The Value of Ecosystem Services from
Swedish Cattle Production
Master’s thesis in Sustainable Energy Systems

SABINA SÖDERSTJERNA JÖRGENSSON

Department of Space, Earth and Environment
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017





Master’s thesis FRT 2017:08

The Value of Ecosystem Services from Swedish
Cattle Production

SABINA SÖDERSTJERNA JÖRGENSSON

Department of Space, Earth and Environment
Division of Physical Resource Theory

Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017



The Value of Ecosystem Services from Swedish Cattle Production
SABINA SÖDERSTJERNA JÖRGENSSON

© SABINA SÖDERSTJERNA JÖRGENSSON, 2017.

Supervisor: Oskar Englund, Department of Space, Earth and Environment
Examiner: Christel Cederberg, Department of Space, Earth and Environment

Master’s Thesis FRT 2017:08
Department of Space, Earth and Environment
Division of Physical Resource Theory
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Telephone +46 31 772 1000

Cover: Ecosystem services provided by the agricultural landscape (Jordbruksverket
& Naturvårdsverket, n.d.)

Typeset in LATEX
Printed by Department of Space, Earth and Environment
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017

iv



The Value of Ecosystem Services from Swedish Cattle Production
SABINA SÖDERSTJERNA JÖRGENSSON
Department of Space, Earth and Environment
Division of Physical Resource Theory
Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract
Ecosystem services (ES) are the goods and services the nature provides to society.
The quantification and valuation of ES are a necessary step to fully understand the
importance of different ecosystems.

The Swedish cattle production stands for 40% of the agricultural land use and
provides Sweden with around 2.9 million ton milk and 0.1 million ton beef each
year. This thesis examines the effects of land uses associated to the Swedish cattle
production on ecosystem services. As a result, the monetary value of the total cattle
production in Sweden are 27 - 37 billion SEK/year where physical and experiental
interactions have the largest value (29 - 32%) closely followed by milk (26 - 36%).
The provisioning services contributes to a share of the total maximum value of 39
- 53%, the regulating and maintenance services have a share of 1 - 10% and the
cultural services have a share of 46 - 51%.

The total value of the non-market services; regulating and maintenance- and cultural
services, for land uses associated to the cattle production are 13 - 22 billion
SEK/year. The non-market value for the alternative land uses cropland and forest
are 1 - 4 billion SEK/year and 2 - 21 billion SEK/year respectively. These values
could be used as guidelines for policies and compensation programs to prevent a
decrease of cattle associated land use areas.

Keywords: Ecosystem Services, Cattle, Land use, Sweden, Quantification, Monetary
valuation, Indicators

v





Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Oskar Englund and Christel Cederberg for all support throughout
the project.

Sabina Söderstjerna Jörgensson, Göteborg, June 2017

vii





Contents

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xiii

List of Abbreviations xv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Aim and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Methods 3
2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.1 Classification of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Overview of ecosystem services associated with cattle related land use 4
2.3 Systematic review of effects from cattle related land use of selected

ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Quantification of selected ecosystem services associated with cattle

land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.1 Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2 Regulating and maintenance services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.3 Cultural services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5 Monetary valuation of selected ecosystem services
associated with cattle land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.1 Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.2 Regulating and maintenance services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.3 Cultural services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3 Results 25
3.1 Cattle related land uses in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1.1 Grassland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.2 Natural pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.3 Cropland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1.4 Other land uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1.5 Alternative land use - Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.1.6 Connections between cattle land use and ecosystem services . 31

3.2 Systematic review of effects from cattle related land use of selected
ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.1 Statistics from the systematic review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

ix



Contents

3.3 Quantification of selected ecosystem services associated with cattle
land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.1 Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.2 Regulating and maintenance services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.3 Cultural services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4 Monetary valuation of selected ecosystem services
associated with cattle land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4 Discussion 51
4.1 Uncertainties and methodological limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.1.1 The screening process in the systematic review . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1.2 Quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.1.3 Monetary valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.2 The results and their implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3 Future recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5 Conclusion 59

References 61

Appendices
A Systematic review - References for the retrieved full text articles . . . I

x



List of Figures

3.1 Land area distribution for the Swedish cattle industry . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 The 8-point scale used to describe the effects between cattle land use

and ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Number of retrieved full text studies divided into publication year in

the systematic review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4 Geographical distribution of retrieved full text studies in the systematic

review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.5 Retrieved full text studies divided into type of study in the systematic

review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.6 Pie charts over the distribution of the average total value in billion SEK/year

for each land use category and ecosystem service . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7 Pie chart over the shares within the provisioning services total economic

value in SEK/year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.8 The non-market values, regulating and maintenance- and cultural

services, for cattle related and the alternative land uses. . . . . . . . 48
3.9 The total value distributed for cattle associated land uses. . . . . . . 48
3.10 Distribution of shares of the total maximummonetary value (in SEK/year)

for milk and beef cattle for each associated land use in. . . . . . . . . 49

4.1 Percentage distribution of the total number of articles comparing each
cattle associated land use to the alternative land use. . . . . . . . . . 55

xi



List of Figures

xii



List of Tables

2.1 Cattle associated land use in Sweden their definition and associated
names found in the scientific literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Keywords, Web of Science hits and number of obtained full text
papers in the systematic review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Number of WoS hits and articles in the screening process for all
ecosystem services, references in Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the provisioning
ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5 Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the regulation
and maintenance ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.6 Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the cultural
ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.7 Number of cattle in Sweden 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.8 Milk and beef production in Sweden 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.9 A selection of values used to calculate the potential for energy from

manure treatment systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.10 Quantification values for the regulating and maintenance services. . 15
2.11 Quantification values for the indicator; the willingness to preform

recreational activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.12 Quantification values for the indicator; amount of red-listed species. . 16
2.13 Landscape preferences in a normalized score (0-1) from the meta-analysis

by van Zanten et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.14 The ecosystem services and the applied economic valuation methods. 18
2.15 Market-based crop prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.16 Market-based food prices from the cattle production. . . . . . . . . . 19
2.17 Calculated yield losses associated to erosion based on values from

Graves et al.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.18 Total economic value and the sold amount of pesticides 2012 - 2014. . 21
2.19 The monetary value of recreation based on two different surveys. . . . 22
2.20 Possible compensations from the Swedish environmental subsidees. . . 22
2.21 The willingness to pay to preserve the landscape based on studies

described by Nilsson in 2017 monetary value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.1 The effects on ecosystem services of a transformation from the alternative
land use forest to each cattle related land use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

xiii



List of Tables

3.2 The effects on ecosystem services of a transformation from the alternative
land use cropland to each cattle related land use. . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3 Color code for the presentation of the systematic review result for
both consistency and the size of knowledge base for land usage. . . . 34

3.4 Resulting matrices from the systematic review with the alternative
land use forest, references in Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.5 Resulting matrices from the systematic review with the alternative
land use cropland, references in Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.6 Quantities for the provisioning services for cattle associated and alternative
land uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.7 Quantities for the regulating and maintenance services for cattle associated
and alternative land uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.8 Soil carbon sequestration (ton C/ha · yr) in cropping systems with
and without cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.9 Quantities for the cultural services for cattle associated and alternative
land uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.10 Minimum and maximum monetary values in SEK/ha ·yr for selected
ecosystem services associated with cattle land use. . . . . . . . . . . . 45

xiv



List of Abbreviations

CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services

EEA European Environment Agency

ES Ecosystem Services

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services

SCB Statistics Sweden (Statistiska centralbyrån)

WoS Web of Science

Swedish authorities mentioned in the report

Naturvårdsverket Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Jordbruksverket Swedish Board of Agriculture

xv



List of Abbreviations

xvi



1 | Introduction

Nature and its ecosystem provides both goods and services to society, for example
food, energy, water, fertile soils, pollinated crops as well as beautiful scenery. The
ecosystems cooperate in various complex feedback systems. The services are affected
and compromised by different land use and maintenance practices, for instance heavy
machinery and intensive agriculture. The effects on the individual ES, how they
work together and the value for society have been examined since the late 1960s and
1970s (Helliwell, 1969; P. Ehrlich, Ehrlich, & Holdren, 1977).

It was not until 1981 (P. R. Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1981) the term "ecosystem service"
was introduced. In 1997 Costanza et al. presented a value of the global natural
capital. In 2001 the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) began to identify and
evaluate the impacts on human well-being from ecosystem changes. In line with
the work done by the MA the European Union presented a report on Mapping and
Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES, 2014) with indicators and
data availability status.

One of the first reports in the subject of valuating ES in Sweden is Björklund et
al. (1999) where the intensification of agriculture was examined. Today Sweden has
environmental objectives that contain for example a varied agricultural landscape, a
rich diversity of plant and animal life as well as reduced climate impact
(Naturvårdsverket, 2016). For Sweden to be able to reach these goals assessments
and quantifications of ES are needed. In 2015, the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency (Naturvårdsverket) published a guideline on how to assess ES as a result
from a government assignment (SOU 2013:68, 2013). The environmental protection
agency is continuing their work regarding the value of ES and their importance to
society.

Swedish agriculture stands for around 8% of the land area (SCB, 2017) and 15%
of Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions (23% if Land Use and Land Use Changes
are included) (Jordbruksverket, 2017). A sustainable agriculture is of importance
both to maintain the ES and lower the greenhouse gas emissions. Cattle production
stands for around 40% of the agricultural land area and only the methane from
the cattle digestion process stands for around 20% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas
emissions (IPCC, 2006; Jordbruksverket & Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016).
This leads to heated discussions regarding our meat consumption and questions the
importance of cattle.

1



1. Introduction

If cattle farming decreases large amount of pasture areas would change to forest or,
in the more soil fertile areas, cropland. These transformations leads to changes for
the ecosystem services. The environmental objective, a varied agricultural landscape
specifies for instance an open landscape with for example natural pasture
(Naturvårdsverket, 2016) which implies that cattle is present in Swedish agriculture
and landscapes. A large analysis and monetary valuation of the ES associated with
cattle land use is not present today.

In this thesis, the ES provided and effected by land use associated to cattle production
land will be examined further. A literature study to identify connections between ES
and cattle production will be followed by a quantification and monetary valuation
of selected ES.

1.1 | Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to present a monetary value of land uses associated with
Swedish cattle production. To this aim the following objectives apply:

1. Identify connections between ES and land uses associated with Swedish cattle
production, based on a review of the scientific literature

2. Quantify selected ES using biophysical indicators
3. Estimate the economic value of the services quantified in objective 2

2



2 | Methods

2.1 | Definitions
In Sweden cattle land usage consists of three different land management principles;
grassland, cropland and natural pasture. The grasslands are both used as pasture
and harvested for feed, silage. In Table 2.1 different terminology is presented for
each land use.

To be able to do a comparison of the effects on ecosystem services from cattle related
land uses two alternative land uses are introduced. The alternative land uses used
are forest and cropland with annual crops, mostly cereals. These are chosen as they
are the "natural" alternative to cattle land use. For example if cattle are not present
on the natural pastures it will eventually grow into a forest. On the more fertile
soils in the south of Sweden the land uses will transform into croplands and for the
remaining parts of Sweden it will transform into forest. For the alternative land use
cropland only cereals, not used for cattle production, are harvested.

Table 2.1: Cattle associated land use in Sweden their definition and associated
names found in the scientific literature.

Cattle land use Definition Different terminology

Grassland

Ley Grassland cultivated on
cropland

Meadow1, hay-fields, grassland,
permanent grassland2, temporary
grassland

Pasture Grassland used as
pasture

Pasture, grazing grassland3,
rangeland4

Natural pasture Non-arable land used for
pasture

Semi-natural pasture3,
wood-pasture5

Cropland Annual crops for forage
and grain

low intensity cropland, arable
land2

Other
Patches between and in
cropland, grassland and
natural pasture

edge zone6, fence, microhabitats7,
stone wall, non-productive area,
waste area, islands

1(Battaglini et al., 2014) 2(van Eekeren et al., 2008) 3(Andersson et al., 2015) 4(Lal, 2013)
5(Garrido et al., 2017) 6(Milestad et al., 2011) 7(Westphal et al., 2010)

3



2. Methods

2.1.1 | Classification of ecosystem services
The ecosystem service classification chosen for this thesis is the Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services, CICES (2013) developed by the EEA. The
ecosystem services in this classification are divided into three sections; provisioning
services, regulating and maintenance services and cultural services. These are
further divided into divisions, groups and classes to avoid double counting.

Provisioning services are the different services where the environment provides us
with goods such as food, fiber and energy. The regulating and maintenance services
are services provided by nature to uphold and regulate different processes as for
example soil health, mediation of toxics and climate regulation. The cultural ecosystem
services for example heritage values, symbolic values and usage of nature.

2.2 | Overview of ecosystem services associated with cattle
related land use

To be able to get an overview of the connections between ecosystem services and
land uses associated with cattle production a literature overview was performed.
To be able to identify effects on ecosystem services land uses were compared to the
alternative land uses, cropland and forest.

The overview started with different keyword searches on various search engines.
Further on new searches and findings in reference lists led to new articles and reports.
From the literature descriptions of impacts on ecosystem services from land uses and
land maintenance was identified. This together with comparisons between land uses
was interpreted as positive, negative or positive-/negative effects on the ecosystem
services. The results are presented in Table 3.1 and 3.2 showing the effects from
cattle land use comparing to the alternative land uses.

2.3 | Systematic review of effects from cattle related land use
of selected ecosystem services

As a result of the overview eleven ES from all sections were chosen to be investigated
further. The services chosen is further presented in section 2.4. For the provisioning
services, nutrition, as crops and animal outputs, and biomass-based energy were
chosen because the large differences as well as the discussions regarding food vs.
energy. For the regulating and maintenance services the chosen services are connected
to Sweden’s environmental objectives (Naturvårdsverket, 2016) as well as to soil
health. Discussions regarding the usage of fertilizers and pesticides effect on pollinators
and natural enemies (Intagliata, 2017; Rosner, 2013; Biello, 2013). This together
with unexpected effects from grassland areas led to the inclusion of lifecycle maintenance

4



2. Methods

and pest and disease control easy. With the lack of scientific research and valuation
along with the importance of cultural heritage all cultural ES with observed effect
was chosen.

A systematic review was performed to confirm and further strengthen the connections
found in the overview. The review was performed for eight of the selected ecosystem
services within the regulating and maintenance and cultural sections. Literature
searches for the chosen ecosystem services was performed in Web of Science (WoS)
during March 2017. The keywords for each ecosystem services are shown in Table
2.2. In total the WoS search resulted in 3 862 hits, with some duplicates across
categories. The hits were then filtered based on title and abstract. This screening
process was based on the two questions; "Do the literature evaluate and/or compare
effects on ES for the relevant land usages to the alternative land uses?" and "Is it
transferable to Swedish conditions?". For the regulating and maintenance ES same
or alike climate zones were important. For the cultural ES the cultural upbringing,
religion and the approach to nature and recreation are of importance (Fredman et
al., 2013). For these reasons only articles from Europe were considered. For the
remaining studies full text was obtained when possible. The captured information
from each study was;

• ES examined
• Which land uses that were evaluated
• Effects on the studied ES from the land use
• Geographical information
• Methods used in the study (empirical, modelling approach, literature review

or survey based)
To count as a modelling approach the main results in the study should have been
obtained by a model, the parameters could therefore be based on empirical data
without being classified as an empirical type article. To be classed as an empirical
type article the collected data are presented as part of the result.

In Table 2.3 the amount of hits and articles that went through the screening process
is shown for each ecosystem service and in total. The amount of retrieved full text
varies between 7 % and 23 % and in total approximately 9 % of the WoS hits where
retrieved in full text. References to the retrieved full text articles can be found in
Appendix A.

5



2. Methods

Table 2.2: Keywords, Web of Science hits and number of obtained full text papers
in the systematic review.

Ecosystem service Keywords WoS hits Full text

R
eg
ul
at
io
n
an

d
m
ai
nt
en

an
ce

1

Mediation of waste,
toxics and other
nuisances

nutrient* or soil organic
matter or nutrient
cycling or soil pollution
and (storage or filtration
or sequestration)

248 29

Mass stabilisation and
control of erosion rates

erosion or erosion
rate or soil erosion or
mass stabilisation or
erosion risk or erosion
prevention

333 24

Lifecycle maintenance,
habitat and gene pool
protection

pollinat* or bee or bees 126 29

Pest and disease control

natural enemies or
beneficial arthropods or
pest control or disease
control

181 30

Global climate
regulation by reduction
of greenhouse gas
concentrations

carbon sequester* or
carbon or organic
carbon or sequester
carbon or carbon
storage

1 495 108

C
ul
tu
ra
l2

Physical and experiental
interactions

tourism or recreation*
or trail* or tourist* or
sport*

329 46

Heritage, culture heritage or cultural
value or historic

652 60

Other cultural
outputs

enjoyment or willing* or
preference*

238 25

national park* or
protected area*

260 9

General keywords:
1(grassland* or cropland* or arable or forest* or livestock or pasture*) AND (ecosystem service*
or ecosystem* or agro-ecosystem*) AND agriculture or forestry
2(outdoor* or landscape* or nature) AND (ecosystem service* or ecosystem* or agro-ecosystem*)
AND (cultural or non-market or contingent or perception*)

6



2. Methods

Table 2.3: Number of WoS hits and articles in the screening process for all
ecosystem services, references in Appendix A.

Ecosystem service
W
oS

hi
ts

Af
te
r Q

ue
sti
on

1

Af
te
r Q

ue
sti
on

2

Re
tri
ev
ed

fu
ll
te
xt

Pe
rc
en
ta
ge

R
eg
ul
at
io
n
an

d
m
ai
nt
en

an
ce

Mediation of waste,
toxics and other
nuisances

248 63 31 29 12%

Mass stabilisation and
control of erosion rates

333 71 24 24 7%

Lifecycle maintenance,
habitat and gene pool
protection

126 50 29 29 23%

Pest and disease
control

181 53 31 30 17%

Global climate
regulation

1 495 193 113 108 7%

C
ul
tu
ra
l

Physical and
experiental
interactions

329 67 47 46 14%

Heritage, culture 652 85 61 60 9%

Other cultural outputs 498 43 37 34 7%

Total 3 862 625 373 360 9%

7



2. Methods

The result from the systematic review was investigated using two indicators for each
land use and ES. The size of the knowledge base within the scientific literature, and
its consistency, regarding effects on ES from cattle related land uses in relation to the
alternative land uses. The effects considered were, positive, negative, positive and/or
negative, and no effect. The size of the knowledge base describes the share of articles
with a described effect, see Equation 2.1. The indicator helps describe how large the
scientific research base is, with regards to the keywords. The consistency indicator
describes the share of articles with the same described effect, see Equation 2.2. This
helps to identify the concurrence within the retrieved articles. In Equations 2.1
and 2.2 i and j describes the different land uses and ecosystem service respectively.
Together the indicators can identify the connections degree of certainty for each ES
and land use.

size of knowledge base = (T otal number of articles with a described effect)ij

(Number of retrieved full text articles)j
(2.1)

consistency = Max(number of articles for each effect)ij

(T otal number of articles with shown effect)ij
(2.2)

2.4 | Quantification of selected ecosystem services associated
with cattle land use

To be able to quantify the chosen ecosystem services different indicators from MAES
(2014) together with an interpretation of the CICES (2013) explanations and linkages
presented by Pérez Soba et al. (2017) were used. The ES, indicators and units are
shown in Table 2.4-2.6.

A literature and statistic review over the indicators were then preformed to be able to
quantify the chosen ecosystem services. Statistical values were mainly found from
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket), Statistics Sweden
(Statistiska centralbyrån), Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket), Eurostat
and IPCC.

For those ecosystem service indicators with various values and sources a mean value
for each ecosystem service and land use was found. The mean was found either as an
arithmetic mean or as a weighted arithmetic mean, if sample sizes for the different
values was available.

8



2. Methods

Table 2.4: Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the provisioning
ecosystem services.

Indicators Unit

Cultivated crops
Yields of food and/or feed
crops ton Dry Matter/ha

Area kha

Reared animals and
their outputs

Livestock cattle/ha

Amount of produced milk kton/ha

Amount of produced beef ton/ha

Biomass-based energy
sources

Forestry products GWh/ha

Energy from manure
treatment systems GWh/ha

2.4.1 | Provisioning services
The land use in cattle production is distributed as follows: 610 000 ha grassland ley,
78 000 ha pasture, close to 400 000 ha natural pasture, approximately 200 000 ha
grain, 10 000 leguminous and 50 000 ha other roughage (e.g. whole crop silage and
maize silage) (C. Cederberg, personal communication, 20 April 2017). Co-products
from sugare and vegetable oil industry, most important rapeseed cake, soymeal and
beetfibres, are used in protein feed production. These areas are not included in the
study.

For the provisioning services, statistical values have been collected for the quantification.
The amount of cattle and produced milk and beef in Sweden 2015 are collected from
Jordbruksverket and Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB) (2016), the numbers are shown
in Table 2.7 and 2.8. The total amount of milk cows also contains recruitment cows,
a cow has approximately 0.8 recruitment heifer per cow (C. Cederberg, personal
communication, 20 April, 2017).

9



2. Methods

Table 2.5: Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the regulation
and maintenance ecosystem services.

Indicators Unit

Mediation of waste,
toxics and other
nuisances

Soil organic matter, SOM ton Organic Matter/ha

Amount of nitrogen in soil mg N/kg dry soil

Amount of phosphorus in
soil

mg P/l soil

Carbon fraction in soil g C/g Organic Matter

Mass stabilisation and
control of erosion rates Erosion rate ton/ha · year

Lifecycle maintenance,
habitat and gene pool
protection

Pollination share of harvest %

Pollinators species-richness Rank (1 − 5)

Areal supporting
pollination

%

Pest and disease control
Use of pesticides %

Areal supporting natural
enemies

%

Global climate
regulation by reduction
of greenhouse gas
concentrations

Soil carbon sequestration ton carbon/ha · year

Soil organic carbon, SOC ton carbon/ha

Above-ground carbon ton carbon/ha

Table 2.6: Chosen quantification services, indicators and units for the cultural
ecosystem services.

Indicators Unit

Physical and
experiental
interactions

Willingness to perform
recreational activities in the
area

scale (1 − 5)

Heritage, culture Protected cultural areas %

Other cultural
outputs

Protected area %

Red-listed species number/ha

Landscape preference normalized scale (0 − 1)

10



2. Methods

Table 2.7: Number of cattle in Sweden 2015 (Jordbruksverket & Statistiska
Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016).

Number of cattle Amount

Milk cows 338 379

Other cattle 184 094

Calves < 1 year 466 017

Heifers, steers and bulls > 1 year 487 035

Total dairy cattle (assuming 0.8 heifer
per dairy cow)

609 082

Total amount of meat cattle 866 443

Total 1 475 525

Table 2.8: Milk and beef production in Sweden 2015 (Jordbruksverket & Statistiska
Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016).

Milk and beef production Amount [ton]

Milk 2 933 000

Meat from

Cows 43 380

Calves < 1 year 3 490

Heifers, sticks and bulls > 1 year 86 260

Total 133 130

11



2. Methods

Everitt (2003) recommend an availability of 20 - 30 kg DM/cattle · day on the
pasture. This amount varies however with the size, age and production level of the
cattle (Anett, Johanna, & Sofie, 2012). The recommended number of livestock on
grassland pasture and natural pasture used are a mean for grassland and natural
pasture respectively. On grassland pasture the recommended mean are five cattle
per hectare and for natural pasture the amount are two cattle per hectare (Anett et
al., 2012).

For energy from manure treatment systems the biogas potential calculated by Linné
et al. (2008) from cattle were used. The factors that are considered are type of cow,
manure and its distribution as well as share of dry matter and energy production,
see Table 2.9 for the values.

Table 2.9: A selection of values used to calculate the potential for energy from
manure treatment systems (Linné et al., 2008).

Liquid
manure

Solid
manure

Deep
straw
bed

Manure production [ton/cattle · yr]

Milk cows 26.3 10.7 15

Other cattle 12.2 5.9 6

Calves < 1 year 6 2.7 3.4

Heifers, sticks and bulls > 1 year 10.3 5.9 6

Manure distribution [%]

Milk cows 70 29 1

All remaining cattle 25 57 18

Share of dry matter [%] 9 20 25

Methane production
150 150 135

[Nm3 CH4/ton DM ]

The amount of biomass-based energy from forest residues was calculated as a mean
from the total amount of produced energy, 50 485 GWh (Energimyndigheten, 2016),
divided over the total amount of forest in Sweden, 28 275 000 ha (SCB, 2017).

12



2. Methods

2.4.2 | Regulating and maintenance services
For the regulating and maintenance service the values are however collected from
both literature and statistics. For mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances
four indicators was found.The soil organic matter content in the different soils was
calculated from the amount of soil organic carbon collected from various sources and
the carbon fractions found in (IPCC, 2006). The carbon fraction for all temperate
and boreal forests are 0.47 g C/g OM and for arable land 0.5 g C/g OM (IPCC,
2006). The soil organic carbon amounts can be found in Table 2.10. Both the
amount of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) in the soils are collected from the
empirical study described by Creamer et al. (2016). The amount of N in grassland,
arable and forest are 435, 169, 540 mg N/kg dry soil respectively (Creamer et al.,
2016). For P the amounts are 64, 156, 122 mg P/l soil for grassland, arable and
forest respectively (Creamer et al., 2016).

The erosion rate depends among other things on plant cover, soil structure and
buffer zones. For example, a heterogeneous agricultural area, i.e. mosaic landscape,
has an erosion rate of 4.21 ton/ha · year while an area with permanent crops has an
erosion rate of 9.47 ton/ha · year (eurostat, 2012). A mean for each land use was
calculated from two references and the values can be found in Table 2.10 (eurostat,
2012; Cerdan et al., 2010).

The indicators for the service lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
are all connected to pollinators. The pollination process contributes to the harvest
and are described as the pollination share of harvest. For cropland the share is 5-20%
(12.5% used) (Pedersen et al., 2009). Since grasslands are not depending on the
clover to bloom before harvest or grazing the pollination share of harvest is 0%. The
areal supporting pollinators habitat is depending on species richness in crop as well
as suitable habitation. Grasslands, pastures and edge zones often have high plant
diversity and are therefore a good habitat for pollinators as well as natural enemies.
In Table 2.10 the areal percentages of supporting habitat for pollinators and natural
enemies are presented. The species richness has a large variation between the land
uses the largest species richness is found in natural pasture it decreases together
with the number of flowers for edge zones, blooming crops, grasslands and at last
cereals (R.Bommarco, personal communication, 28 April 2017).

For pest and disease control natural enemies are of importance hence two of the
indicators are related to them. The areal that supports natural enemies are described
above and shown in Table 2.10. The use of pesticides often disturbs the natural pest
and disease control hence the use of pesticides is also an indicator. The amount of
used pesticides was calculated as a weighted mean from statistics, 87% of cropland
areas and 2% of grassland ley areas were treated (Statitstiska centralbyrån (SCB),
2011).

13



2. Methods

The last regulating and maintenance service to quantify is global climate regulation
by reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations. The indicators for this service are
related to the carbon content and sequestration in soil. The soil organic carbon
is, as mentioned above, collected from various sources and an arithmetic mean is
calculated, the span is showed in Table 2.10. The variations are large for some
land uses depending on climate and soil structure (Eswaran et al., 1993). The soils
potential carbon uptake each year is called carbon sequestration. In this study, when
quantifying soil carbon sequestration in present land use due to cattle production
in Sweden in relation to the alternative land use with cropland with only annual
crops, we used data from long term field experiments. These long term soil fertility
experiments has investigated changes in soil carbon levels between crop rotations
with grassland and annual crops and application with manure ("livestock cropping
systems") with annual crops without grass in rotation and no manure application
(arable cropping systems) (Kätterer et al., 2012). After a period of around 40 years,
C concentrations in top soil in the livestock cropping system are 9% higher than
in the arable cropping system. This corresponds to yearly sequestration of 0.13
ton C/ha · yr. For natural pasture compared to the alternative land use cropland
the difference is 0.05 ton C/ha · year (Karltun et al., 2010). The alternative land
use forest has a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.1 - 0.2 ton C/ha · year (0.15
ton C/ha · year used) compared to cropland (B. Berg et al., 2007). The amount
of above-ground carbon can also support the regulation of greenhouse gases, values
can be seen in Table 2.10.

2.4.3 | Cultural services
For the cultural services bio-physical indicators are harder to identify. For this
thesis, the physical and experiental interactions service a survey-based willingness
to perform recreational activities scale are used as indicator. The willingness to
preform recreational activities in a certain area are collected from an article by
Fredman and Hedblom (2015). The results are based on a choice modelling survey
and the values are shown in Table 2.11.

For the cultural heritage service only one indicator was found, the amount of
protected cultural areas. The indicator is expressed as % of total amount of cultural
protected areas in Sweden and are based on statistics on kulturreservat (cultural
sanctuaries). Croplands have the largest share of the cultural protected areas with
10.6%, around 2% of the cultural protected areas are pastures, only 0.3% are ley
grasslands and forests are 0% of the cultural protected areas (Naturvårdsverket,
2012).

14



2. Methods

T
ab

le
2.
10
:
Q
ua

nt
ifi
ca
tio

n
va
lu
es

fo
r
th
e
re
gu

la
tin

g
an

d
m
ai
nt
en
an

ce
se
rv
ic
es
.

Er
os
io
n
ra
te

1
A
re
al

su
pp

or
tin

g
po

lli
na

tio
n

an
d
na

tu
ra
le

ne
m
ie
s2

SO
C

3
∼

30
cm

A
bo

ve
-g
ro
un

d
ca
rb
on

4

La
nd

us
e

Sp
an

[to
n

/h
a

·y
ea

r]
M
ea
n

[to
n

/h
a

·y
ea

r]
Sp

an
[%

]
M
ea
n

[%
]

Sp
an

[to
n

C
/h

a
]

M
ea
n

[to
n

C
/h

a
]

Sp
an

[to
n

C
/h

a
]

M
ea
n

[to
n

C
/h

a
]

G
ra
ss
la
nd

-L
ey

0.
40

-2
.6
7

1.
54

50
-1
00

5
75

4.
25

-1
16

64
.5
5

4.
25

G
ra
ss
la
nd

-P
as
tu
re

0.
40

-2
.0
2

1.
21

10
0

10
0

4.
25

-1
16

64
.5
5

4.
04

-4
.8
57

4.
44

N
at
ur
al

pa
st
ur
e

0.
07

-2
.0
2

0.
76

10
0

10
0

27
.8
7
-6

2.
4

37
.9

14
.1

-1
8.
88

16
.4
5

C
ro
pl
an

d
2.
67

-9
.4
7

5.
25

30
-7
0

50
5
-9

5
50
.5
1

5

O
th
er

0.
2
-2

.6
9

1.
45

10
0

10
0

30
-8

5
68
.4
3

0.
75

-2
.2
5

1.
5

Fo
re
st

0.
07

-0
.2

0.
14

0-
99

25
6

4.
7
-1

79
70
.3
0

70
.5

-9
4

82
.2
5

1 (
eu

ro
st

at
,2

01
2;

C
er

da
n

et
al

.,
20

10
)

2 (
Sc

hu
lp

,L
au

te
nb

ac
h,

&
Ve

rb
ur

g,
20

14
)

3 (
W

ie
sm

ei
er

et
al

.,
20

12
;U

K
N

at
io

na
lE

co
sy

st
em

A
ss

es
sm

en
t,

20
11

;I
PC

C
,

20
06

;D
el

G
al

do
,S

ix
,P

er
es

so
tt

i,
&

Fr
an

ce
sc

a
C

ot
ru

fo
,2

00
3;

Es
w

ar
an

et
al

.,
19

93
)

4 (
IP

C
C

,2
00

6)
5 S

om
et

im
es

ha
rv

es
t

be
fo

re
bl

oo
m

in
g

6 A
ss

um
ed

25
%

of
th

e
fo

re
st

ar
e

ed
ge

s
(e

dg
es

10
0%

)
7 D

eg
ra

da
tio

n
fa

ct
or

s
(b

as
ed

fr
om

Le
y)

;0
.9

5
an

d
1.

14
8 A

ro
un

d
20

%
of

fo
re

st
ab

ov
e-

gr
ou

nd
bi

om
as

s

15



2. Methods

Other cultural outputs describe the enjoyment of nature and landscapes and the
willingness to preserve nature for the future generations. The indicators found
to quantify these values are the amount of protected areas, red-listed species and
landscape preferences. The amount of protected areas is presented as the share of the
total protected land area in Sweden. Other land use is protected within protected
biotopes and are only 0.0003% of the total protected areas, however a large portion
of all other land uses are protected (Naturvårdsverket, n.d.). Pastures are 0.14% of
the total protected area while ley areas and cropland have shares of 0.0048% and
0.066% respectively (Naturvårdsverket, 2012). For the active production forests the
share is 3.9% (Naturvårdsverket, 2012). The amount of red-listed species on each
land use are shown in Table 2.12, for other land use no statistics are available.

Table 2.11: Quantification values for the indicator; the willingness to preform
recreational activities (Fredman & Hedblom, 2015).

Land use scale (1-5)

Grassland - Ley 2.7

Grassland - Pasture 2.7

Natural pasture 3.45

Cropland 1.95

Forest 3.2

Table 2.12: Quantification values for the indicator; amount of red-listed species
(Sandström et al., 2015).

Land use 10−4 species/ha

Grassland - Ley 4.18

Grassland - Pasture 24.34

Natural pasture 6.64

Cropland 0.95

Forest 0.65

16



2. Methods

The landscape preference is the last indicator for other cultural outputs and are
obtained from a meta-analysis of European studies by van Zanten et al. (2014).
The indicator describes what landscape type and landscape elements people enjoy
and prefer based on surveys. The results from the analysis are divided into three
categories; agricultural management, land cover composition and landscape element
and are expressed as normalized scores (0-1). A mean for each land use was
calculated from different values that can be seen in Table 2.13.

Table 2.13: Landscape preferences in a normalized score (0-1) from the
meta-analysis by van Zanten et al. (2014).

Mean

Agricultural management

Intensive agriculture14 0.64

Presence of livestock23 0.70

Farm stewardship 0.30

Field margins5 0.46

Land cover composition

Dominance agricultural land cover14 0.40

Mosaic landscape125 0.75

Dominance forest/natural land cover36 0.50

Landscape element

Green linear elements5 0.00

Grey linear elements 0.33

Historic buildings 0.75

Point elements5 0.58
1Grassland - Ley 2Grassland - Pasture 3Natural pasture
4Cropland 5Other land use 6Forest

2.5 | Monetary valuation of selected ecosystem services
associated with cattle land use

An economic valuation for each ecosystem service are performed with basis from the
quantification. There are three different approaches of economic valuation that are
recommended and used for economic valuation of ecosystem services; market-based,
revealed-preference and stated preference (Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014). The
market-based methods are direct market analysis, production function analysis and

17



2. Methods

replacement or avoided cost which all have the current market price as a basis
(Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014). The reveled-preference methods are travel cost
and hedonic pricing which both are methods that take human behavior into account
(Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014). The stated preference methods are based on surveys
and are called contingent valuation and choice modelling (Rodríguez-Ortega et al.,
2014). The methods used for the chosen ecosystem services can be seen in Table 2.14.

Table 2.14: The ecosystem services and the applied economic valuation methods.

Approach Method Ecosystem service

Market-based

Direct market
analysis

Cultivated crops

Reared animals and their outputs

Biomass-based energy sources

Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and
gene pool protection

Replacement or
avoided cost

Mediation of waste, toxics and other
nuisances

Mass stabilisation and control of
erosion rates

Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and
gene pool protection

Pest and disease control

Global climate regulation by reduction
of greenhouse gas concentrations

Heritage, cultural

Revealed-
preference Travel cost Physical and experiental interactions

Stated
preference

Contingent
valuation

Physical and experiental interactions

Other cultural outputs

Choice modelling Other cultural outputs

18



2. Methods

For the values calculated with a market-based approach a three-year mean value
was found. Some of the ecosystem services financial value can be calculated using
several methods. For those all methods are presented and maximum and minimum
values are found. A discussion around the values found in literature are performed
both regarding connections to Sweden but also the completeness of the value for the
ecosystem service.

Total values in both SEK/ha · yr and SEK/yr are obtained for all services and
alternative land uses divided into milk- and meat cattle and in total. For the
alternative land uses an assumption that all other land use is converted into the
alternative land use is made. When cropland is presented as the alternative land
use an assumption that feed to cattle are not produced resulting in no income from
milk, beef or biomass-based energy are obtained.

2.5.1 | Provisioning services
For all three provisioning services market-based direct prices are used. The price of
cultivated crops is a mean value for different cereals, the numbers is shown in Table
2.15. The price for milk and beef can be seen in Table 2.16. For the biomass-based
energy the electricity price of 256 SEK/MWh was used (Nordpool, 2016).

Table 2.15: Market-based crop prices (Landsbygdsavdelningen, 2016).

Crop prices SEK/ton DM

Oats 1 070

Grain 1 150

Wheat 1 210

Triticale 1 140

Rye 1 000

Mean - cereals 1 114

Table 2.16: Market-based food prices from the cattle production (LRF Mjölk,
2017; Jordbruksverket & Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016).

Animal outputs SEK/ton

Milk 3 303

Beef - cattle 30 273

Beef - middle-sized calf 28 553

Beef - young calf 34 057

19



2. Methods

2.5.2 | Regulating and maintenance services
The monetary value of the regulating and maintenance services are found almost
exclusively with a market-based approach as a replacement or avoided cost. These
are based on previous studies within the area as well as the quantification. For
mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances a replacement cost is calculated with
an amendment value of organic matter of 0.023 - 0.039 SEK/ton OM · yr (Graves
et al., 2015). The amendment value of organic matter is also used to calculate the
value of soil organic carbon for the global climate regulation service together with
the soil carbon fraction.

The cost of erosion depends only on the cost of the lost harvest associated with
a yield loss. The yield loss calculations are based on values such as yield reduction
and bulk density from Graves et al. (2015) as well as the erosion rates. The yield
losses can be seen in Table 2.17.

Table 2.17: Calculated yield losses associated to erosion based on values from
Graves et al. (2015).

Yield loss %/yr ton/ha · yr

Ley 0.09 0.006

Pasture 0.07 0.003

Natural pasture 0.05 0.0005

Cropland 0.31 0.0164

The lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection ecosystem service value
is calculated in three different ways. Firstly, if all the pollinators would disappear
a yield loss equal to the pollination share of harvest is assumed. For the last two
calculations, an avoided cost is calculated based on the areal supporting pollination.
The two alternatives used in this study are; to rent honey bee colonies or buy
artificial pollinators, also called drone-bees. The cost is for adding honey bee colonies
or drone-bees for the areal supporting pollination, the recommended number of
colonies are around 3 colonies/ha (Mellblom, 2011). To rent a honey bee colony
costs 500 SEK (Friberg & Haldén, 2016) and the cost for an artificial drone-bee
would be commercially available for around 11 SEK/drone − bee (Koslow, 2017)
with 10 000 - 70 000 working bees in a colony (Nationalencyklopedin, n.d.) the price
of a colony is 112 013 - 784 094 SEK/colony.

The value of the pest and disease control service is based on the cost of using
pesticides on the areal that is supporting the natural enemies. The cost of pesticides
as mean value calculated from the total amount of sold pesticides as well as the total
economic value for 2012-2014, the values can be found in Table 2.18.

20



2. Methods

Table 2.18: Total economic value and the sold amount of pesticides 2012-2014
(Jordbruksverket, n.d.; Jordbruksverket & Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016).

2012 2013 2014 Mean

Economic value [BillionSEK] 1 833 1 882 2 073 1 929

Sold amount [ton] 4 828 4 466 4 635 4 643

[kg/ha] 1 1 0.9 0.97

Average price [SEK/ha] 380 421 402 401

The value of the global climate regulation is calculated using the soil carbon sequestration
indicator and above-ground carbon. The values was obtained using a calculation
value for carbon emissions of 1.14 SEK/kg CO2equ (Trafikverket, 2016). As 1.14
SEK/kg CO2equ is a rather high value for CO2 emissions a sensitivity analysis
is performed. For the indicator above-ground carbon an assumption of a linear
growth and removal of biomass when it reaches its maximum is made. With this
assumption the amount of above-ground carbon used in the economic calculation is
half the average value shown in Table 2.10.

2.5.3 | Cultural services
The monetary value of the cultural services is based on previous studies and surveys
as well as from the environmental compensation program in Sweden. For the physical
and experiental interactions two studies were examined. In Ezebilo et al. (2013)
a survey in Sweden with a willingness to pay open-ended question examined the
maximum amount they were willing to pay to be able to visit an area in a recreational
purpose. In Ezebilo (2016) another survey in Sweden examined the opportunity cost
of travel including travel time as well as food and equipment. The values from both
surveys can be found in Table 2.19.

For the heritage and cultural service the values from the environmental compensation
program were applied. The compensation program is established to protect nature-
and cultural heritage values and are applied for grasslands, natural pasture, edge
zones in agricultural areas and forest. For those land areas with three different
steps; general nature values, special nature values with and without the conditions
for farm support met, a mean was calculated. There is a lot of rules and regulations
to follow to be able to get the compensation, in Table 2.20 the maximum values are
shown.

21



2. Methods

Table 2.19: The monetary value of recreation based on two different surveys
(Ezebilo et al., 2013; Ezebilo, 2016).

SEK/person · year SEK/year1

Stated preference - Contingent valuation

Forest 5 178 1.3

Pasture 7 389 1.8

Farmland 7 600 1.9

Open/grassland 10 900 2.7

>1 nature type (mosaic) 12 290 3.0

Revealed preference - Travel cost

Forest 7 205 1.8

Grass2 9 561 2.4

Meadow3 7 657 1.9
1Related to number of tax-payers and the land area share cattle production

stands for (SCB, 2015, 2017) calculated with the following equation:
WTP · (tax payers) · (cattle production share of land use)

2Nature area dominated by grasses
3Nature area dominated by grasses and other non-woody plants

Table 2.20: Possible compensations from the Swedish environmental subsidees
(Jordbruksverket, 2016d, 2016c).

SEK/ha Comments

Grassland - Ley 500

Management of pasture 1 000 General nature values

2 800 Special nature values

1 267 Mean

Natural pasture, forest 2 500

Mosaic land areas 1 700 Complement

22



2. Methods

For the last cultural service, other cultural outputs, the values are collected from
Nilsson (2004). The values for forest were collected from a survey with both an
open- and closed-ended question, contingent valuation method to receive willingness
to pay to preserve the forest. For the agricultural areas, a survey with a contingent
valuation open-ended question asking the willingness to pay to prevent that half the
agricultural landscape turns into forest. The values from both surveys are shown
in Table 2.21. In a study by Kumm (2017) the willingness to pay to preserve
natural pasture in Västra Götalands regionen, Sweden, was 578 SEK/person · year
in increased taxes. With 7 744 031 taxpayers (SCB, 2015) and 442 916 ha pasture
(Jordbruksverket, 2016b) the willingness to pay to preserve natural pasture is around
10 000 SEK/ha · year.

Table 2.21: The willingness to pay to preserve the landscape based on studies
described by Nilsson (2004) in 2017 monetary value.

SEK/ha · year

Forest

Open-ended 739

Closed-ended 1 596

Agriculture

Cropland1 1 716

Grassland - pasture 3 279

Natural pasture 4 142
1Also used for grassland ley

23



2. Methods

24



3 | Results

3.1 | Cattle related land uses in Sweden
In this section, the different land use areas for Swedish cattle is thoroughly examined
and compared with the alternative land uses in a literature overview. The definition
of the different areas and the associated names from articles can be found in Table
2.1. The areal distribution for milk and beef cows are presented in figure 3.1.
Grassland is in total 52% of the total land use where ley stands for 46% and
pasture 6%. Natural pasture stands for 29% where beef cows use most of the areal
(C. Cederberg, personal communication, 12 March, 2017).

Figure 3.1: Land area distribution for the Swedish cattle industry (C. Cederberg,
personal communication, 12 March, 2017)

25



3. Results

3.1.1 | Grassland
Grassland is defined as an area covered by different grass and ley species. A grassland
could either be used as a grazing area for cattle or as forage. When it is used as
forage in Sweden its harvested two-three times per year and the ground is never left
bare. In a Swedish grassland, there are a couple of recommended plant-mixtures
depending on for example the soil conditions, manuring strategies and if grazing will
occur (Jordbruksverket, 2015). The composition and maintenance of a grassland can
results in a high bio- and plant diversity depending on the agricultural intensity (e.g.,
Knudsen et al., 2016; Ihse, 1995). Plant diversity positively affects the number of
pollinators and natural enemies present as well as if it is woody or not (Shackelford
et al., 2013; Öckinger & Smith, 2007; Cederberg et al., 2016). This leads to
that grassland have higher number of pollinators and natural enemies compared
to both forest and cropland areas. If manure is added to the area the number of
natural enemies also is increasing (Pimentel et al., 1992). This leads to that grazing
grassland areas have a higher number of beneficial arthropods than ley grassland.
Water irrigation of the grasslands varies from grassland to grassland, in Sweden
however the ley grasslands are normally not irrigated. On the grasslands with cattle
grazing a small number of water is used as livestock water and the land is not
irrigated. If needed manure collected from stables, where cattle is fed by silage,
can be used as an energy sources. The potential from Swedish cattle sector is
approximately 5.2 MWh energy/cattle annually (Linné et al., 2008).

The provision of regulating and maintenance services depends on soil health. Soil
nutrients, pH-value and organic matter is some of the indicators to a healthy soil
(Cardoso et al., 2013). The soil organic matter in soil used for grassland is generally
higher than for cropland (van Eekeren et al., 2008) and have lower levels than for a
forest (Holubík et al., 2014). The cation exchange capacity is connected to the soils
pH-levels and the retention of important nutrients in the soil (Cardoso et al., 2013).
In grassland, the cation exchange capacity is slightly higher than for a forest and
generally the same as for cropland (Holubík et al., 2014). The pH-levels however, is
broadly lower than in cropland and the same as for a forest (Holubík et al., 2014).
The amount of soil organic carbon is directly linked to the soil organic matter levels
on the contrary, the amount of carbon sequestered differ. A transformation from
grassland to forest does not affect the amount of sequestered carbon at the same
time a change from grassland to cropland reduces the amount quite a bit (Ostle et
al., 2009).

Other utilities affecting the regulating and maintenance services can be indicated by
erosion rate, water infiltration and run-off capacity. These indicators are affected by
if the ground is covered or uncovered and the amount of tillage used (Wolkowski &
Lowery, 2008). All the indicators are positively affected by coverage and no-tillage
maintenance. This leads to lower erosion rates and higher water infiltration and
run-off capacities for grassland compared to cropland and at the same time small
varying differences compared to forest depending on tillage and cattle appearances
(Cerdan et al., 2010; GWP, 2015; Wagner et al., 2009; Wolkowski & Lowery, 2008).
The buffering and attenuation capacity is measured by the amount of grass-covered

26



3. Results

areas leading to higher values compared to cropland and lower values compared to
forests. The land areas capacity to handle air flows, connected to the ecosystem
service; mediation of flows, is increasing with the number of trees present leading to
lower values compared to forest areas (MAES, 2014).

The enjoyment grassland areas provide in cultural services varies in Sweden. The
amount of bird and red-listed species as well as heritage and protected areas is
loosely connected to the lands plant- and biodiversity. A higher biodiversity can
lead to a larger amount of bird and red-listed species as well as a higher chance
to be protected. However, the willingness to perform a recreational activity in a
landscape as well as the enjoyment of its existence is a personal preference that is
connected to for example childhood and values (Fredman et al., 2013). The amount
of bird and red-listed species is depending on the surrounding areas leading to that
grasslands could both have larger and smaller amount of species comparing to a
forest (Å. Berg, 2002; Sandström et al., 2015). Comparing to a cropland however,
grassland will generally have a larger amount of present species (Å. Berg, 2002;
Sandström et al., 2015). The size of protected forest areas is much greater than
protected grassland areas in Sweden (SCB, n.d.). However, Hasund, Kataria, and
Lagerkvist (2011) states that grassland areas, together with natural pasture, are the
most valuable land areas regarding heritage and culture.

Personal preferences are harder to give a value, Fredman and Hedblom (2015) did
a national survey about Swedish people’s recreational habits. They observed that
the will to perform recreational habits in grassland areas are around the same as for
a forest and higher compared to cropland. On the contrary, the number of visitors
in grassland areas are much lower than for a forest and only slightly higher than
for cropland areas (Fredman et al., 2013). In a meta-analysis by van Zanten et al.
(2014) they compared European studies about landscape preferences. The result
showed that grassland was preferred over both cropland and forest.

3.1.2 | Natural pasture
Natural pasture is often areas that is non-arable or in such a shape or condition
that it is non-profitable to grow crops or ley. This results in less overgrown land
areas and a maximum usage of resources. Natural pasture areas are an area with
similarities to both grazing grassland and forest and consequently the connections
to ecosystem services will be alike.

At a natural pasture, a high plant-and biodiversity is present as well as it is a
preferable natural habitat for beneficial arthropods and pollinators (Foley et al.,
2005; Shackelford et al., 2013; Öckinger & Smith, 2007). The amount of soil organic
matter, soil nutrients, the soil pH and the climate regulation in a natural pasture is
interpreted as less than for a forest with respect to the negative effects from grazing
cattle and less trees (Fromm et al., 1993). This leads to that natural pasture have
higher values of soil organic matter, soil nutrients levels (P,N,C,Mg) and climate
regulation than cropland (Holubík et al., 2014; Ross et al., 1999; Anderson-Teixeira

27



3. Results

& DeLucia, 2011). The amount of sequestered carbon decreases with a change from
natural pasture to cropland (Ostle et al., 2009). However, the cation exchange
capacity and pH-levels are lower for natural pasture than cropland (Holubík et al.,
2014).

The surface of a natural pasture is always covered, provided no-overgrazing occurs,
leading to a higher buffering capacity than cropland. Since some of the regulating
and maintenance services is affected by if the surface is covered. This leads to
lower erosion rates for natural pastures comparing to cropland and higher water
infiltration and run-off capacities (Cerdan et al., 2010; GWP, 2015; Wolkowski &
Lowery, 2008; Wagner et al., 2009). Comparing to forest instead, varying effects
for erosion rates occur (Cerdan et al., 2010). For the remaining regulating and
maintenance services mentioned only small negative differences occur depending on
cattle appearance (Wolkowski & Lowery, 2008). For the mediation of air flows the
amount of biomass, i.e. trees, have a positive effect (MAES, 2014) which leads to
that natural pasture have higher values than cropland and the same as for a forest.

As stated earlier in section 3.1.1 natural pasture have a high heritage and cultural
value (Hasund et al., 2011). For bird and red-listed species as well as protected
areas natural pasture are understood as a forest. They are equivalent because a
natural pasture contains the same diversity as a forest and often contain heritages
valuable monuments. However, the amount of red-listed species decreases if the
pasture overgrows leading to more species in a natural pasture area (Sandström et
al., 2015). Comparing to cropland natural pasture both have a larger amount of
protected areas as well as present bird and red-listed species (SCB, n.d.; Å. Berg,
2002; Sandström et al., 2015). In the personal preference surveys, natural pasture is
interpreted as a forest with cattle present. The will to perform recreational activities,
according to Fredman and Hedblom (2015), is increasing with cattle present and are
higher for natural pasture compared to cropland. The effect cattle have on the
number of visitors are harder to predict. A natural pasture has a higher number of
visitors compared to cropland, since both forests and grazing grasslands have higher
numbers of visitors (Fredman et al., 2013). At last, from the meta-analysis by van
Zanten et al. (2008) the presences of livestock have a positive effect of the enjoyment
of the landscape. Furthermore, a dominance of forest and natural vegetation scores
higher than dominating cropland areas.

28



3. Results

3.1.3 | Cropland
On the cropland, mostly cereals but also more protein rich crops such as field beans,
peas, canola and soybean are cultivated. The crops are often in a rotation schedule
which is important to maintain the soil in good health, especially for ecological farms
where fertilizers are sparsely used (Jordbruksverket, 2016a). Croplands in Sweden
are often sparsely irrigated but it varies from cropland to cropland and year to year.
If needed, as mentioned for grassland ley, manure produced from cattle in stables
fed by cereals can be used as an energy source.

A cropland has low plant- and biodiversity in favor of the cultivated crops. This
lead to low amounts of pollinators as well as natural enemies compared to forests
(Shackelford et al., 2013). In Sweden, a cropland is bare 8-9 months per year
(Aug/Sept to May) if sown with spring cereals. This leads to higher erosion rates
and lower buffering capacity, water infiltration and run-off capacities than for a
forest (Cerdan et al., 2010; GWP, 2015; Wagner et al., 2009). As said before storm
protection depends on the amount of tree present (Maes et al., 2016) leading to low
protection comparing to forest areas. Depending on the level of maintenance the soil
health differs (Cardoso et al., 2013). Overall cropland have lower amounts of soil
organic matter, soil nutrients (P,N,C,Mg) and climate regulation than for a forest
(Holubík et al., 2014; Ross et al., 1999; Anderson-Teixeira & DeLucia, 2011). On
the contrary, the pH-levels and cation exchange capacity is higher for cropland than
forest (Holubík et al., 2014). The amount of sequestered carbon increases with the
change from cropland to forest (Ostle et al., 2009).

For the cultural services cropland have the lowest scores in the survey the willingness
to perform recreational activities and achieves the lowest number of visitors (Fredman
& Hedblom, 2015; Fredman et al., 2013). In the survey about the enjoyment
provided by the landscape Cropland scores higher than both other land uses as
well as forest (van Zanten et al., 2014). Cropland do not often contain heritage
valued monuments or rare species which leads to a low amount of protected cropland
areas compared to forests (SCB, n.d.). The bird and red-listed species that occur
in croplands are depending on surrounding areas and for example the number of
trees present (Å. Berg, 2002; Sandström et al., 2015). This leads to lower amount
of present species compared to forest areas.

3.1.4 | Other land uses
This land area symbolizes the patches and islands between or in croplands, grasslands
and natural pastures. It could be zones with flowers, trees, water, a fence, ditches
etc. These "other" areas are often natural habitats for different natural enemies
(Bianchi et al., 2006), pollination animals and/or flowers which often makes them
a source of high bio- and plant diversity (Shackelford et al., 2013). They could also
contain heritage in the form of for instance stonewalls. These areas also create a
mosaic landscape with smaller and more diversified fields which also positively affect
the biodiversity (Tscharntke et al., 2005).

29



3. Results

The soil health of the edge zones depends on the composition and varies from case
to case (Wood et al., 2000, p. 50). Overall a higher amount of soil organic matter
and nutrients are found in edge zones compared to cropland. Compared to forest
however, these values vary between higher values for edge zones with trees and
high flower diversity (Cardoso et al., 2013). For edge zones with ditches and/or
stonewalls the values are lower than for a forest. Water infiltration capacity as well as
storm protection also depends on the composition (GWP, 2015; Maes et al., 2016).
This leads to varying values of storm protection compared to both cropland and
forest. For the water infiltration capacity, however overall positive values compared
to cropland is found as lower tillage is performed (Wolkowski & Lowery, 2008).

As stated before with other land areas a more mosaic landscape is formed. This
has a positive effect on both the amount of birds and red-listed species present
(Å. Berg, 2002; Sandström et al., 2015). To keep the amount of present red-listed
species high some maintenance of the edge zone is needed as overgrowth has a
negative effect (Sandström et al., 2015). A large amount of heritage monuments is
placed in other land areas which is confirmed as the amount of non-productive areas
that are protected in Sweden are an extensive amount (SCB, n.d.). It is generally
the same amount as protected forests and a larger area compared to cropland. From
the meta-analysis by van Zanten et al. (2014) it is shown that a mosaic landscape is
the most preferable landscape form. In the same article, historic buildings followed
by green linear landscapes was the most preferred landscape elements (van Zanten
et al., 2014). This leads to that other land areas provides a higher enjoyment than
both forest and cropland areas. The willingness to perform recreational activities
increases for a mosaic landscape, which these patches and islands create and support.

3.1.5 | Alternative land use - Forest
In the alternative land use forest the residues from forestry are used for energy
production and other biomass fibers in the forest is used as timber. This is leading
to negative effects for the services connected to energy production and biomass fiber
for cattle land use areas. In a Swedish forest a large variety of wild edible plants,
berries and mushrooms are present. This can also be true for edge zones depending
on its composition, see section 3.1.4. The presence of wild animals, for hunting
purposes, are high in Swedish forests they are often also present in nearby crop- and
grassland areas. If cattle are present the amount of wild animals present is slightly
less.

30



3. Results

3.1.6 | Connections between cattle land use and ecosystem services
The connections between cattle land use and ES are presented with an 8-point scale,
see figure 3.2, interpreted from the overview presented in section 3.1.1 - 3.1.5.

Figure 3.2: The 8-point scale used to describe the effects between cattle land use
and ecosystem services.

In Table 3.1 the effects on ES of a transformation from the alternative land use forest
to each cattle related land use is presented. The results indicate that cropland has
overall negative impact compared to forest, except for cultivated crops, biomass
from reared animals, and biogas production from manure. For both grassland and
natural pasture the impacts vary for each ES. However, a connection between these
land usages can be found. For edge zones and islands positive and positive- and/or
negative effects are shown. The positive- and/or negative effects on ES are depending
on the composition of the other land area. A lack of scientific research is manifested
for the cultural ES.

In Table 3.2 the effects on ES of a transformation from the alternative land use
cropland to each cattle related land use is presented. The results imply an overall
positive effect for all land usages on the ES. The negative effects can be seen in the
provisioning ES with cultivated crops as the largest contribution. The result implies
a lack of scientific research for the cultural ES.

31



3. Results

Table 3.1: The effects on ecosystem services of a transformation from the
alternative land use forest to each cattle related land use.

32



3. Results

Table 3.2: The effects on ecosystem services of a transformation from the
alternative land use cropland to each cattle related land use.

33



3. Results

3.2 | Systematic review of effects from cattle related land use
of selected ecosystem services

Selected ES were evaluated in a more thorough analysis based on a systematic review
of the scientific literature. A total of 3 862 articles was part of the screening process
and 360 (9%) articles was retrieved in full text.

The result from the systematic review are presented in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5
with matrices showing the effects from each land use. The matrices both display
the consistency among the articles as well as the size of knowledge base. The color
code used is presented in Table 3.3. For the size of knowledge base a darker color
(higher percentage) implies a larger amount of articles for the ES and land use.

Table 3.3: Color code for the presentation of the systematic review result for both
consistency and the size of knowledge base for land usage.

Consistency 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

Positive effects

Positive and/or negative effects

Negative effects

No effect

size of knowledge base

The matrices with forest as the alternative land use are shown in Table 3.4. The
result indicate that the consistency is overall high for cropland and other-land.
However, the size of knowledge base is low for other-land. The results are more
inconsistent for grassland, both ley and pasture. The size of knowledge base is for
grassland, cropland and natural pasture overall in the upper span of 25-50% with
some exceptions. The most reliable results are the negative effect cropland have
on erosion rates and pest and disease control taking both consistency and size of
knowledge base into consideration.

In Table 3.5 cropland is the alternative land use. The result indicate an overall
higher size of knowledge base than with forest as the alternative land use. The
consistency is on average in the span of 76-100%. However, for some of the ecosystem
services and land use categories with a larger size of knowledge base the consistency
is decreasing. The most trustworthy result is the positive effect from ley grassland
on the mediation of toxics.

For the cultural ES a mosaic landscape affects the different services. The number
of articles that introduced mosaic landscape to have a positive effect on the ES

34



3. Results

was 29% of the retrieved full text cultural ES articles. For physical and experiental
interactions, it was 24% of the articles. For heritage and cultural it was 28% and for
other cultural outputs 35% of the articles mentioned a positive effect from mosaic
landscape.

3.2.1 | Statistics from the systematic review
The number of retrieved full text studies divided into publication year is shown
in Figure 3.3. The number of articles increases with the publication year implying
that these types of studies around ecosystem services are a rather new research area.

Figure 3.3: Number of retrieved full text studies divided into publication year in
the systematic review.

The geographical distribution for the retrieved full text studies varies for cultural
and regulating and maintenance services. In Figure 3.4 the statistics are shown. For
the cultural services 88% of the studies are from Europe, 8% have a global approach,
2% from North America and for 3% a geographical place is not applicable. For the
regulating and maintenance services 50% of the studies are from Europe, 23% from
North America, 5% from Oceania, 3% have a global approach, 2% from Asia, 1%
from Africa and 16% of the studies a geographical place is not applicable.

35



3. Results

T
able

3.4:
R
esulting

m
atrices

from
the

system
atic

review
w
ith

the
alternative

land
use

forest,references
in

A
ppendix

A
.

A
:T

he
consistency.

E
cosystem

service

Sw
edish

cattle

land
use

Ley

Grazing/Pasture

Natural pasture

Cropland

Other

Regulation and maintenance

M
ediation

of
w
aste,

toxics
and

other
nuisances

M
ass

stabilisation
and

control
of

erosion
rates

Lifecycle
m
aintenance,

habitat
and

gene
pool

protection

P
est

and
disease

control

G
lobal

clim
ate

regulation

Cultural

P
hysical

and
experiental

interactions

H
eritage,

culture

O
ther

cultural
outputs

B
:Size

ofknow
ledge

base.

E
cosystem

service

Sw
edish

cattle

land
use

Ley

Grazing/Pasture

Natural pasture

Cropland

Other

Regulation and maintenance

M
ediation

of
w
aste,

toxics
and

other
nuisances

M
ass

stabilisation
and

control
of

erosion
rates

Lifecycle
m
aintenance,

habitat
and

gene
pool

protection

P
est

and
disease

control

G
lobal

clim
ate

regulation

Cultural

P
hysical

and
experiental

interactions

H
eritage,

culture

O
ther

cultural
outputs

36



3. Results

T
ab

le
3.
5:

R
es
ul
tin

g
m
at
ric

es
fro

m
th
e
sy
st
em

at
ic

re
vi
ew

w
ith

th
e
al
te
rn
at
iv
e
la
nd

us
e
cr
op

la
nd

,r
ef
er
en
ce
s
in

A
pp

en
di
x
A
.

A
:T

he
co
ns
ist

en
cy
.

E
co
sy
st
em

se
rv
ic
e

Sw
ed

is
h
ca
tt
le

la
nd

us
e

Ley

Grazing/
Pastur

e

Natura
lpastu

re

Other

Regulationandmaintenance

M
ed

ia
ti
on

of
w
as
te
,

to
xi
cs

an
d
ot
he

r
nu

is
an

ce
s

M
as
s

st
ab

ili
sa
ti
on

an
d

co
nt
ro
l
of

er
os
io
n
ra
te
s

Li
fe
cy
cl
e

m
ai
nt
en

an
ce
,

ha
bi
ta
t

an
d

ge
ne

po
ol

pr
ot
ec
ti
on

P
es
t
an

d
di
se
as
e
co
nt
ro
l

G
lo
ba

l
cl
im

at
e
re
gu

la
ti
on

Cultural

P
hy

si
ca
l

an
d

ex
pe

ri
en
ta
l

in
te
ra
ct
io
ns

H
er
it
ag
e,

cu
lt
ur
e

O
th
er

cu
lt
ur
al

ou
tp
ut
s

B
:S

iz
e
of

kn
ow

le
dg

e
ba

se
.

E
co
sy
st
em

se
rv
ic
e

Sw
ed

is
h
ca
tt
le

la
nd

us
e

Ley

Grazing/
Pastur

e

Natura
lpastu

re

Other

Regulationandmaintenance

M
ed

ia
ti
on

of
w
as
te
,

to
xi
cs

an
d
ot
he

r
nu

is
an

ce
s

M
as
s

st
ab

ili
sa
ti
on

an
d

co
nt
ro
l
of

er
os
io
n
ra
te
s

Li
fe
cy
cl
e

m
ai
nt
en

an
ce
,

ha
bi
ta
t

an
d

ge
ne

po
ol

pr
ot
ec
ti
on

P
es
t
an

d
di
se
as
e
co
nt
ro
l

G
lo
ba

l
cl
im

at
e
re
gu

la
ti
on

Cultural

P
hy

si
ca
l

an
d

ex
pe

ri
en
ta
l

in
te
ra
ct
io
ns

H
er
it
ag
e,

cu
lt
ur
e

O
th
er

cu
lt
ur
al

ou
tp
ut
s

37



3. Results

Figure 3.4: Geographical distribution of retrieved full text studies in the systematic
review.

Four types of studies were captured from the retrieved full text studies; based on
empirical data, a literature review, a modelling approach or survey based. The
number of articles observed for each study type are presented in Figure 3.5, some
studies were based on two types and are then present in both categories. 45% of
the cultural studies was a literature review, 33% was based on a survey, 13% had
a modelling approach and 8% was based on empirical data. The regulating and
maintenance service studies were mostly based on empirical data (55%), 27% a
literature review and 19% had a modelling approach.

38



3. Results

Figure 3.5: Retrieved full text studies divided into type of study in the systematic
review.

3.3 | Quantification of selected ecosystem services associated
with cattle land use

The result from the quantification is presented in Tables 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 for all cattle
related and alternative land uses.

3.3.1 | Provisioning services

The quantities for the provisioning services are mainly statistically measured quantities
and have therefore no span, the values can be seen in Table 3.6. For produced
milk and beef the cattle related land uses produces in total 4 276 kg milk/ha and
222 kg beef/ha (Jordbruksverket & Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB), 2016). Comparing
to the alternative land use forest higher numbers are, not surprisingly, shown for all
indicators except for energy from forestry products.

Comparing to the alternative land use cropland in Table 3.6 the conventional yields
are compared, for ecological ley fields a decrease in yield with 1 ton DM/ha happens
(C. Cederberg, personal communication (MiBeeInt), 20 April 2017). For cropland,
the drop is around 2 ton DM/ha (C. Cederberg, personal communication (MiBeeInt),
20 April 2017).

39



3. Results

T
able

3.6:
Q
uantities

for
the

provisioning
services

for
cattle

associated
and

alternative
land

uses.

E
cosystem

service
Indicator

U
n

it

Ley

Grazing/Pasture

Natural pasture

Cropland

Other

Forest

C
ultivated

crops
Y
ields

of
food

and/or
feed

crops
ton

D
M

/h
a

6.64
4.2

1.2
5.28

0
0

A
rea

k
h

a
611

78
383

213
750

-

R
eared

anim
als

and
their

outputs
Livestock

ca
ttle/h

a
0

5
2

0
0

0

B
iom

ass-based
energy

sources
Forestry

products
M

W
h

/h
a

0
0

0
0

0
1.79

Energy
from

m
anure

treatm
ent

system
s

M
W

h
/h

a
1.68

0
0

0.59
0

0

40



3. Results

3.3.2 | Regulating and maintenance services
The quantities for the regulating and maintenance services are a mix of statistics
and study results which leads to a large variation within each indicator. The values
presented in Table 3.7 are either an arithmetic mean or a weighted arithmetic mean.
For the indicator soil carbon sequestration, global climate regulation, the values can
be found in Table 3.8.

The ecosystem service with the most surprising result in the quantification are
mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances. Ley, grassland pasture and other
land use were expected to have higher values than forest but overall they have
lower values. For both cropland and natural pasture the quantification values are as
predicted from the literature overview for this service. Comparing to cropland the
values for grassland pasture are unexpected. For the indicators regarding pollination
cropland have unexpectedly higher values than forest. For lifecycle maintenance,
habitat and gene pool protection and pest and disease services the natural pasture
was expected to have the same values as forest, in the quantification natural pasture
have higher values for both services. For the other services the result from the
quantification is expected and follows the systematic review.

3.3.3 | Cultural services
The quantification values for the cultural services are mainly based on various
studies. The quantification results comparing to the alternative land use forest
have surprising values in the heritage, cultural service where cropland have a higher
percentage of cultural protected areas. In physical and experiental interactions,
other land use has a low bird indicator, however as mentioned mosaic landscape
makes the landscape more attractive to perform recreational activities which leads
to a higher overall quantity for other land use areas. For the comparison to cropland
in the cultural heritage service the indicator is surprisingly higher for cropland than
for the cattle related land uses. The remaining results are expected seen from the
systematic review.

41



3. Results

T
able

3.7:
Q
uantities

for
the

regulating
and

m
aintenance

services
for

cattle
associated

and
alternative

land
uses.

E
cosystem

service
Indicator

U
n

it

Ley

Grazing/Pasture

Natural pasture

Cropland

Other

Forest

M
ediation

of
w
aste,

toxics
and

other
nuisances

Soilorganic
m
atter,SO

M
ton

O
M

/h
a

129
75.9

132.8
101

136.9
149.6

A
m
ount

ofnitrogen
in

soil
m

g
N

/k
g

d
ry

soil
435.28

435.28
540.27

168.61
-

540.27

A
m
ount

ofphosphorus
in

soil
m

g
P

/l
soil

64.21
64.21

121.72
156.12

-
121.72

M
ass

stabilisation
and

control
of

erosion
rates

Erosion
rate

ton/ha·y
ea

r
1.54

1.21
0.76

5.25
1.45

0.14

Lifecycle
m
aintenance,habitat

and
gene

pool
protection

Pollination
share

ofharvest
%

0
0

-
12.5

-
0

Pollinators
species-richness

R
a
n

k
3

3
1

4
2

5

A
realsupporting

pollination
%

75
100

100
50

100
25

P
est

and
disease

control

U
se

ofpesticides
%

2
0

0
87

0
0

A
realsupporting

naturalenem
ies

%
75

100
100

50
100

25

G
lobal

clim
ate

regulation
by

reduction
of

greenhouse
gas

concentrations

Soilorganic
carbon,SO

C
ton

C
/h

a
64.5

64.5
37.9

50.5
68.4

70.3

A
bove-ground

carbon
ton

C
/h

a
4.25

4.44
16.45

5
1.5

82.25

42



3. Results

Table 3.8: Soil carbon sequestration (ton C/ha · yr) in cropping systems with and
without cattle

“Cattle” cropping
system with grassland
(ley) in rotation with
annual crops, mostly

grain

“Non-cattle” cropping
system with annual
crops and no rotation
with grasslands (ley)

Yearly soil C sequestration

Ton C/ha · yr

Grassland ley on
cropland 0.131 -

Annual crops (mostly
grain) on cropland 0.131 0

Natural pasture 0.0502 0
1(Kätterer et al., 2012) 2(Karltun et al., 2010)

3.4 | Monetary valuation of selected ecosystem services
associated with cattle land use

For the monetary valuation maximum and minimum values are obtained when
possible for each ecosystem service and cattle associated and alternative land uses.
The results are presented in Table 3.10. The cattle production in Sweden have a
monetary value of 27.2 - 36.7 billion SEK/year. If all land area were transformed
into the alternative land use forest the monetary value would be
3.1 - 21.8 billion SEK/year. If all cattle related land areas was converted into
cropland the monetary value would be 11.2 - 14.2 billion SEK/year. The alternative
land use cropland has a value of 5 955 SEK/ha · yr for cultivated crops.

The distribution of the average total value for each ecosystem service for cattle
related land uses and the alternative land uses are shown in Figure 3.6. For
the cattle related land uses physical and experiental interactions, milk, beef and
other cultural outputs have the three largest shares of 31%, 30%, 14% and 14%
respectively, see Figure 3.6.A. The ecosystem services with the three largest shares
for the alternative land use forest are global climate regulation (68%), physical and
experiental interactions and other cultural outputs (12%) and biomass-based energy
sources (5%), see Figure 3.6.B. For cropland, as the alternative land use, cultivated
crops, other cultural outputs and physical and experiental interactions have the
largest shares of 61%, 18% and 15% respectively, see Figure 3.6.C.

43



3. Results

T
able

3.9:
Q
uantities

for
the

culturalservices
for

cattle
associated

and
alternative

land
uses.

E
cosystem

service
Indicator

U
n

it

Ley

Grazing/Pasture

Natural pasture

Cropland

Other

Forest

P
hysical

and
experiental
interactions

W
illingness

to
perform

recreational
activities

in
the

area
sca

le
(1

−
5)

2.7
2.7

3.45
1.95

-
3.2

H
eritage,

cultural
Protected

cultural
areas

%
0.28

2.02
2.02

10.55
-

0

O
ther

cultural
outputs

Protected
area

%
0.0048

0.1403
0.1403

0.0660
0.0003

3.9000

R
ed-listed

species
10

−
4

n
u
m

ber/h
a

4.18
24.34

6.64
0.95

-
0.65

Landscape
preference

n
orm

a
lized

sca
le(0−

1)
0.60

0.73
0.60

0.52
0.45

0.50

44



3. Results
T
ab

le
3.
10
:
M
in
im

um
an

d
m
ax

im
um

m
on

et
ar
y
va
lu
es

in
S

E
K

/h
a

·y
r
fo
r
se
le
ct
ed

ec
os
ys
te
m

se
rv
ic
es

as
so
ci
at
ed

w
ith

ca
tt
le

la
nd

us
e. Ec
os
ys
te
m

se
rv
ic
e

Com
ment

Ley

Graz
ing/

Past
ure

Natu
ralP

astu
re

Crop
land

Oth
er

Tota
l-c

attle
land

use

Fore
st

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

M
ax

M
in

Provisioning

C
ul
ti
va
te
d
cr
op

s
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

R
ea
re
d
an

im
al
s
an

d
th
ei
r
ou

tp
ut
s

M
ilk

-
-

-
-

0
14

12
3

0

M
ea
t

-
-

-
-

0
7
26
3

0

B
im

as
sb
as
ed

en
er
gy

so
ur
ce
s

43
1

0
0

15
11

0
58
2

45
8

Regulationandmaintenance

M
ed

ia
ti
on

of
w
as
te
,

to
xi
cs

an
d

ot
he

r
nu

is
an

ce
s

5.
01

3.
00

2.
94

1.
77

5.
15

3.
09

3.
92

.3
5

5.
31

3.
18

22
.3
2

13
.3
9

5.
80

3.
48

M
as
s
st
ab

ili
sa
ti
on

an
d

co
nt
ro
lo

fe
ro
si
on

ra
te
s

-6
.6
4

-1
.8
1

-0
.3
2

-1
9

-
-2
7.
49

-

Li
fe
cy
cl
e
m
ai
nt
en

an
ce
,

ha
bi
ta
t
an

d
ge
ne

po
ol

pr
ot
ec
ti
on

1
12
5

0
1
50
0

0
1
50
0

0
75
0

-7
53

1
50
0

0
6
37
5

-7
53

37
5

0

P
es
t

an
d

di
se
as
e

co
nt
ro
l

31
2

41
6

41
6

20
8

41
6

1
76
8

10
4

G
lo
ba

l
cl
im

at
e

re
gu

la
ti
on

66
1

40
.4
2

69
0

40
.4
2

2
55
7

15
.5
5

77
7

40
.4
21

23
3

5.
31

49
19

14
2.
11

12
78
6

46
.6
4

Cultural

H
er
it
ag
e,

cu
lt
ur
e

50
0

1
26
7

2
50
0

0
1
70
0

10
85
2

0

O
th
er

cu
lt
ur
al

ou
tp
ut
s

1
71
6

3
27
9

10
10
6

4
14
2

1
71
6

0
16

81
6

10
85
2

1
59
0

73
9

T
ot
al

[S
E

K
/h

a
·y

r]
15

62
1

13
87
4

8
29
3

6
14
2

22
61
7

12
60
9

7
42
3

5
18
1

3
85
5

2
11
9

57
80
8

39
92
5

15
32
4

1
35
0

C
ul
tu
ra
l

-
P
hy

si
ca
l

an
d

ex
pe

ri
en
ta
l

in
te
ra
ct
io
ns

[bi
ll

io
n

S
E

K
/y

r]
2.
7

2.
37

2.
37

1.
83

1.
83

1.
79

1.
9

1.
88

3.
05

0
11
.8
4

7.
87

1.
79

1.
28

T
ot
al

[bi
ll

io
n

S
E

K
/y

r]
12
.8

11
.4

3.
7

2.
9

11
.9

8.
0

5.
2

4.
7

3.
1

0.
1

36
.7

27
.2

21
.8

3.
1

1 A
lte

rn
at

iv
e

La
nd

U
se

C
ro

pl
an

d
-0

S
E

K
/h

a
·y

r

45



3. Results

A: Cattle related land uses

B: Alternative land use, Forest
C:

Alternative land use, Cropland

Figure 3.6: Pie charts over the distribution of the average total value in
billion SEK/year for each land use category and ecosystem service

46



3. Results

The provisioning services contributes with the largest, most certain, monetary value
of 14.3 billion SEK/year (39 - 53%), for the cattle related land uses. Regulating
and maintenance services stands for 0.3 - 3.6 billion SEK/year (1 - 10%) and the
cultural services stands for 12.5 - 18.8 billion SEK/year (46 - 51%) of the maximum
monetary value. In Figure 3.7 the distribution within the provisioning service are
shown with milk and beef as the largest shares of 68% and 30% respectively. For
the cultural services the largest contributor are physical and experiental interactions
with a share of 63% of the value and other cultural outputs with a share of 30%.

Figure 3.7: Pie chart over the shares within the provisioning services total economic
value in SEK/year.

As the provisioning services stands for a large share of the total value the non-market
values from the regulating and maintenance and cultural services are shown in Figure
3.8. The result implies that the cattle related land uses have a larger monetary value
for the non-market values than both the alternative land uses.

The distribution over the specific land uses related to cattle production can be seen
in Figure 3.9. Here the production of milk and beef are divided over the land areas
using the land area distribution for each service. This leads to that the distribution
is connected to the specific land distribution and will most likely change if the
land distribution changes. Grassland ley stands for the largest share of 35 - 42%
and natural pasture stands for 29 - 32% of the monetary value. This is probably
connected to the fact that they have the largest amount of produced milk and beef
per hectare respectively together with the fact that grassland ley stands for the
largest area. For the monetary values measured in SEK/ha · year both grassland
ley and natural pasture stands for around 25 - 30% of the monetary value each
which strengthens the theory.

47



3. Results

Figure 3.8: The non-market values, regulating and maintenance- and cultural
services, for cattle related and the alternative land uses.

Figure 3.9: The total value distributed for cattle associated land uses.

The monetary value of dairy production is 15.9 - 20.0 billion SEK/year and for beef
production the value is 11.2 - 16.7 billion SEK/year. The distribution between the
land uses for the maximum values can be seen in Figure 3.10. The values for dairy
and beef production are divided over the land areas using the land distribution.
This leads to that the results are connected to the land use shares, see Figure 3.1,
considered that in 2015 almost 22 times more milk was produced, see Table 2.8.
The results and shares will therefor also change together with a change in the land
distribution.

48



3. Results

Figure 3.10: Distribution of shares of the total maximum monetary value (in
SEK/year) for milk and beef cattle for each associated land use in.

49



3. Results

50



4 | Discussion

4.1 | Uncertainties and methodological limitations

The thesis is based on a literature study and are therefore limited to the data
available in other studies and assumptions. We have chosen to exclude biodiversity
as an ecosystem service as well as abiotic ecosystem outputs that are not included
in our classification of ecosystem services. This have most likely affected the thesis
to underestimate the value of some land uses both in the quantification as well as
in the monetary valuation.

Only the effects on the chosen ecosystem services from the land uses are considered
in this thesis. For example, the amount of methane from cattle’s digestive system
is not considered as well as emissions from machinery.

4.1.1 | The screening process in the systematic review
The result from the systematic review are depending on the screening process
and chosen keywords. The general keywords; ecosystem service* or ecosystem* or
agroecosystem*, can be seen in Table 2.2, have potentially sorted out a large number
of relevant articles. On the contrary, a total of 3 862 articles was obtained in the first
search. A search in WoS without these keywords result in an increase with around
8 times for the regulating and maintenance services and 15 times for the cultural.
This is because the concept of ecosystem service and ecosystems are relatively new
and has not taken place within especially the cultural services. If this would have
affected the result significantly is however, hard to predict.

The title and abstract screening process was divided into two parts with the two
questions; "Do the literature evaluate and/or compare effects on ES for the relevant
land usages to the alternative land uses?" and "Is it transferable to Swedish conditions?"
as a base. During the first question around 85% of the articles were rejected. Most
of the articles that was rejected in the first round did not compare the relevant land
uses to one of the alternative land uses or had performed an overview of scientific
literature in the area. After question two, 40% of the remaining articles were
further rejected. For the regulating and maintenance services the largest share of the
rejected articles was from tropical climate zones. If the climate zones in Sweden had
not been considered the result from the systematic review would have been different.
For example, the soil organic carbon varies in different soil types for different

51



4. Discussion

climate zones which effects both mediation of toxics and the climate regulation
service (Eswaran et al., 1993). For the cultural ecosystem services only 25% of the
articles was rejected in the second round. These were scattered throughout the world
from Chile, South America to China, Asia. If these would have been included the
results would have differ because the perception about cultural ecosystem services
varies globally mainly because of cultural differences (Fredman et al., 2013). The
perceptions also vary because of different compositions in nature (Fredman et al.,
2013). For example, is Sweden covered to 55% of forest (SCB, 2017) and forest
is the dominated land use in Europe (SCB, 2010). In Asia, however grassland is
the dominated land use (SCB, 2010). This effect the perception and enjoyment of
different nature areas, at what extent and direction is however not clear.

For the cultural services only articles from Europe was obtained in full text because
cultural upbringing, religion and the approach to nature and recreation are of
importance. However, parts of United States are more alike Sweden in this sense
than southern parts of Europe. Leading to question the plausibility of this limitation.
Only parts of US are alike Sweden and with the lack of a complete knowledge
base this limitation was relevant. This may however, have favored articles that
are irrelevant on the cost of relevant ones. How this has effected the result of the
systematic review and to what extent is however unclear.

When the screening process was done, the articles were retrieved in full text. Only
13 articles (3%) could not be retrieved in full text spread among 6 of 8 ecosystem
services. If these articles were retrieved the results would probably not change
noticeably. During the process when data was captured some degree of free
interpretation of the articles content occurred. The free interpretation could be both
in context of effect and land area category as some articles for example used different
land use classifications. If only articles with outspoken quantities for the ecosystem
service and relevant, correct, land areas were considered free interpretation would
have been limited. This is probably the largest source of error in the result as
it is colored by previous knowledge. However, overall the results have a low rate
of consistency which shows that free interpretation of the articles, and previous
knowledge, is not reflected in the results.

4.1.2 | Quantification
The amount of ecosystem services to be reviewed and quantified was limited and
chosen based on a semi-quantification with an 8-point scale interpreted from the
literature study. The categories were chosen for different reasons connected to
both Sweden’s environmental objectives (Naturvårdsverket, 2016) and the current
discussion topics among researchers and politicians. If different services were chosen
the result would most likely look different. The differences between cattle related
land use and the alternative land uses would probably not change noticeably. The
ecosystem services chosen reflects the overall effects from the land uses which results
in good comparing numbers.

52



4. Discussion

The indicators for each ecosystem service covers various amounts of the service.
For the provisioning services the indicators covers their service completely but for
both regulating and maintenance and cultural service the indicators does not fully
cover their service. The mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances is a service
that describes the decomposition, filtration and binding of compounds in the soil.
The amount of soil organic matter describes in some way the health status of the
soil, another good indicator would for example be the cation-exchange capacity of
the soil. The erosion rate indicator for mass stabilization and control of erosion rates
only cover part of the service. The other part stands for the control and prevention
of erosion with for example vegetation cover. The lifecycle maintenance, habitat and
gene pool protection the indicators which are reflecting pollination only covers half
the service. The other part of the service is about maintaining habitats for plants and
animals, such as edge zones. The indicators for the pest and disease control covers
the service well, an indicator covering the total number of natural enemies could be
added. The indicators for the global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse
gas concentrations service also covers the service almost completely. The fact that
most of the regulating and maintenance services only is half covered by its indicators
the quantification is an underestimate of the value of cattle related land uses.

The status for the indicators that cover the cultural services are even worse. For the
cultural ES bio-physical indicators are hard to find which leads to a need to quantify
perceptions and importance of nature for different persons, subjective valuation.
The quantification values are large underestimates for the cultural ES. Where the
lack of research in the area as well as the difficulty of subjective valuation are large
contributory facts.

The credibility of the indicators can also be questioned based on the large variety
of methods used. The indicators obtained by statistical means have the largest
credibility while the indicators with only one literature reference have a low credibility.
This leads to an uncertainty in the result that is hard to predict and quantify.

Another possibly large factor for an underestimation is the calculation of the other
land use area. A simple assumption of large rectangular fields with edge zones of
a width of 2 m is a rough underestimation. Fields are overall smaller and contains
point islands leading to a larger area of other land areas.

4.1.3 | Monetary valuation
As for the quantification, the indicators that are the basis for the monetary valuation
have a large variety of credibility as well as the question about covering the whole
service. The provisioning services monetary values are from statistical values and
indicators that covers the services completely leading to a high credibility and a
trustworthy result. For the other, non-market values, this is not the case. For both
categories of services the values are obtained from a few sources and only cover a
part of the service which leads to an uncertainty in the result. Since the indicators

53



4. Discussion

at most covers part of the services, see section 4.1.2, the result is most likely an
underestimation of the monetary value. How large the fault is, is however hard to
predict.

For the cultural services the method of using values from the environmental
compensation program is most likely a large underestimation as the program is
highly debated. The reason for the choice of the values are the lack of other indicators
for the cultural and heritage ser