Content uploaded by David J Abson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David J Abson
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Valuation of Biodiversity ‐ A NERC scoping study
Abstract and Figures
Historically, environmental policies have largely failed to value either biodiversity itself, or the many outputs such as ecosystem services to which biodiversity contribute. Government institutions and agencies, the private sector and conservation NGOs require information relating to the worth that society and individuals place on different aspects of biodiversity in order to make sensible and defendable decisions when weighing up alternative and competing management options. Often, however, the information required is absent, incomplete or misleading, in part because the natural science community has not fully engaged in developing appropriate valuation approaches. As a result, there is an urgent need for the NERC science community to contribute to valuation studies, for instance, by providing a more thorough understanding of the bio‐physical processes and their dynamics (often non‐linear) that link biodiversity to human welfare. By improving the science base for valuing biodiversity‐related benefits, the NERC community will help to ensure that the real value of natural systems is represented in management decisions and that the wider positive and negative consequences of those decisions are fully understood.
Figures - uploaded by David J Abson
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by David J Abson
Content may be subject to copyright.
... The first area of risk comes from applying part-values to the whole: by looking just at " what nature does for us " rather than " what nature does " , by applying fixed and unwieldy ecosystem service categories to the interlinked and dynamic phenomena of the human-environment system, and by restricting ourselves to quantification in monetary terms. All of this errs towards undervaluing the natural world on which we depend (yet it is the fear of " double-counting " that appears as a theme in most Ecosystem Approach documents – [19,2324). As a synthesis of the three critical articles, the applicable scope of economic (monetary) valuation meets its limits: Where there is insufficient fundamental process understanding or environmental data to support an informed valuation (= most cases); Where values determined in one context are applied to another (i.e., benefits transfer), with insufficient validity testing (= most cases); Where " individual " services are considered in isolation: the functions and processes of a wellfunctioning ecosystem cannot be disassembled; Where there is already scarcity, or a serious risk of non-linearity in ecosystem response (= many cases): environmental economics works for marginal changes, not for " once-and-for-all " circumstances; In the future: values determined in the past are unlikely to be stable (but this has barely been tested for environmental benefits); and while some features of ecosystems might be predictable with process models, economic (equilibrium) models are not intended to predict benefits. ...
Economics – specifically, monetary valuation – has been given a pivotal role in ecosystem conservation. This is a retrogressive step, undoing important sustainability principles and practices that should have been embedded in environmental policy and management action. The concept of ecosystem services is a useful framework for understanding the dependency of human society on its natural environment, but it needs to be part of a larger solution that recognizes the complexity of the socio-ecological system, and the issues of equity and justice that pertain to sustainable responses to global environmental change. There have been a few recent critical analyses of the ecosystem services concept and its global application that address these issues. This paper summarizes the perspectives and arguments made in those articles, and argues for more reflexive policy and research.
This report identifies and summarises a range of existing and planned research into themes relevant to waterways; Heritage, Green Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing and Economic Development & Regeneration.
It was commissioned by the Inland Waterways Association to inform future research, partnerships and organisational direction. The full report can be accessed at https://issuu.com/waterwaysassoc/docs/the_value_of_waterways_october_2019?fr=sYjk3ZTQ2MTUyNQ or via the website of the Inland Waterways Association https://www.waterways.org.uk/iwa_publications/reports
Given the concern about biodiversity loss, there are a number of arguments used for biodiversity conservation ranging from those emphasising the intrinsic value of biodiversity to those on the direct use value of ecosystems. Yet arguing the case for biodiversity conservation effectively requires an understanding of why people value biodiversity. We used Q methodology to explore and understand how different conservation practitioners (social and natural science researchers, environmental non-Governmental organisations and decision-makers) in nine European countries argue for conservation. We found that there was a plurality of views about biodiversity and its conservation. A moral argument and some arguments around the intrinsic and ecological value of biodiversity were held by all stakeholder groups. They also shared the view that species valuation does not justify the destruction of nature. However, there were also some differences within and between the groups, which primarily reflected the espousal of either ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints. Our findings suggest that moral arguments and those around biodiversity’s intrinsic and ecological value could potentially serve as a starting point for building consensus among conservation practitioners.
There are numerous strategies to reverse biodiversity decline, ranging from economic, through ecological, to ethical ones. Which arguments are used in the conservation may have bearing on the actual implementation of biodiversity policies. To understand conservation professionals’ perceptions of biodiversity is particularly important in the countries in transition, where the new environmental policies are being implemented, the approaches to governance are changing and new biodiversity discourses are emerging. This study investigates what the biodiversity conservation professionals in Poland believe the rationale behind conservation is. We reveal two main perspectives – one focused on intrinsic value of biodiversity and one underlining its utilitarian value. Even if the intrinsic value perspective prevails, the economic framing of biodiversity value is emerging. This framing is important in the face of the ongoing changes in Poland with focus on economic development and relatively little attention paid to biodiversity. The utilitarian approach to conservation, reinforced by the concept of ecosystem services, can be used to supplement the emerging biodiversity discourse strengthening the conservation case. The richness of perspectives among the conservation professionals can facilitate deliberate construction of the new conservation discourse in Poland combining the notion of intrinsic value of nature with the utilitarian approach.
Public participation has become a standard component of environmental decision-making processes. Frequently used methods of public involvement, such as public comments and hearings, however, are too often reactive in nature, involve insufficient deliberation, and engage only a small number of participants. This article describes a set of "innovative" participatory processes study circles, citizens juries, round tables, and collaborative watershed management efforts and considers their relative strengths and weaknesses through the use of a common comparative framework. The analysis shows that these innovative processes offer some different and potentially valuable advantages relative to the public involvement methods commonly used today. While the processes standing alone are not likely to replace traditional methods, preliminary analysis suggests that they may be effective if applied strategically, and in combination with other innovative or traditional processes.
Nature conservation can often be costly and the resources available are often less than are required. Resource allocations and expenditures for nature conservation have an opportunity cost in terms of foregone projects, but are rarely subjected to as much scrutiny as other public activities. Failure to apply economic tools to nature conservation decision making can result in errors in project selection, wasted use of scarce resources, and lower levels of conservation than it is possible to achieve from the resources available. In some instances where economics has been proposed for use in nature conservation research, the methodologies applied provide information that is of limited usefulness to decision makers. Non-market valuation has limited potential to help in nature conservation decision making, is costly to complete and should be supplanted by more useful techniques that focus on the cost and the payoff from nature conservation actions. In contrast, Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Cost Utility Analysis are practical tools that can provide valuable information for conservation decision makers and improve conservation achievement.
Economists and ecologists often disagree. While some of these disagreements arise from differences in individual perspectives, and some others may arise from a fundamental difference in paradigms, others may arise from simple misunderstandings. Economists are often remiss in not fully explaining the assumptions on which they base their analyses. In this paper I review the assumptions underlying the crucial economic concept of 'marginal analysis.' Ecologists concerned with the translation of scientific knowledge into social decision making should understand both the concept of marginal analysis and the circumstances under which it is or is not appropriate.
The paper describes a contingent valuation study of the benefits and costs of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme (WES) (English Nature) on the Pevensey Levels Site of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex, England. Using a conventional mean WTP value as the appropriate measure of benefits gave a benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of 0.497 for user value and 1.994 for user plus non-user values (households within 60 km of the site) for expenditure under WES. If a more rigorous and conservative truncated mean value was employed, then B/C ratios fell to 0.117 for user values and 0.758 for user plus non-user values. However, assuming the same level of passive use values are held by a similar proportion of all non-visiting households in the UK as observed in the sample survey, this would produce a B/C ratio for truncated mean user plus non-user benefits of 18.26. Even if the addition of further WES sites across the country led to a steep decline in mean marginal non-user WTP for the scheme in the Levels, the B/C ratio would still greatly exceed 1.0.
Sixty-four different tree-harvesting scenarios in an initially undisturbed Dipterocarp lowland rain forest stand in Sabah (Malaysia) were simulated with the rain forest growth model FORMIND. The scenarios differ in terms of their minimum cutting diameter, logging cycle, method and intensity. The simulation results include harvest yields and the impact on forest structure (canopy opening and changes in species composition). Multicriteria decision analysis was used to evaluate the scenarios and identify optimum ones by applying a stochastic extension of the PROMETHEE method.Almost all optimum scenarios used reduced-impact logging. High cutting limits or low logging intensities could not compensate for the high damage caused by conventional logging techniques. Five scenarios proved to be optimum for a wide range of priorities concerning different forest functions. They all use reduced-impact logging and long logging cycles (≥60 years), either with a minimum cutting limit of 50 or 60cm stem diameter, or with medium logging intensities.
This paper develops methodology for valuing forest ecosystem services. It reviews alternative approaches to modelling the forestry sector's contribution to well-being. It subsequently extends existing techniques of costbenefit analysis to the forestry sector and illustrates the application
of the methodology through a case study of the state of Himachal Pradesh in India. The extended methodology captures variations that occur because of ecological aspects of forests, sustainability concerns regarding extraction from forests and aggregation issues in valuing ecosystem services.
It also incorporates concerns about biodiversity valuation, particularly in protected areas. The paper highlights the importance of recognising local variations in forest values, adopting a multi-disciplinary approach to valuation and the relevance of using more than one policy instrument
for managing forest ecosystems.
Over the years a plethora of factors have been associated with sustainable tourism in the literature, but little has been done to prioritize those that are most important to stakeholders in destinations. In particular, this research aimed to identify factors perceived as essential for sustainable nature-based tourism operating in transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa. A Delphi consultation was conducted in which 518 southern African experts from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and consultancies were invited to contribute. Participants rated the relative importance of 502 policy, planning, economic, environmental and social factors drawn from the literature, and additional factors suggested by regional consultees. A statistically significant level of consensus was achieved on 159 multidisciplinary factors considered to be ‘essential’ or ‘incompatible’ with sustainable nature-based tourism in TFCAs. The implications for the assessment of sustainable nature-based tourism in southern African TFCAs are discussed, with a review of how they relate to tourism in the Great Limpopo TFCA: a transboundary protected area that incorporates protected areas in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
This paper considers rural land use by analysing stakeholder values and perceptions concerning various landscape components. The purpose is to show that landscape content and land cover interactions with societal connections should be a base for land use development. The practical goal is to deliberate research tools to quantify public opinions and attitudes, which could form bases for developing of decision support tools. The main research objectives are: (1) to assess existing opinions concerning land use changes and provide a clearer insight into public attitudes to the role of woodlands for an integrated development of the countryside; (2) to place ecological and socio-economic values on inanimate natural components of landscapes; and (3) to assess values and preferences held by land use policy and management experts regarding multiple landscape components and features to assist in decision-making. Through the different levels of importance (values) accorded by the respondents to the integration of nature components in rural landscapes public priorities were identified. The paper develops an understanding of why certain aspects of land use changes are unfavourably viewed by some people and favourably received by others. It suggests some innovative perspectives on the areas of consensus and conflict between people, providing initial information for the selection and evaluation of land use management decisions.