https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Adelaney&feedformat=atomCoastal Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T00:20:55ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.7https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29439Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T20:11:51Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Tourist_cruise_Isles_of_Scilly_Marchioni.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Tourist cruise, Isles of Scilly. Source: M. Marchioni]]<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Whale watching in Pico Faial channel out of Horta.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|Whale watching in Pico Faial channel out of Horta. Source: M. Marchioni]]<br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services. The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children ( Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni, n.d. <ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly." In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk.</ref>).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with [[cultural heritage and identity]], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Lajes boats Pico Island.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Lajes boats, Pico Island. Source: M. Marchioni]]<br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29438Cultural value variation2009-04-23T20:09:57Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Isles_of_Scilly_NASA.jpg|left|thumb|250px|caption|Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Biodiversity along the shore Isles of Scilly.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Example of biodiversity along the shore, Isles of Scilly. Source M. Marchioni]]<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example of Whaling culture Pico Island.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|A whale spotter's chair, Pico Island. Source: A. Delaney]]<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>.) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of a marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29437Cultural value variation2009-04-23T20:08:45Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Isles_of_Scilly_NASA.jpg|left|thumb|250px|caption|Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Biodiversity along the shore Isles of Scilly.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Example of biodiversity along the shore, Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example of Whaling culture Pico Island.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|A whale spotter's chair, Pico Island]]<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>.) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of a marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29436Cultural value variation2009-04-23T20:07:27Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Isles_of_Scilly_NASA.jpg|left|thumb|250px|caption|Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Biodiversity along the shore Isles of Scilly.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Example of biodiversity along the shore, Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example of Whaling culture Pico Island.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|Example of Whaling culture, Pico Island]]<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>.) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of a marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29435Cultural value variation2009-04-23T20:06:16Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Isles_of_Scilly_NASA.jpg|left|thumb|250px|caption|Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Biodiversity along the shore Isles of Scilly.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Biodiversity along the shore, Isles of Scilly]]<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example of Whaling culture Pico Island.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|Example of Whaling culture, Pico Island]]<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>.) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of a marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29434Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T20:03:11Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Tourist_cruise_Isles_of_Scilly_Marchioni.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Tourist cruise, Isles of Scilly. Source: M. Marchioni]]<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Whale watching in Pico Faial channel out of Horta.JPG|left|thumb|250px|caption|Whale watching in Pico Faial channel out of Horta]]<br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services. The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children ( Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni, n.d. <ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly." In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk.</ref>).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with [[cultural heritage and identity]], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Lajes boats Pico Island.jpg|right|thumb|250px|caption|Lajes boats, Pico Island]]<br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29362Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:16:37Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services. The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children ( Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni, n.d. <ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly." In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk.</ref>).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with [[cultural heritage and identity]], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29361Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:15:43Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services (reference MarBEF Theme 3 biological value study). The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children ( Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni, n.d. <ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly." In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk.</ref>).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with [[cultural heritage and identity]], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29360Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:12:54Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services (reference MarBEF Theme 3 biological value study). The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children (reference Isles of Scilly MarBEF study).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with [[cultural heritage and identity]], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29359Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:09:31Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services (reference MarBEF Theme 3 biological value study). The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children (reference Isles of Scilly MarBEF study).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with cultural heritage and identity [wiki link], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29358Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:08:04Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services (reference MarBEF Theme 3 biological value study). The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children (reference Isles of Scilly MarBEF study).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with cultural heritage and identity [wiki link], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses<br />
Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol 3, chapter 14. Island Press. </ref>). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_economic_understanding_of_biodiversity&diff=29357Cultural and economic understanding of biodiversity2009-04-23T11:01:51Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
Humans conceptualize and understand marine biodiversity in different ways but each of these place value on it. Value in this sense may be monetary in nature, as in economic understandings of biodiversity. But value can also be non-monetary, such as seen in the cultural valuation whereby “importance” is what is really being considered. Efforts to include economic and cultural understandings of biodiversity into management policies use environmental and marine biodiversity valuation studies for including needed data. <br />
<br />
Assessing the economic value of marine biodiversity has benefited from earlier work in environmental economics; environment is a major topic within the field (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). In environmental economics, <br />
“use and indirect use are tangible benefits accruing from natural resources or ecosystem services” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics); non-use values include existence, option, and bequest values. People may, for example, place equal value on the existence of numerous species, regardless of the effect of the loss of a single species on ecosystem services (reference MarBEF Theme 3 biological value study). The existence of these species may have an option value, i.e., the potentiality of using it for some human purpose (consumption; pharmaceutical drugs) may exist. At the same time, individuals may also value leaving a pristine environment and species found therein to their children (reference Isles of Scilly MarBEF study).<br />
Use and indirect use values can be inferred from actual behavior, such as the cost of taking holiday trips to, for example, Flamborough Head or the Gulf of Gdansk. In this instance, economic values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation. “Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics). <br />
Cultural understandings of marine biodiversity are a challenge for many policy makers and researchers due to what is often considered the subjective nature of cultural values and understandings. Linked closely with cultural heritage and identity [wiki link], understandings of marine biodiversity are, for all-intensive-purposes, the importance of biodiversity, species, and eco-system functioning to people’s way of life, identity, heritage, and even quality of life. <br />
<br />
When using a cultural understanding of biodiversity, we are usually talking about importance. But importance does not only include value, in terms of economics. It can also include social and moral factors (Sheil et. al. 2002<ref>Sheil, D., R. Puri., Imam Basuki, M. Van Heist, Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono, I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa., Chrisandini, E. Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweler. B. Johnson, and A.Wijaya. <br />
2002 “Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment” CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research).<br />
</ref>). As in the MarBEF cultural valuation fieldwork, and in Sheil’s work (2002), cultural importance can often be successfully stated as a statement of relative preference. Cultural perceptions of landscapes, management of resources can contribute to alternative and more effective strategies to ecosystem and biodiversity management (ref: Chapter 14 Cultural Services in Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy responses). A number of Scillonians, for example, pointed out that they are a part of the environment on the Isles of Scilly and if you take them away, the current species composition will change. It is important to keep historical developments and the perspective of communities on their ecosystems in mind when valuing biodiversity through a cultural lens.<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29314Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:46:21Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:M63.jpg|[[M63]]<br />
Image:Mona Lisa.jpg|[[Mona Lisa]]<br />
Image:Truite arc-en-ciel.jpg|Eine [[Forelle ]]<br />
</gallery></div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29313Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:38:12Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:M63.jpg|[[M63]]<br />
Image:Mona Lisa.jpg|[[Mona Lisa]]<br />
Image:Truite arc-en-ciel.jpg|Eine [[Forelle ]]<br />
</gallery></div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29312Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:34:58Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
<br />
* The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing. <br />
* The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
* The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
* The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29311Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:32:52Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the '''Isles of Scilly''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_Scilly] in the United Kindgom, in '''the Azores'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores] (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the '''Guadiana Estuary''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadiana_Valley_Natural_Park] and the '''Ria Formosa''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria_Formosa].<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
• The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing.<br />
• The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
• The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
• The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29310Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:28:52Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, '''MarBEF''' [http://www.marbef.org/] and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the Isles of Scilly in the United Kindgom, in the Azores (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the Guadiana Estuary and the Ria Formosa.<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
• The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing.<br />
• The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
• The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
• The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=29309Cultural value variation2009-04-22T16:27:51Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities. <br />
<br />
In Europe, MarBEF and MarBEF-affiliated researchers have undertaken the sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity in the Isles of Scilly in the United Kindgom, in the Azores (Pico-Faial channel), and in mainland Portugal, in the Guadiana Estuary and the Ria Formosa.<br />
<br />
In the Isles of Scilly, four main perspectives were delineated: <br />
• The Management Perspective, where the implementation and enforcement of regulations related to fisheries and protected area management are considered important given that species are diminishing.<br />
• The Contingent Value perspective, whereby value is seen through contingency- for example an environmental disaster such as an oil spill; the biodiversity valued overall is intrinsic.<br />
• The Future Policy Perspective, whereby management policies are important and even more management is felt to be needed, despite the fact they do not view species as diminishing now.<br />
• The Goods and Services Perspective, a holistic viewpoint whereby the goods and services as discussed in Beaumont et.al (2007) (cultural heritage, fisheries, etc.), and the production values of biodiversity are emphasized. <br />
<br />
These perspectives show some agreement among stakeholders of differing backgrounds, and provide an example of how this type of research could provide vital information for reaching consensus and acceptance of management measures. For example, there was consensus among stakeholders of groups which would sometimes be considered adversaries (e.g., fishers and environmentalists) and a group that has been traditionally considered “anti-management”, namely fishers, is actually in favour of stronger management measures. <br />
<br />
In a remote, coastal location like the Isles of Scilly, there is a tension between the needs of employment and livelihood and the protection of the environment. The concourse shows us that this is not a black and white issue. Overall, stakeholders value a traditional way of life and do not want it to change; one way to reach this goal is to regulate the environment and protect marine biodiversity properly. The methodology that was applied is more commonly used for reaching consensus, and is therefore most useful in situations where there are conflicts and disagreement, such as with the introduction of an marine protected area or a wind farm.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=27401Cultural value variation2009-02-24T11:41:15Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007) <ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.).<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis (Verschuuren 2006),<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_value_variation&diff=27399Cultural value variation2009-02-24T11:08:58Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley et al. 2004) <ref>Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists”Beaumont ''et al.'' 2007<ref>Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. </ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<p><br />
</p><br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren 2006).<ref>Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004<ref>Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242</ref>; Spash 2002<ref>Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.</ref>) , or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999<ref> Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.</ref>). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested.<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.)<ref>Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. Ad @ ifm.aau . dk </ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis,<ref>Verschuuren, B.2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005<ref>Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.</ref>, in Verschuuren 2006<ref>Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</ref>.) <br />
<p></p><br />
<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{author<br />
|AuthorID=12900<br />
|AuthorFullName=Delaney, Alyne<br />
|AuthorName=Alyne}}</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27391Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T10:10:24Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists”<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life.”<ref>Insert reference material</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>, or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested.<ref>Insert reference material</ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis,<ref>Insert reference material</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>.<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[1]Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.<br />
<br />
[2]Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. <br />
<br />
[3] Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.<br />
<br />
[4]Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242<br />
<br />
[5] Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.<br />
<br />
[6] Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.<br />
<br />
[7] Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk <br />
<br />
[8] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
[9] Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27390Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T10:05:57Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>. However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists”<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life.”<ref>Insert reference material</ref> Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>, or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested.<ref>Insert reference material</ref> Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in '''MarBEF'''[http://www.marbef.org/] [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services<ref>Insert reference material</ref>. At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis,<ref>Insert reference material</ref> and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006)<ref>Insert reference material</ref>.<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[1]Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.<br />
<br />
[2]Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. <br />
<br />
[3] Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.<br />
<br />
[4]Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242<br />
<br />
[5] Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.<br />
<br />
[6] Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.<br />
<br />
[7] Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk <br />
<br />
[8] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
[9] Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27389Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T10:00:42Z<p>Adelaney: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>(Laffoley, et.al. 2004). However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists”<ref>Insert reference material</ref> (Beaumont et el. 2007: 254). <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren n.d.). Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002), or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in MarBEF [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis, (Verschuuren n.d.) and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006).<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[1]Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.<br />
<br />
[2]Beaumont, N.J., M.C. Austen, J.P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer d, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A.H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki, 2007. “Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 253–265. <br />
<br />
[3] Verschurren, B. n.d. on website: http://www.fsd.nl/naturevaluation/71205. Accessed February 2009.<br />
<br />
[4]Cesar, H.S. and Beukering, P.v. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai'i” Pacific Science Vol 58, No 2, April 2004, pp. 231-242<br />
<br />
[5] Spash, Clive L. 2002. “Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, p 665-687.<br />
<br />
[6] Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 1999. Issues in Applied Coral Reef Biodiversity Valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. World Bank Research Committee Project RPO# 682-22. "Marine System Valuation: An Application to Coral Reef Systems in the Developing Tropics." Final Report, March 1999.<br />
<br />
[7] Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d. “Methods in the Sociocultural Valuation of Marine Biodiversity: Perspectives and Implications from the Isles of Scilly.” In process. Draft available upon request. ad @ ifm.aau . dk <br />
<br />
[8] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
[9] Verschuuren, B. 2006. “An Overview of Cultural and Spiritual Values in Ecosystem Management and Conservation Strategies.” Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Netherlands. 01.11.2006, version 3.</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27388Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T09:54:44Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>(Laffoley, et.al. 2004). However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists”<ref>Insert reference material</ref> (Beaumont et el. 2007: 254). <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren n.d.). Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002), or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in MarBEF [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis, (Verschuuren n.d.) and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006).<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27387Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T09:52:13Z<p>Adelaney: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>(Laffoley, et.al. 2004). However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont et el. 2007: 254). <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren n.d.). Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002), or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in MarBEF [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis, (Verschuuren n.d.) and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006).<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
Laffoley, D., Maltby, E., Vincent, M.A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.P., Mortimer, D., Pound, D., 2004. “The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK government.” Peterborough, English Nature. 65 pp.</div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27386Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T09:50:47Z<p>Adelaney: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Value Variation'''<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management <ref>Insert reference material</ref>(Laffoley, et.al. 2004). However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont et el. 2007: 254). <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren n.d.). Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002), or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in MarBEF [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis, (Verschuuren n.d.) and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006).<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon [[cultural heritage and identity]]as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Adelaneyhttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_by_Delaney,_Alyne&diff=27385Category:Articles by Delaney, Alyne2009-02-24T09:43:33Z<p>Adelaney: New page: Cultural Value variation Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at bio...</p>
<hr />
<div>Cultural Value variation<br />
Valuation studies of biodiversity are full of complexity: how to define biodiversity, talk about it, and value it is difficult. One way to do so is to come at biodiversity through the Ecosystem Approach (EA) to the management of natural resources. Since first applied in a policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the EA is on the rise in European and worldwide management (Laffoley, et.al. 2004). However, including social, economic, and environmental aspects into one method is extremely difficult and fraught with problems and limited success. One method which has been used is the good and services approach. “Assessing ecological processes and resources in terms of the goods and services they provide translates the complexity of the environment into a series of functions which can be more readily understood,” especially for policy makers and non-scientists” (Beaumont et el. 2007: 254). <br />
<br />
“The full value of ecosystems and landscapes cannot be realized without recognizing the intrinsic values of ecosystem functions and their intimacy to human life” (Verschuuren n.d.). Given such growing recognition, the number of cultural valuation studies continues to grow. Until this point, however, studies on marine topics have primarily focused on either specialist or charismatic habitats such as coral-reefs (e.g. Cesar and Beukering 2004; Spash 2002), or on the economic valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Ruitenbeek and Cartier 1999). These studies are indicative of a paradigm shift towards more economic means of modeling value and diversity. More relevantly, they show that sociocultural valuation presents a more difficult and even more pressing task as indicators for sociocultural valuation of marine biodiversity have neither been developed nor tested (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). Sociocultural valuation is distinct from economic importance and economic valuation.<br />
<br />
For the cultural valuation of marine biodiversity in Europe in MarBEF [link], q-method was used to elicit data concerning the relationship between marine biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Delaney, Meek, and Marchioni n.d.). At the moment, there is no single, agreed-upon methodology for sociocultural valuation studies of biodiversity. The need exists, however, to experiment with additional methods such as participatory resource appraisal, multi criteria analysis, (Verschuuren n.d.) and q-method which may elicit the importance of cultural values. Knowing the cultural and social valuation of biodiversity is key for effective strategies for biodiversity conservation to be developed, and in doing so, ensuring healthy ecosystem functioning. Using a sociocultural lens on the effort to preserve marine biodiversity enables management policies to draw on diverse epistemologies, and engage with all stakeholders in meaningful and transparent dialogues. “Science can help ensure that decisions are made with the best available information, but ultimately, the future of biodiversity will be determined by society” (MA 2005, in Verschuuren 2006).<br />
<br />
Cultural valuation links closely and draws upon cultural heritage and identity [wiki link] as the provision of food and employment is intrinsically linked with the support of cultural and spiritual traditions associated with, for example, fishing communities.</div>Adelaney