, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 120–129 | Cite as

Valuation of ecotoxicological impacts from tributyltin based on a quantitative environmental assessment framework

  • Maria Noring
  • Cecilia Håkansson
  • Elin Dahlgren


In the scientific literature, few valuations of biodiversity and ecosystem services following the impacts of toxicity are available, hampered by the lack of ecotoxicological documentation. Here, tributyltin is used to conduct a contingent valuation study as well as cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of measures for improving the environmental status in Swedish coastal waters of the Baltic Sea. Benefits considering different dimensions when assessing environmental status are highlighted and a quantitative environmental assessment framework based on available technology, ecological conditions, and economic valuation methodology is developed. Two scenarios are used in the valuation study: (a) achieving good environmental status by 2020 in accordance with EU legislation (USD 119 household−1 year−1) and (b) achieving visible improvements by 2100 due to natural degradation (USD 108 household−1 year−1) during 8 years. The later scenario was used to illustrate an application of the assessment framework. The CBA results indicate that both scenarios might generate a welfare improvement.


Contingent valuation Stated preferences Marine water framework TBT Toxic compounds Marine environment 



This work was gratefully supported by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, FMV.

Supplementary material

13280_2015_682_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (824 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 825 kb)


  1. Ahlroth, S., and G. Finnveden. 2011. Ecovalue 08—a new valuation method for environmental systems analysis tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 1994–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlroth, S., M. Nilsson, G. Finnveden, O. Hjelm, and E. Hochschorner. 2011. Weighting and valuation in environmental systems analysis tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahtiainen, H., J. Artell, M. Czajkowski, B. Hasler, L. Hasselström, K. Hyytiänen, J. Meyerhoff, J.C.R. Smart, et al. 2013. Public preferences regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea—an international comparison informing marine policy. Marine Policy 42: 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan, G.W., P.E. Gibbs, G.R. Burt, and L.G. Hummerstone. 1987. The effects of tributyltin (TBT) accumulation on adult dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus: One level-term field and laboratory exposures. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 67: 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CICES. 2013. Towards a common international classification of ecosystem services. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from
  6. Cornelissen, G., A. Pettersen, E. Nesse, A. Helland, and G.D. Breeveld. 2008. The contribution of urban runoff to organic contaminants levels in harbour sediments near two Norwegian cities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC. 2000. WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy).Google Scholar
  8. EC. 2003. AFS (International Convention of the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 782/2003/EC).Google Scholar
  9. EC. 2006. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006.Google Scholar
  10. EC. 2008. MSFD (Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC).Google Scholar
  11. Eklund, B., M. Elfström, and H. Borg. 2008. Tributylin originates from pleasure boats in Sweden in spite of firm restrictions. Open Environmental Science 2: 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EU. 2005. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). Substance Data Sheet. Priority Substance No. 30. Tributyltin Compunds (TBT-ion). CAS-No. 688-73-3 (36643-28-4).Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, W.S., A. Wishkovsky, and F.L. Chu. 1990. Effects of tributyltin on defense-related activities of oyster hemocytes. Archives of Environmental Toxicology 19: 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Håkansson, C. 2008. A new valuation question: Analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 39: 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanemann, M.W. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley, N., B. Kriström, and J. Shogren. 2009. Coherent arbitrariness: On value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land Economics 85: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten. 2012. Boat hull cleaning. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Report 2012:1, Göteborg, Sweden (in Swedish, Båtbottentvättning av fritidsbåtar).Google Scholar
  18. Helcom. 2010. Hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea—an integrated thematic assessment on hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proceedings No. 120B.Google Scholar
  19. Holm, G., D. Bendz, L. Larsson, M. Leppänen, J. Mácsik, P. Pehrson, Y. Rogbeck, and B. Svedberg. 2007. Stabilisation and solidification of contaminated soil and dredge material. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5696 (in Swedish, English summary: Stabilisering och solidifiering av förorenad jord och muddermassor—Lämplighet och potential för svenska förhållanden).Google Scholar
  20. Johnston, R.J., K. Segerson, E.T. Schultz, E.Y. Besedin, and M. Ramachandran. 2011. Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 70: 1946–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kosenius, A.-K. 2010. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 69(3): 528–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindhjem, H., and S. Navrud. 2008. Internet CV surveys—a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values? MPRA Paper 11469, University Library of Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Magnusson, Y., B. Svedberg, J. Mácsik, A. Maijala, and H. Jyräva. 2006. Muddermassor med miljöfördelar. Bygg & teknik 2/06: 72–76.Google Scholar
  24. Martin-Ortega, J., R. Brouwer, and H. Aiking. 2011. Application of a value-based equivalency method to assess environmental damage compensation under the European Environmental Liability Directive. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1461–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, L., and M. Postle. 1994. Risk-benefit analysis and case study on tributyl tin. International Biodetoriation & Biodegradation 34: 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noring, M. 2014. Valuing ecosystem services—linking ecology and policy. PhD Thesis. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  27. Östberg, K., L. Hasselström, and C. Håkansson. 2012. Non-market valuation of the coastal environment—uniting political aims, ecological and economic knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management 110: 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prop 2009/10:155 Svenska miljömål—för ett effektivare miljöarbete.Google Scholar
  29. Sarradin, P.M., Y. Lapaquellerie, A. Astruc, C. Latouche, and M. Austruc. 1995. One level term behavior and degradation kinetics of tributyltin in a marina sediment. Science of the Total Environment 170: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SCB. 2013. Retrieved December 11, 2013, from
  31. SOU 2011:34 Etappmål i miljömålssystemet.Google Scholar
  32. Sweco. 2007. In-depth investigation of dredging and disposal of dredged material (in Swedish,‡ Fördjupad utredning gällande muddring och omhändertagande av muddermassor).Google Scholar
  33. UN. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  34. Viglino, L., E. Pelletier, and R. St-Louis. 2004. Highly persistent butylins in northern marine sediments: A one level-term threat for the Saguenay Fjord (Canada). Environmental Toxicological Chemistry 23: 2673–2681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Noring
    • 1
  • Cecilia Håkansson
    • 1
  • Elin Dahlgren
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Environmental Strategies Research, fmsRoyal Institute of Technology, KTHStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Legal AffairsSwedish Environmental Protection AgencyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations