Difference between revisions of "Biological Valuation"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 (Beaumont et al. 2007, Wallmo & Edwards 2008). | 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 (Beaumont et al. 2007, Wallmo & Edwards 2008). | ||
A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007), 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), Singer (1989), Schmidtz (2002), and Jennings (2009). 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. | A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007), 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), Singer (1989), Schmidtz (2002), and Jennings (2009). 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 Fig. 1 and fig.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 Fig. 1 and fig.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. | ||
Revision as of 13:33, 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 (Beaumont et al. 2007, Wallmo & Edwards 2008). A more recent concept is biological valuation as proposed by Derous et al. (2007), 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), Singer (1989), Schmidtz (2002), and Jennings (2009). 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 Fig. 1 and fig.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.
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
|
- ↑ 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
