes and ailu es
o managemen sys ems wi h ega d o he sus ainabili y
dimensions (economic, biological, social, and ins i u ional).
Fo example he Socioec p ojec (EU FP7; h p://www.socioec.
eu) emphasized ha he e is a ange o models in ishe ies
o assess impac o managemen op ions equi ed by he
Common Fishe ies Policy (EC, 2013).
•Expe elici a ion: Whe e ecosys em (o bio-economic)
models do no exis , e ec i eness o measu es can be es ima ed
based on expe elici a ion, such as om g oup in e iews
(MAGRAMA, 2015; Oinonen e al., 2016).
•Scena io analysis: This app oach can be used, oge he
wi h, o as an al e na i e o, “wha i ” modeling, in ol es
he cons uc ion o hypo he ical, albei plausible, scena ios
(Tu ne e al., 2014). I can be used when he le el o
unce ain y wi h espec o, o example, he da a a ailable
o he analysis o u u e policy ci cums ances/e ec s is high.
The Millennium Ecosys em Assessmen (MEA, 2005) de ines
scena ios as “plausible al e na i e u u es, each an example
o wha migh happen unde pa icula assump ions.” Fo
example, Haines-Young e al. (2011) de eloped six di e en
bu in e nally cohe en socio-economic s o ylines o he
u u e o he UK unde he impac o clima e change unde
he UK NEA p ojec (uknea.unep-wcmc.o g).
•Ecosys em se ice assessmen s: Ecosys em se ices a e he
di ec and indi ec con ibu ions ha ecosys ems p o ide o
human wel a e (de G oo e al., 2010). The me i o applying
an ecosys em se ices app oach o economic alua ion is ha
i p o ides an exhaus i e classi ica ion o all channels h ough
which hese se ices a e p o ided (e.g., MEA, 2005; TEEB,
2010; UK NEA, 2011) as well as an explici di e en ia ion
be ween ecosys em unc ions, he se ices hey p o ide and
he bene i s ha a e secu ed o humans (Boyd and Banzha ,
2007; Fishe e al., 2008; Ojea e al., 2012; Tu ne e al., 2015).
In p ac ice, indica o s ha e o be de eloped o cap u e he
ex en o ecosys em se ice deli e y in a quan i a i e way
and hese ecosys em se ice indica o s need o be linked o a
se o ecosys em bene i indica o s ha desc ibe he esul ing
bene i s o socie y (A kins e al., 2015; Ha am e al., 2015).
S ep 3
The impac o PoMs measu ed quan i a i ely equi e alua ion
o a i e a mone a y es ima es o bo h cos s and bene i s.
Cos quan i ica ion in ol es he iden i ica ion o he oppo uni y
cos s ha will be incu ed due o he implemen a ion o and
compliance o he managemen measu es. The cos s o en
included a e cos s o he egula o and/o go e nmen , cos s
o businesses o indus y o complying wi h he managemen
measu e including loss in income o G oss Value Added,
po en ial en i onmen al o damage cos s and social cos s. The
quan i ica ion o bene i s has been an a ea o ac i e esea ch
by en i onmen al economis s o decades (Cummings e al.,
1986; Mi chell and Ca son, 1989; Ba eman e al., 2002; F eeman
e al., 2014), and a numbe o echniques o mone ize impac s
o en i onmen al change ha e been de eloped (see o example
A kins e al., 2013). Ma ke ed goods a ec ed by such change
(e.g., ish ca ches) can be alued using ma ke p ices, al hough
hese may no ully e lec he alue o his p o isioning se ice
i ma ke impe ec ions exis . Valua ion o non-ma ke e ec s
can be unde aken by applying e ealed and s a ed p e e ence
me hods. Re ealed p e e ence me hods, such as he a el cos
me hod (Wa d and Beal, 2000) o hedonic p icing (Palmquis ,
1999) obse e human beha io o economic ou comes and in e
he alue o non-ma ke aspec s o en i onmen al change. S a ed
p e e ence me hods, such as con ingen alua ion (Ca son and
Hanemann, 2005) and disc e e choice expe imen s (Lou ie e
e al., 2000) a e su ey-based and di ec ly elici willingness o
pay o imp o emen in en i onmen al quali y, which can be
agg ega ed o e he whole popula ion a ec ed o a i e a he
o al economic alue (including use and non-use alues) o any
pa icula change. S a ed p e e ence me hods can also assess
bene i s ex-an e, i.e., be o e a p ojec is implemen ed and alues
a e gene a ed, in con as o o he alua ion me hods which can
only assess alues om an ex-pos pe spec i e. Howe e , when
p ima y alua ion s udies a e no a ailable o a pa icula s udy
si e, bene i ans e has been p oposed as a ool o apply alues
es ima ed o o he loca ions o he si e in ques ion (Richa dson
e al., 2015).
S eps 4 and 5
Once impac s ha e been alued in S ep 3, posi i e impac s
(i.e., bene i s) and nega i e impac s (i.e., cos s and explici
implemen a ion cos s) acc uing a di e en poin s in ime can be
agg ega ed and compa ed. The s eams o ins an aneous cos s C
and bene i s B o e he ime ho izon o he PoMs ( =1, . . . , T)
ha e o be discoun ed o make hem compa able. The p esen
alues (PV) o cos s PVcand bene i s PVBa e
PVc=
T
X
=1
C
(1+δ) (1)
and
PVB=
T
X
=1
B
(1+δ) ,(2)
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 4Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
espec i ely. δis he discoun a e, which migh di e be ween
case s udies. MSFD ela ed PoMs would pass he ne p esen
alue (NPV) es i discoun ed bene i s ou weigh discoun ed
cos s, i.e., PVB>PVC(a e conduc ing a sensi i i y
analysis, see S ep 6). Pu di e en ly, he implemen a ion o he
p oposed measu es inc ease social wel a e and hence should
be implemen ed om a wel a e economic pe spec i e i he
discoun ed ne bene i s (PVB−PVC>0) a e posi i e. The e
may be o he pe spec i es ha could call o he measu es o be
ejec ed, o example wi h espec o social accep ance o equi y.
S ep 6
I is o en he case ha sca ce e idence and a lack o su icien
da a equi es assump ions o be made a di e en s ages o
he analysis. To es he dependency o he esul s on any one
assump ion, sensi i i y analysis can be applied by al e ing any one
assump ion and in es iga ing he implica ions on he esul s.
The pa icula challenges o applying en i onmen al CBA o
PoMs wi hin he MSFD lie in S eps 2 and 3. This challenge will
be u he in es iga ed below.
APPLICATION OF CBA FOR PoMs TO
ACHIEVE GES IN EUROPEAN REGIONAL
SEAS
While ollowing he gene al amewo k o en i onmen al CBA
laid ou abo e, h ee case s udy analyses we e conduc ed
independen ly o each o he , each esponding o pa icula
equi emen s and challenges in hei own geog aphical locale.
A summa y o he h ee case s udies is p esen ed in Table 2.
Figu e 1 indica es hei loca ion in Eu ope.
Finnish Ma ine Wa e s o he Bal ic Sea
The Finnish case s udy desc ibes he economic analyses
unde aken o suppo he p epa a ion o he na ional PoMs
o he MSFD. The na ional PoMs Wo king G oup led he
p ocess and p epa ed and planned he new measu es. The
Wo king G oup membe s we e en i onmen al scien is s and
o he ela ed o icials, esea che s, and NGOs. The Finnish
go e nmen app o ed he PoMs in Decembe 2015 a e a public
hea ing p ocess.
S ep 1. De elopmen o he PoMs
The e was a consensus wi hin he na ional PoMs Wo king G oup
ha a gap exis ed be ween he p esen s a us o he ma ine
en i onmen and GES, and hus a lis o po en ial measu es
alling in o Ca ego ies 2.a and 2.b was compiled (Table 3). A
sub-g oup o economis s was es ablished and as eques ed by
he MSFD (A icle 13) i s manda e was o conduc he cos -
e ec i eness and CBA o he new measu es.
S ep 2. Iden i ica ion o he Impac s o he PoMs
The impac s o he PoMs we e assessed as pa o he cos -
e ec i eness analysis (Oinonen e al., 2016). The en i onmen al
e ec i eness o a measu e was de ined as he p obabili y
o closing he gap be ween he p esen en i onmen al
s a us and GES. The join e ec i eness o wo o se e al
TABLE 2 | Summa y o he case s udies in ela ion o he six-s ep CBA amewo k.
Case S udies Rele an MSFD Desc ip o s Six-s ep CBA amewo k
S ep 1 S ep 2 S ep 3 S ep 4 S ep 5 S ep 6
Finnish ma ine wa e s,
Bal ic Sea
Biological di e si y (D1), Food
webs (D4), Eu ophica ion (D5)
X
Table 3
X X
CEA; CVM; DCE;
bene i ans e
Cos s and bene i s X
Cos s and bene i s
X
Eas coas ma ine plan
a ea, UK No h Sea
X
Unde wa e noise (D11),
In asi e Alien Species (D2)
X/✗
Noise educ ion; ballas
wa e manage-men
X/✗
Pa ial; use eco-sys em
se ices
X/✗
Scena ios; only cos s
quan i ied
X/✗
Pa ial; o examples o
cos s
✗X
Concep -ual; no
quan i- ica ion
Bay o biscay, no h
eas a lan ic
Biological di e si y (D1),
Comme cial ishe ies (D3), Food
webs (D4)
X
Fishe ies managemen
X X
Bio-economic
modeling; FishRen
X
Cos s and bene i s
X
Cos s and bene i s
X
CBA, Cos -bene i analysis; CEA, Cos -e ec i eness analysis; CVM, Con ingen alua ion me hod; DCE, Disc e e choice expe imen .
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 5Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192

Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
FIGURE 1 | Loca ion o he case s udy si es.
measu es was compu ed combining he dis ibu ions o
he indi idual measu es. This allowed he calcula ion o
p obabili y es ima es ega ding GES achie emen by 2020 o
each MSFD Desc ip o . Due o he lack o comp ehensi e
ecological-economic models applicable o MSFD- ela ed
analyses, he es ima es o he e ec i eness o measu es we e
based on expe elici a ion. The da a we e collec ed in six
hema ic wo kshops ha ollowed a s uc u ed g oup in e iew
o ma . Each wo kshop had 6–13 expe s discussing 6–10
measu es.
S ep 3. Economic Valua ion o he Impac s o PoMs
Simila ly o he impac e alua ion o he PoMs, he cos s o
measu es we e es ima ed using expe elici a ion and condi ional
p obabili y dis ibu ions. The cos es ima ion was conduc ed
du ing he same wo kshops ha es ima ed he en i onmen al
impac s o he measu es. The expec ed o al cos s o he Finnish
PoMs we e es ima ed a €136.2 m (Oinonen e al., 2016). The
cos -e ec i eness analysis p o ided a anking o new measu es
and p oposed a se o cos -e icien candida e PoMs. The numbe
o measu es in he cos -e icien candida e PoMs anged om 21
o 31 and he expec ed cos s o he PoMs anged om €20 o
€136.2 m.
TABLE 3 | New measu es in he Finnish PoMs (sou ce: Oinonen e al.,
2016).
Measu e Desc ip ion
M1 Reduce ood p oduc ion and consump ion impac s on wa e
M2 In luence ag i-en i onmen al compensa ion mechanism o imp o e
wa e conse a ion
M3 P omo e he comme cializa ion and deploymen o ish eed based
on aw ma e ials p oduced in he Bal ic Sea egion
M4 Imp o e habi a s o sensi i e species li ing in wa e s discha ging
in o he sea
M5 Implemen nu ien -neu al municipal pilo p ojec s
M6 S udy coas al species ishe ies managemen and i s e iciency
M7 Implemen na ional s a egy o he Bal ic Salmon and sea ou
M8 P o ec mulle
M9 Inco po a e conse a ion objec i es o he ma ine p o ec ed a eas
in o ma ine spa ial plans
M10 Enhance p o ec ion o ma ine conse a ion a eas
M11 De elop p og ammes o measu es o endange ed species and
habi a s
M12 P oduce ma e ial o educa ion and communica ion abou he s a e
o and p essu es on he ma ine en i onmen
M13 P o ec Bal ic inged seal
M14 Conduc impac assessmen s o small-scale d edging
M15 Dec ease oil acciden isks in ship o ship ope a ions by igh e
egula ion in he Finnish wa e s
M16 P omo e NOxEmission Con ol A eas (NECAs) in he Bal ic Sea
M17 P omo e lique ied na u al gas as uel o ships and p o ide he
necessa y in as uc u e
M18 P omo e decisions o he In e na ional Ma i ime O ganiza ion o
educe ship unde wa e noise
M19 Reduce impulsi e noise caused by unde wa e cons uc ion
M20 Reduce unde wa e noise
M21 Reduce use o plas ic bags
M22 Inc ease he e iciency o mic o-dus emo al om was e wa e
M23 In luence EU o educe he use o mic o-plas ics in cosme ics and
hygiene p oduc s
M24 Imp o e o -po was e ecep ion capaci y
M25 Imp o e was e managemen a wa e on ec ea ional si es
M26 Coope a e wi h ishe men o educe ma ine li e
M27 Reduce and elimina e ghos ne s
M28 Reduce li e
M29 Implemen measu es o imp o e local low condi ions in he coas al
a ea
M30 Conduc a s udy o pha maceu ical subs ances in he Bal ic Sea
M31 Explo e he meaning o he Kymi i e as a sou ce o dioxin in he
Bal ic Sea
The economic bene i s o he PoMs we e es ima ed based
on exis ing alua ion s udies on he bene i s o imp o ing he
s a e o he Bal ic Sea. These s udies elici people’s willingness
o pay o speci ic (mainly cul u al) ecosys em se ices, i.e.,
ec ea ional and non-use alues. P e ious wo k e ealed ha
i is ela i ely s aigh o wa d o link he alua ion s udies
di ec ly o he Desc ip o s o GES, ins ead o linking he
Desc ip o s o ecosys em se ices and u he o alua ion s udies
(Hasle e al., 2016). Thus, he app oach connec ed he bene i
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 6Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
es ima es di ec ly o he change in he s a us o he GES
Desc ip o s.
Th ee c i e ia we e conside ed when choosing he economic
alua ion s udies, o ensu e he esul s would be eliable. Fi s ly,
we ollowed he cos -e ec i eness analysis (Oinonen e al., 2016)
and ocused on hose GES Desc ip o s which we e assessed
as no achie ing GES in he Ini ial Assessmen in 2012, i.e.,
D1 (Biological di e si y), D4 (Food webs), D5 (Eu ophica ion),
D8 (Concen a ion o con aminan s), D9 (Con aminan s in
ish and o he sea ood). Secondly, he sea ch was limi ed
p ima ily o alua ion s udies in Finnish ma ine wa e s. When
Finnish wa e s’ s udies we e no a ailable, he sui abili y o
alua ion s udies conduc ed in he o he coas al coun ies o
he Bal ic Sea we e conside ed. Thi dly, s udies conduc ed
wi hin he las 5 yea s we e used o p o ide up- o-da e bene i
es ima es based on s a e-o - he-a alua ion me hodologies. In
he es ima ion o bene i s, he Desc ip o s o biological di e si y
(D1) and ood webs (D4) we e combined due o hei pa ial
o e lap, bu we e ea ed sepa a ely om eu ophica ion (D5).
This app oach o he Desc ip o s was consis en wi h hei
ea men in he alua ion s udies; he e was a alua ion s udy
ocusing solely on eu ophica ion, and ano he ocusing on
cha ac e is ics pe aining o biodi e si y and ood webs, bo h
using s a ed p e e ence me hods and es ima ing use and non-use
alues.
A ecen con ingen alua ion s udy on eu ophica ion (D5)
(Ah iainen e al., 2014) p o ided a alue es ima e o imp o ing
he eu ophica ion le el in he Bal ic Sea om he business-as-
usual s a e o a (nea ) good s a e by he yea 2050 (all o he
basins excep he no he n Bal ic P ope would achie e good
s a e). Acco ding o he s udy, he bene i s o eaching GES o
he Finnish popula ion un il 2050 would be €3580 m, o which
€1022 m would acc ue un il 2020. The cha ac e is ics used o
desc ibe eu ophica ion in he alua ion s udy we e wa e cla i y,
blue-g een algal blooms, ish species composi ion, unde wa e
meadows, and oxygen condi ions in sea bo oms. These a e
clea ly linked o he Desc ip o on eu ophica ion (D5) and i s
mo e de ailed cha ac e iza ion, which men ions wa e cla i y,
algal blooms, ecosys em e ec s, and oxygen de iciency (Finnish
Minis y o En i onmen , 2014). The di e ences be ween he
ime ame o Ah iainen e al.’s (2014) s udy and he ime ame o
he PoMs o achie e GES (2050 s. 2020), as well as he di e ences
be ween Ah iainen e al.’s (2014) s udy a ea ( he en i e Bal ic
Sea) and he a ea o he case s udy (Finnish ma ine wa e s) we e
assumed o wo k in opposi e di ec ions. The longe ime ame
may ha e led o lowe bene i es ima es, and he la ge geog aphic
a ea o highe es ima es compa ed o he MSFD policy
change.
The bene i es ima e o he Desc ip o s o biological di e si y
(D1) and ood webs (D4) was based on a choice expe imen s udy
ha alued he p ese a ion o p is ine a eas, inc eases in he
amoun o heal hy ege a ion (such as unde wa e meadows) and
he size o ish s ocks (Kosenius and Ma kku, 2015). The s udy
indica ed ha he bene i s o he Finnish popula ion would be
€363–1068 m, wi h he lowe bound es ima e including only he
p ese a ion o p is ine a eas and he uppe bound including all
h ee imp o emen s in he ma ine en i onmen . The a ibu es
o he choice expe imen a e ela ed o he Desc ip o s o
biodi e si y and ood web and hei speci ica ion (Finnish
Minis y o En i onmen , 2014). P ese a ion o p is ine a eas
and heal hy ege a ion can be linked o he a ea o dis ibu ion
and s a us o species and bio opes in D1, whe eas he condi ion
o ish species is linked o heal hy ish popula ions in D4. In
Kosenius and Ma kku (2015), he ime ame coincided wi h he
MSFD a ge yea o 2020. Al hough, he bene i s we e es ima ed
o he en i e Finnish popula ion, he s udy a ea was limi ed o
he a chipelago be ween Finland and Sweden. I is likely ha he
bene i s would be la ge i he en i onmen al change we e o ake
place in he en i e Finnish ma ine a ea.
A challenge wi h bo h alua ion s udies was ha he baseline
and a ge scena ios speci ied in he s udies do no necessa ily
co espond wi h hose o he MSFD. As he alue es ima es
a e dependen on he ex en o he change in he ma ine
en i onmen , his may cause some unce ain y in he bene i
es ima es. Howe e , as no eliable co ec ion o he di e ences
was a ailable, i was deemed be e o use he o iginal es ima es
han o apply some ad-hoc adjus men ac o s.
No bene i s could be es ima ed o con aminan s in he ma ine
en i onmen (D8) and con aminan s in sea ood (D9) due o a
lack o si e-speci ic e idence. The ew exis ing alua ion s udies
on con aminan s in he Bal ic Sea ocus on indi idual subs ances,
e.g., ibu yl in (No ing e al., 2016) o oil (Ah iainen, 2007;
Jun unen e al., 2013). Mo eo e , he new measu es a ge ing
con aminan s a e ela ed o esea ch ac i i ies (measu es 30 and
31 in Table 3) hus hei con ibu ion o achie ing GES by 2020
was assessed o be e y low (Oinonen e al., 2016, Table S2).
S ep 4. Discoun ing o Flows o Bene i s Occu ing
O e Time
Bo h he cos s and bene i s we e discoun ed o he yea 2014
using a discoun a e o 3%. The ne p esen alue (NPV) o
achie ing GES o biological di e si y (D1), ood webs (D4)
and eu ophica ion (D5) in 2020 is a ound €2000 m. Howe e ,
he PoMs will no lead o GES in e ms o hese Desc ip o s
in Finnish ma ine wa e s by 2020; based on he en i onmen al
e ec i eness assessmen as pa o he cos -e ec i eness analysis
(Oinonen e al., 2016), he p obabili y o eaching GES by 2020 is
0.77 o biodi e si y and ood webs, and 0.02 o eu ophica ion.
Consequen ly, he bene i s o his pa icula PoMs a e lowe han
he bene i s o achie ing GES. To ob ain he expec ed bene i s
om he PoMs he bene i s we e mul iplied wi h he p obabili y
o eaching GES yielding bene i s o he Finnish popula ion
o €300–894m (Table 4). Mos o he bene i s esul om
imp o emen s in D1 and D4, as he p obabili y o achie ing GES
is ela i ely high o hese Desc ip o s. Reducing eu ophica ion
would also lead o signi ican bene i s, bu due o he low
p obabili y o eaching GES by 2020, he expec ed bene i s a e
low.
S ep 5. Applica ion o he P esen Value Tes
Compa ison o he es ima ed bene i s (€300–894 m) o he cos s
(€140 m) o he Finnish PoMs indica es ha despi e he ac ha
he GES will no be achie ed by 2020, he bene i s o he PoMs
exceed he cos s by a ac o o be ween 2 and 6.
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 7Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
TABLE 4 | Es ima ed bene i s o implemen ing PoMs and achie ing GES in
Finnish ma ine wa e s.
Desc ip o Bene i s o eaching
GES (in 2014 m€)
Bene i s om he
PoMs (in 2014 m€)
Biological di e si y and
ood webs (D1, D4)
363–1068 280–822
Eu ophica ion (D5) 1022–3580 20–72
To al 1385–4648 300–894
The bene i es ima es a e discoun ed o he yea 2014 using a 3% in e es a e and
calcula ed o he Finnish adul popula ion.
S ep 6. Sensi i i y Analysis
As pa o he sensi i i y analysis, he bene i s a e p esen ed as a
ange ins ead o poin es ima es. This ange e lec s di e en ime
ames and he ex en o he en i onmen al change. Al hough,
he e a e in e linkages and o e laps be ween he Desc ip o s
o eu ophica ion and biodi e si y/ ood webs, he e was e y
li le o e lap in he en i onmen al change desc ip ions in he
alua ion s udies. As he alua ion s udies co e ed only h ee
o he 11 GES Desc ip o s, and o he ea u es o he alua ion
s udies ( ime ame, s udy a ea) we e conside ed o lowe he
alue es ima es compa ed o aluing he achie emen o GES in
he Finnish ma ine wa e s by 2020, he isk o double-coun ing
and o e es ima ing he bene i s was conside ed low.
Using di e en budge cons ain s, Oinonen e al. (2016)
p o ided a se o cos -e icien PoMs. The PoMs ha included
all measu es and had he highes cos s was selec ed and app o ed
by he Finnish go e nmen . This migh be due o he ac ha i
was impossible o achie e GES by 2020 wi h any o he p oposed
candida e PoMs, as i would ake longe o mos measu es o ake
ull e ec . A candida e PoM, ha would no signi ican ly change
he p obabili y o achie e GES, would dec ease he cos s om
€1362 o €90 m and hus he bene i -cos a io would inc ease
om 2–6 o 3–9.
Eas Coas Ma ine Plan A ea (UK)
The UK case s udy, he Eas Coas Ma ine Plan (ECMP),
was selec ed as a case s udy because i is a de ined a ea o
managemen , being he i s a ea in England whe e ma ine
planning has been unde aken and a ma ine plan p oduced. The
GES managemen measu es conside ed in his pape o he
ECMP a e associa ed wi h educing he impac o unde wa e
noise (UWN) and in asi e alien species (IAS) which a e a
subg oup o non-indigenous species. These p essu es we e
selec ed o analysis so ha only addi ional MSFD managemen
measu es can be s udied, ha is hose which a e no implemen ed
based on exis ing legisla ion (Ca ego y 2.a and 2.b).The analyses
o bo h se s o managemen measu es use an ecosys em se ices
app oach o assess hei bene i s. I became appa en ha he
e idence base was limi ed ega ding bo h he impac s o UWN
and IAS on ecosys em se ices and mo e gene ally on ecosys em
se ices wi hin he ECMP a ea. The assessmen o cos s and
bene i s o PoMs wi h espec o hese wo p essu es was
he e o e applied using a scena ios app oach which acili a es he
anspa ency o making assump ions o each scena io du ing he
cou se o he analysis.
S ep 1. Policy Analysis ega ding UWN, IAS, and
Ballas Wa e Managemen
Noise is add essed in he MSFD wi hin D11 (unde wa e ene gy
including noise), wi h e ec s upon D1 (biological di e si y),
D3 (comme cial ishe ies), and D4 ( ood webs) (Figu e 2). In
he ECMP a ea he main sou ces o unde wa e noise a e
likely o be associa ed wi h shipping and o sho e cons uc ion
such as ma ine ene gy de elopmen . Due o he sca ci y o
scien i ic da a ela ing o he impac s o sound, managemen
measu es a e limi ed, pa icula ly o ish and in e eb a es
(Poppe e al., 2014). This has led o unce ain y ega ding
how egula o s, s akeholde s and scien is s should p oceed when
so many ac i i ies p oduce unde wa e sounds (Hawkins and
Poppe , 2014; Hawkins e al., 2014a).
Noise may a ec beha io and physiology and may also elici
inju y o damage in hose exposed; he e has been mo e esea ch
o da e ega ding ma ine mammals (e.g., Nowacek e al., 2007;
Weilga , 2007) han ish and in e eb a es al hough his a ea is
g owing (e.g., in e eb a es: Wale e al., 2013; Solan e al., 2016).
Simila ly he e has been a ocus upon sho e m beha io al
changes, o example schooling a ia ion in ish (Hawkins e al.,
2014b) a he han on longe e m impac s such as ep oduc i e
changes.
Pile d i ing o wind u bine ounda ions p oduces subs an ial
impulsi e noise which has po en ial e ec s on a numbe o
ma ine species h ough he wa e and ib a ion h ough he
sedimen ( e iewed in Robe s, 2015). App oaches o minimize
he impac s o piling come a a cos o he wind a m de elope ,
and encompass ei he enginee ing solu ions (such as in la able
pile slee es) o biological moni o ing (such as employmen o
ma ine mammal obse e s) (Wü sig e al., 2000; Nedwell J. e al.,
2003; Nedwell J. R. e al., 2003; Thomsen e al., 2006; Nehls
e al., 2007; Pa sons e al., 2008). Fo shipping, which p oduces
a con inuous sound, mi iga ion examples include educ ion o
essel speeds, exclusion om biologically sensi i e a eas o
a emp s o use “quie e ” ships (De Robe is and Handega d,
2013).
Non-indigenous species a e species, subspecies o lowe axa
ha occu ou side o hei na u al ange ollowing in en ional
o unin en ional in oduc ion due o human ac i i ies (Oja ee
e al., 2014). In asi e alien species (IAS) a e a subse o non-
indigenous species ha ha e been de ined as ha ing a “signi ican
nega i e impac on biodi e si y as well as se ious economic
and social consequences” (EC, 2014; Oja ee e al., 2014).
Thei in oduc ion has long been ecognized as a key h ea
o ma ine ecosys ems and he se ices hese deli e . Non-
indigenous species and he e o e IAS a e add essed by D2, bu
hey also a ec o he Desc ip o s due o hei po en ial impac on
biological di e si y (D1) and o ood webs (D4) h ough changes
in eeding ela ionships (Figu e 2). In he ma ine en i onmen ,
shipping is he key ec o o species globally and he mos
e icien way o a oid he in oduc ion o new species is success ul
ballas wa e managemen (Molna e al., 2008; Oja ee e al.,
2014). As he No h Sea has been desc ibed as one o he
mos in aded eco egions o he wo ld (Molna e al., 2008),
he ollowing en i onmen al CBA ocuses on ballas wa e
managemen as a measu e o educe he likelihood o in oducing
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 8Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
FIGURE 2 | Links be ween managemen measu es and ecosys em s uc u e, se ices and bene i s. Se ices and bene i s as pe Ha am e al. (2015).
IAS and he eby achie ing GES in D2 and con ibu ing o
D1, D4, and D6. The analysis add esses he ques ions o wha
ecological, economic and social bene i s e ec i e ballas wa e
managemen p oduces and which indica o s a e necessa y o
measu e impac s o IAS on ecosys em se ices and bene i s. To
acili a e his analysis, o his s udy wo species, he molluscan
eined whelk (Rapana enosa) and he Japanese sho e c ab
(Hemig apsus sanguineus) we e chosen. Bo h o hese species
do no p esen ly occu in he ECMP bu ha e he po en ial o
a i e as hey bo h al eady occu in Eu opean coun ies. They
ha e a high po en ial o impac ecosys em se ice p o ision
i in oduced as shown in o he a eas, o example R. enosa
in he Black Sea (Mann e al., 2004) and H. sanguineus along
he F ench side o he English Channel (Dau in and Du ossé,
2011).
S ep 2. Bio-Physical Impac s o he Policy: A
Scena io Analysis
Fo bo h managemen measu es, seconda y e idence and o he
in o ma ion was ga he ed o assess hei po en ial impac s and
how hese migh a ec he ecosys em se ices and bene i s in he
ECMP a ea. Concep ual models we e de eloped which display
he linkages be ween he espec i e managemen measu es
and ecosys em s uc u e, p ocesses, se ices and he esul ing
bene i s (Figu e 2) and se e as he basis o quan i ying (and
aluing) hese impac s. Howe e , hese igu es a e mos likely
no comp ehensi e because he link be ween he p ope ies o
ecosys ems such as biodi e si y and ecosys em se ices a e s ill a
majo scien i ic challenge (Pe ei a e al., 2010; S ong e al., 2015).
Insu icien (quan i a i e) e idence ega ding he impac o
bo h p essu es on ele an ecosys ems and hei se ices equi ed
a scena ios analysis app oach o be unde aken. Quan i a i e
e idence was lacking on se e al le els: da a on cu en ecosys em
se ices p o ision in he ECMP was no a ailable a he spa ial
scale necessa y. Addi ionally, unce ain y in e ms o e ec s
o noise on ecosys ems s ill exis s. The e ec o IAS on a
naï e habi a is also no p edic able. Finally, i is e en mo e
unce ain o p edic how bene i s a e impac ed o example, is
bi d abundance educed when bi al e biomass is educed, his
canno be p edic ed (Kendall e al., 2004). Table 5 speci ies wo
en i onmen al scena ios, cha ac e izing low and high impac o
each p essu e. Fo IAS scena ios we e chosen based on high and
low impac classi ica ions as desc ibed by Oja ee e al. (2015).
Gi en he high unce ain y and sca ci y o si e-speci ic e idence,
assump ions we e made o cha ac e ize each scena io. Wi h a low
(high) impac scena io speci ying he lowes (highes ) possible
impac , a sepa a e en i onmen al CBA can be conduc ed o
each o he en i onmen al scena ios, i.e., o each ow in Table 5.
Implemen a ion cos s o addi ional MSFD measu es all in o he
cos ca ego y; bene i s a e he a oided nega i e impac s o he
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 9Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
di e en op ions o achie e GES wi hin he pa ame e s o
economic e iciency (OECD, 2006), aking in o accoun o he
cons ain s (e.g., discoun a e, ime pe iod o assessmen ) ha
a e used in he analysis and how hese a ec he alues ha
a e calcula ed. The e o e, esul s o an en i onmen al CBA
can help decision-make s o examine ade-o s, gi ing hem
he oppo uni y o de elop a PoMs whe e he discoun ed
ne bene i s (PVB−PVC) a e maximized and which can
e ec i ely d aw om exis ing policy ac ions al eady implemen ed
o alle ia e en i onmen al p essu es o e en con ibu e o
u u e policies. Addi ionally, sensi i i y analyses which ake in o
accoun di e en le els o he cons ain s used (e.g., di e en
discoun a es, di e en ime pe iods o assessmen ) can be
unde aken o show he a iabili y o o al cos s and bene i s in
he ace o di e en ypes o unce ain y.
Lessons Lea n du ing Case S udy
Applica ion o he En i onmen al CBAs
unde he MSFD
Wi h espec o Finnish wa e s in he Bal ic Sea, exis ing bio-
economic models we e a ailable o D2 (Non-indigenous
species), D3 (Comme cial ish and shell ish), and D5
(Eu ophica ion) bu he models would need o ha e been
upda ed o be applicable in he con ex o he MSFD. Expe
elici a ion was a success ul al e na i e app oach ( o modeling)
ha p o ided comp ehensi e analysis co e ing all Desc ip o s.
Bene i ans e was ela i ely s aigh o wa d o execu e. E en
hough he o iginal alua ion s udies only pa ially co e ed
GES Desc ip o s, he es ima ed bene i s we e highe han he
expec ed cos s o he measu es. The sensi i i y analysis shows
ha he bene i -cos a io would ha e been highe i ano he
se o measu es had been chosen. A candida e PoMs, ha
would no signi ican ly change he p obabili y o achie ing GES
would dec ease he cos s om €136.2 o €90 m and hus he
bene i -cos a io would inc ease om 2–6 o 3–9.
In he Eas Coas Ma ine Plan a ea, UK, scena ios analysis
p o ed a use ul ool whe e he e is conside able unce ain y
conce ning he links be ween managemen measu es and he
ecosys em and he links o wel a e impac s. P e ious s udies ha e
demons a ed ha scena ios can be used o “ es ” which policy
ac ions a e obus and sus ainable, howe e i is ecognized ha
he big challenge o using scena io analysis is communica ing
indings o s akeholde s and policy-make s e ec i ely (Bu don
e al., 2015). The lack o , and high unce ain y associa ed wi h,
da a es ic s he ull applica ion o an en i onmen al CBA, in
pa icula he e we e insu icien si e-speci ic da a o assess he
po en ial ecological impac o he managemen measu es (S ep
2) and o quan i y and alue any changes in ecosys em se ices
and wel a e bene i s (S ep 3). As such, hese wo s eps we e
only pa ially ul illed p ecluding he comple ion o S eps 4, 5,
and 6. In he con ex o high unce ain y abou bio-physical
and economic da a on he impac s o a PoMs, he p elimina y
quali a i e analysis unde aken in his case s udy p o ed aluable
in iden i ying he main ecosys em se ices which may be a ec ed
unde each managemen measu e and hus iden i ied a eas o
u he si e-speci ic esea ch. A mo e in dep h analysis, such
as a MCA, could now be pe o med whils wai ing o eliable
quan i a i e da a o be made a ailable.
In he Bay o Biscay, Spain, many di e en economic ma i ime
ac i i ies ope a e. Howe e , he e has been li le p e ious e o
o de elop any quali a i e o quan i a i e assessmen s o impac
(ecological o social) o hose ac i i ies on he alue o ecosys em
se ices. One eason o his, amongs o he s, is ha he “pa ial”
ma i ime na u e o mos o he sec o s in ol ed hinde s he
ex ac ion o he equi ed da a om he a ailable s a is ics. Due
o his limi ed knowledge only a ew new measu es a e p oposed
o applica ion o he di e en p i a e economic ac i i ies, wi h
he excep ion o he comme cial ishing sec o , which is mainly
a ec ed by he newly e o med CFP. The capaci y o p o iding
bo h quali a i e and quan i a i e assessmen s ela ed o he BoB
managemen measu es esul ing om he CFP elies on exis ing
bio-economic models ha ha e been de eloped and applied in
o he a eas o Eu ope and ha a e lexible enough o be applied
in he BoB. While such models a e well de eloped o comme cial
ishing ac i i ies, models ha can be used o o he ma i ime
ac i i ies a e s ill no su icien ly de eloped.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
By showcasing and discussing h ee en i onmen al CBA
examples in he con ex o he EU MSFD, his pape highligh s
challenges and oppo uni ies o he use and u he de elopmen
o his echnique in he impac assessmen o PoMs. The six-
s ep app oach in Hanley and Ba bie (2009) has been used as a
s uc u al amewo k o build an MSFD-speci ic en i onmen al
CBA se in di e en con ex s ac oss Eu ope. Bo h expe
elici a ion and he ecosys em se ices app oach a e shown o
acili a e iden i ica ion and quan i ica ion o physical impac s
(S ep 2). Challenges a ise in aluing he physical impac s in
economic e ms (S ep 3). While he Finnish and Spanish case
s udies mone ize bo h cos s and bene i s, he UK case s udy could
only exp ess implemen a ion cos s o measu es in mone a y
e ms. Applica ion o he s ep-by-s ep p ocess o en i onmen al
CBA in con as ing case s udies wi h di e ing le els o da a
a ailabili y has highligh ed a numbe o issues. As such he
ollowing ecommenda ions can be made:
(1) The en i onmen al CBA app oach needs o be u he
de eloped o be e in eg a e he ecosys em se ices
app oach wi h es ablished en i onmen al alua ion
echniques (Bö ge e al., 2014). To aid his, u he esea ch
in o he linkages be ween MSFD Desc ip o s and es ablished
ecosys em se ice classi ica ions is equi ed so ha he
speci ic en i onmen al CBA can hen be linked o he
sui able Desc ip o ia he a ec ed ecosys em se ices.
This would also help mi iga e p oblems o adjus ing
exis ing alua ion es ima es o si ua ions wi h sligh ly
di e en ypes o en i onmen al change, geog aphic a ea
o ime ho izon. Howe e , o p essu e indica o s (e.g., D5
eu ophica ion) whe e exis ing alua ion s udies show a
educ ion in ecological indica o s and associa ed educed
economic alues, an ecosys em se ice app oach migh be
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 16 Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192

Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
ci cum en ed. In such cases i migh be easie o link he
exis ing alue es ima es di ec ly o he Desc ip o s and assess
he po en ial impac s on ecosys em se ices sepa a ely.
(2) The use o cos -e ec i eness analysis is ecommended whe e
he measu emen o bene i s wi hin an en i onmen al CBA is
di icul as demons a ed in he i s s ep o he Finnish case
s udy. This shows a way o wa d as EC (2015) s a e “CEA
[cos -e ec i eness analysis] is used when measu emen o
bene i s in mone a y e ms is di icul ” (p. 9). Acco ding o
he EC Impac Assessmen Guidelines, an en i onmen al
CBA can be done a a ious le els, depending on da a
a ailabili y. I can be ei he a ull CBA when he mos
signi ican pa s o bo h cos s and bene i s can be mone ized
u ilizing economic alues de i ed h ough a ious economic
echniques o a pa ial en i onmen al CBA in cases whe e
only a pa o he cos s and bene i s can be quan i ied and/o
mone ized (EC, 2015, p. 9).
(3) Ano he al e na i e app oach ha has po en ial o
applica ion in he con ex o he MSFD is o use mul i-
c i e ia analysis (MCA) in he impac assessmen when
quan i ica ion o mone iza ion a e no possible o when
impac s a e measu ed in di e en accoun ing uni s (e.g.,
mone a y s. physical) and ha e o be compa ed. The case
s udies wi hin his pape , he expe iences om he UK case
in pa icula , highligh such a case, and how in o ma ion
abou en i onmen al change in e ms o ecosys em se ices
can be de eloped o use in MCA. This app oach could be
accompanied by expe elici a ion.
(4) Finally, he use o modeling is ecommended whe e
app op ia e bio-economic and ecosys em models al eady
exis and he e is su icien da a o pa ame e ize hem, o
whe e he e is su icien da a and unde s anding a ailable
o cons uc new models. Fo example, i managemen
measu es a ec ecosys em se ices o which su icien da a
a e a ailable as demons a ed in he Spanish case s udy, bio-
economic modeling can p o ide cos and bene i es ima es
which can eed in o he en i onmen al CBA p ocess.
Modeling is also a aluable ool o p ojec ing po en ial
changes in ecosys ems se ice p o ision in he u u e whe e
eal- ime da a is no a ailable.
In conclusion, his pape has applied an es ablished six-s ep
amewo k o unde aking en i onmen al CBA o assess PoMs
chosen o achie e GES unde he MSFD. The applica ion o
his amewo k o h ee con as ing Eu opean case s udies has
iden i ied a numbe o challenges o unde aking such an
app oach. Despi e hese conside a ions, his pape has shown ha
he e a e oppo uni ies in applying he six-s ep en i onmen al
CBA amewo k o assess he impac o PoMs unde he
MSFD.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TB, SB, HA, DB, TL, AM, SO, LP, MU and MA conduc ed he
analyses. TB, SB, HA, JA, DB, TL, AM, SO, LP, LR, MU and MA
con ibu ed o he w i ing o he manusc ip .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manusc ip is a esul o DEVOTES (DEVelopmen O
inno a i e Tools o unde s anding ma ine biodi e si y and
assessing good En i onmen al S a us) p ojec , unded by he
Eu opean Union unde he 7 h F amewo k P og amme, “The
Ocean o Tomo ow” Theme (g an ag eemen no. 308392),
h p://www.de o es-p ojec .eu. MU is pa ially unded h ough
he Spanish p og amme o Talen and Employabili y in R +D
+I “To es Que edo.” MA and SB a e pa ially unded by he
Ma ine Ecosys ems Resea ch P og amme, Na u al En i onmen
Resea ch Council (NERC), and Depa men o En i onmen ,
Food, and Ru al A ai s (DEFRA) (g an numbe NE/L003279/1).
The au ho s wish o hank he wo e iewe s who’s commen s
ha e signi ican ly imp o ed he pape .
REFERENCES
4cO sho e (2016). A ailable online a : www.4co sho e.com (Accessed on:
Feb ua y 2016).
Ah iainen, H. (2007). The Willingness o Pay o Reducing he Ha m om
Fu u e Oil Spills in he Gul o Finland -An Applica ion o he Con ingen
Valua ion Me hod. Discussion Pape s no. 18, Depa men o Economics and
Managemen , Uni e si y o Helsinki.
Ah iainen, H., A ell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasle , B., Hassels öm, L., Huh ala, A.,
e al. (2014). Bene i s o mee ing nu ien educ ion a ge s o he Bal ic Sea –
a con ingen alua ion s udy in he nine coas al s a es. J. En i on. Econ. Policy
3, 278–305. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2014.901923
Anon (2012). P oposed UK Ta ge s o Achie ing GES and Cos -Bene i Analysis
o he MSFD. Repo p epa ed o De a by Ce as, JNCC and UKMMAS
(HDBSEG), Lowes o .
A ow, K. J., Cline, W. R., Male , K.-G., Munasinghe, M., Squi ie i, R., and S igli z,
J. E. (1995). “In e empo al equi y, discoun ing, and economic e iciency,” in
Clima e Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions o Clima e Change,
Con ibu ion o Wo king G oup III o he Second Assessmen Repo o he
In e go e nmen al Panel on Clima e Change, eds J. P. B uce, H. Lee, and E. F.
Hai es (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess), 520–521.
A kins, J. P., Banks, E., Bu don, D., G eenhill, L., Has ings, E., and Po s, T. (2013).
An Analysis o Me hodologies o De ining Ecosys em Se ices in he Ma ine
En i onmen . JNCC Repo 491 (Con ac numbe : C12-0170-0612).
A kins, J. P., Bu don, D., and Ellio , M. (2015). “Iden i ica ion o a p ac icable se
o ecosys em indica o s o coas al and ma ine ecosys em se ices,” in Coas al
Zones Ecosys em Se ices: F om Science o Values and Decision Making, S udies
in Ecological Economics, eds R. K. Tu ne and M. Schaa sma (Heidelbe g:
Sp inge ).
Ba eman, I. J., Ca son, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., He , T.,
e al. (2002). Economic Valua ion wi h S a ed P e e ence Techniques: A Manual.
Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Be am, C., Dwo ak, T., Gö li z, S., In e wies, E., and Rehdanz, K.
(2014). Cos -bene i analysis in he con ex o he EU Ma ine S a egy
F amewo k Di ec i e: he case o Ge many. Ma . Policy 43, 307–312. doi:
10.1016/j.ma pol.2013.06.016
Be am, C., and Rehdanz, K. (2013). On he en i onmen al e ec i eness o
he EU Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Ma . Policy, 38, 25–40. doi:
10.1016/j.ma pol.2012.05.016
Boa dman, A. E., G eenbe g, D. H., Vining, A. R., and Weime , D. L. (2006).
Cos -Bene i Analysis.Concep s and P ac ice. Uppe Saddle Ri e , NJ: Pea son
Educa ion.
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 17 Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
Bö ge , T., Beaumon , N. J., Pendle on, L., Boyle, K. J., Coope , P., Fle che , S.,
e al. (2014). Inco po a ing ecosys em se ices in ma ine planning: he ole o
alua ion. Ma . Policy, 46, 161–170. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2014.01.019
Bö ge , T., and Piwowa czyk, J. (2016). Assessing non-ma ke bene i s o seag ass
es o a ion in he Gul o Gda´
nsk. J. Ocean Coas . Econ. 3:1. doi: 10.15351/2373-
8456.1034
Boyd, J., and Banzha , S. (2007). Wha a e ecosys em se ices? The need o
s anda dized en i onmen al accoun ing uni s. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616–626. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Bu don, D., Boyes, S. J., Ellio , M., Smy h, K., A kins, J. P., Ba nes, R. A., e al.
(2015). In eg a ing na u al and social ma ine science o manage sus ainably
ec o s o change: Dogge Bank ansna ional case s udy. Es ua . Coas . Shel
Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.09.012. [Epub ahead o p in ].
Ca son, R. T., and Hanemann, W. M. (2005). “Con ingen alua ion,” in Handbook
o En i onmen al Economics, eds K.-G. Mäle and J. R. Vincen (Ams e dam:
Else ie ), 821–936.
Coope , K., Bu don, D., A kins, J., Weiss, L., Some ield, P., Ellio , M., e al. (2010).
Seabed Res o a ion Following Ma ine Agg ega e D edging: Do he Bene i s Jus i y
he Cos s? MEPF-MALSF P ojec 09-P115, Ce as, Lowes o .
COWI (2010). Scoping S udy on he Requi emen s o Economic Assessmen
in he Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Eu opean Commission DG
En i onmen .
C illy, R., and Es eban, A. (2013). Small e sus la ge-scale, mul i- lee ishe ies:
he case o economic, social and en i onmen al access c i e ia in Eu opean
ishe ies. Ma . Policy 37, 20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2012.04.018
Cummings, R. G., B ookshi e, D. S., and Schulze, W. D. (1986). Valuing
En i onmen al Goods.An Assessmen o he Con ingen Valua ion Me hod.
Sa age: Rowman & Li le ield.
Dau in, J.-C., and Du ossé, F. (2011). Hemig apsus sanguineus (De Haan,
1835)(C us acea: B achyu a: G apsoidea) a new in asi e species in Eu opean
wa e s: he case o he F ench English Channel coas (2008-2010). Aqua .
In asions 6, 329–338. doi: 10.3391/ai.2011.6.3.09
DCLG (2009) Mul i-C i e ia Analysis: A Manual. London: Depa men o
Communi ies and Local Go e nmen .
De a (2007). An In oduc o y Guide o Valuing Ecosys em Se ices. London:
Depa men o En i onmen , Food and Ru al A ai s.
de G oo , R. S., Fishe , B., Ch is ie, M., A onson, J., B aa , L., Gowdy, J.,
e al. (2010). “In eg a ing he ecological economic dimensions in biodi e si y
ecosys em se ice alua ion,” in The Economics o Ecosys ems and Biodi e si y:
Ecological and Economic Founda ions, ed P. Kuma (London; Washing on, DC:
Ea hscan), 9–40.
De Robe is, A., and Handega d, N. O. (2013). Fish a oidance o esea ch essels
and he e icacy o noise- educed essels: a e iew. ICES J. Ma . Sci. 70, 34–45.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/ ss155
Dua e, C. M. (2000). Ma ine biodi e si y and ecosys em se ices: an elusi e link.
J. Exp. Ma . Biol. Ecol. 250, 117–131. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(00)00194-5
EC (2009). Impac Assessmen Guidelines. B ussels, SEC.
EC (2010). COMMISSION DECISION o 1 Sep embe 2010 on C i e ia and
Me hodological S anda ds on Good En i onmen al S a us o Ma ine Wa e s
(2010/477/EU), Eu opean Commission.
EC (2013). Regula ion (EU) No 1380/2013 o he Eu opean Pa liamen and o he
Council o 11 Decembe 20123 on he Common Fishe ies Policy. O . J. Eu .
Union L354/22.
EC (2014). The Fi s Phase o Implemen a ion o he Ma ine S a egy F amewo k
Di ec i e (2008/56/EC) - The Eu opean Commission’s Assessmen and Guidance.
B ussels: Eu opean Commission.
EC (2015). Backg ound Documen Summa ising Expe iences wi h Respec o
Economic Analysis o Suppo Membe S a es wi h he De elopmen o hei
P og amme o Measu es o he Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Eu opean
Commission DG En i onmen .
Felds ein, M. S. (1964). The social ime p e e ence discoun a e in cos bene i
analysis. Econ. J. 74, 360–379.
Fe nandes, J. A., San os, L., Vance, T., Fileman, T., Smi h, D., Bishop, J. D. D.,
e al. (2016). Cos s and bene i s o Eu opean shipping o ballas -wa e and hull-
ouling ea men : impac s o na i e and non-indigenous species. Ma . Policy
64, 148–155. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2015.11.015
Fe nández-Macho, J., Mu illas, A., Ansua egui, A., Escapa, M., Galla egui, M.
C., González, P., e al. (2015). Measu ing he ma i ime economy: Spain in
he Eu opean A lan ic A c. Ma . Pol. 60, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2015.
05.010
Finnish Minis y o En i onmen (2014). “A manual o he moni o ing
p og amme o he Finnish ma ine s a egy,” in Finnish (Suomen Me enhoidon
Seu an akäsiki ja. Taus a-Asiaki ja Suomen Me enhoi osuunni elman
Seu an aohjelmaehdo ukselle. A ailable online a : h p://www.ympa is o.
i/download/noname/%7BECF9A983-AC50-4DAB-B237-D7EA3A09664B
%7D/103978
Fishe , B., Tu ne , K., Zyls a, M., B ouwe , R., G oo , R. D., Fa be , S., e al.
(2008). Ecosys em se ices and economic heo y: in eg a ion o policy-
ele an esea ch. Ecol. Appl. 18, 2050–2067. doi: 10.1890/07-1537.1
Fishe , B., Tu ne , R. K., and Mo ling, P. (2009). De ining and classi ying
ecosys em se ices o decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Foley, N. S., Co less, R., Escapa, M., Fahy, F., Fe nandez-Macho, J., Gab iel, S.,
e al. (2014). De eloping a compa a i e ma ine socio-economic amewo k o
he Eu opean A lan ic a ea. J. Ocean Coas . Econ. 2014:3. doi: 10.15351/2373-
8456.1007
F eeman, A. M., He iges, J. A., and Kling, C. L. (2014). The Measu emen o
En i onmen al and Resou ce Values. Theo y and Me hods, 3 d Edn. Oxon: RFF
P ess.
Haines-Young, R., Pa e son, J., Po schin, M., Wilson, A., and Kass, G. (2011).
Chap e 25: The UK NEA Scena ios: De elopmen o S o ylines and Analysis
o Ou comes. The UK Na ional Ecosys em Assessmen Technical Repo ,
Camb idge, Uni ed Na ions En i onmen P og amme Wo ld Conse a ion
Moni o ing Cen e (UNEP-WCMC), 1196–1264.
Haines-Young, R., and Po schin, M. (2010). “The links be ween biodi e si y,
ecosys em se ices and human well-being,” in Ecosys em Ecology: A New
Syn hesis, eds D. G. Ra aelli and C. L. J. F id (Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess), 110–139. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007
Hanley, N. (2001). Cos -bene i analysis and en i onmen al policymaking.
En i on. Plann. C 19, 103–118. doi: 10.1068/c3s
Hanley, N., and Ba bie , E. B. (2009). P icing Na u e - Cos -Bene i Analysis and
En i onmen al Policy. Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Pa e son, D., and Jobs og , N. (2015). Economic alua ion
o ma ine and coas al ecosys ems: is i cu en ly i o pu pose? J. Ocean Coas .
Econ. 2:1. doi: 10.15351/2373-8456.1014
Hasle , B., Ah iainen, H., Hassels öm, L., Heiskanen, A.-S., Sou uko a, Å., and
Ma insen, L. (2016). Ma ine Ecosys em Se ices: Ma ine Ecosys em Se ices
in No dic Ma ine Wa e s and he Bal ic Sea – Possibili ies o Valua ion.
Copenhagen: TemaNo d 2016:501. No dic Council o Minis e s.
Ha am, C., A kins, J. P., Beaumon , N., Bö ge , T., Böhnke-Hen ichs, A., Bu don,
D., e al. (2015). Ma ine ecosys em se ices: linking indica o s o hei
classi ica ion. Ecol. Indic. 49, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.026
Hawkins, A. D., Pemb oke, A. E., and Poppe , A. N. (2014a). In o ma ion gaps in
unde s anding he e ec s o noise on ishes and in e eb a es. Re . Fish Biol.
Fish. 25, 39–64. doi: 10.1007/s11160-014-9369-3
Hawkins, A. D., and Poppe , A. N. (2014). Assessing he impac o unde wa e
sounds on ishes and o he o ms o ma ine li e. Acous . Today 10, 30–41.
Hawkins, A. D., Robe s, L., and Cheesman, S. (2014b). Responses o ee-li ing
coas al pelagic ish o impulsi e sounds. J. Acous . Soc. Am. 135, 3101–3116.
doi: 10.1121/1.4870697
Higgins, P., and Foley, A. (2014). The e olu ion o o sho e wind powe
in he Uni ed Kingdom. Renew. Sus ain. Ene gy Re . 37, 599–612. doi:
10.1016/j. se .2014.05.058
HM Go e nmen (2011). The Na u al Choice: Secu ing he Value o Na u e.
London.
HM T easu y (2003). The G een Book. London: HM T easu y.
Hyy iäinen, K., Ahl ik, L., Ah iainen, H., A ell, J., Huh ala, A., and Dahlbo,
K. (2015). Policy goals o imp o ed wa e quali y in he Bal ic Sea: when
do he bene i s ou weigh he cos s? En i on. Resou . Econ. 61, 217–241. doi:
10.1007/s10640-014-9790-z
In e wies, E., Angeli, D., Be am, C., Dwo ak, T., F ied ich, R., Gö li z, S.,
e al. (2013a). Me hodische G undlagen ü Sozio-Ökonomische Analysen
sowie Folgenabschä zungen on Maßnahmen einschließlichKos en-Nu zen
Analysen nach EG-Mee ess a egie-Rahmen ich linie (MSRL). Dessau-Roßlau:
Umwel bundesam (Ge man Fede al En i onmen Agency).
In e wies, E., Be am, C., Dwo ak, T., F ied ich, R., Gö li z, S., Hieben hal,
C., e al. (2013b). Me hodologies Rega ding Economic and Social Analyses
and Impac Assessmen s o Measu es Including Cos -Bene i -Analyses in he
Con ex o he Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Summa y. Dessau-Roßlau:
Umwel bundesam (Ge man Fede al En i onmen Agency).
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 18 Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
Jun unen, T., Ah iainen, H., and Män yniemi, S. (2013). “A Bayesian app oach
o add ess s a is ical e o s and unce ain ies in single choice con ingen
alua ion,” in S eps owa ds Comp ehensi e Bayesian Decision Analysis
in Fishe ies and En i onmen al Managemen , ed T. Jun unen, Academic
Disse a ion, Facul y o Biological and En i onmen al Sciences, Uni e si y o
Helsinki.
Kalaydjian, R., Dau ès, F., Gi a d, S., Van Iseghem, S., Le el, H., and Mong uel, R.
(2010). F ench Ma ine Economic Da a 2009. Plouzané: I eme .
Kendall, M. A., Bu ows, M. T., Sou hwa d, A. J., and Hawkins, S. J. (2004).
P edic ing he e ec s o ma ine clima e change on he in e eb a e p ey
o he bi ds o ocky sho es. Ibis 146, 40–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.20
04.00326.x
Kleeman, S. N. (2009). Didemnum Vexillum – Feasibili y o E adica ion and/o
Con ol. CCW Science epo , Repo No: 875, 53, CCW, Bango .
Kosenius, A.-K., and Ma kku, O. (2015). Ecosys em bene i s om coas al
habi a s—A h ee-coun y choice expe imen . Ma . Policy 58, 15–27. doi:
10.1016/j.ma pol.2015.03.032
Koss, R. S., Knigh s, A. M., E iksson, A., and Robinson, L. A. (2011). ODEMM
Linkage F amewo k Use guide. ODEMM Guidance Documen Se ies No.1.
EC FP7 p ojec (244273) ‘Op ions o Deli e ing Ecosys em-based Ma ine
Managemen ,’ Uni e si y o Li e pool.
Linko , I., Sa e s om, F. K., Kike , G., Ba chelo , C., B idges, T., and Fe guson,
E. (2006). F om compa a i e isk assessmen o mul i-c i e ia decision analysis
and adap i e managemen : ecen de elopmen s and applica ions. En i on. In .
32, 1072–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.en in .2006.06.013
Lou ie e, J. J., Henshe , D. A., and Swai , J. D. (2000). S a ed Choice Models.
Analysis and Applica ion. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Mace, G. M., No is, K., and Fi le , A. H. (2012). Biodi e si y and ecosys em
se ices: a mul ilaye ed ela ionship. T ends Ecol. E ol. (Ams ). 27, 19–26. doi:
10.1016/j. ee.2011.08.006
Maes, J., Telle , A., E ha d, M., Mu phy, P., Pa acchini, M. L., Ba edo, J. I., e al.
(2014). Mapping and Assessmen o Ecosys ems and hei Se ices Indica o s o
Ecosys em Assessmen s unde Ac ion 5 o he EU Biodi e si y S a egy o 2020.
Eu opean Commission. 2nd Repo - inal, Feb ua y 2014.
MAGRAMA (2015). Es a egia Ma ina.VII P og ama de Medidas. Spanish
Go e nmen , Mad id. A ailable online a : h p://www.mag ama.gob.es/es/
cos as/pa icipacion-publica/ ii_p og amasmedidaseemm_ cm7-406655.pd
(Accessed on: Feb ua y 2016).
Mann, R., Occhipin i, A., and Ha ding, J. M. (2004). Alien Species Ale : Rapana
Venosa (Veined Whelk). In e na ional Council o he Explo a ion o he Sea.
MEA (2005). Millennium Ecosys em Assessmen . Washing on, DC: Island P ess.
Mi chell, R. C., and Ca son, R. T. (1989). Using Su eys o Value Public Goods: The
Con ingen Valua ion Me hod. Washing on, DC: Resou ces o he u u e.
Molna , J. L., Gamboa, R. L., Re enga, C., and Spalding, M. D. (2008). Assessing he
global h ea o in asi e species o ma ine biodi e si y. F on . Ecol. En i on. 6,
485–492. doi: 10.1890/070064
Mu illas, A., Vi o, J., Galla egui, M. C., González, P., and Fe nández, J. (2011).
The alue o open ocean ecosys em: a case s udy o he Spanish Economic
Exclusi e Zone. Na . Resou . Fo um 35, 122–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.20
11.01383.x
Nedwell, J., Tu npenny, A., Langwo hy, J., and Edwa ds, B. (2003). Measu emen s
o Unde wa e Noise du ing Piling a he Red Funnel Te minal, Sou hamp on,
and Obse a ions o I s E ec on Caged Fish. D a Repo p epa ed o Cal ans
Dis ic 4. Cal ans, San F ancisco, CA.
Nedwell, J. R., Langwo hy, J., and Howell, D. (2003). Assessmen o Sub-Sea
Acous ic Noise and Vib a ion om O sho e Wind Tu bines and I s Impac on
Ma ine Wildli e; Ini ial Measu emen s o Unde wa e Noise du ing Cons uc ion
o O sho e Wind a ms, and Compa ison wi h Backg ound Noise. Subacous ech
Repo e : 544R0423. COWRIE.
Nehls, G., Be ke, K., Eckelmann, S., and Ros, M. (2007). Assessmen and Cos s o
Po en ial Enginee ing Solu ions o he Mi iga ion o he Impac s o Unde wa e
Noise A ising om he Cons uc ion o O sho e Wind a ms. BioConsul SH
Repo , Husum, COWRIE L d.
No ing, M., Håkansson, C., and Dahlg en, E. (2016). Valua ion o eco oxicological
impac s om ibu yl in based on a quan i a i e en i onmen al
assessmen amewo k. Ambio 45, 120–129. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-
0682-4
No on, D., and Hynes, S. (2014). Valuing he non-ma ke bene i s a ising om he
implemen a ion o he EU Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Ecosys . Se .
10, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ecose .2014.09.009
Nowacek, D. P., Tho ne, L. H., Johns on, D. W., and Tyack, P. L. (2007).
Responses o ce aceans o an h opogenic noise. Mamm. Re . 37, 81–115. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00104.x
Nunes, P. A. L. D., Lou ei o, M., Piñol, L., Sas e, S., Vol ai e, L., and Canepa, A.
(2015). Analyzing beach ec ea ionis s’ p e e ences o he educ ion o jelly ish
blooms: economic esul s om a s a ed-choice expe imen in Ca alonia, Spain.
PLoS ONE 10:e0126681. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0126681
OECD (2006). Cos -Bene i Analysis and he En i onmen : Recen De elopmen s.
Pa is: OECD Publishing.
Oinonen, S., Hyy iäinen, K., Ahl ik, L., Laamanen, M., Leh o an a, V., Salojä i,
J., e al. (2016). Cos -e ec i e ma ine p o ec ion - a p agma ic app oach. PLoS
ONE 11:e0147085. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0147085
Oja ee , H., Galil, B. S., Campbell, M. L., Ca l on, J. T., Canning-Clode, J., Cook, E.
J., e al. (2015). Classi ica ion o non-indigenous species based on hei impac s:
conside a ions o applica ion in ma ine managemen . PLoS Biol. 13:e1002130.
doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pbio.1002130
Oja ee , H., Galil, B. S., Minchin, D., Olenin, S., Amo im, A., Canning-Clode,
J., e al. (2014). Ten ecommenda ions o ad ancing he assessmen and
managemen o non-indigenous species in ma ine ecosys ems. Ma . Policy 44,
160–165. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2013.08.019
Ojea, E., Ma in-O ega, J., and Chiabai, A. (2012). De ining and classi ying
ecosys em se ices o economic alua ion: he case o o es wa e se ices.
En i on. Sci. Policy 19–20, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.en sci.2012.02.002
Palmquis , R. B. (1999). “Hedonic models,” in Handbook o En i onmen al and
Resou ce Economics, ed J. C. J. M. an den Be gh (Chel enham: Edwa d Elga ),
765–776.
Pa sons, E. C. M., Dolman, S., W igh , A. J., Rose, N. A., and Bu ns, W.
C. G. (2008). Na y sona and ce aceans: jus how much does he gun
need o smoke be o e we ac ? Ma . Pollu . Bull. 56, 1248–1257. doi:
10.1016/j.ma polbul.2008.04.025
Pea ce, D. (1998). Cos -bene i analysis and en i onmen al policy. Ox o d Re .
Econ. Policy 14, 84–100.
Peck, M. A., A ani idis, C., Bu enschön, M., Canu, D. M., Cha zinikolaou, E.,
Cucco, A., e al. (2016). P ojec ing changes in he dis ibu ion and p oduc i i y
o li ing ma ine esou ces: a c i ical e iew o he sui e o modelling app oaches
used in he la ge Eu opean p ojec VECTORS. Es ua . Coas . Shel Sci. doi:
10.1016/j.ecss.2016.05.019. [Epub ahead o p in ].
Pe ei a, H. M., Leadley, P. W., P oença, V., Alkemade, R., Scha lemann, J. P. W.,
Fe nandez-Manja és, J. F., e al. (2010). Scena ios o Global Biodi e si y in
he 21s Cen u y. Science 330, 1496–1501. doi: 10.1126/science.1196624
Pi oddi, C., Teixei a, H., Lynam, C. P., Smi h, C., Al a ez, M. C., Mazik, K., e al.
(2015). Using ecological models o assess ecosys em s a us in suppo o he
Eu opean Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e. Ecol. Indic. 58, 175–191. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.037
Poppe , A. N., Hawkins, A. D., Fay, R. R., Mann, D. A., Ba ol, S., Ca lson, T.
J. e al. (2014). ASA S3/SC1. 4 TR-2014 Sound Exposu e Guidelines o Fishes
and Sea Tu les. A Technical Repo P epa ed by ANSI-Acc edi ed S anda ds
Commi ee S3/SC1 and Regis e ed wi h ANSI. Heidelbe g: Sp inge .
Reinha d, S., de Blaeji, A., Bogaa d , M.-J., Gaa , A., Leopold, M., Scholl, M., e al.
(2012). Cos -E ec i eness and Cos -Bene i Analysis o he MSFD.F amewo k
o he Ne he lands. LEI Repo , Wageningen Uni e si y, The Hague.
Richa dson, L., Loomis, J., K oege , T., and Casey, F. (2015). The ole o
bene i ans e in ecosys em se ice alua ion. Ecol. Econ. 115, 51–58. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018
Robe s, L. (2015). Beha iou al Responses by Ma ine Fishes and Mac oin e eb a es
o Unde wa e Noise. Ph.D. hesis, Uni e si y o Hull.
Sagebiel, J., Schwa z, C., Rhozyel, M., Rajmis, S., and Hi sch eld, J. (2016).
Economic alua ion o Bal ic ma ine ecosys em se ices: blind spo s and
limi ed consis ency. ICES J. Ma . Sci. 73, 991–1003. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/ s 264
Salz, P., Buisman, E., Soma, K., Hans, F., Acadia, P., and P ellezo, R. (2011).
FISHRENT, Bioeconomic Simulan ion and Op imisa ion Model o Fishe ies. LEI
Repo 2011-024, May 2011.
Solan, M., Hau on, C., Godbold, J. A., Wood, C. L., Leigh on, T. G., and Whi e,
P. (2016). An h opogenic sou ces o unde wa e sound can modi y how
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 19 Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192
Bö ge e al. Cos s and Bene i s o GES
sedimen -dwelling in e eb a es media e ecosys em p ope ies. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9.
doi: 10.1038/s ep20540
S e n, N. (2006). The Economics o Clima e Change: The S e n Re iew. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
S ong, J. A., Andonegi, E., Bizsel, K. C., Dano a o, R., Ellio , M., F anco, A., e al.
(2015). Ma ine biodi e si y and ecosys em unc ion ela ionships: he po en ial
o p ac ical moni o ing applica ions. Es ua . Coas . Shel Sci. 161, 46–64. doi:
10.1016/j.ecss.2015.04.008
TEEB (2010). The Economics o Ecosys ems and Biodi e si y: Ecological and
Economic Founda ions. London; Washing on, DC: Ea hscan.
Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Ka emann, R., and Pipe , W. (2006). E ec s o
O sho e Wind Fa m Noise on Ma ine Mammals and Fish. Biola, Hambu g,
COWRIE L d.
Tu ne , K., Schaa sma, M., Ellio , M., Bu don, D., A kins, J., Jickells, T., e al.
(2014). UK Na ional Ecosys em Assessmen Follow-on. Wo k Package Repo 4:
Coas al and ma ine ecosys em se ices: p inciples and p ac ice. UNEP-WCMC,
LWEC, UK.
Tu ne , R. K., Hadley, D., Luise i, T., Lam, V. W. Y., and Cheung, W. W. L.
(2010). An In oduc ion o Socio-Economic Assessmen Wi hin a Ma ine S a egy
F amewo k. Depa men o En i onmen , Food, and Ru al A ai s, London.
Tu ne , R. K., Mee, L., Ellio , M., Schaa sma, M., Bu don, D., A kins, J. P.,
e al. (2015). “Chap e 2. Concep ual amewo k,” in Coas al Zones Ecosys em
Se ices: F om Science o Values and Decision Making. S udies in Ecological
Economics, Vol. 9, eds R. K. Tu ne and M. Schaa sma (Heidelbe g: Sp inge ).
UK NEA (2011). UK Na ional Ecosys em Assessmen : Syn hesis o Key Findings.
Camb idge: UNEP-WCMC.
Wale, M. A., Simpson, S. D., and Rad o d, A. N. (2013). Size-dependen
physiological esponses o sho e c abs o single and epea ed playback o ship
noise. Biol. Le . 9:20121194. doi: 10.1098/ sbl.2012.1194
Wa d, F. A., and Beal, D. (2000). Valuing Na u e wi h T a el Cos Models.A
Manual. Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Weilga , L. S. (2007). A b ie e iew o known e ec s o noise on ma ine mammals.
In . J. Comp. Psychol. 20, 159–168.
WG-ESA (2010). Economic and Social Analysis o he Ini ial Assessmen o
he Ma ine S a egy F amewo k Di ec i e: A Guidance Documen . Eu opean
Commission DG En i onmen , Wo king G oup on Economic and Social
Assessmen .
Wü sig, B., G eene, C. R., and Je e son, T. A. (2000). De elopmen o an ai bubble
cu ain o educe unde wa e noise o pe cussi e piling. Ma . En i on. Res. 49,
79–93. doi: 10.1016/S0141-1136(99)00050-1
Za auz, L., P ellezo, R., Muge za, E., A e xe, I., Ibaiba iaga, L., and Roa, R. (2013).
Análisis de la Flo a Rec ea i a y de su Impac o Socioeconómico y Pesque o en
Euskadi. Re is a de in es igación ma ina, RIM.
Con lic o In e es S a emen : The au ho s decla e ha he esea ch was
conduc ed in he absence o any comme cial o inancial ela ionships ha could
be cons ued as a po en ial con lic o in e es .
The handling Edi o decla ed a collabo a ion wi h he au ho s and s a es
ha he p ocess ne e heless me he s anda ds o a ai and objec i e e iew.
Copy igh © 2016 Bö ge , B oszei , Ah iainen, A kins, Bu don, Luise i, Mu illas,
Oinonen, Pal igue a, Robe s, Uya a and Aus en. This is an open-access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (CC BY).
The use, dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion in o he o ums is pe mi ed, p o ided he
o iginal au ho (s) o licenso a e c edi ed and ha he o iginal publica ion in his
jou nal is ci ed, in acco dance wi h accep ed academic p ac ice. No use, dis ibu ion
o ep oduc ion is pe mi ed which does no comply wi h hese e ms.
F on ie s in Ma ine Science | www. on ie sin.o g 20 Oc obe 2016 | Volume 3 | A icle 192