Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 273–297 | Cite as

Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services

  • Ian J. Bateman
  • Amii R. Harwood
  • David J. Abson
  • Barnaby Andrews
  • Andrew Crowe
  • Steve Dugdale
  • Carlo Fezzi
  • Jo Foden
  • David Hadley
  • Roy Haines-Young
  • Mark Hulme
  • Andreas Kontoleon
  • Paul Munday
  • Unai Pascual
  • James Paterson
  • Grischa Perino
  • Antara Sen
  • Gavin Siriwardena
  • Mette Termansen
Article

Abstract

We combine natural science modelling and valuation techniques to present economic analyses of a variety of land use change scenarios generated for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Specifically, the agricultural, greenhouse gas, recreational and urban greenspace impacts of the envisioned land use changes are valued. Particular attention is given to the incorporation of spatial variation in the natural environment and to addressing issues such as biodiversity impacts where reliable values are not available. Results show that the incorporation of ecosystem services and their values within analyses can substantially change decisions.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Environmental valuation Land use change  UK National Ecosystem Assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Social and Environmental Economic Research (SEER) into Multi-Objective Land Use Decision Making project (which in turn is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC); Funder Ref: RES-060-25-0063) and by the UK-NEA (which is in turn funded by the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)).

References

  1. Abson D, Termansen M, Pascual U, Aslam U, Fezzi C, Bateman IJ (2013) Valuing climate change effects upon UK agricultural GHG emissions: spatial analysis of a regulating ecosystem service. Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9661-z
  2. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbier EB (2011) Capitalizing on nature: ecosystems as natural assets. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Munro A, Poe GL (2008) Asymmetric dominance effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation. Land Econ 84:115–127. http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/1/115 Google Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Lovett AA, Brainard JS (2003) Applied environmental economics: a GIS approach to cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450–460. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner RK (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resour Econ 48(2):177–218. doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Abson D, Beaumont N, Darnell A, Fezzi C, Hanley N, Kontoleon A, Maddison D, Morling P, Morris J, Mourato S, Pascual U, Perino G, Sen A, Tinch D, Turner RK, Valatin G (2011) Economic Values from Ecosystems. In: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman IJ, Harwood A, Mace GM, Watson R, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, Fezzi C, Foden J, Haines-Young R, Hulme M, Kontoleon A, Lovett AA, Munday P, Pascual U, Paterson J, Perino G, Sen A, Siriwardena G, van Soest D, Termansen M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision making: land use in the UK. Science. vol 341, no. 6141, pp. 45–50. doi: 10.1126/science.1234379
  10. Baumgärtner S (2007) The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. Nat Resour Model 20:87–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-7445.2007.tb00202.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boardman A, Greenberg D, Vining A, Weimer D (2010) Cost-benefit analysis. Pearson, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1993) The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manag 25(1):S80–S99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradbear N (2009) Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: a guide to the services provided by bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their products. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. Butchart SH, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JP, Almond RE, Baillie JE, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque JF, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Hernández Morcillo M, Oldfield TE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié JC, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982):1164–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castles C, Parish D (2011) Review of the economic case for HS2: economic evaluation London—West Midlands link. RAC Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. CEH (2000) Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Land Cover Map. Wallingford, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheshire P, Sheppard S (1995) On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica 62:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christie M, Warren J, Hanley N, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T, Lyons N (2004) Developing measures for valuing changes in biodiversity: final report to Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dasgupta P (2007) Comments on the Stern Review’s economics of climate change. Natl Inst Econ Rev 199:4–7Google Scholar
  22. Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G (2003) The economics of non-convex ecosystems: introduction. Environ Resour Econ 26(4):499–525. doi: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000007347.37345.55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davies L, Kwiatkowski L, Gaston KJ, Beck H, Brett H, Batty M, Scholes L, Wade R, Sheate WR, Sadler J, Perino G, Andrews B, Kontoleon A, Bateman I, Harris JA, Burgess P, Cooper N, Evans S, Lyme S, McKay HI, Metcalfe R, Roger K, Simpson L, Winn J (2011) Urban, Chapter 10 of UK National Ecosystem Assessment: technical report. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. DECC (2009) Carbon valuation in UK policy appraisal: a revised approach. Department of Energy and Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Defra (2010) Wild populations: farmland birds in England 2009. Statistical release, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment
  26. Defra (2011) Hidden value of nature revealed in groundbreaking study, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/06/02/hidden-value-of-nature-revealed
  27. DfT (2003) The future of air transport, Cm 6046. Department for Transport, The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Dicks LV, Showler DA, Sutherland WJ (2010) Bee conservation: evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing Ltd, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  29. Dugdale SJ (2010a) GIS-based modelling of the distribution of farmland birds in England and Wales using atlas data and functional guilds. PhD thesis, University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Dugdale SJ (2010b) Habitat association modelling for farmland birds. Report to the Economics Team of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, CSERGE, University of East Anglia. Experian (2010) Mosaic UK 2009/2008. http://www.experian.co.uk/business-strategies/mosaic-uk-2009.html. Accessed Aug 2010
  31. Fezzi C, Bateman IJ (2011) Structural agricultural land use modelling for spatial agro-environmental policy analysis. Am J Agric Econ 93(4):1168–1188. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar037 Google Scholar
  32. Fezzi C, Hutchins M, Rigby D, Bateman IJ, Posen P, Deflandre-Vlandas A (2010) Integrated assessment of water framework directive nitrate reduction measures. Agric Econ 41:123–134Google Scholar
  33. Fezzi C, Bateman IJ, Askew T, Munday P, Pascual U, Sen A, Harwood A (2013) Valuing provisioning ecosystem services in agriculture: the impact of climate change upon food production in the United Kingdom. Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x
  34. Fisher B, Turner RK, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, De Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18(8):2050–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Foster V, Bateman IJ, Harley D (1997) Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. J Agric Econ 48(2):123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbons DW, Reid JB, Chapman RA (1993) The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988–1991. T &AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. GLA (2006) Heathrow economics study: expansion of Heathrow Airport. Greater London Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. H.M. Government (2007) PSA delivery agreement 28: secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future. HMSO, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  39. Gregory RD, van Striven A, Voříšek P, Meyling AWG, Noble DG, Foppen RPB, Gibbons DW (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 360:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haines-Young RH, Paterson J and Potschin M (2011) The UKUK-NEA scenarios: development of storylines and analysis of outcomes. Chapter 25 of UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Technical report. UNEPWCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Haines-Young R (2011) Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):681–699. doi: 10.1177/0309133311422977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hanley N (2001) Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 19(1):103–118Google Scholar
  43. Hanley N, Knight J (1992) Valuing the environment: recent UK experience and an application to green belt land. J Environ Plan Manag 35(2):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  45. Heal GM, Barbier EB, Boyle KJ, Covich AP, Gloss SP, Hershner CH, Hoehn JP, Pringle CM, Polasky S, Segerson K, Shrader-Frechette K (2005) Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Howden NJK, Burt TP, Mathias SA, Worrall F, Whelan MJ (2011) Modelling long-term diffuse nitrate pollution at the catchment-scale: data, parameter and epistemic uncertainty. J Hydrol 403(3–4):337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. HS2 Ltd (2010) High speed rail London to the West Midlands and beyond: a report to government. Department for Transport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Hulme M, Siriwardena G (2010) Breeding bird diversity as a function of land cover. Report to the Economics Team of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, British Trust for Ornithology, ThetfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1):131–150. doi: 10.1023/A:1008372522243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kopp RJ, Krupnick AJ, Toman M (1997) Cost-benefit analysis and regulatory reform: an assessment of the science and the art. Discussion paper 97-19, Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. PNAS 99(26):16812–16816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14:941–950. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18:197–206Google Scholar
  54. Mace GM, Baillie JEM (2007) The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conserv Biol 21:1406–1413. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00830.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27(1):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mäler K-G (2008) Sustainable development and resilience in ecosystems. Environ Resour Econ 39(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mäler K-G, Aniyar S, Jansson Å (2009) Accounting for ecosystems. Environ Resour Econ 42:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):22–31. doi: 10.1065/lca2007.04.316 Google Scholar
  59. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Morse-Jones S, Bateman IJ, Kontoleon A, Ferrini S, Burgess N, Turner RK (2012) Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects, Ecol Econ (in press). doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.002
  61. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Natural England (2010a) Entry level Stewardship environmental Stewardship handbook, 3rd edn. Natural England, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  63. Natural England (2010b) Monitor of engagement with the natural environment: the national survey on people and the natural environment. MENE technical report NECR050Google Scholar
  64. Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) (2011) The natural choice: securing the value of nature, Cm 8082. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. Nix J (2009) The John Nix Farm Management Pocketbook, Andersons Centre, Melton MowbrayGoogle Scholar
  66. Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance. Weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  67. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López M, Verman M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, Eppink F, Farley J, Loomis J, Pearson L, Perrings C, Polasky S (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 183–256Google Scholar
  69. Pearce DW (1998) Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxf Rev of Econ Policy 14(4):84–100. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/14.4.84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-Benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  71. Pearce DW (2007) Do we really care about biodiversity? Environ Resour Econ 37(1):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Perino G, Andrews B, Kontoleon A, Bateman IJ (2011) Urban greenspace amenity: economic assessment of ecosystem services provided by UK urban habitats. Report to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, University of East Anglia. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=80gPu556Qhw%3d&tabid=82
  73. Perino G, Andrews B, Kontoleon A, Bateman IJ (2013) The value of urban green space in Britain: a methodological framework for spatially referenced benefit transfer. Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9665-8
  74. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D, Johnson K (2011) The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the State of Minnesota. Environ Resour Econ 48(2):219–242. doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9407-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. POST (1997) Tunnel vision: future roles of tunnels in transport infrastructure. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. Risely K, Renwick AR, Dadam D, Eaton MA, Johnston A, Baillie SR, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG (2011) The breeding bird survey 2010. BTO research report 597. British Trust for Ornithology, ThetfordGoogle Scholar
  77. Salzman J, Thompson BH Jr, Daily GC (2001) Protecting ecosystem services: science, economics, and law. Stanf Environ Law J 20:309–332Google Scholar
  78. Schmidhuber J, Tubiello FN (2007) Global food security under climate change. PNAS 104:19703–19708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sen A, Darnell A, Crowe A, Bateman IJ, Munday P (2011) Economic assessment of the value of open-access recreation in UK ecosystems: a scenario analysis. Report to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  80. Sen A, Harwood A, Bateman IJ, Munday P, Crowe A, Brander L, Raychaudhuri J, Lovett AA, Foden J, Provins A (2012) Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems in Great Britain. Working paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  81. Sen A, Harwood A, Bateman IJ, Munday P, Crowe A, Brander L, Raychaudhuri J, Lovett AA, Provins A, Foden J (2013) Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems in Great Britain. Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9666-7
  82. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. www.teebweb.org
  85. Tett P, Gowen R, Mills D, Fernandes T, Gilpin L, Huxham M, Kennington K, Read P, Service M, Wilkinson M, Malcolm S (2007) Defining and detecting undesirable disturbance in the context of marine eutrophication. Mar Pollut Bull 55(1-6):282–297Google Scholar
  86. H.M. Treasury (2003) The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. H.M. Treasury (2011) Budget 2011, HC 836. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Turner RK (1993) Sustainability: principles and practice. In: Turner RK (ed) Sustainable environmental economics and management. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  89. Turner RK, Morse-Jones S, Fisher B (2010) Ecosystem valuation: a sequential decision support system and quality assessment issues. Ann NY Acad Sci 1185:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (2009) UK climate projection: briefing report. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
  91. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  92. USDI (US Department of the Interior) (1973) Endangered species act. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240Google Scholar
  93. Vatn A, Bromley DW (1994) Choices without prices without apologies. J Environ Econ Manag 26:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Walker B, Pearson L, Harris M, Mäler K-G, Li C-Z, Biggs R, Baynes T (2010) Incorporating resilience in the assessment of inclusive wealth: an example from South East Australia. Environ Resour Econ 45:183–202. doi: 10.1007/s10640-009-9311-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. White PCL, Gregory KW, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82(3):345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. White PCL, Bennett AC, Hayes EJV (2001) The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mamm Rev 31(2):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC, Hoban TJ, Clifford WB (1995) Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users. J Environ Econ Manag 29(2):238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian J. Bateman
    • 1
  • Amii R. Harwood
    • 1
  • David J. Abson
    • 3
    • 4
  • Barnaby Andrews
    • 1
  • Andrew Crowe
    • 1
  • Steve Dugdale
    • 1
  • Carlo Fezzi
    • 1
  • Jo Foden
    • 1
    • 5
  • David Hadley
    • 6
  • Roy Haines-Young
    • 8
  • Mark Hulme
    • 9
  • Andreas Kontoleon
    • 10
  • Paul Munday
    • 1
  • Unai Pascual
    • 10
    • 11
  • James Paterson
    • 7
  • Grischa Perino
    • 2
    • 12
  • Antara Sen
    • 1
  • Gavin Siriwardena
    • 8
  • Mette Termansen
    • 4
    • 13
  1. 1.Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East Anglia (UEA) NorwichUK
  2. 2.School of Business, Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.FuturES Research CenterLeuphana Universität LüneburgLüneburgGermany
  4. 4.School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  5. 5.Centre for EnvironmentFisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)LowestoftUK
  6. 6.UNE Business School, University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  7. 7.School of Geosciences, University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  8. 8.Centre for Environmental Management (CEM), School of GeographyUniversity of Nottingham NottinghamUK
  9. 9.British Trust for OrnithologyThetfordUK
  10. 10.Department of Land EconomyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  11. 11.Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)BilbaoSpain
  12. 12.School of EconomicsUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  13. 13.Department of Environmental ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations