Abstract: An important issue in biodiversity valuation is gaining a better understanding of how biodiversity conservation affects economic activities and human welfare. Quantifying the economic benefits of biodiversity for human well-being is not straightforward. Here, we expand the ecosystem service cascade by (i) attributing a methodology to the different steps of the cascade to assess the effects of changes in functional group diversity on economic activities; (ii) including multiple attributes for defining functional diversity and (iii) integrating a dynamic ecological model simulating complex interactions and feedbacks between species with an economic model assessing the effects of changes in functional group diversity for gross revenues. The stepwise methodological framework integrates a production function approach with a market price-based approach in order to investigate the indirect use value of functional group diversity based on the ecological role of species in the ecosystem. The methodology is applied to estimate the relationship between the gross economic value of Chinook salmon (Pacific Northwest, United States) and the diversity of freshwater macroinvertebrates. The results of our analysis emphasize the importance of biological diversity for sustaining ecosystem goods and services. The analysis provides a tractable framework for quantitatively exploring the economic consequences of changes in functional group diversity.

Abstract: Smart grids (SGs) have a central role in the development of the global power sector. Cost-benefit analyses and environmental impact assessments are used to support policy on the deployment of SG systems and technologies. However, the conflicting and widely varying estimates of costs, benefits, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction, and energy savings in literature leave policy makers struggling with how to advise regarding SG deployment. Identifying the causes for the wide variation of individual estimates in the literature is crucial if evaluations are to be used in decision-making. This paper (i) summarizes and compares the methodologies used for economic and environmental evaluation of SGs (ii) identifies the sources of variation in estimates across studies, and (iii) point to gap in research on economic and environmental analyses of SG systems. Seventeen studies (nine articles and eight reports published between 2000 and 2015) addressing the economic costs versus benefits, energy efficiency, and GHG emissions of SGs were systematically searched, located, selected, and reviewed. Their methods and data were subsequently extracted and analysed. The results show that no standardized method currently exists for assessing the economic and environmental impacts of SG systems. The costs varied between 0.03 and 1143 M/yr, while the benefits ranged from 0.04 to 804 M/yr, suggesting that SG systems do not result in cost savings The primary energy savings ranged from 0.03 to 0.95 MJ/kWh, whereas the GHG emission reduction ranged from 10 to 180 gCO2/kWh, depending on the country grid mix and the system boundary of the SG system considered. The findings demonstrate that although SG systems are energy efficient and reduce GHG emissions, investments in SG systems may not yield any benefits. Standardizing some methodologies and assumptions such as discount rates, time horizon and scrutinizing some key input data will result in more consistent estimates of costs and benefits, GHG emission reduction, and energy savings.

Abstract: Production of food crops on trace element-contaminated agricultural lands in the Campine region (Belgium) can be problematic as legal threshold values for safe use of these crops can be exceeded. Conventional sanitation of vast areas is too expensive and alternatives need to be investigated. Zea mays on a trace element-contaminated soil in the region showed an average yield of 53 ± 10 Mg fresh or 20 ± 3 Mg dry biomass ha−1. Whole plant Cd concentrations complied with legal threshold values for animal feed. Moreover, threshold values for use in anaerobic digestion were met. Biogas production potential did not differ between maize grown on contaminated and non-contaminated soils. Results suggested favorable perspectives for farmers to generate non-food crops profitably, although effective soil cleaning would be very slow. This demonstrates that a valuable and sustainable alternative use can be generated for moderately contaminated soils on which conventional agriculture is impaired.

Abstract: Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 ( 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between 55 and 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over normal biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land.