|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Development of valuation approaches ==
| + | #REDIRECT [[Biological Valuation]] |
| − |
| |
| − | Two papers published in Nature by Costanza et al. (1997)<ref>Costanza R., D’Arge R.,de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naem S., O’Neil R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G.,Sutton P., van den Belt M., 1997, The value of the world ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253-260</ref> and Costanza (1999)<ref>Costanza R. 1999, The ecological, economic and social importance of the oceans. Ecol. Econ., 31 (2), 287- 304</ref>, on which the current scientific approach is based on, stated that ecosystems should be valued by the [[Valuation_and_marine_planning#Goods_and_services|goods and services]] they provide. They lead to the publication of a number of papers and books which dealt with all major ecosystems. [[Socio-cultural valuation]] and the [[Economic valuation of goods and services|economics of natural resources]] have gained acceptance within scientific circles, and methodology has been developed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007)<ref>[http://www.iopan.gda.pl/oceanologia/491derou.pdf Derous S., Agardy T., Hillewaert H. & 17 other authors, 2007, A concept for Biological valuation in the marine environment. Oceanologia 49, 99-128]</ref>, which considers the value of an area in terms of [[aggregation]], [[rarity]] and [[fitness consequences]] and not from the human (goods and services) point of view.
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | <BR>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | ===Biological valuation method===
| |
| − | | |
| − | The [[Defining marine biological value|marine biological valuation]] methodology is able to integrate all available biological information on an area into one indicator of intrinsic value of marine biodiversity, without reference to [[anthropogenic]] use. This methodology can be used in every marine environment, independent of the amount and quality of the available biological data or the habitat type.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For environments for which data are available, subzones within a study area are [[Scoring system for marine evaluation|scored]] against three first order criteria [[Rarity criterion in marine biological evaluation|rarity]] and [[Aggregation and marine biological value|aggregation]] or [[Fitness consequence criterion in marine biological valuation|fitness consequences]], and two modifying criteria: [[naturalness]] and [[proportional importance]].<ref name="ma">[http://www.marbef.org/documents/glossybook/MarBEFbooklet.pdf Heip, C., Hummel, H., van Avesaath, P., Appeltans, W., Arvanitidis, C., Aspden, R., Austen, M., Boero, F., Bouma, TJ., Boxshall, G., Buchholz, F., Crowe, T., Delaney, A., Deprez, T., Emblow, C., Feral, JP., Gasol, JM., Gooday, A., Harder, J., Ianora, A., Kraberg, A., Mackenzie, B., Ojaveer, H., Paterson, D., Rumohr, H., Schiedek, D., Sokolowski, A., Somerfield, P., Sousa Pinto, I., Vincx, M., Węsławski, JM., Nash, R. (2009). Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Printbase, Dublin, Ireland ISSN 2009-2539]</ref>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | <BR>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | ===Are all species equal?===
| |
| − | This approach was developed for the establishment of the best criteria for delineating [[MPAs_(Marine_Protected_Areas)|marine protected areas]]. Since any kind of valuation requires ranking selected objects as more or less valuable, it raises ethical and philosophical questions, namely, whether all species are equal or not. Some recent studies discuss this dilemma, including Linder (1988)<ref>Linder D.O. 1988 Are all species created equal.? and other questions which are shaping wildlife law. Harvard Environmental.Law Review 12, 157pp.</ref>, Singer (1989), Schmidtz (2002)<ref>Schmidtz D. 2002 Are all species equal.? Journal.Applied Philosphy 15, 57- 67
| |
| − | Singer P 1989 All animals are equal. In: Animal.rights and human obligations. Edited T. Regan & P. Singer. Englweood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall</ref>, and Jennings (2009)<ref>[http://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art23931.html Jennings M 2009 The next big ideas in conservation. Are all species equal.? The Nature Conservancy;]</ref>. Although it is accepted that all species are equal in moral terms, their contributions to ecosystem structure and function differ, and this can be assessed in scientific terms. Phylogenetic relationships can also be taken into account when considering biological value: so has a species that is one of hundreds in a single genus a lower importance for conservation than a species that is the only one in its order.
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | <BR>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Biological valuation maps===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Biological value is not a direct measure of ecosystem health, although areas regarded as of high biological value are often considered to be valuable providers of [[Economic valuation of goods and services|socio-economic goods and services]] and are of high quality in terms of environmental health. The main difference is, however, that biological valuation focuses on the features of [[species]] and communities themselves, and not on the contamination or the extractable/usable part of the ecosystem. | |
| − | | |
| − | Therefore marine biological valuation provides a comprehensive concept for assessing the intrinsic value of the subzones within a study area. It is a tool for calling attention to subzones that have particularly high ecological or biological significance. The [[Introduction to marine biological valuation maps|biological valuation maps]] can also be used as [[baseline]] maps for future [[spatial planning]] in the marine environment. <ref name="ma">[http://www.marbef.org/documents/glossybook/MarBEFbooklet.pdf Heip, C., Hummel, H., van Avesaath, P., Appeltans, W., Arvanitidis, C., Aspden, R., Austen, M., Boero, F., Bouma, TJ., Boxshall, G., Buchholz, F., Crowe, T., Delaney, A., Deprez, T., Emblow, C., Feral, JP., Gasol, JM., Gooday, A., Harder, J., Ianora, A., Kraberg, A., Mackenzie, B., Ojaveer, H., Paterson, D., Rumohr, H., Schiedek, D., Sokolowski, A., Somerfield, P., Sousa Pinto, I., Vincx, M., Węsławski, JM., Nash, R. (2009). Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Printbase, Dublin, Ireland ISSN 2009-2539]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | [[Image:val1.jpg|thumb|centre|650px|Biological valuation of seabed communities in Polish Exclusive Economic Zone ]]
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | <BR>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | == See also ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[Aggregation and marine biological value]]
| |
| − | *[[Biodiversity as a marine valuation concept]]
| |
| − | *[[Marine biological valuation - conclusions from a workshop|Conclusions from the MarBEF and Encora workshop on marine biological valuation]]
| |
| − | *[[Marine biological valuation maps - an example from Belgium]]
| |
| − | *[[Potential application of the concept of marine biological valuation]]
| |
| − | *[http://www.marbef.org/documents/Theme3/GhentWS/report.pdf Rapport of the MarBEF and Encora workshop on marine biological valuation]
| |
| − | *[[Rarity criterion in marine biological evaluation]]
| |
| − | *[[Resilience as a criterion in marine biological evaluation]]
| |
| − | *[[Selected marine biological valuation criteria]]
| |
| − | *[[The importance of geographical scale in marine biological evaluation]]
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | <BR>
| |
| − | <P>
| |
| − | | |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | [[Category:Theme 7]]
| |
| − | [[Category: MarBEF Booklet]]
| |
