Difference between revisions of "Biological Valuation"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | 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. Socio-economic 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>. | + | ===Value of Nature=== |
| + | |||
| + | 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. Socio-economic 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 ]] | [[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 | + | ===Biological valuation method=== |
| + | |||
| + | A more recent concept is biological valuation. A methodology has been developed which 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. | ||
[[Image:val2.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Figure 2: Biological valuation of Belgian North sea shelf (http://www.vliz.be/projects/bwzee/MBV.php) ]] | [[Image:val2.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Figure 2: Biological valuation of Belgian North sea shelf (http://www.vliz.be/projects/bwzee/MBV.php) ]] | ||
| − | + | For environment for which data are available, subzones within a study area are scored against two biological valuation 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]]. | |
| − | |||
| − | ===Biological | + | ===Biological valuation maps=== |
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 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. | 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 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. | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 8 September 2009
Value of Nature
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. Socio-economic valuation and the economics of natural resources have gained acceptance within scientific circles, and methodology has been developed[3].
Biological valuation method
A more recent concept is biological valuation. A methodology has been developed which 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 environment for which data are available, subzones within a study area are scored against two biological valuation criteria: rarity and aggregation or fitness consequences.
Biological valuation maps
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 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. Biological valuation maps have to be prepared for the administratively defined marine areas – like Exclusive Economic Zones (see examples Figure 1 and Figure 2). They are prepared for given area and may not be combined with other areas, 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 regions.
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
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
|
