Difference between revisions of "Biological Valuation"
From Coastal Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{incomplete}} | {{incomplete}} | ||
The current scientific approach to the value of Nature is based largely on 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>. These articles set forth the foundation for assessing the value of environmental goods and services, and the number of papers and books that followed them dealt with all major ecosystems. Socioeconomic valuation and the economics of natural resources have gained acceptance within scientific circles, and methodology has been developed<ref>Beaumont N.J., Austen M.C., Atkins J.P., & al. .2007, Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity. Marine Poll. Bull. 54, 253- 265</ref>. | The current scientific approach to the value of Nature is based largely on 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>. These articles set forth the foundation for assessing the value of environmental goods and services, and the number of papers and books that followed them dealt with all major ecosystems. Socioeconomic valuation and the economics of natural resources have gained acceptance within scientific circles, and methodology has been developed<ref>Beaumont N.J., Austen M.C., Atkins J.P., & al. .2007, Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity. Marine Poll. Bull. 54, 253- 265</ref>. | ||
| − | + | [[Image:val1.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Figure 1: Biological valuation of seabed communities in Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (http://www.pom-habitaty.eu/index.php ]] | |
A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007)<ref>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 its resilience and stability of species and species assemblages and not from the human (goods and services) point of view. This approach was developed for the conservation of nature, specifically for the establishment of the best criteria for delineating 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 | A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007)<ref>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 its resilience and stability of species and species assemblages and not from the human (goods and services) point of view. This approach was developed for the conservation of nature, specifically for the establishment of the best criteria for delineating 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>Jennings M 2009 The next big ideas in conservation. Are all species equal.? The Nature Conservancy; http://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art23931.html</ref>. While we accept the view that living beings are equal in moral terms, their contributions to ecosystem structure and function differ, and this can be assessed in scientific terms. | 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>Jennings M 2009 The next big ideas in conservation. Are all species equal.? The Nature Conservancy; http://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art23931.html</ref>. While we accept the view that living beings are equal in moral terms, their contributions to ecosystem structure and function differ, and this can be assessed in scientific terms. | ||
'''''Biological value''''' is not a direct measure of ecosystem health. Often, areas regarded as of high biological value are considered to be valuable providers of socioeconomic 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. | '''''Biological value''''' is not a direct measure of ecosystem health. Often, areas regarded as of high biological value are considered to be valuable providers of socioeconomic 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. | ||
| − | Biological valuation use to be prepared for the administratively defined marine areas – like Exclusive Economic Zones (see examples Figure 1 and Figure 2). That is why maps that are prepared for given area may not be combined with other, as the value assessment is valid for the specific area only. Certain species that is natural and rare in one area (and hence highly valued) may be very common or even regarded as pest or invasive in other region. | + | Biological valuation use to be prepared for the administratively defined marine areas – like Exclusive Economic Zones (see examples Figure 1 and Figure 2). That is why maps that are prepared for given area may not be combined with other, as the value assessment is valid for the specific area only. Certain species that is natural and rare in one area (and hence highly valued) may be very common or even regarded as pest or invasive in other region. |
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 13:48, 2 April 2009
|
The current scientific approach to the value of Nature is based largely on two papers published in Nature by Costanza et al. (1997)[1] and Costanza (1999)[2]. These articles set forth the foundation for assessing the value of environmental goods and services, and the number of papers and books that followed them dealt with all major ecosystems. Socioeconomic valuation and the economics of natural resources have gained acceptance within scientific circles, and methodology has been developed[3].
Figure 1: Biological valuation of seabed communities in Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (http://www.pom-habitaty.eu/index.php
A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007)[4], which considers the value of an area in terms of its resilience and stability of species and species assemblages and not from the human (goods and services) point of view. This approach was developed for the conservation of nature, specifically for the establishment of the best criteria for delineating 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)[5], Singer (1989), Schmidtz (2002)[6], and Jennings (2009)[7]. While we accept the view that living beings are equal in moral terms, their contributions to ecosystem structure and function differ, and this can be assessed in scientific terms.
Biological value is not a direct measure of ecosystem health. Often, areas regarded as of high biological value are considered to be valuable providers of socioeconomic 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. Biological valuation use to be prepared for the administratively defined marine areas – like Exclusive Economic Zones (see examples Figure 1 and Figure 2). That is why maps that are prepared for given area may not be combined with other, as the value assessment is valid for the specific area only. Certain species that is natural and rare in one area (and hence highly valued) may be very common or even regarded as pest or invasive in other region.
References
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Costanza R. 1999, The ecological, economic and social importance of the oceans. Ecol. Econ., 31 (2), 287- 304
- ↑ Beaumont N.J., Austen M.C., Atkins J.P., & al. .2007, Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity. Marine Poll. Bull. 54, 253- 265
- ↑ Derous S., Agardy T., Hillewaert H. & 17 other authors, 2007, A concept for Biological valuation in the marine environment. Oceanologia 49, 99-128
- ↑ Linder D.O. 1988 Are all species created equal.? and other questions which are shaping wildlife law. Harvard Environmental.Law Review 12, 157pp.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Jennings M 2009 The next big ideas in conservation. Are all species equal.? The Nature Conservancy; http://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art23931.html
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
|
