Valuing nature-conservation interests on agricultural floodplains
Valuing nature-conservation interests on agricultural floodplains
复制标题
重视农业洪泛区的自然保护利益
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01627.x
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Rouquette J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rouquette J
生态系统方法和生态系统服务的评价越来越受到科学家、实践者和决策者的关注。这个过程的一个重要部分是确定一个地区内自然保护资产的“价值”。然后可以将该值与其他生态系统服务的数据进行比较，以确定不同未来情景下的管理重点。然而，对于如何进行这样的评估，几乎没有达成共识。在本研究中，我们评估了7种评估自然保护利益的方法，并比较了它们的效用。选择了横跨英格兰低地的五个农业用地排水方案进行研究。确定了当前的土地利用情况，并制定了四种不同的未来管理方案。在每种情景下预测的土地利用和栖息地使用7种确定价值的方法进行评估，即：生态影响评估方法、储备选择标准、基于目标的标准、利益相关者选择分析、利益相关者指导的储备选择标准、农业环境计划支付和或有价值。前三种方法基于预定义的优先级推导出价值，接下来的两种方法使用利益相关者的陈述偏好，最后两种方法分别基于显示的和表达的偏好推导出货币价值。比较了不同方法得到的结果。这些方法给出了大致相似的结果，并且高度相关，但每种方法都强调了保护价值的不同方面，在某些情况下导致了不同的可能结果。对每种方法的优缺点进行了评价。4合成与应用。随着生态系统服务方法融入决策过程，生态学家越来越需要评估一个地点的生物多样性或比较不同地点的价值。这项研究表明，七种不同的评估方法，尽管都给出了显著相关的结果，但在研究的25种情况下，产生了七种不同的自然保护价值排名。尽管这些地点具有相同的景观类型并发生在同一国家，但这种差异仍然存在。讨论的结论是，每种方法都有其优势；在某些情况下，货币估值是合适的，在其他情况下，利益相关者的偏好是最重要的，但在客观性是关键的情况下，根据独立定义的标准或目标进行评估应该是首选方法。
1The ecosystem approach and evaluation of ecosystem services is gaining increasing attention from scientists, practitioners and policy makers. An important part of this process is to establish the ‘value’ of the nature‐conservation assets within an area. This value can then be compared with data for other ecosystem services to identify management priorities under different future scenarios. However, there is little consensus on how to perform such an evaluation. In this study, we assess seven methods of valuing nature‐conservation interest and compare their utility.2Five agricultural land drainage schemes across lowland England were selected for study. The current land‐use was determined and four different scenarios of future management were developed. The land‐use and habitats predicted under each scenario were assessed using seven methods of determining value, namely: Ecological Impact Assessment method, reserve‐selection criteria, target‐based criteria, stakeholder‐choice analysis, reserve‐selection criteria guided by stakeholders, agri‐environment scheme payments and contingent valuation. The first three methods derive values based on pre‐defined priorities, the next two use stated preferences of stakeholders, and the last two methods derive monetary values based on revealed and expressed preference, respectively.3The results obtained from the different methods were compared. The methods gave broadly similar results and were highly correlated, but each method emphasized a different aspect of conservation value, leading to different possible outcomes in some cases. The advantages and disadvantages of each method were evaluated.4Synthesis and applications.As the ecosystem services approach becomes embedded in decision‐making, ecologists are increasingly called upon to value the biodiversity of a site or to compare the value of different sites. This study has shown that seven different valuation methods, although all giving significantly correlated findings, resulted in seven different rankings of nature‐conservation value for the 25 situations studied. This difference occurred in spite of the sites being of the same landscape type and occurring within the same country. The discussion concludes that each method has its strengths; monetary valuations are appropriate in some contexts, stakeholder preferences are paramount in others, but where objectivity is key, then assessment against independently defined criteria or targets should be the preferred method.
登录
查看更多内容
生物多样性方法手册：生物多样性评价方法
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
D. Hill;M. Fasham;G. Tucker;M. Shewry;P. Shaw
通讯作者：
P. Shaw
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
H. Marsh;A. Dennis;H. Hines;A. Kutt;K. Mcdonald;Ellen C. Weber;Stephen Williams;J. Winter
通讯作者：
J. Winter
自然保护评论
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
J. Flegg;D. A. Ratcliffe
通讯作者：
D. A. Ratcliffe
农民对农地排水效益的吸收
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Morris;T. Hess
通讯作者：
T. Hess
评估野生动物保护潜力的标准：回顾
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
C. Margules;M. Usher
通讯作者：
M. Usher