Integrating ecosystem services in Swedish environmental assessments: an empirical analysis

Abstract

Given the growing number of policies and laws that encourage inclusion of ecosystem services (ES) in processes, we have investigated environmental impact assessments (EIA) and strategic environmental assessments (SEA) conducted in Sweden in order to analyse whether ES may be integrated to enhance and improve environmental assessment of today. Representative Swedish environmental projects were reviewed. Three cases with different geographic and environmental settings were selected to allow us to study consideration of a wide range of different ES. We investigated the processes and discussions taking place using documentation from the cases. We formalized and labelled the expected impacts into an ES framework. Summarizing each case, we described conformities and divergences in explicit and implicit prioritizations between the actors. We discussed the benefits of integrating ES into current practices and possible improvements in the processes and methodologies. When ES could be integrated into EIAs and SEAs more aspects would be visualized and a larger stakeholder engagement stimulated leading to improved support for decision-making.

Keywords:

• Ecosystem services
• environmental impact assessment
• strategic environmental assessment
• integration
• harmonization

1. Introduction

Environmental impact assessments (EIA) can be defined as ‘the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made’ (International Association for Impact Assessment 1999). Today, EIA is applied globally, both through national legislations and international organizations. For example, UNEP advocates that states ‘should not undertake or authorize activities without prior consideration, at an early stage, of their environmental effects’ (UNEP 1987). EIAs serve as a basis for legal decisions on permits and ensure public participation in the decision-making thereby strengthening the quality of decisions.

The origin of contemporary EIA is found in the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) of the United States (UNEP 2002). In the European Union, EIA is a key instrument of the environmental policy since the implementation of the first EIA Directive in 1985 (Directive 85/337/EEC). Both legislation and practice has improved continuously and the EIA Directive was amended by Directives 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC. The Directive and its three amendments were codified in 2011 by Directive 2011/92/EU. The codified Directive was subsequently amended by Directive 2014/52/EU (EU 2017). The Strategic Environment Assessment Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) was issued in 2001. It applies to a wide range of public plans and programmes (e.g. on land use, transport, energy, waste, agriculture) (Fischer 2007).

These directives are now implemented in Swedish environmental law. The basic regulations are described in Chapter 6 of the Swedish Environmental Code along with complementing rules in the regulation (1998:905) on EIAs. From 1 January 2018, Chapter 6 will be restructured and updated, to reflect the latest directive amendments. Biodiversity is listed in 2§ as one of the environmental effects that should be included in both strategic (plans and programs) and specific (projects) environmental assessments. In the Swedish Government’s proposition to the Parliament on this chapter (Prop. 2016/17:200), it is clarified that ‘biodiversity’ in this context specifically includes both ecosystems and ecosystem services (Regeringens 2017).

Sweden performs approximately 1600 EIAs every year (Lindblom and Rodéhn 2008). Most of them are performed for hazardous activities (c. 1000) and for projects including water activities such as hydroelectric power (c. 200). Other activities are power lines (c. 100), building projects (c. 100), roads (c. 115), activities in nature areas (c. 30), railroads (c. 15) and other projects (c. 30) (Lindblom and Rodéhn 2008).

There is an increased use of the concept of ecosystem services (ES) since 10 to 15 years back (MA 2005; TEEB 2009). A definition of the term ES is ‘the benefits in the form of goods and services which Homo sapiens directly or indirectly obtain from ecosystems’ (Daily 2000; Fisher et al. 2009). Three central frameworks are described to evaluate ES. These are the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2009) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Haines-Young and Potschin 2013). The MA (2005) was the starting point for the other frameworks (Maes et al. 2016) and as such they build on to each other but are in many aspects rather alike.

The Swedish Government has decided to implement the concept of ES into decision-making by 2018 (SOU 2013) and this has generated discussions on whether or not integrating the concept of ES into EIAs, SEAs and their statements will be valuable in achieving a more effective assessment process. Such integration needs to offer an improvement of the processes and their outcomes as well as tackle some of the problems with EIAs (Baker et al. 2013) and should not prolong or make the process more expensive in order to be attractive. Recent studies in Europe have argued for and against the integration and discussed whether or not it will provide added value (Landsberg et al. 2011; Baker et al. 2013; Partidario and Gomes 2013; Landsberg et al. 2014; Slootweg 2015) and which steps maybe needed to integrate ES for best results (Helming et al. 2013; Honrado et al. 2013; Kumar et al. 2013). On the usefulness of integrating different instruments in SEA and EIA, see Tajima and Fischer (2013).

The analysis of the potential of such integration of ES into EIAs is still in its infancy (Geneletti 2013; Albert et al. 2014; Mascarenhas et al. 2015; Slootweg 2015; Galler et al. 2016). There also seems to be reluctance in the system and a possible gap between development in the academic world and its practical use in policy (Diehl et al. 2016). The gap might be based on the unwillingness to add additional work which is not required by the EIA directive (Baker et al. 2013), the resistance of actors to the concept (Partidario and Gomes 2013), the lack of understanding of the vocabulary (Mascarenhas et al. 2015) and the wish to keep expenses to a minimum. Furthermore, Honrado et al. (2013) argue that practitioners lack efficient guidance and good practical examples on how to include ES.

The aim of this article is to

•	examine to what extent ES are described explicitly or implicitly in current Swedish EIAs and SEAs;
•	examine how a more detailed and explicit inclusion of ES into the well-established Swedish EIA and SEA processes and statement will improve the processes and their outcomes;
•	evaluate and compare the ES brought up by the consultation parties with the contents of the EIA/SEA statements.

2. Methods

In order to select three case studies illustrating a wide range of ES and their relevance in legal decision-making, we reviewed 102 Swedish EIAs and SEAs and their statements mainly from 2012 to 2013. All assessments were classified according to applicant, project category (e.g. mine, port, road, wind farm), type of assessment (project or plan), geographic setting, affected habitat, impact on Sweden’s environmental objectives and a number of key words relevant for the study of ES (e.g. health, recreation, tourism). In only three EIA statements (two area-wide EIAs and one project EIA), ES were explicitly mentioned. However, keywords in the statements relating to ES were often used.

Based on information gathered in this screening process, two projects and one area-wide plan were selected; a mine in the Northern part of Sweden, a sea-based wind farm at the Swedish West coast and an area-wide plan in the -vicinity of the city of Uppsala (Figure 1). This selection was based on the cases being ongoing large-scale projects representing many ES. Secondly, clear conflicts of interest between the use of the involved ES were present illustrating the importance of the concept. These three cases are obviously not representative for all EIAs/SEAs, rather they are single cases selected to illustrate a range of issues associated with the present procedures in order to discuss how an ES approach may or may not help to clarify issues.

Figure 1. The location of the three case studies in Sweden and a short description of the areas. Source: The Authors.

For each case, the formal assessment process was analysed including the steps from the initiation of the process defining the aim of the EIA/SEA, contact and consultation with the County Administrative Board (which in Sweden hosts the environmental permit offices), public consultations with stakeholders, examination of enquiries and investigations and the writing of assessment statements to the final submission of statement. Formal documents, including the applications, the statement, documents referring to various stakeholder consultations and communications and the written opinions of stakeholders were studied in the analysis. The assessments and their statements were not originally performed to analyse impacts on ES, but this information was often implicitly given in the documentation. Through earlier work with outlining national relevant ES lists in different habitats (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2008; Hansen et al. 2014; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 2015; Hansen and Malmaeus 2016; Hansen et al. 2016), we outlined ES tables over the full array of ES in Swedish forests, seas and arable landscapes which were the ecosystems impacted in our three cases. We divided the ES according to the classification suggested by the MA (2005) framework into provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. For each of the ES on the lists, we attempted to conclude on the likely impacts given the information from the process documentation. The tables were thus used to deductively outline the ES in the above-mentioned documents and arrive at the Tables 1–3. The possibility of quantification and valuation of these services was considered. We used the assessment statements for identifying what environmental and socio-economic aspects were explicitly studied in the statement, and what information was included in the statement about effects that potentially can result in important socio-economic consequences.

Table 1. Main ES for Kallak Norra and how they are impacted.

Provisioning ES		Supporting ES
Ecosystem service	Why and how	Ecosystem service	Why and how
Timber and pulpwood	Active forestry is performed in the area which will stop if the mine is accepted	Photosynthesis	Dust may cover plants and inhibit photosynthesis causing slower growth rates
Hunting	Hunting possibilities, especially for moose, will be changed near the concession area since wild animals may leave due to noise and dust	Maintenance of habitats	The planned activities will partly exploit areas with declared natural values. Three swamp forests and areas with high nature values are situated within the concession area
Reindeer and forage	The planned mining overlap areas of national interest for reindeer herding, particularly migrating routes and grazing land. Due to noise, people and dust reindeer will avoid grazing there		There are national interests for nature conservation, cultural heritage, outdoor life and Natura 2000 sites between 8 and 20 km from the concession area. The World Heritage Laponia areas are not considered directly affected by the mine, but indirectly parts of Laponia may be affected by transports along the highway
	Loss of grazing areas may necessitate additional feeding making herding less profitable and wild reindeers more tame. There is a risk of unintended mixing between different groups of reindeer inducing more herding work or costs for fencing		Several red-listed species will be affected: Hypogymnia tubulosa, Lobaria scrobiculata, Surnia ulula, Emberiza rustica, Picoides tridactylus and Hydnellum aurantiacum
	Transports estimated to be approximately 360 trucks per day will divide grazing lands
Berries and mushrooms	The picking of berries and mushrooms in the area will be affected
Drinking water	Groundwater aquifers are situated 7–8 km from the concession areas and a lowering of the water table is expected
Regulating ES		Cultural ES
Regulation of hydrology	The hydrogeological conditions in the adjacent areas will be affected inducing a loss of water. During operation of the mine, the water table will be lowered up to 375 m inside an influence area near the quarry	Recreation and outdoor life	The area is used for recreation and outdoor life including berry and mushroom picking, hunting and fishing
	The catchment area of some streams will be reduced. After the mine is shut down the water table is predicted to successively reach its original level		The influence on recreation and outdoor life is thought to be moderate in the vicinity of the mine
	Some extra water supply may be required for the mining. The function of Lake Kallakjaure may be shifted from natural lake to a magazine for regulation of the water discharge	Tourism	The area is reported to be used for ecotourism through wildlife tourism and canoeing. It is stated that the mine may have positive effects on tourism
Climate change regulation	Most of the iron will be transported on either trains or trucks. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases may be expected	Environment and aesthetics	The scenery will be significantly changed as the overburden stockpile and sand magazine grow
			Neighbours may be affected by visual and audible impacts as well as dust and vibrations. Transports may contribute to these disturbances
		Mental and physical health	The activities will generate noise that may disturb people and animals

Table 2. Main ES for Kattegatt Offshore and how they are impacted.

Provisioning ES		Supporting ES
Ecosystem service	Why and how	Ecosystem service	Why and how
Fish	Decreased catches of fish are expected during both the construction period and when the windmills are running due to the fact that trawling for cod will become more difficult in the area	Maintenance of habitat	New hard bottoms will create new substrate for macro algae, blue mussels and barnacles
	Increased turbidity due to high amounts of suspended material may disturb adult fish and larvae during the construction period as will high sound levels due to piling of the fundaments		The area is habitat for several species of fish, for example, salmon. A porpoise population appears in the area which may be disturbed, for example, by high underwater noise during construction
	The fundaments will act as artificial hard bottoms which will favour growth of macro algae and shellfish such as blue mussels and this reef effect might enhance recruitment		The area is a spawning ground for cod which is a threatened species and hence sensitive to pressures. Cod has been in focus within several studies connected to the statement
Shellfish	Lobster fishing may be stimulated due to the introduction of hard substrates. Trawling for Norway lobster is affected as for fish		The area is not estimated as important for birds and bats since no breeding spots are localized there and no migration routes are near
		Nutrient cycling	Macro algae as well as filtering mussels will take up large amounts of nutrients from the water and decrease nutrient levels in the water column. Macro algae incorporate carbon dioxide during growth and produce oxygen
Regulating ES		Cultural ES
Climate change regulation	Reduction in air pollution when wind replaces coal-based electricity production	Recreation and outdoor life	Small-scale recreational fishing will not be affected according to the assessment statement. There are boats in the area but they will probably not be negatively affected
		Tourism	To some extent tourism may be negatively affected due to the view of the wind mills
		Environment and aesthetics	The wind mills will be visible from land both day and night, especially from Skrea Beach, which is one of Sweden’s top five beaches

Table 3. Main ES for Storvreta and how they are impacted.

Provisioning ES		Supporting ES
Ecosystem service	Why and how	Ecosystem service	Why and how
Timber and pulpwood and agricultural products	Buildings and parks will according to the plan be positioned on productive forest land (50%), productive agricultural land (25%) and the rest on parkland and other urban land but there is no mentioning of the effect this will have on the use of forest and agricultural land	Maintenance of habitats	The change in land use will undoubtedly affect habitats. As non-disturbed forest and agricultural areas will be replaced with buildings and roads such habitat areas will be lost. This is not mentioned in the statement
			However, it is argued that the area is already disturbed by the E4 freeway passing through the area although the overall municipal plan earlier has described the area as a relatively unaffected landscape
		Genetic resources	Genetic resources are mentioned to be undisturbed
		Oxygen production, carbon dioxide uptake and filtration of rainwater	Such services will be affected
Regulating ES		Cultural ES
Climate change regulation	More traffic to and from the town of Storvreta and the new shopping mall and amusement park at Fullerö Park along with an increased population in and around of Storvreta will affect the climate which is against the overall plan for the community	Recreation and outdoor life	The intention to build more apartments is thought to intrude on recreation in the specific area; however, it is described that enough recreational areas are still available in the community, especially in the nearby Natura 2000 areas
Regulation of hydrology	The area with the shopping centre lies within the outer restricted area for water retrievement and as such no effects on water quality are expected	Environment and aesthetics	Road and railroad constructions will generate a considerable amount of noise which however will be below specified limits through the use of noise reduction
	Local management of storm water is expected to be enough for protection		The landscape view is not expected to be affected when building the apartment buildings at Storvreta since they are planned to be situated in forest edges and not in the open landscape. On the contrary, the large Fullerö Park cannot be built without affecting the landscape view considerably
	Risk activities such as gas filling stations, roads and railways need protection zones around them to prevent that groundwater will be at risk		The area is compelled with national interests of cultural landscapes with a large abundance of ancient remains which calls for protection or excavation

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Kallak Norra

The aim of the Kallak Norra project is to establish an opencast iron mine and build the necessary infrastructure around it in an area where the resource of magnetite is large (Figure 1). In total, 88–92 million tonnes of 35–42% iron was estimated to be mined. The total area of exploitation was around 1500–2000 ha including the mine, overburden stockpile, sand magazine and industrial site. The estimated mining period was approximately 14 years. The start-up and closure periods would last for about four years. Mining maybe extended since more extractable minerals are available in the area.

3.1.1. The EIA process, stakeholders and dialogue

The EIA concession statement was submitted to the Mining Inspectorate of Sweden in April 2013. The application was made public in May 2013. Approximately 20 different written opinions from stakeholders were collected, and the Mining Inspectorate asked the applicant for major complements to the statement. The statement was further supplemented and submitted again one year later in April 2014. The Mining Inspectorate again asked for written opinions. In February 2015, the Mining Inspectorate transferred the matter to the Swedish Government where it was processed and in June 2016, the matter was once again transferred to the Mining Inspectorate. As of today (January 2018), the process is still ongoing and there is no final decision.

The most influential actor was the County Administrative Board which requested substantial revisions to be submitted in a new complete EIA statement. The deficiencies in the original document identified by the County Administrative Board were conflicting interests regarding national interests for tourism, nature, reindeer herding, communications and national defence. Other areas of interest for society were drinking water and energy production which were not well described. A potential conflict with the World Heritage Laponia was pointed out and direct and indirect consequences were not sufficiently covered, conclusions were not well supported or transparent, consequences for reindeer herding and grazing were not quantified, secondary effects from transport routes were insufficiently described, risks for energy production losses at a nearby hydro dam (Parki dam) as well as the risk of dam failure were not well enough described, and lastly, the plans after the end of mining in Kallak Norra were not presented.

Another stakeholder was Jokkmokk municipality who demanded a long-term commitment from the applicant to actively engage in societal development by local representation and engagement. A socio-economic analysis was requested, including a description of employment opportunities. More information was requested on reconstruction of the area after mining as well as an analysis of possible effects on tourism. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board submitted a joint utterance focusing exclusively on possible effects on Laponia and Sweden’s responsibility towards Laponia.

The Sami Parliament focused on the conflicting interest of the reindeer economy and expressed complaints regarding the consultation procedure. They stated that the analyses on reindeer herding were made without asking the Sami people for information and expressed concern over incorrect information in the statement. They stressed that the area was appointed a national interest for reindeer herding and as such should not be jeopardized. A mine in the area would divide the Sami village and their fields in two, parting grazing areas where alternatives are hard to find. This combined with a noisy and dusty environment will make it difficult to keep the herd in the area and move it from east to west.

Individual written opinions were dominated by organized mining opponents. Only a few neighbours communicated their concerns which mainly concentrated on the risk of a failure in Parki dam, the quality of water downstream in Lilla Luleälven River and the loss of hunting possibilities.

3.1.2. ES and socio-economic aspects

We digested the implicit information regarding ES from the EIA process and statement (Table 1). According to our analysis, a significant number of different ES were affected by the launching of the mine. Several ES were not taken up in the EIA statement but only became important through the written opinions. The written opinions therefore indicated that important aspects could be seen as ES and thereby included early in the process. For example, (i) reindeer herding where the description in the EIA statement is general and does not contain information about the local conditions, (ii) hunting, fishing, berry picking, recreation and drinking water quality and safety are ES mentioned by individual actors only and (iii) tourism. Reindeer herding is for example dependent on lichens in old forest stands, especially in years when the snow crust is hard and it is impossible for the reindeers to reach the ground. Lichens are dependent on suitable habitats and on photosynthesis, which may both be affected by habitat destruction due to the exploitation and by dust from the mining activities. These aspects were not mentioned in the statement.

In addition to the ES (Table 1), a number of aspects were raised in the EIA statement which could not be related to ES, such as (i) safety problems at Parki dam, (ii) noise although it will affect the access to cultural ES such as silence, (iii) social problems concerning for example, gender as male jobs are more common in mines, (iv) the number of job opportunities. Lastly, archaeological remains were found which needs to be safeguarded and the Sami cultural values were thought to be affected.

A chapter about effects on society was included in the EIA statement where effects on socio-economic variables were described, mainly through studying effects of the introduction of the mining on Jokkmokk municipality and the county of Norrbotten such as (i) employment, (ii) the taxable earned income, (iii) the local tax revenues. This implied a focus on how the mining would affect the level of economic activity in the municipality, but these effects’ relationship to the ES listed above was non-existent. Regarding the taxable earned income, the statement included a number of effects with potentially important socio-economic consequences. Unmentioned in the statement was the possible decreased profitability for reindeer herding due to additional herding work and measures such as extra feeding and a risk for negative health effects such as anxiety among the reindeer keepers. Furthermore, noise and air emissions from the mining activities including transports (CO₂, NO_x, hydrocarbons and particular matters including dust) would influence human health. We conclude that an identification of ES would contribute to a more complete identification of socio-economic consequences.

3.2. Kattegat Offshore

Kattegat Offshore wanted to establish an offshore wind farm on the Swedish west coast (Figure 1). The technical durability of the wind farm was calculated to be between 25 and 30 years. The wind farm should produce an annual maximum of 700 GWh corresponding to the supply of electricity to 50,000 persons per year.

3.2.1. The EIA process, stakeholders and dialogue

The applicant was engaged in the project since 2004. In December 2007, the Environmental Court granted permit for an offshore wind farm at a location called Skottarevet on the west coast of Sweden, which was appealed by the Legal, Financial and Public Procurement Agency. The Environmental Court of Appeal cancelled the permit in March 2009 referring to an insufficient investigation of location. After appealing to the Supreme Court who rejected the petition, the applicant performed an impartial investigation of the possibilities to establish wind farms along the Swedish west coast and found that the original site at Skottarevet was the most suitable location. Another assessment of the project was initiated under a new name: Kattegat Offshore. The public consultations were held in April 2014 and the application was submitted to the Environmental Court in May 2014.

The risks imposed on the reproduction of cod and the health of the porpoise population in Kattegat were decisive when the Environmental Court rejected the application in June 2014. Again the applicant appealed the decision (July 2014) stating that neither the construction nor the operation of the wind farm would affect the cod and the porpoise population. According to the court, there were also reasons to challenge the socio-economic benefit of the project. In December 2015, the Land and Environmental Court at the Court of Appeal decided to grant the applicant permission to build the wind farm. In February 2016, the independent organization Save the Coast of Halland filed an appeal to the Supreme Court which mainly concentrated on the intent to scare cod and porpoise from the construction area along with procedural mistakes observed in the Land and Environmental Court decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the spring of 2016.

The most important actors during the consultations were Falkenberg municipality, the County Administrative Board of Halland, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, along with all interested private parties which amount to approximately a hundred including the independent organization Save the Coast of Halland.

The County Administrative Board thought that location alternatives were thoroughly examined and was positive to the wind farm. However, it was suggested that suitable precautionary actions to protect birds and bats should be taken. The Falkenberg municipality underlined that the area was partly identified as suitable for wind power and overall agreed with the opinions of the County Administrative Board. The Swedish Energy Agency was positive to the project and expressed that the location was appropriate.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management pointed to the vulnerability of the cod and underlined that the cod population is threatened in the Kattegat. The area is one of the last spawning areas for cod and alternative areas are lacking which is not the case for energy production. The Agency advised that other locations outside the cod spawning grounds should be examined and that the cod should be protected between December and June. During the construction phase between April and December, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management would not allow piling since porpoise is sensitive to noise especially during their mating and calf nursing season. As these two time periods overlap the Agency did not approve of the project. The Legal, Financial and Public Procurement Agency also disapproved of the project for the same reasons.

Birdlife Sweden asked for an examination of the bird migration routes in the area before the project could be accepted. Save the Coast of Halland was actively working to protect the coastal area in Halland focusing on changes that might cause substantially decreased living conditions and health. The association formed the counter movement ‘No to Kattegat Offshore – Preserve Skrea Beach’ and actively collected 1260 signatures against the project. Individual statements from private persons and independent private organizations raised 200 written opinions most of which questioned the project, the location, the background research and the consequences for cod and tourism.

A poll performed by a market research company (SIFO) found that a majority of the 300 inhabitants along the coast supported an offshore wind farm near Falkenberg (Orbe and Theorell 2012). On the other hand, in the EIA consultation, 105 mostly negative (90%) public statements were submitted. The major complaint was about the impact on the view where the wind park would break the horizon and a fear that the tourism industry would be negatively affected. Falkenbergs Turist AB expressed their concern and asked for a study on the effects on tourism. The impact on the cod was also mentioned.

3.2.2. ES and socio-economic aspects

The area provided provisioning ES including fish and shellfish and supporting ES including maintenance of habitat (Table 2). The impact on cod and, as emerged late in the process, also a possible impact on the vulnerable porpoise population appeared to be the most important argument for the decision of the court. The use of ES might have pointed to the value of the wind farms providing new hard bottom habitats in an area dominated by soft sediments. The coastal wind farm is situated in a densely populated area where tourism is a critical parameter. The public opinions expressed that the aesthetic scenery was important for recreation and tourism but this was not dealt with in any detail in the statement. This impact on the cultural ES does not appear to be critical for the court decision. Possibly, the cultural values would become more important for the decision if an ES perspective was central to the process.

Few socio-economic aspects were covered in the EIA statement. There is a socio-economic value and benefit associated with the energy produced by the farm. Primarily, a reduction in air pollution externalities could occur if wind power replaced fossil-based electricity production. A number of socio-economically relevant effects were included in the statement but without studying them in detail: (i) coastal recreation and tourism because the wind farm’s visibility might have an impact on recreational quality; (ii) commercial as well as recreational fishing was likely to be affected; (iii) landscape scenery because of the wind farm’s visibility; (iv) health and well-being because of potential noise effects and (v) increased risks of collisions and groundings for shipping. At least for (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), the ES listed above indicate that an ES analysis would be helpful for a more complete study of socio-economic aspects.

3.3. Storvreta strategic environmental assessment

In an area around the town of Storvreta in the county of Uppland, a detailed area-wide plan was developed to describe the strategy for the future development of the area (Figure 1). The plans described three separate suggestions for changes involving housing, a shopping centre and an amusement park which will have different environmental consequences.

3.3.1. The SEA process, stakeholders and dialogue

Uppsala municipality initiated the work on a detailed plan for Storvreta in 2006. In February 2008, a first early dialogue was held. In the spring of 2008, the building committee performed two consultations with the County Administrative Board and the neighbour municipality, Tierp, followed by a public consultation in the autumn of 2008. During the summer of 2011, a public exhibition was arranged which caused some changes in the plan and finally, in January 2012, the building committee approved the plan. However, the plans for an amusement park and a shopping centre were stopped in April 2015 when The Land and Environment Court denied it, referring to the potential risk of harmed national environmental interests.

Negative written opinions concerned the possible parting of the community into two parts, an undermining of services in the village of Storvreta leading to lowered service quality, negative consequences for the climate from increased car travelling and transports, and the possible risks for negative effects on the national interests on cultural environment and the landscape. Valuable cultural environments with archaeological remains would be threatened bringing about future large archaeological investigations and excavations.

The largest actors in the process were the County Administrative Board which was opposed to the risks associated with the cultural landscape and heritage from the Viking age, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the opposing parties in the community board who were worried about the environmental effects contrasting the aims of the plan. Also, the association ‘Cherish Uppsala’ several times opposed the plans and reacted against the shopping centre as risks prevail to turn the village of Storvreta into a sleeping town.

A get-together with specially invited associations was carried out. Otherwise only a public survey outside a local shop in Storvreta was performed. No dialogues took place to inform or include the inhabitants of Storvreta and surrounding areas.

3.3.2. ES and socio-economic aspects

The affected ES at and around Storvreta were ES such as forest and agricultural products, forest and agricultural habitats, possible problems for water quality as well as a potential intrusion in today’s recreational areas (Table 3). The loss of provisioning services in terms of food or timber production is not mentioned in the SEA statement. Nor is there any mentioning of the effects of loss of common forest and agricultural habitats. Instead, areas protected for cultural values and recreation were in focus and confirmed to be preserved.

The SEA statement only briefly and in general terms mentioned that infrastructure investments are costly, but it did not include any socio-economic aspects. A few aspects of socio-economic relevance were included in the statement, but none of them were analysed in any detail: (i) landscape scenery because the plan is likely to, at least in some areas, have impacts which will not be possible to compensate, (ii) cultural environment because ancient remains will have to be repositioned, (iii) climate impacts because of increased emissions of CO₂ from traffic and (iv) recreation because highly valued recreational areas may potentially be lost. The socio-economic impact of transforming forests and agricultural lands into residential areas is not discussed in the statement. An ES analysis would be helpful for a more complete study of these socio-economic aspects.

3.4. Lessons learned from case studies

Our analysis of EIAs, SEAs and statements clarified that the explicit use of ES to show the impact on ES is still not common practice in Sweden. This is fully in line with other European studies which came to the conclusion that the integration of ES into EIAs and SEAs is still in its infancy (Baker et al. 2013; Geneletti 2013; Honrado et al. 2013; Partidario and Gomes 2013; Albert et al. 2014; Mascarenhas et al. 2015; Slootweg 2015; Diehl et al. 2016; Galler et al. 2016). This is not surprising since ES is still not required even under the new European EIA Directive (e.g. Fischer et al. 2016).

We find that the impacts commonly described in the current EIAs often implicitly may describe ES or convert well into ES translating the environmental impact. In such cases, it is only a matter of rewriting it according to an ES framework. This is mainly the case for impacts corresponding well with provisioning and cultural ES, such as loss of land for forestry or impacts on human activities such as recreation. Impacts on regulating and supporting ES are however only to a small extent included in the studied assessments. This is probably one area where the inclusion of the ES concept can enhance assessments to a higher level. Some of the impact categories that are normally described in the assessments and statements, such as for example, impact on water quality, are often not well described and it is seldom obvious what poor water quality will mean for the overall environment or humans.

Recreation is not a priority issue in any of the three studied assessments. The treatment of natural values, protected habitats and vulnerable species is more in focus. In the Swedish environmental law and also in EU-regulations, threatened species and habitats are specifically protected but less concern is directed towards the constant decline of common species and habitats. Many of the important issues along this line are more common in the stakeholder remarks than in the assessment statements, and this may potentially change if effects on ES are integrated early into the process.

In terms of biodiversity, the reviewed EIAs naturally dealt with effects on threatened species. The number of ES that are stressed by different actors, although not explicitly addressed as ES, is smaller than the number of ES that may be affected according to our interpretations of the EIAs. One interpretation is that some ES are of less interest to the actors or, alternatively, they are seen as satisfactorily treated in the assessments with acceptable predicted impact. Lack of knowledge about ecosystems and how they contribute to human needs is another possible reason for services not being addressed.

Our cases confirmed that the inclusion of ES may provide early awareness of important issues; increase transparency of the process and offer policy-makers, judges and stakeholders more focused information in an early stage of the process. Examples include deficiencies in the descriptions of the reindeer economy in Kallak Norra and consultations with the public in Kattegat Offshore which appear to have induced some friction in the processes. Early awareness into projects and plans are also discussed by other authors (e.g. Baker et al. 2013; Slootweg 2015).

3.5. Benefits of integration of ES in EIAs

One benefit of using ES categories within EIA and SEA would be that environmental values that are not obviously important are lifted and made visible for discussion. Another aspect of integrating ES in environmental assessments is that focus is shifted from stakeholder interests towards the wider general public; or expressed differently, new categories of stakeholders are included as earlier discussed by for example Baker et al. (2013). This may catalyze discussions in a more democratic environment and create new possibilities for opponents to participate in discussion fora. In practice, environmental organizations and stakeholders often see their best chances to hinder harmful projects by having assessments formally rejected due to insufficiencies in the consultation process, absence of a baseline option or lacking of localization investigations. If assessments were explicitly addressing ES currently provided in an area subject to exploitation, these values could be better compared to the economic values associated with commercial or other activities, and the environmental assessment process would become more inclusive.

The two cases focusing on projects both demonstrate the multi-functionality of natural areas, and that a balance is needed between different viewpoints. They also demonstrate the importance of a landscape perspective, such as how migration routes for reindeer exist in a geographic context where the localization of a mine generates an impact. Today, multi-functionality of landscape perspectives is not well developed in the assessment statements and an integration of ES has the potential to improve these aspects. In strategic area-wide planning, the landscape perspective is more naturally addressed, since part of the purpose of such planning processes is to identify different uses of a geographic area.

Descriptive and semi-quantitative methods to rank and value ES are beneficial to compare alternatives and evaluate the relative extent of changes within projects. In line with earlier studies (Baker et al. 2013; Slootweg 2015), our study indicates that a ranking of the most prioritized ES is needed to put the highest emphasis on the most relevant issues. Such background material will allow stakeholders to participate in debates.

We agree with earlier literature that an integration of ES into EIAs and SEAs provide additional benefits for the decision process. Especially, the change in focus on how a project or a plan will influence the ES that humans use in the specific area instead of how it will impact the environment in the same area (e.g. Baker et al. 2013) is positive. In using the concept, all impacts, positive as well as negative, are treated in a structured way which offers an organized approach for consultations and will enable policy-makers to know and understand more not only about environmental impacts (e.g. Honrado et al. 2013; Kumar et al. 2013).

A few authors criticize such an integration delineating that it will not necessarily influence decisions on projects and plans (Cowell and Lennon 2014). Also, Baker et al. (2013) discuss the possibility that the use of the concept may have an opposite, negative effect if for examplethe receiver finds the concept difficult to understand, because of a too diversified range of different definitions in use. Baker et al. (2013) point to the necessity of working towards a unified definition of the ES concept.

Proper practical hands-on exercises as well as further work on developing methods and standards helping to merge ES into the current assessment practice is highly needed. With such hands-on exercises quantitative valuation, semi-quantitative valuation or ranking systems will move the knowledge base forward (e.g. Karjalainen et al. 2013; Slootweg 2015).

4. Conclusion

Through a screening of 102 EIAs and a more detailed analysis of two projects and one area-wide plan in Sweden, we studied the current inclusion of ES into these assessments. Our analysis showed that ES are seldom used explicitly in assessments but this is not surprising since it is not yet required under the European EIA Directive. However, several impacts commonly described in the current EIAs converted well to ES and thus implicitly described ES.

When we analysed the consultation processes and compared what was included in the EIA/SEA statements with what was brought up by various consultation bodies it was obvious that an ES perspective in an early stage of the process would have helped to include also ES aspects that were raised later by the consultation bodies. This offers opportunities to identify additional important aspects by addressing new contexts and interdependencies. Providing new perspectives increases the likelihood for good decisions.

The ES analysis further has a good chance to improve the inclusion of most of the relevant stakeholder groups since the structured treatment of ES offers an organized approach for assessments and consultations. The inclusion of ES may therefore provide early awareness of important impacts and offer more focused information and ultimately improve the effectiveness in the system and the decisions taken. Involvement of relevant stakeholder groups is likely to strengthen the acceptance of decisions. Further knowledge on exactly how to include ES into EIAs and SEAs is needed and practical hands-on exercises might show the way forward.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency through the project ESBESIA.

Acknowledgement

The project ESBESIA – Integrating ES and Biodiversity into Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessments – started November 2013 and ran for two years. We thank the adjoined reference group for constructive critique and advice. Annika Tegeback is acknowledged for dedicated discussions in an early stage of the project. The helpful comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers are greatly acknowledged.