Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biodiversity Loss: New Methods for Evaluating Ecosystems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ecological Economics

  • 3432 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter summarises research undertaken to develop a methodology for a multi-criteria assessment of biodiversity which takes into account a multitude of criteria and stakeholder perspectives. The proposed methodology will be of particular value for developing countries, where conflicts of interest regarding ecosystems and biodiversity are numerous and often involve businesses, government, local residents, and other stakeholders. The chapter reviews the state of the art in the field of multi-criteria methods and assessment of ecosystems and biodiversity. It presents the results of analytical work undertaken on the basis of interviews carried out in the Provence–Alpes–Côte d’Azur (PACA) region of France, focusing on biodiversity in the Réserve Naturelle Coussouls de Crau.

The chapter addresses three main issues: selection of the multi-criteria assessment method, selection of the assessment criteria, and a comparison of stakeholder interests in the context of biodiversity analysis. The identification of potential decision criteria was based on a survey of key stakeholders, namely the Management of the Réserve Naturelle Coussouls de Crau; the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, a national biodiversity research institution; the Laissez-faire Association, protecting the interests of the agricultural community; CDC Biodiversité (a branch of Caisse des Dépôts), a group carrying out long-term investments in the public interest; and the Direction regionale de l’environnement Provence–Alpes–Côte d’Azur (DIREN-PACA). Based on these interviews, 14 ecological, nine economic, and 12 social criteria were identified. Further analysis revealed very few points of overlap among the interests of the stakeholders, which complicates the case for consensus building.

Not accepting the idea that the value of ecosystems and biodiversity can be expressed in monetary terms, the author suggests an alternative, more inclusive approach, focusing on multiple social, economic, and ecological dimensions of ecosystem value, and illustrates the existence of divergent interests among stakeholders. This experience would be particularly useful in situations where local communities have to defend their right to a clean environment and preserve important virgin ecosystems for future generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA). Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are created applying an E.U. directive requiring the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC, 1979). The Department of Ecology of each country designates these areas and potential management is planed locally (France: 103 SPA; 8,000 km2). The SPA Crau seche was designated in 1990 and covers 11,816 ha. Special Conservation Areas (SCAs) are designated applying annex II (animal and plant species of community interest) of the E.U. directive requiring the protection of natural habitats (92/43/EEC, 1992). Annex I plans for the establishment of a consistent network of SCAs within which SPAs are automatically integrated: NATURA 2000. The SCA Crau centrale – Crau se`che was designated in 1996 and covers 31,458 ha. (Buisson and Dutoit 2006).

  2. 2.

    Mitigation banking is a tool which emerged in the USA in the 1970s in order to diminish the loss of wetland caused by development projects as required by the federal Clean Water Act of 1972. The main function of a mitigation bank is to compensate for adverse impacts on natural resources by providing for the conservation of a similar resource in another location.

  3. 3.

    The term “performance” is used to refer to the value of g i ( a ), emphasising the fact that some of the g j ( a ) may not have cardinal interpretations and might be defined on a purely ordinal scale. When it is useful to emphasise the quantitative nature of g i ( a ), the term “performance” is replaced by “valuation” (when a criterion is a gradation) or “utility” (when the criterion is a measure).

  4. 4.

    The standard Likert scale is much used in various fields of research and usually comprises from four to nine points. The use of a seven to nine point scale will allow necessary quality differentiation at the same time keeping the number of categories of value manageable.

  5. 5.

    Alternative methods, such as IRIS, PREFDIS, ORCLASS, and TOMASO, addressing problematique β could also be considered.

  6. 6.

    Delphi method , Delphi technique – a method of using questionnaires to arrive at consensual judgements (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Delphi method was developed in the USA during the 1950–1960s by Project RAND (Olaf Helmer, Norman Dalkey, and Nicholas Rescher).

References

  • Adams WM et al (2003) Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Pool Resources Science 302.5652 1915-1916

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander Moffett SS (2006) Incorporating Multiple Criteria into the Design of Conservation Area Networks: A Minireview with Recommendations Diversity & Distributions 12.2 125-137

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin A, Meire PM and Anselin L (1989) Multicriteria Techniques in Ecological Evaluation: An Example Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process Biological Conservation 49.3 215-229

    Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M and Van Eetvelde V (2000) Holistic Aspects of Suburban Landscapes: Visual Image Interpretation and Landscape Metrics Landscape and Urban Planning 50.1–3 43-58

    Google Scholar 

  • Arriaza M et al (2004) Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning 69.1 115-125

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke Ph and Mareschal B (1986) How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The Method European Journal of Operational Research 24.2 228-238

    Google Scholar 

  • Buisson E and Dutoit T (2006) Creation of the Natural Reserve of La Crau: Implications for the Creation and Management of Protected Areas Journal of Environmental Management 80.4 318-326

    Google Scholar 

  • Coeterier JF (2002) Lay People’s Evaluation of Historic Sites Landscape Urban Planning 59.2 111-123

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem Services: Multiple Classification Systems are Needed Biological Conservation 141.2 350-352

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R et al (1997) The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital Nature 387.6630 253-260

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot WT and Van Den Born RJG (2003) Visions of Nature and Landscape type Preferences: An Exploration in The Netherlands Landscape Urban Planning 63.3 127-138

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Fuente de Val G, Atauri JA and de Lucio JV (2006) Relationship Between Landscape Visual Attributes and Spatial Pattern Indices: A Test Study in Mediterranean-Climate Landscapes Landscape Urban Planning 77.4 393-407

    Google Scholar 

  • De Montis A et al (2004) Assessing the Quality of Different MCDA Methods in Alternatives for Environmental Valuation London, Routledge 99-133

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE et al (2006) Relationships Between Visual Landscape Preferences and Map-Based Indicators of Landscape Structure Landscape and Urban Planning 78.4 465-474

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S and Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys New York, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster J (1997) Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and the Environment London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlbach FR (1975) Investigation, Evaluation, and Priority Ranking of Natural Areas Biological Conservation 8.2 79-88

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith FB (1983) Evaluating Nature in Warren A and Goldsmith FB Conservation in Perspective New York, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorshkov VG, Gorshkov VV and Makarieva AM (2000) Biotic Eegulation of the Environment: Key Issue of Global Change London/New York, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Guitouni A and Martel J-M (1998) Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method European Journal of Operational Research 109.2 501-521

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerhall CM (2001) Consensus in Landscape Preference Judgement Journal of Environmental Psychology 21.1 83-92

    Google Scholar 

  • Han K-T (2007) Responses to Six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness Environment and Behavior 39.4 529-556

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding S (2004) Food Web Complexity Enhances Ecological and Climatic Stability in a Gaian Ecosystem Model in Crist E and Rinker B Scientists Debate Gaia. The Next Century Cambridge, MA, MIT Press 255-266

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinloopen E and Nijkamp P (1990) Qualitative Multiple Criteria Choice Analysis Quality and Quantity 24.1 37-56

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhaber H (1977) Is a Land Quality Index Possible? Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 7.1 3-26

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen R (1993) Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, KW (1970) Environmental Disruption: General Issues and Methodological Problems Social Science Information 9.4 15-32

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant CL, Ruhl JB and Kraft SE (2008) The Tragedy of Ecosystem Services BioScience 58.10 969-974

    Google Scholar 

  • Lausch A and Herzog F (2002) Applicability of Landscape Metrics for the Monitoring of Landscape Change: Issues of Scale, Resolution and Interpretability Ecological Indicators 2.1–2 3-15

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H and Wu J (2004) Use and Misuse of Landscape Indices Landscape Ecology 19.4 389-399

    Google Scholar 

  • Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the Philosophy of Aesthetics: is Landscape Quality Inherent in the Landscape or in the Eye of the Beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44.4 177-198

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock JE (1992) A Numerical Model for Biodiversity Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 338.1286 383-391

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C and Usher MB (1981) Criteria Used in Assessing Wildlife Conservation Potential: A review Biological Conservation 21.2 79-109

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C and Usher M (1984) Conservation Evaluation in Practice: I. Sites of Different Habitats in North-East Yorkshire, Great Britain Journal of Environmental Management 18 153-168

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Alier J, Munda, G and O’Neil J (1998) Weak Comparability of Values as a Foundation for Ecological Economics Ecological Economics 26.3 277-286

    Google Scholar 

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2004. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Vol. 1 Washington, DC, Island Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (1995) Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2008) Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy Berlin, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M et al (2008) Public Evaluation of Landscape Content and Change: Several Examples from Europe Land Use Policy 26.1 77-86

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil J (1997) Managing Without Prices: The Monetary Valuation of Biodiversity Ambio 26.8 546-550

    Google Scholar 

  • Ode A et al (2009) Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference Journal of Environmental Management 90.1 375-383

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2008) The Challenge of Common Pool Resources Environment 50.4(July/August) 8-21

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E et al (1999) Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges Science 284.5412 278-282

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW and Moran D (1994) The Economic Value of Biodiversity London, Earthscan

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson GL (1974) Evaluating the Quality of the Wilderness Environment: Congruence Between Perception and Aspiration Environment and Behavior 6.2 169-193

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan H et al (2007) Comprehensive Criteria for Biodiversity Evaluation in Conservation Planning Biodiversity and Conservation 16.9 2715-2728

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1985) Methodologie multicritere d’aide a la decision Paris, Economica

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1991) The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of Electre Methods Theory and Decision 31.1 49-73

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (2005) Paradigms and Challenges in Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys New York, Springer 3-24

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B and Bouyssou D (1993) Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas Paris: Economica

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B and Vincke P (1981) Multicriteria Analysis: Survey and New Directions European Journal of Operational Research 8.3 207-218

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmelev SE and Shmeleva IA (2009) Sustainable Cities: Problems of Integrated Interdisciplinary Research International Journal of Sustainable Development 12.1/2009 4-23

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD (2002) Fragmentation and Cultural Landscapes: Tightening the Relationship Between Human Beings and the Environment Landscape and Urban Planning 58.2–4 93-99

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubbs CR and Blackwood JW (1971) Ecological Evaluation of Land for Planning Purposes Biological Conservation 3.3 169-172

    Google Scholar 

  • Tveit M, Ode AÌŠ and Fry G (2006) Key Concepts in a Framework for Analysing Visual Landscape Character Landscape Research 31.3 229-255

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich RS (1979) Visual Landscapes and Psychological well-Being Landscape Research 4 14-23

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich Roger S (1986) Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning 13 29-44

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2007) Indicators of sustainable development, guidelines and methodologies (3 rd edition) New York, United Nations

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ and Coeterier JF (1998) Group Differences in the Aesthetic Evalution of Nature Development Plans: A Multilevel Approach Journal of Environmental Psychology 18.2 141-157

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes PALD and van den Bergh JCJM (2001) Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: Sense or Nonsense? Ecological Economics 39.2 203-222

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg SWF and Vlijm L (1978) Ecological Evaluation, Nature Conservation and Land Use Planning with Particular Reference to Methods Used in the Netherlands Biological Conservation 14.3 197-221

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright DF (1977) A Site Evaluation Scheme for Use in the Assessment of Potential Nature Reserves Biological Conservation 11.4 293-305

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Sell JL and Taylor JG (1982) Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory Landscape and Planning 9.1 1-33

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, Queen Elizabeth House Flat 3, Banbury House 1 Staverton Road Oxfordshire, Oxford, OX2 6XH, UK

    Dr. Stanislav E. Shmelev

Authors
  1. Dr. Stanislav E. Shmelev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanislav E. Shmelev .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shmelev, S.E. (2012). Biodiversity Loss: New Methods for Evaluating Ecosystems. In: Ecological Economics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1972-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation