How to value biodiversity in environmental management?

11 

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Full text

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Ecological

Indicators

jou rn al h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l i n d

Review

How

to

value

biodiversity

in

environmental

management?

Mirka

Laurila-Pant

a,∗

,

Annukka

Lehikoinen

b

,

Laura

Uusitalo

c

,

Riikka

Venesjärvi

b

aFisheriesandEnvironmentalManagementGroup,DepartmentofEnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofHelsinki,Viikinkaari2,FI-00014Helsinki,Finland bFisheriesandEnvironmentalManagementGroup,DepartmentofEnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofHelsinki,KotkaMaritimeResearchCentre,

Heikinkatu7,FI-48100Kotka,Finland

cSYKEFinnishEnvironmentInstitute,MarineResearchCentre,P.O.Box140,FI-00251Helsinki,Finland

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received19June2014

Receivedinrevisedform16February2015 Accepted24February2015 Keywords: Biodiversity Ecosystem-basedmanagement Economicobjectives Socio-culturalvalues Biodiversityindicators Decisionanalysis

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Biodiversityisgloballyrecognisedasacornerstoneofhealthyecosystems,andbiodiversityconservation isincreasinglybecomingoneoftheimportantaimsofenvironmentalmanagement.Evaluatingthe trade-offsofalternativemanagementstrategiesrequiresquantitativeestimatesofthecostsandbenefitsoftheir outcomes,includingthevalueofbiodiversitylostorpreserved.Thispapertakesadecision-analytic stand-point,andreviewsanddiscussesthealternativeaspectsofbiodiversityvaluationbydividingtheminto threecategories:socio-cultural,economic,andecologicalindicatorapproaches.Wediscusstheinterplay betweenthesethreeperspectivesandsuggestintegratingthemintoanecosystem-basedmanagement (EBM)framework,whichpermitsustoacknowledgeecologicalsystemsasarichmixtureofinteractive elementsalongwiththeirsocialandeconomicaspects.Inthisholisticframework,socio-cultural prefer-encescanserveasatooltoidentifytheecosystemservicesmostrelevanttosociety,whereasmonetary valuationoffersmoregloballycomparativeandunderstandablevalues.Biodiversityindicatorsprovide clearquantitativemeasuresandinformationabouttheroleofbiodiversityinthefunctioningandhealth ofecosystems.Inthemulti-objectiveEBMapproachproposedinthepaper,biodiversityindicatorsserve todefinethresholdvalues(i.e.,theminimumlevelrequiredtomaintainahealthyenvironment).An appropriatesetofdecision-makingcriteriaandthebestmethodforconductingthedecisionanalysis dependonthecontextandthemanagementprobleminquestion.Therefore,weproposeasequenceof stepstofollowwhenquantitativelyevaluatingenvironmentalmanagementagainstbiodiversity.

©2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction... 1

2. Biodiversityterminology... 3

3. Valueofbiodiversity... 3

3.1. Methodsofeconomicvaluation... 3

3.2. Socio-culturalperspectiveofbiodiversityvaluation... 5

3.3. Ecologicalapproachtothevalueofbiodiversity... 5

3.3.1. Classicalbiodiversityindices... 5

3.3.2. Towardstheeco-socialapproach... 5

4. Discussion... 6

Acknowledgements... 8

References... 8

1. Introduction

Biodiversityis increasingly recognisedas one of the corner-stonesofhealthyecosystems(Kremen,2005;Wormetal.,2006;

∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+358503185679.

E-mailaddress:mirka.laurila-pant@helsinki.fi(M.Laurila-Pant).

Duffyetal.,2007;HectorandBagchi,2007;Pintoetal.,2014).The lossofbiodiversityduetohumanactionhasthepotentialtoreduce multitrophic-levelinteractions(Costanzaetal.,1997;Schneiders et al.,2012)and causetrophic cascade repercussions(Lindberg etal.,1998;Österblometal.,2007;Tylianakisetal.,2008). Leg-islaturesandinternationaltreatiesincreasingly reflectthisneed toprotect biodiversity,withtheconvention ofbiological diver-sity(CBD;UNEP,1992)asthefirsttreatyininternationallawto

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.034

(2)

Fig. 1. The concept of ecosystem-based management covers the ecological, economic,andsocialaspectsofenvironmentalissues,aimingforsustainable devel-opmentbyacknowledgingtheirinterplay.

emphasisethevitalimportanceofbiodiversityconservation.More recently,theEuropeanUnion(EU)hasalsobegun toemphasise theimportanceofbiodiversity,asisevidentintheEUBiodiversity Strategy,animportantpolicydriver;biodiversityisalsooneofthe descriptorsofGoodEnvironmentalStatusintheMarineStrategy FrameworkDirective(MSFD;EuropeanCommission,2008).

Themainideaofenvironmentalmanagementistosafeguard andenhancetheenvironmentalstateaswellas tosustain eco-nomicandsocialbenefitsfromtheecosystems(Elliott,2011,2013). Ecosystem-basedmanagement(EBM)(Fig.1),requiredbyboththe CBDandMSFD, isshiftingthefocustowardsmore comprehen-sivedecision-makingprocessesbyrecognisingecologicalsystems asarichmixtureofinteractingelementsandbyacknowledging theirsocialandeconomicfeatures(e.g.,Christensenetal.,1996; Ruckelshausetal.,2008;Gregoryetal.,2013).Becausepreventing thelossofbiodiversityisincreasinglybecomingoneofthe impor-tant aims of environmental management, biodiversity must be definedinanoperationalwayinordertofacilitatesetting manage-menttargetsandevaluatingmanagement’sperformance.Asstated inSection2,biodiversityisinherentlyamulti-dimensionalsubject, spanninggenesandspecies,functionalforms,adaptations,habitats andecosystems,aswellasthevariabilitywithinandbetweenthem. Allthesedimensions of biodiversity are tightlyinterconnected, affectingthestate,stability,andproductivityoftheecosystemas wellasecosystemservices(Schneidersetal.,2012),therebymaking biodiversitynotonlyanecological,butalsoasocialandeconomic issue.Thisarticlethereforeanalysesthevalueofbiodiversityfrom thesethreeperspectives.

Someseeecosystemservicesasameanstoquantify biodiver-sityineconomicterms,usuallydefinedasthebenefitspeoplecan extractfromecosystems(Lamarqueetal.,2011;Maceetal.,2012). TheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment(MA)classifiesbenefitsinto fourgroups:provisioning,regulating,cultural,andsupportservices (MA,2005).Biodiversitymayplaythreedifferentrolesinecosystem services:asaregulatorofecosystemprocesses,asafinal ecosys-temserviceorasagood(Maceetal.,2012).However,becausea descriptionofbiodiversityiscomplicated,accountingfortheroleof biodiversityorfortheimpactsofitsdeclineonecosystemservices ingeneralisnotstraightforward(TEEB,2010a).

Environmentalmanagement problems are typically complex andmultidisciplinary,involvingvariousunavoidabletrade-offsand uncertainties(Uusitaloetal.,2015)ininformeddecision-making.

Fig.2. TheDPSIRproblem-structuringframeworkforenvironmentalmanagement analysis.ThevariouswaystomanagethesystemappearaslinksA–Dwith descrip-tionsinthetext.ThediagramismodifiedfromthedoctoralthesisofLehikoinen (2014).

Decisionanalysiscanhelptostructuretheproblem,tointegrate knowledgeand any prevailinguncertainty, andto visualisethe results(Cooper,2012;Lehikoinenetal.,2014;Rahikainenetal., 2014).The ultimate goal of decision analysis is to successfully selectthemanagementalternativethatminimisesrisksandcosts whilemaximisingbenefitsandpublicacceptance(Keeney,1982; Burgman,2005;Kikeretal.,2005).However,usingdecision analy-sisrequiresthatmanagementtargets,includingbiodiversity,have aquantitativevalueastomakethemcomparable.

To illustrate the aim of this paper, we use the Driving forces–Pressures–States–Impacts–Responses (DPSIR) framework forstructuringproblems(Fig.2),aframeworkcommonlyusedin thefieldofenvironmentalmanagementanalysis(e.g.,Borjaetal., 2006;Maximetal.,2009;Atkinsetal.,2011;Gregoryetal.,2013). Thisframework strivesto systematicallycaptureand represent thecauses and consequences of environmentalchange as well ashumanresponsestoit.ResponselinksA–D inFig.2describe thedifferentwaystomanagethesystem.LinksAandBgenerally relatetomanagingtheprincipalandsecondarycauses(Driversand Pressures)ofenvironmentalchange,whereaslinkCrepresentsthe actionsthatstrivetocontrolormitigatetheconsequencesforthe ecosystem(State).Anexampleofdriversmightincludedivergent economicorpoliticaltrendsaffectingthevolumeofoil transporta-tionswithinacertainseaarea(seeLehikoinen,2014).Onepressure factorfuellingthesedriversthatcausesorhasthepotentialtocause harmfulchangesinthestateoftheecosystemisapossibleoil acci-dent.Thelikelyimpactofsuchanaccidentonbiodiversitywouldin thiscaseberepresentedbytheDPSIR-elementState.Afterall,the bestmanagementalternativedependsontheobjectivesthatthe societychooses(Impact).Intheexampleprovided,thiscouldmean howthepeopleactuallyvaluebiodiversity.Modifyingthis decision-makingcriterion(linkD)couldthereforechangetherankingorder ofthealternatives(Lehikoinen,2014).

Thisreview aims todiscussthe useofbiodiversity asa cri-terionagainstwhichtoevaluatetheimpactsofhumanactivities ontheecosystemandtoreviewthealternativemethods applica-blefordecision-analyticalpurposes.First,weprovideanoverview of biodiversity-relatedterminology and then focus ondifferent approachesthatpurporttoquantifythevalueofbiodiversity.The aimistoprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthedifferent evalu-ationtechniquesformeasuringthevalueofbiodiversityinterms ofitsecological,economic,andsocialaspects.Further,weanalyse thesetechniquestoproposeasuitableprotocolforidentifyingthe bestdecisionsforalternativeenvironmentalmanagement.

(3)

2. Biodiversityterminology

Theterm‘biologicaldiversity’hasbeenwidelyusedsincethe 1980s(e.g.,Lovejoy,1980;Norseetal.,1986),whereastheuseofthe term‘biodiversity’beganincreasingtowardstheendofthatdecade (Harper and Hawksworth, 1995). These two terms, ‘biological diversity’and‘biodiversity’,arefrequentlyusedinterchangeably (HarperandHawksworth,1995;Magurran,2004).Thedivisionof biodiversityintothreespheres–geneticdiversity(within-species diversity),speciesdiversity (numberofspecies),and ecosystem diversity(diversityofcommunities)–hasseenwideusesinceits launchduringtheConventionofBiologicalDiversityat‘TheEarth Summit’in1992.

IntheConvention,theword‘biodiversity’meant“the variabil-ityamonglivingorganismsfromallsourcesincluding,interalia, terrestrial,marine,andotheraquaticecosystemsaswellasthe eco-logicalcomplexesofwhichtheyarepart;thisincludesdiversity withinspecies,betweenspeciesandofecosystems”(UNEP,1992). TheConventionstatesthatthebedrockofbiodiversityisgenetic variability (intra-specific diversity),which refersto thegenetic variationwithinapopulationandamongpopulationsofaspecies (Féral,2002).Geneticvariationisvitaltoensuringthatpopulations evolveinresponsetoenvironmentalchanges(ReedandFrankham, 2003;Laikreetal.,2008).Speciesvariationisthelevelof biodiver-sitythattakesintoaccountthenumberofspecies(speciesrichness) andtheirproportionalabundances(heterogeneitydiversity)(Gray, 2000).Thistypeofbiodiversityoffersvaluableinformationabout thestructureofgroupsoforganismsintheecosystem.Ecosystem diversityencompassesthevarietyofhabitats,variousbiotic com-munitiesandecologicalprocessesinthebiosphere,andrefersto thevarietyofecosystemsinagivenlocation(PearceandMoran, 1994).Ecosystemdiversityalsoencompassesthepatchinessofa system,whichshowsthespatialdistributionofcommunities,as wellas the resilience,productivity, and stability of the system (Folkeetal.,1996).Inadditiontothedivisionsmentionedabove, themostfrequentlyproposeddivisionoccursatthelevelof molec-ularbiodiversity,whichrepresentsthemolecularrichnessoflife (Campbell,2003).Thepreservationofmoleculardiversityisvital, sinceevolutioncannotoccurwithoutit.

Anotherimportantaspectofbiodiversity isfunctional diver-sity,whichrepresentstherichnessoffunctionallydifferenttypes oforganisms(e.g.,withdifferentfeedingniches,habitats,or pos-itionsinthefoodwebs)(Pearceand Moran,1994).Functionally diversecommunitiesareresilientagainststressorshockandare lesslikelytochangetheirbehaviour(Folkeetal.,1996;Nunesand vandenBergh,2001).Inaddition,Tilmanetal.(1997)discovered thatspeciesdifferintheirabilitytomodifyecosystemprocesses, butsomespecieswithcertainfunctionaltraitshavegreater influ-encethanothersdo.

Onecanalsostudybiodiversityinthedifferentspatiallevels ofalpha,beta,andgamma,correspondingrespectivelyto within-habitatdiversity,differentiationamonghabitatsandtotalspecies diversityinalandscape(Whittaker,1960;Magurran,2004).In envi-ronmentalmanagement,thespatialaspectisofutmostimportance, sincespatialplanningorland-usemanagementcanconserve biodi-versity(FormanandCollinge,1997;Theobaldetal.,2000;Geneletti, 2008).However,thisrequiressufficientspatialdataonbiodiversity (i.e.,dataonspeciesandhabitats).

3. Valueofbiodiversity

Researchersacrosstheglobehaveextensivelystudiedrecent unprecedentedratesofbiodiversityloss,whicharetothedirect resultofincreasedhumanactivities(e.g.,climatechange, pollu-tion,deforestation,overexploitationofnaturalresources,habitat

Fig.3. Theconceptoftotaleconomicvalue(TEV);explanationsofthetermsappear inthetext.

lossand theintroductionof exoticspecies)(e.g.,Pandolfietal., 2003;Lotzeetal.,2006;Butchartetal.,2010;Buttetal.,2013). Whenstrivingtominimisethenegativeimpactofhumanactivities ontheenvironment,decisionmakersshouldbeabletocompare quantitativelytheanticipatedresultsofimplementingalternative managementactions.Itisthereforenecessarytomeasurethelevel ofharmcausedtobiodiversityandtoassignavaluetothecurrent stateofbiodiversityaswellasthealteredstate.

Our reviewofthepublishedliteraturehassuggested itemis-ingthreebroadperspectivesonvaluingbiodiversity,perspectives thatcovertheeconomic,socio-cultural,andecologicalbenefitsof biodiversityasdistinguishedintheMillenniumEcosystem Assess-ment(MA,2005)andtheTEEB(2010a).Thefirstapproachisto valuebiodiversity interms oftheservicesprovided forsociety, whereas thesecond approachistoassess socio-culturalvalues; thelastapproachadoptsabiologicalviewpoint.However, integra-tiveapproachesthattakeintoaccountallthreeperspectivesofthe sustainabilityarelacking(Nieto-Romeroetal.,2014).Researchers havelongdiscussedthisdivisionbetweenstandpointsbothwithin scientificsocietyandpublicly.Thecentralissuehasbeenwhich perspectiveshoulddeterminehowwevaluebiodiversity;inother words,shouldwevalueallelementsofbiodiversity(e.g.,the exist-enceofaspecies,theresilienceofcommunities,etc.)inmonetary termsorshouldtheypossessanintrinsicvalueregardlessof anthro-pogenicbenefit(NunesandvandenBergh,2001;Bräuer,2003; Nijkampetal.,2008;Justusetal.,2009;Salles,2011).

Inthefollowingsections,wereviewthefocalliteraturewith theabove-mentionedthreeperspectivesonvaluingbiodiversityin mind.Thefirstsectionfocusesonaneconomicperspective, fol-lowedbybiodiversity’ssocio-culturalandecologicalaspects.

3.1. Methodsofeconomicvaluation

Thisutilitarianapproachaimstoquantifytheimpactofachange inbiodiversityonoureconomyorhumanwelfare.Totaleconomic value(TEV)isthemainframeworkforvaluingbiodiversityin mon-etaryterms (Fig.3,PearceandMoran,1994;Adgeretal.,1995; Fromm, 2000;Turpie etal., 2003;Nijkamp etal.,2008; Oxford Economics,2009;RolfeandWindle,2010).Thetotalvalueof envi-ronmental assets includesboth useand non-usevalues (Fig.3,

PearceandMoran,1994;Pagiolaetal.,2004).Theusevalueis fur-therdividedintodirect(e.g.,food,timber,andmedicine),indirect

(4)

Table1

Samplestudiesthatusemonetaryvaluationinenvironmentalmanagement. Valuationtechnique Studies

Contingentvaluation LoomisandLarson(1994),Adgeretal.(1995), LoomisandWhite(1996),Costanzaetal.(1997), Stevensetal.(1997),Loomisetal.(2000),Appelblad (2001),Navrud(2001),CardosodeMendonc¸aetal. (2003),Turpieetal.(2003),Toivonenetal.(2004), Paulrud(2004),Parkkila(2005),Christieetal.(2006), Beaumontetal.(2008),OxfordEconomics(2009), Barbieretal.(2011),Ressurreic¸ãoetal.(2012) Marketprice Pimenteletal.(1997),Turpieetal.(2003),Oxford

Economics(2009),McClanahan(2010)

Travelcost BrownandMendelsohn(1984),Turpieetal.(2003), OxfordEconomics(2009),Barbieretal.(2011) Productionfunction Turpieetal.(2003)

Choicemodelling Paulrud(2004),Christieetal.(2006),Rolfeand Windle(2010),ChristieandRayment(2012), Jobstvogtetal.(2014)

Benefittransfer Beaumontetal.(2008)

Replacementcost Beaumontetal.(2008),OxfordEconomics(2009), Gren(2013)

(e.g.,naturalwaterfiltration,stormprotection,andcarbon seques-tration)andoptionalvalues (theoptiontouseecosystemgoods andservicesinfuture),whereasthenon-usevalueisdividedinto abequestvalue(referringtobenefitsfromensuringthat biodiver-sityorecosystemserviceswillbepreservedforfuturegenerations) andanexistenceor‘passive’usevalue(individualsdonotactually usetheseresources,butwouldfeeltheirlossiftheydisappeared) (PearceandMoran,1994;Pagiolaetal.,2004).

Theenvironment canbevaluedmonetarily withthe follow-ingthreedistinctgroupsoftechniques:revealedpreference,stated preference,anddirectmarketvaluationtechniques.Directmarket valuationtechniquesaredividedintothemarketprice(the mon-etaryvalueofgoodsandservicesthatcanbeboughtandsoldin commercialmarkets)andtheirproductionfunction(anestimateof thecontributionofacertainecosystemservicetotheproduction ofothermarketablegood)(BertramandRehdanz,2013).

Withoutdirectmarketpricesforenvironmentalgoodssuchas biodiversity,theirvaluecanbeinferredusingconsumer prefer-ences(Nijkampetal.,2008; Remoundouet al.,2009).Revealed preference techniques (i.e., indirect valuation approaches) are based on observed consumer behaviour and include hedonic pricing,travelcostand replacementcostmethodsforanalysing individuals’ actualchoices (Haab and McConnell, 2002; Pagiola etal.,2004).Thehedonicpricingmethodservestocalculatethe valueofenvironmentalgoodssuchaslandscape,airquality,and noise(Turneretal.,2010).Thismethodevaluatestheimplicitprice thatindividualsarewillingtopayfortherelevantenvironmental characteristicsbasedonhouseprices,thetime,andmoneyspent onrecreationaltripsorotherexpenses(Turneretal.,2010).The replacementcostmethod,ontheotherhand,quantifiesthecost ofreplacingorrestoringanecosystemservice(PearceandMoran, 1994;Balmfordetal.,2002).

Whilerevealedpreferencetechniquesareusefulonlyforuse values,statedpreferencetechniquescanservetoassesstheTEV (i.e.,useand non-usevalues) (Wardman, 1988; Nijkampet al., 2008).Stated preference techniques (e.g.,Haab and McConnell, 2002;Pagiolaetal.,2004;Hajkowicz,2007)derivefrom respon-dents’answerstoquestionsabouthowmuchtheywouldbewilling topaytomaintain/improvethequalityoftheenvironment (the contingentvaluationmethod; Turneret al., 2010) orafter pre-sentingthemwithchoicesbetweengoodsandexpenses(thechoice modellingapproach;Hanleyetal.,2001;Turneretal.,2010).

Table1summarisesexamplesofpublishedstudiesthatemploy monetaryvaluationsofbiodiversityorecosystemservices.Thelist isbased onthesearch resultsin theScopus database(October

2014).Keywordsearchesfor‘monetaryvalue’,‘biodiversity’,and ‘ecosystemservice’yielded342studiesbetween1971and2014. Withoutcitingallofthesearchresults,thelistinTable1shows variability amongthe resultsinterms of thevaluationmethod employed.Theselectedexamplesrepresentvariousgeographical andsubjectmatterareas.

OfallthemonetaryvaluationmethodspresentedinTable1,the contingentvaluationapproachistheonemostcommonlyusedto measuretheextentofgainorlossin biodiversity(Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Nijkampet al., 2008).These works focus mostly onindividualspeciesandhabitats,butdonotvaluethediversity itself(Pearce, 2001;CardosodeMendonc¸aet al.,2003;Christie etal.,2006; Beaumontetal.,2008).Eventhoughaccurate esti-matesofpeople’swillingnesstopay(WTP)(Hanemann,1994)for anumberofnon-marketedecosystemservicesareavailable,we still know littleabout thevalueof biodiversity per se(i.e.,the valueassociatedwithchangesinthevariationofgenes,species,and functionaltraits)(Cardinaleetal.,2012).Itisnoteworthythat,in ordertoknowwhattoquantify,wealsoneedtoknowmoreabout theuncertaintybetweenmeasuresofbiodiversitylossandtheir impactoncertainecosystemservices(Balvaneraetal.,2014).The reviewbyNunesandvandenBergh(2001)providesanoverview ofhowmuchhouseholdsarewillingtopaytopreserveeither sin-gleormultiplespecies interrestrialor marinehabitats.Loomis andWhite(1996)andMartín-Lópezetal.(2007)conducted simi-larsurveysofthespecies-contingentvaluationstudybystudying people’svariedattitudestowardsparticularspecies.These stud-iesfoundthatpeoplewerewillingtopaymoretopreservemore familiarorinteresting speciesthan lessattractive ones(Loomis andWhite, 1996;Martín-Lópezetal.,2007).Ressurreic¸ãoetal. (2012)conductedastudythatestimatesthepublic’sWTPto pre-servefivespecificmarinetaxa(mammals,birds,fish,invertebrates, andalgae)asarepresentationofmarinebiodiversity.Thestudy usedamulti-siteperspectiveacrossthreedifferentlocales,namely Portugal(theAzores),theUnitedKingdom(theIslesofScilly),and Poland(theGulfofGdansk),whichprovidedacomprehensiveview ofculturaldifferencesacrosspublicpreferences(Ressurreic¸ãoetal., 2012).Onedisadvantagerelatedtothesecontingentvaluation sur-veysisthattheyposea hypotheticalquestionofpeople’sWTP, whichleadstothebroadlystudiedproblemof‘hypotheticalbias’ (e.g.,Venkatachalam, 2004;Murphyet al.,2005; Loomis,2011; Hausman, 2012). Contingent valuationexperiments have found thatanswerstohypotheticalquestionsaboutrespondents’WTP exceedtheiractualWTP(i.e.,whatpeoplesaydiffersfromwhat theyareactuallywillingtodo).

Alloftheabove-mentionedmethodsfacemultiplechallenges, namelythe reliability of their results. One example that high-lightstheunreliabilityoftheresultsrelatestothehedonicpricing method,whichassumesthatpeoplecanbuytheexactpropertyand associatedcharacteristicstheydesire(Opaluchetal.,1999;OECD, 2002).However,outsideinfluences(e.g.,taxes,interestrates)that canskewthevaluationresultsmayinfluencethehousingmarket (Turneretal.,2010).Anotherproblematicissueinindirect valua-tionariseswiththetravelcostmethod,whichrequiressignificant resourcestoproduceareliableanalysis(Turneretal.,2010).The travel cost methodrequires large sample sizes, making it very labourandfinanceintensive.Additionally,assessingthevalueof timeposesdifficultiesbecausethemethodalwaysassumesthata tripisforasingleattractionandcannotseparatethetravelcost formultiplesites(Dwyer,2006;Tisdell,2010;Graves,2013).The directvaluationapproachusesquestionnaires,whichresearchers mustcarefullydesignandpre-testtoavoidbiasedresults.Aswith thetravelcostmethod,thesamplesizesshouldbelargeenoughto producereliableresults(Turneretal.,2010).Despitethese limita-tions,themethodsarewidelyusedtoassessthevalueofparticular ecosystembenefits(Pagiolaetal.,2004).

(5)

The existing literature points out the importance of strong andreliablebiologicalinformationwhenusingtheTEVapproach (Pearce andMoran,1994; Costanza et al.,1997; Bulteand Van Kooten,2000;Brito,2005).Economists,in contrast,havestated that,withtheTEVapproach,theycannotcapturethewholevalue, butonlythemonetaryvalue(PearceandMoran,1994;Nijkamp etal.,2008).Anothercriticalremarkis thatmonetaryvaluation takesintoaccountonlythedirect humanbenefitsofecosystem servicesandnotanecosystem’sresilience(Admiraaletal.,2013). Psychologicalmotivations,drivenbyimpurealtruisticforces,are alsoimportantfactorsinfluencing‘willingnesstopay’ question-naires, a point which researchers should bear in mind when analysingtheresultsandspecificallywhenusingthemtodraft pol-icy(Nunes,2002;NunesandOnofri,2004;NunesandSchokkaert, 2003).Theseimpurealtruisticforcesarerelatedtotheparticular respondents,orwarmglowers,whofindsatisfactionin contribut-ingtoconservationefforts(Nunes,2002;NunesandOnofri,2004).

Desvousgeset al.(1993)criticisethecontingentvaluation tech-niquebecauseparticipantsalwayslackinformationaboutissues inthequestionnaires,thus skewingtheresultantvalue.Onthe otherhand,avaluemeasuredinmonetarytermscanmakethe values for biodiversitymore visible toa largeraudience(TEEB, 2010b)and,more importantly,promotecomparability between biodiversityconservationandtheeconomicworld,thereby facili-tatingtheintegrationofenvironmentalmanagementintopolitical decisions(Bräuer,2003).Consequently,thereisgrowing discus-sionabouttheprecisedefinitionandclassificationsofecosystem services,whichprovideasolidfoundationforfuturework(Boyd andBanzhaf,2007;FisherandTurner,2008;TEEB,2010a; Böhnke-Henrichsetal.,2013).

3.2. Socio-culturalperspectiveofbiodiversityvaluation

Whenassessingthevalueofbiodiversity,itisseldomnecessary orevenpossibletoassignitamonetaryvaluebecausedifferent humansocietiesandcommunitiesplacedifferentvaluesonspecies, ecosystems,andbiodiversityingeneral.Forexample,theculturalor spiritualvaluesoflocalpeopleincertainregionsmaybesufficient toensuresustainableuseandprotection(TEEB,2010b).Inother words,assessingthesocio-culturalvalueofbiodiversity,whichin thiscaseprovidessocietywithbenefitssuchasmentalwell-being andethical,spiritual,andculturalvalues,isnecessary(Posey,1999; Christieetal.,2012).

Intheirreviewofsocio-culturalvaluationtechniques,Christie etal.(2012)provideacomprehensivelistofmethods,including quantitativeandqualitativetechniques(i.e.,surveys,interviews), participatoryanddeliberativetools,andmethodsforexpressing preferencesinnon-monetaryyetquantifiableterms.Thenumberof studiesutilisinggeographicinformationsystem(GIS)applications tomap thespatial distributionof stakeholders’social or recre-ationalvalueshasalsogrown(Reesetal.,2010;Sherrouseetal., 2011).

Insomecases,socio-culturalperspectivescanserveasthemain factorsindeterminingthesuccessorfailureofenvironmental man-agement(Masciaetal.,2003).Evenso,environmentalstudieshave thusfarfocusedmostlyonapproachestoecologicalandmonetary valuation(Vihervaaraetal.,2010).However,itisimportanttonote that,insomecases,biodiversitymayhaveaheavierculturaland spiritualvaluethanotherstandpoints.

3.3. Ecologicalapproachtothevalueofbiodiversity 3.3.1. Classicalbiodiversityindices

Onecentralweaknessoftheeconomic valuationapproaches is that the prices of some benefits or services provided by a diverseecosystemcanbedifficulttoevaluate.Eventhescientific

understandingoftherole ofbiodiversityinthefunctioningand health of ecosystems, and in provisioning ecosystem services, remains incomplete. In public discussion, biodiversity is com-monlyrepresentedbycharismatic,oftenendangered,macrofauna, suchasgiantpandas,white-tailedeagles, orwhales (Mikkelsen andCracraft,2001).However,manysensitiveorthreatenedspecies remaininvisibleorunknowntothemajorityofpeopleandarethus difficulttovalue.Further,biodiversityprotectionoftenemerges fromthepromiseofunrevealedbutpotentialecosystemservices, suchasthepossibilityoffindingnewmedicines,whichmayseem toouncertainaninvestment.Therefore,thereisaneedto com-plement the monetaryand socio-cultural valuation approaches ofbiodiversitywithonebasedontheprevailingnaturalscientific knowledge and understandingabout how ecosystemsfunction. A naturalapproach would betoidentifytheminimum levelof biodiversitytomaintain.Thiswillrequireresearcherstomeasure biodiversityneeds,whichusuallytakesplacethroughindicesthat reducemultifacetedissuestoafewkeyvariablesthatdescribea certainaspectofthephenomenon(Heipetal.,1998).

Theclassicalbiodiversity indices (orfunctionsthat takeinto account therelative frequencies of species presentat thesite), whichdescribetherichnessanddistributionofspecies(Heipetal., 1998)weightedindifferentways,include theShannon–Weiner diversity index (Hill, 1973; Heip et al., 1998), Simpson’sindex (Simpson,1949;Hill,1973;Heipetal.,1998),theBerger–Parker index(Hill,1973;Magurran,2004),andPielou’sevennessindex (Pielou, 1969; Van Dyke, 2008). The classical indices mostly describealphadiversity(i.e.,thediversitywithinasiteorsample). However,Czekanowski’ssimilarityindexstudiesthesimilarities betweensamplesrepresentingbetadiversity(Czekanowski,1909; Schubert,2013).Betadiversityisthevariationinspecies compo-sitionalonganenvironmentalgradientandthusdescribesherate ofchange,orturnover,inspeciescomposition(Whittaker,1960, 1972).Whittaker(1960,1972)firstproposedcomputingtheratio of twodiversity indices:betadiversity=/˛,where (gamma) diversityisthetotalspeciesdiversityofalandscape,and˛(alpha) diversityisthemeanspeciesdiversityperhabitat.Gamma diver-sityisusuallycalculatedusingalphadiversitysamplesfromseveral communitiesorlistsofspecies(Whittaker,1972;Legendreetal., 2005).

Later,PetcheyandGaston(2002)proposedthefunctional diver-sityindex,whichmeasuresthetotalbranchlengthofthefunctional dendrogrambuiltontheregionalpoolofspecies.Another,more recent study examined the functional diversity of the marine diatomSkeletonemamarinoibyobservingthepotentialeffectsof grazingpressure(reflectedbydifferentgrazerlevels)(Sjöqvistetal., 2013).Thestudyconfirmedthatgeneticallydistinctindividualsof

S.marinoiarefunctionallymorediverse.

3.3.2. Towardstheeco-socialapproach

Inadditiontotheclassicalbiodiversityindices,numerousother specific measuresof biodiversity have been developed and are usedtomeasurethebiodiversityofspecificecosystemcomponents or habitats. For allof theabove-mentioned classicalindicators, thresholdlevelscanbesetwhichdictatetheminimumlevelof bio-diversitytomaintain.Thesethresholdsserveastheminimumlevel ofbiodiversitythatsocietyseekstopreserve.Therefore,defining suchathresholdrepresentsthefirstsocialaspectsoftheanalysis. TheBalticMarineEnvironmentProtectionCommission(HELCOM) has recentlypublished a core set of biodiversity indicators for evaluating the overall state of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM, 2013), andsimilarworkisunderwayintheotherseasaswell. Böhnke-Henrichsetal.(2013)provideguidanceforselectingappropriate indicatorsforallrelevantmarine-focusedecosystemservicesthat reflectchangesinthestateoftheecosystem.Moreover,thework ofHattametal.(2015)presentsapractical approachtotheuse

(6)

ofindicatorstoquantifymarineecosystemservices.Thesetypes ofindicatorshaveservedtosimplifyaspectsoftheenvironment thatleadtomanagementdecisionsandpolicyguidelines(Gubbay, 2004).

Severalproposalsdefineecosystemhealthintermsoffunctional and structural status, and involve the humanperspective with differentgradesinformsofobjective-formulationandweighting.

Table2summarisessomeoftheseapproaches.TheMarineTrophic Index(MTI)demonstrates thedecline inthemeantrophic level offisherylandings(Paulyetal.,1998;PaulyandWatson,2005). Biologicalvaluationmaps(BVM)helptodeterminethetotal biolog-icalvalue,togetherwithecologicalinformationfromsubareas,by usingvaluationcriteriathattakeintoaccountrarity,consequences offitness,aggregation,naturalness,andproportionalimportance inagiven studyarea(Derouset al.,2007;Pascualet al.,2011). ThemarineBVMrepresentsabaselineshowingtheholistic biolog-icalandecologicalvaluesfromthegenetictotheecosystemlevel whileintegratingdataonseabirds,macrobenthos,demersalfish, andepibenthos(Derousetal.,2007).

TheBiodiversityBenefitsIndex(BBI,OliverandParkes,2003),a modificationofthe‘habitathectares’indexofParkesetal.(2003), aimstoassessthecurrentbiodiversityvalueofahabitatbasedon biodiversitymeasuressuchasvegetationcondition,conservation significance, and landscape context. TheBiodiversity Intactness Index(BII)approach byScholesandBiggs (2005)calculatesthe overallstateofbiodiversityinagivenarea.TheBIIrequiresbaseline information(beforevalue)onthespeciesrichnessinaspecificarea aftercalculatingtheweightedimpactsofanthropogenicactivities (e.g.,acutepollutionevents)(aftervalue)onthepopulationofa groupoforganisms,whicharethencomparedinordertoevaluate theharmcaused.Thistechniqueislargelyappliedwhenstudying largeterrestrialareas.OnespecificdisadvantageoftheBIIisthat theimpactsofpollutionorclimatechangeonbiodiversityemerge slowlyoverlongperiods(ScholesandBiggs,2005).

AubryandElliott(2006)proposedanintegrativeindicatorthat combines anappropriated set of indicators (including physico-chemicalandbiologicalelements)andusesexpertjudgementto weighand rankthose indicatorsbased ontheirperceived rela-tiveimportanceinassessingtheseabeddisturbanceinestuaries andcoastalwaters.Tettetal.(2013)haveproposedastatespace approach totrack changes in an ecosystem stateas well asto estimatesystemresiliencebyselectingstatevariables. Thefirst requirementistoidentifythestatevariablesthatrepresentthe conditionoftheecosystem(i.e.,biodiversityandproductionofthe studyarea).Anotherrequirementistouseanextendedseriesfor detectinginter-annualvariability,whichrevealstheresilienceof thesystem(Tettetal.,2013).

Thebiodiversityindicatorapproachforvaluationshares simi-lardisadvantageswiththemonetaryvaluationapproach,sinceit alsorequireslargeamountsofdata.Becausedataabundanceand qualitytypicallyvarybothovertimeandspace,comparisonsof dif-ferentareasorscenariosorbothareinevitablysomewhatbiased (e.g.,Collenetal.,2008).Anotherissuetotakeintoaccountisthe needtoclarifythetransitionofasystemfromanormalstatetoan impactedone.Determiningthebaselinestateoftheenvironmentis problematicbutimportanttoassessifoneistodefinethechange inbiodiversity(Parretal.,2003;Borjaetal.,2012).Specifically, thedifficultyliesinfindinganadequatehistoricaldatasetoran un-impactedcontrolareatodetectthe‘shiftingbaseline’phenomenon (Duarteetal.,2009;Carstensenetal.,2011).

Whenselectingspecificindicatorsforuseinacertainarea,the analystmustdecidewhichandhowmanytaxonomicorfunctional groupsaswellaswhichhabitatstoinclude.TheEUMSFD guide-lines(EU,2010)forevaluatingthebiodiversitydescriptorprovide arecentexampleofhowthiscomplexissuecanbecompressed intoindicators.TheMSFD requiresa biodiversityassessment at

thespecies,habitat,and ecosystemlevels.On thespecieslevel, assessmentshouldaccountfordistribution,populationsize,and populationcondition,butincludesubspeciesandpopulations sep-aratelyiftheyareunderthreat.Populationdistributionisrelated totheavailabilityandqualityofhabitats,whichalsoneed safe-guarding.Theconditionofthepopulationreferstoageandsex structure,survivalandreproduction,andthegeneticstructureof thepopulation.Habitats,definedasbothabioticcharacteristicsand theassociatedbiologicalcommunity,aswellashabitatcomplexes andfunctionalhabitats(suchasspawningorfeedingareas)must beevaluatedfortheirdistribution,extent,andcondition(witha particularfocusontheconditionoftypicalspeciesand communi-ties).Theecosystemlevelsthenviewthecompositionandrelative proportionsofthehabitatsandspecies.

4. Discussion

Inthispaper,werecognisethreeapproachestovaluing biodi-versity:theeconomic,thesocio-cultural,andtheecological.They providedifferentandcomplementaryperspectives,eachwithits ownadvantagesandlimitations.Overall,theseecological biodiver-sityindicatorsareuseful,quantitativetoolsforassessingthestateof biodiversity,aswellasforcommunicatingcomplex, environmen-talissuesinordertointegratethemmorethoroughlyintopolicy decisions(UNEP,2003;TEEB,2010a).Wenoticedthatmany devel-opedbiodiversityindicatorsalreadyincludesomesocialaspects, whichshowsthatattemptstototallyseparatehumanbeingsfrom theecosystemareartificial–ifnotimpossible.

Whenitcomestoassessingandmanagingtheanthropogenic useof theenvironment, weunavoidablyheadfor asituationin whichpurebiologicalinformationaloneisinsufficient.Thisiswhy, fromthedecision-analyticviewpoint,thethreeabove-mentioned aspectsofvaluingbiodiversitycannotbefullyseparatedfromeach other.Decisionscannotbeevaluatedorrankedwithoutfirst defin-ingtheobjectives(i.e.,thedecision-makingcriteria)(e.g.,Keeney, 1982).Selectingthecriteria,definingasufficientlygoodstateofthe environment,aswellastheacceptableriskforfailingtoachieve thegoalsaresocialchoicesthatpeoplemade.Moreover, mone-taryresourcesnearlyalwayslimitmanagementinsomesense,it isthereforeusefultotrytodescribethevalueoftheobjectives– inthiscase,biodiversity–inmonetarytermsalso.Inadditionto thebasisforcommunication,monetaryresourcesallowustocarry outcost-efficiencyanalysesforalternativemanagementstrategies. Sometimes,becauseaspectsofsocio-culturalvaluationcan over-rideotherarguments(Masciaetal.,2003),acknowledgingthemis alsooftheutmostimportance.So,asabasisfordecision-making, whichseeksthesustainableuseoftheenvironment,wesuggest themulti-criteriavaluingofbiodiversity,coveringallthreeaspects oftheecosystem-basedmanagement(EBM)framework.

Someresearchershaveproposedusingbiodiversityindicators as a basis for monetary valuation (Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). The monetary value of biodiversity, or specifically, the value it providesfor supporting thehuman populationand its lifestyle,isincreasingly underevaluation byassessingthevalue of ecosystem services (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997). These kinds of all-encompassing, monetary estimates for biodiversity could help largeraudiences understand theimportance of protecting biodiversity,even ifthe diversityindex valueis misunderstood (Polasky,2008).Thechallengewiththisapproachliesincorrectly andexhaustivelyidentifyingandmeasuringtheecosystemservices provided(Vihervaaraetal.,2010;Seppeltetal.,2011).

OuranalysisagreeswiththatofBräuer(2003),thatmonetary valuecanstillserveasausefullinkbetweenenvironmental prob-lemsandpoliticaldecision-makingprocesses,althoughthefuture challengeistoidentifycommongroundforcomparingmonetary

(7)

Table2

Examplestudiesthatusedbiodiversityindicatorvaluationmethods.

References Subjects Valuationtechniques

Baillieetal.(1996) Toassessglobalchangesinbiodiversitybydefiningthe conservationstatusofmajorspeciesgroupsandtheirextinction risk

TheIUCNredlistofthreatenedspecies

Borjaetal.(2000) Theindexservestoobservetheresponseofsoft-bottom communitiestonaturalandanthropogenicchangesinwater quality

Themarinebioticindex(BI)

Ribaudoetal.(2001) Theindexsumsupthesoilerosionrisk,waterqualityrisk,and wildlifehabitatqualitytoestimateecologicalbenefitsinthearea

Theenvironmentalbenefitsindex(EBI) OliverandParkes(2003) Theindexservestopredictthechangeafterlanduseactivity Thebiodiversitybenefitsindex ScholesandBiggs(2005) Theindexcalculatestheimpactsofasetofactivitiesonagroupof

organismsbyusingrelativechangesinspeciesrichness

Thebiodiversityintactnessindex(BII) AubryandElliott(2006) Theintegrativeindicatormeasuresthestateofandpressureson

coastalandestuarineenvironmentsbyintegratingknowledgeof physico-chemicalandbiologicalelements

Theenvironmentalintegrativeindicator

Lohetal.(2005),Collenetal.(2008) Theindexbasedonabundancetrendsinpopulationsof vertebratesfromaroundtheworld

Thelivingplanetindex Derousetal.(2007),Pascualetal.(2011) Thearea-specificweightisestimatedbythefollowingcriteria:

rarity,consequencesoffitness,aggregation,naturalness,and proportionalimportance

Biologicalvaluationmaps

Ihaksietal.(2011),Kokkonenetal.(2010), Jolmaetal.(2014)

Anindex-basedevaluationmethodlinkstheweightingof threatenedspecies(basedonseveralcriteria,includinglegislation andcertainecologicalfeatures)inthedecision-makingprocessfor combattingoilspills

TheOILECOindex

HELCOM(2013) Toassessanthropogenicpressuresonthestateofbiodiversityin theBalticSea

TheHELCOMcoresetofbiodiversityindicators Altartourietal.(2013) Theindextakesintoaccounttheconservationvalue,legislative

status,oil-inducedlossandrecoverypotentialofspeciesand habitats,aswellastheefficiencyofcombattingmethods

TheOILRISKindex

andintrinsicvalues.Socialandculturalfactorsaffectnotonlyhow peopleappreciatenature,butalsohowtheyvaluetheirmoneyor howrisk aversivetheyare(Pratt,1964;Chowand Sarin,2002; Burgman,2005).Consequently,thesocio-culturalperspective is aninseparablepartof theecosystem-based biodiversityvaluing approach.Socialpreferencescanserveasatooltoidentifythemost relevantecosystemservicesforpeople(Martín-Lópezetal.,2012; Martínezetal.,2013).

Themanagementofecosystemservicesshouldnotalwaysbe equatedwiththemanagementofbiodiversityandviceversa.The mostdesirableapproachwouldbetooptimisethemanagementso thatitcouldachievemanygoalssimultaneouslywhilerecognising thatbiodiversity alone wouldprovide someecosystemservices (Maceetal.,2012).Furthermore,thereisaneedtodefinetheroles ofbiodiversityandecosystemservicesinenvironmental manage-mentandconservation(GeijzendorfferandRoche,2013).Does bio-diversityindeedhaveanintrinsicvalue,irrespectiveofany useful-nessorfunction,orisbiodiversityvaluableonlytotheextentthatit canprovideecosystemservicesorsupporttheirprovision? Alterna-tively,shouldbiodiversitybeconsideredseparatefromthe ecosys-temservices,butequalintermsofenvironmentalmanagement? Theanswertothesequestionsdictateswhetherweindeedneed valuationorindicatorsforbiodiversity,orwhethertheseserveonly asproxiesforindicatorsandthevaluationofecosystemservices.

Althoughitseemsthatintegratingthesocio-cultural,monetary, and ecologicalbiodiversity indicatorapproaches together could providesomeusefulinsights,oneshouldusecareful considera-tionwhencombiningthem. Monetaryvaluationoftenyieldsits resultsonacontinuousscale,whilebiodiversityindicatorsoften yieldresultsonabinarypass/failscale.Consequently,thelatter approach offers nopreference for a management option when biodiversityvaluesarebarelyorfarbelowthethresholdvalue.Care musttherefore betaken whendeveloping thedecisionanalysis models,especiallyinthecaseswherefindingmanagementoptions thatwouldleadtotheachievementofgoodbiodiversitystatusis unlikely.Aprobabilisticapproach,revealingtheprobabilitythatan indicatorremainsinacertainstate,canofferonepossiblesolution totheproblem(Lehikoinenetal.,2014).Thiswouldprovideusa

biologicalmarginofsafetyfortheminimumlevelofbiodiversity tobeachieved–thewidthofwhichwoulddependonthe risk-aversionofthedecision-makersorofsociety.Afterachievingthe definedbiologicalminimumwithanacceptablelevelofcertainty, thebenefitsacquiredpereachextraunitcouldbeexpressedin monetary terms and thecost-effectiveness of the management optionscouldbeevaluatedinlightofthatinformation.Infuture, appropriateplatformsforthiskindofdecision-makingtool,taking into account the uncertainties and allowing for the definition of optimisation rules in different phases of the process, merit investigation.BayesianNetworks(JensenandNielsen,2007)could beonemethodwithwhichtoexplorethisidea.

Thisreviewrevealsalackofstudiesthatusethequantitative valuesofbiodiversityasatoolforpredictingtheimpactsof alter-nativemanagementdecisions,withthepraiseworthyexceptionsof

Nicholsonetal.(2012),Ressurreic¸ãoetal.(2011),andRessurreic¸ão etal. (2012).Otherwise,thevalueof biodiversityhasservedto provide information aboutsinglespecies or thenatural habitat ofthespeciesinquestion.Therefore,thescopesofmostofthese valuation studiestakeinto consideration only a fractionof the existingbiodiversity(e.g.,thegreywhalebyLoomisandLarson, 1994;AtlanticsalmonpopulationsbyStevensetal.,1997; recre-ationalsitesandfisheriesbyPaulrud,2004),whichfailstoreveal thetruthaboutthetotalbiodiversity.Thismaybeinsufficientto makereliablemanagementdecisions.

Asingleexplicitindicatoralone,providingthetotalvalueof bio-diversity,clearlydoesnotexist,butaselectionofabalancedsuiteof indicators(see,e.g.,themarinebiodiversityindicatorsoftheMSFD, discussedinSection3.1)isnecessary,thebestselectiondepending onthecontextandaimoftheenvironmentalmanagementcasein question(NunesandvandenBergh,2001).Wetherefore recom-mendtakingthefollowingstepswhenquantitativelyevaluating environmentalmanagementagainstbiodiversity:

(1)Clarify theenvironmentalmanagement problemtobe ana-lysed. For example, “How to minimise the environmental impactofincreasingoilshippingintheGulfofFinland?”would befurtherdefinedastwoseparatequestions:“Howtominimise

(8)

theprobabilityofoilspillsintheGulfofFinlandand,intheevent ofaspill,theecologicaleffectthespillislikelytohave?”(Helle etal.,2011;Lehikoinenetal.,2013;Jolmaetal.,2014). (2)Identifythealternativesolutions/management actionstobe

compared.Intheexampleabove,identifiedmanagement meas-uresarealsosplitintotwocategories:thosethatincreasethe safetyofoilshipping,andthosethatoptimisingtheoil recov-eryandpreventthepollutionofthemostimportantlocations intheeventofaspill.Thefirstcategoryincludestechnicaland navalchangessuchasdouble-hulls,pilotingobligations, win-ternavigationtrainingforcaptains,andchangesinfairwaysto avoidthemostdangerousoffragileareas(Soomereetal.,2011). Thesecondcategoryfocusesonone’sreadinesstorespondto accidentsinatimelyandoptimisedmanner,suchas choos-ingtheoptimaldistributionoftheoilcombattingvesselsalong thecoast(Lehikoinenetal.,2013),prioritisingthelocationsof oilbooms toprotect themostvulnerablespecies and areas (Helleet al.,2011), andchoosing whethertouseoil disper-sants,amongotherstrategies.Onemustdefinetheselectionof managementmeasurestoincludeintheassessmentprecisely andat allpossiblelevels(e.g.,doublehull obligation imple-mented/unimplemented;boomsplacedaccordingtoplansA, B,orC;etc.).

(3)Expressingthepotentialgainsandlossesintermsof biodiver-sity.Inthepresentexample,theecosystemcomponentsand areastobetakenintoconsiderationcouldincludethepotential mortalityofbirdorsealpopulations,theamountofoiled shore-lineandtheaffectedfloraandfauna,fishpopulationsthatmay beaffectedbydispersedoil,andspecificendangeredspeciesor populationsthatmaybeaffectedbythestrandedoil(e.g.,Ihaksi etal.,2011;Lecklinetal.,2011).Choosingvaluationapproaches toidentifythebestmanagementdecisionsdependsonthetype ofbiodiversitytobeanalysedandtheabundanceandquality ofavailabledata.Areeconomicvaluationdataavailableor,if not,cantheybeeasilyacquired?Areenoughdataavailable toevaluatebiodiversityindicatorvaluesreliably?Some bio-diversity componentscan bevalued economically basedon theirecosystemservicevalueorperceivedexistenceorbequest value,whereasothersmaybeunknowntosocietyatlargeand thereforebebetterevaluatedwithbiodiversityindicators.In addition,theexistenceofeconomicvaluationresultsand biodi-versityindicatorsrelevanttothecaseshouldbeascertainedand usedwhennecessary.Intheoilshippingexample,theoptimal suiteofvaluationmethodsmightincludetheecological indica-torapproachforendangeredspeciesandvulnerablehabitats, thedirecteconomicvaluationofdamagetothefishing indus-try,andtheindirecteconomicvaluationoftheperceivedvalue ofcharismaticspeciesorpopularrecreationareas.Inaddition, thecalculationsshouldreflectthedirectcostsofimplementing eachofthesemanagementmeasures.

(4)Decideanappropriatemethodforquantitativeanalysis.The choiceofthebestmodelforevaluatingmanagementoptions dependsonmanyfactors,including

(a)Thetimeframeoftheevaluation,aswellastherequired precisionoftheresults;apreciseresultthatistoolatefor thedecision-makingprocesshasnovalue.

(b)Theabundanceandqualityofexistingmodels.Canexisting modelsserveasinputorcanpartsofthedecisionsupport model?Dothemodelsprovidedinformationaboutthe vari-ablesweareinterestedinandintherelevantspatialand temporalscales?

(c)Theexistingresearch/literature.Cantheliteratureserveto findadditionalinformationtosupportandsupplementthe data?

(d)The area(s)ofanalysis.Thisaspectshouldbetakeninto accountinrelationtothepreviouspoints(a–c).Howmuch

andwhatkindofdatadowealreadyhavefromtheareaand howmanyresourcesareavailabletoconductfurther sam-pling?Whatkindsofmodelsorotherresultsdescribingthe areaareavailable?Cansomedata,modelsorresultsfrom correspondingareasbeexchanged,updatedorextrapolated andthusserveintheanalysisathand(seee.g.,Pulkkinen etal.,2011)?

Athoroughanalysisusingthesuggestedframework requires considerablemulti-disciplinarydataormodellingresultsfromboth theecologicalresponsesandtheeconomicvalueofbiodiversity aswellasthecostsofimplementingthemanagementmeasures. Becausethedecisionsupportmodelsmustbeabletoevaluatethe expectedresultsofthevariouscombinationsofmanagement meas-ures,manyofwhichhavenotyetbeenimplementedandabout which nodata yetexists, themodel must therefore beableto extrapolatesuchdata.Here,renderingtheextrapolatedresults use-fulwillrequirecarefulanalysisoftheassumptionsrelatedtothis extrapolation.

Theproposedapproachcan,inprinciple,servenotonlytovalue biodiversity,buttoevaluatethefull-scaleofenvironmental man-agement also.In practise, however,evaluating the full-scale of variousenvironmentalmanagementmeasuresandotheractivities affectingtheenvironmentandallitscomponentscouldleadtoa restrictivelycomplexmodel.Evaluatinglargeenvironmental man-agementprogrammesthataffectseveralecosystemsorecosystem components,suchastheambitious MSFDProgrammeof Meas-ures,willlikelyrequirepiecemealevaluation,firstbyidentifying themainpathsofeffectofeachmanagementmeasure,andthenby creatingmodelsforeachclusterofmeasuresandeffectsseparately. Theaimofenvironmentalmanagementistoachieveand main-tain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. This paperproposes an environmental management framework that recognises the importance of biodiversity. Realisingthe aimof environmental management requires one toconsider the comprehensive eco-logical status aswell asthe economic importanceof a healthy ecosystem. The common yardstick must be drawn in order to establishmoretransparentandsolidgroundsforacceptable envi-ronmentalmanagementpractices.

Acknowledgements

ThisworkwasconductedasapartoftheMIMICproject (Min-imisingrisksofmaritimeoiltransportbyholisticsafetystrategies) fundedbytheCentralBalticINTERREGIVAProgramme2007-2013 andtheTOPCONSproject(Transboundarytoolsforspatialplanning andconservationoftheGulfofFinland)fundedbytheSouth-East Finland–Russia ENPICBC 2007-2013 Programmeas wellasthe AcademyofFinland“SustainableGovernanceofAquaticResources” Programme(AKVA)andtheEconomicsofAquaticFoodwebs(ECA) project.TheworkofALwasalsopartlyfundedbytheHelsinki Uni-versityCentrefortheEnvironment(HENVI)inco-operationwith theFinnishEnvironmentalInstitute(SYKE).LUthanksthe partic-ipantsoftheDEVOTESproject(DEVelopmentOfinnovativeTools forunderstandingmarinebiodiversityandassessingGood Envi-ronmentalStatus),fundedbytheEuropeanUnionunderthe7th FrameworkProgramme,‘TheOceanofTomorrow’Theme(Grant AgreementNo.308392),http://www.devotesproject.eu/,fortheir helpfulandinspiringdiscussions.WealsothankPankajPant,whose commentsandsuggestionsimprovedthismanuscript.

References

Adger,W.N.,Brown,K.,Cervigni,R.,Moran,D.,1995.Totaleconomicvalueofforests inMexico.Ambio,286–296.

(9)

Admiraal,J.F.,Wossink,A.,deGroot,W.T.,deSnoo,G.R.,2013.Morethantotal eco-nomicvalue:howtocombineeconomicvaluationofbiodiversitywithecological resilience.Ecol.Econ.89,115–122.

Altartouri,A.,Ehrnsten,E.,Helle,I.,Venesjärvi,R.,Jolma,A.,2013.Geospatialweb ser-vicesforrespondingtoecologicalrisksposedbyoilspills.Photogr.Eng.Remote Sens.7910.

Appelblad,H.,2001.TheSpawningSalmonasaResourcebyRecreationalUse.The CaseofWildBalticSalmonandConditionsforAnglinginNorthSwedishRivers. DepartmentofSocialandEconomicGeography,UmeåUniversity.

Atkins,J.P.,Burdon,D.,Elliott,M.,Gregory,A.J.,2011.Managementofthemarine environment:integratingecosystemservicesandsocietalbenefitswiththe DPSIRframeworkinasystemsapproach.Mar.Pollut.Bull.62(2),215–226. Aubry,A.,Elliott,M.,2006.Theuseofenvironmentalintegrativeindicatorstoassess

seabeddisturbanceinestuariesandcoasts:applicationtotheHumberEstuary, UK.Mar.Pollut.Bull.53(1),175–185.

Baillie,J.,Groombridge,B.,Barden,A.,Cox,N.,Gray,B.,Stuart,S.,Sneary,M.,Johnson, T.,Reay,J.,1996.IUCNRedListofThreatenedAnimals.

Balmford,A.,Bruner,A.,Cooper,P.,Costanza,R.,Farber,S.,Green,R.E.,Turner, R.K.,2002.Economicreasonsforconservingwildnature.Science297(5583), 950–953.

Balvanera,P.,Siddique,I.,Dee,L.,Paquette,A.,Isbell,F.,Gonzalez,A.,Griffin,J.N., 2014.Linkingbiodiversityandecosystemservices:currentuncertaintiesand thenecessarynextsteps.Bioscience64(1),49–57.

Barbier,E.B.,Hacker,S.D.,Kennedy,C.,Koch,E.W.,Stier,A.C.,Silliman,B.R.,2011. Thevalueofestuarineandcoastalecosystemservices.Ecol.Monogr.81(2), 169–193.

Beaumont,N.J.,Austen,M.C.,Mangi,S.C.,Townsend,M.,2008.Economicvaluation fortheconservationofmarinebiodiversity.Mar.Pollut.Bull.56(3),386–396. Bertram,C.,Rehdanz,K.,2013.OntheenvironmentaleffectivenessoftheEUMarine

StrategyFrameworkDirective.Mar.Policy38,25–40.

Borja,A.,Franco,J.,Pérez,V.,2000.Amarinebioticindextoestablishthe eco-logicalqualityofsoft-bottombenthoswithinEuropeanestuarineandcoastal environments.Mar.Pollut.Bull.40(12),1100–1114.

Borja,A.,Galparsoro,I.,Solaun,O.,Muxika,I.,Tello,E.M.,Uriarte,A.,Valencia,V., 2006.TheEuropeanWaterFrameworkDirectiveandtheDPSIR,a methodologi-calapproachtoassesstheriskoffailingtoachievegoodecologicalstatus.Estuar. Coast.ShelfSci.66,84–96.

Borja,Á.,Dauer,D.M.,Grémare,A.,2012.Theimportanceofsettingtargetsand referenceconditionsinassessingmarineecosystemquality.Ecol.Indic.12(1), 1–7.

Boyd,J.,Banzhaf,S.,2007.Whatareecosystemservices?Theneedforstandardized environmentalaccountingunits.Ecol.Econ.63(2),616–626.

Brito,D.,2005.Theimportanceofsoundbiologicalinformationandtheoryfor ecologicaleconomicsstudiesvaluing Brazilian biodiversity:a response to Mendonc¸aetal.2003.Ecol.Econ.55(1),5–10.

BrownJr.,G.,Mendelsohn,R.,1984.Thehedonictravelcostmethod.Rev.Econ.Stat., 427–433.

Bräuer,I.,2003.Moneyasanindicator:tomakeuseofeconomicevaluationfor biodiversityconservation.Agric.Ecosyst.Environ.98(1),483–491.

Bulte,E.,VanKooten,G.C.,2000.Economicscience,endangeredspecies,and biodi-versityloss.Conserv.Biol.14(1),113–119.

Burgman,M.,2005.RisksandDecisionsforConservationandEnvironmental Man-agement.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.488.

Butt,N.,Beyer,H.L.,Bennett,J.R.,Biggs,D.,Maggini,R.,Mills,M.,Possingham,H.P., 2013.Biodiversityrisksfromfossilfuelextraction.Science342(6157),425–426. Butchart,S.H.,Walpole,M.,Collen,B.,vanStrien,A.,Scharlemann,J.P.,Almond,R.E., Watson,R.,2010.Globalbiodiversity:indicatorsofrecentdeclines.Science328 (5982),1164–1168.

Böhnke-Henrichs,A.,Baulcomb,C.,Koss,R.,Hussain,S.S., deGroot,R.S.,2013. Typologyandindicatorsofecosystemservicesformarinespatialplanningand management.J.Environ.Manage.130,135–145.

Campbell,A.K.,2003.Savethosemolecules!Molecularbiodiversityandlife.J.Appl. Ecol.40(2),193–203.

Cardinale,B.J.,Duffy,J.E.,Gonzalez,A.,Hooper,D.U.,Perrings,C.,Venail,P.,Naeem, S.,2012.Biodiversitylossanditsimpactonhumanity.Nature486(7401),59–67. CardosodeMendonc¸a,M.J.,Sachsida,A.,Loureiro,P.R.,2003.Astudyonthevaluing ofbiodiversity:thecaseofthreeendangeredspeciesinBrazil.Ecol.Econ.46(1), 9–18.

Carstensen,J.,Sánchez-Camacho,M.,Duarte,C.M.,Krause-Jensen,D.,Marbà,N., 2011.Connectingthedots:responsesofcoastalecosystemstochangingnutrient concentrations.Environ.Sci.Technol.45(21),9122–9132.

Chow,C.C.,Sarin,R.K.,2002.Known,unknownandunknowableuncertainties. The-oryDecis.52,127–138.

Christensen,N.L.,Bartuska,A.M.,Brown,J.H.,Carpenter,S.,D’Antonio,C.,Francis, R.,Woodmansee,R.G.,1996.ThereportoftheEcologicalSocietyofAmerica committeeonthescientificbasisforecosystemmanagement.Ecol.Appl.6(3), 665–691.

Christie,M.,Hanley,N.,Warren,J.,Murphy,K.,Wright,R.,Hyde,T.,2006.Valuing thediversityofbiodiversity.Ecol.Econ.58(2),304–317.

Christie,M.,Rayment,M.,2012.Aneconomicassessmentoftheecosystemservice benefitsderivedfromtheSSSIbiodiversityconservationpolicyinEnglandand Wales.Ecosyst.Serv.1(1),70–84.

Christie,M.,Fazey,I.,Cooper,R.,Hyde,T.,Kenter,J.O.,2012.Anevaluationof mone-taryandnon-monetarytechniquesforassessingtheimportanceofbiodiversity andecosystemservicestopeopleincountrieswithdevelopingeconomies.Ecol. Econ.83,67–78.

Collen,B.,Loh,J.,Whitmee,S.,McRae,L.,Amin,R.,Baillie,J.E.,2008.Monitoring changeinvertebrateabundance:thelivingplanetindex.Conserv.Biol.23(2), 317–327.

Cooper,P.2012.TheDPSWRSocial-EcologicalAccountingFramework:Notesonits DefinitionandApplication.PolicyBriefNo.3.EUFP7KNOWSEASProject.ISBN: 0-9529089-5-6.

Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,DeGroot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,VandenBelt, M.,1997.Thevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesandnaturalcapital.Nature 387(6630),253–260.

Czekanowski, J.,1909. ZurdifferentialDiagnoseder Neandertalgruppe. Korre-spondenzblattderdeutschenGesellschaftfurAnthropologie.Ethnologieund Urgeschichte40,44–47.

Derous,S.,Agardy,T.,Hillewaert,H.,Hostens,K.,Jamieson,G.,Lieberknecht,L., Degraer,S.,2007.Aconceptforbiologicalvaluationinthemarineenvironment. Oceanologia49(1).

Desvousges,W.H.,Gable,A.R.,Dunford,R.W.,Hudson,S.P.,1993.Contingent valua-tion:thewrongtooltomeasurepassive-uselosses.Choices8(2),9–11. Duarte,C.M.,Conley,D.J.,Carstensen,J.,Sánchez-Camacho,M.,2009.Returnto

Nev-erland:shiftingbaselinesaffecteutrophicationrestorationtargets.Estuar.Coast. 32(1),29–36,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9111-2.

Duffy,J.E.,Cardinale,B.J.,France,K.E.,McIntyre,P.B.,Thébault,E.,Loreau,M.,2007. Thefunctionalroleofbiodiversityinecosystems:incorporatingtrophic com-plexity.Ecol.Lett.10(6),522–538.

Dwyer,L.,2006.InternationalHandbookontheEconomicsofTourism.EdwardElgar Publishing.

Elliott,M.,2011.Marinescienceandmanagementmeanstacklingexogenic unman-agedpressuresandendogenicmanagedpressures—anumberedguide.Mar. Pollut.Bull.62(4),651–655.

Elliott,M.,2013.The10-tenetsforintegrated,successfulandsustainablemarine management.Mar.Pollut.Bull.74(1),1–5.

EuropeanCommission,2008.Directive2008/56/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentand oftheCouncilestablishingaframeworkforcommunityactioninthefieldof marineenvironmentalpolicy(MarineStrategyFrameworkDirective).Off.J.Eur. Un.L164,19–40.

EUCOMMISSIONDECISIONoncriteriaandmethodologicalstandardsongood envi-ronmentalstatusofmarinewaters.(2010/477/EU).

Féral,J.P.,2002.Howusefularethegeneticmarkersinattemptstounderstandand managemarinebiodiversity?J.Exp.Mar.Biol.Ecol.268(2),121–145. Fisher,B.,Turner,K.R.,2008.Ecosystemservices:classificationforvaluation.Biol.

Conserv.141(5),1167–1169.

Folke,C.,Holling,C.S.,Perrings,C.,1996.Biologicaldiversity,ecosystems,andthe humanscale.Ecol.Appl.,1018–1024.

Forman,R.,Collinge,S.,1997.Natureconservedinchanginglandscapeswithand withoutspatialplanning.LandscapeUrbanPlan.37(1/2),129–135.

Fromm,O.,2000.Ecologicalstructureandfunctionsofbiodiversityaselementsof itstotaleconomicvalue.Environ.Resour.Econ.16(3),303–328.

Geijzendorffer,I.R.,Roche,P.K.,2013.Canbiodiversitymonitoringschemesprovide indicatorsforecosystemservices?Ecol.Indic.33,148–157.

Geneletti,D.,2008.Incorporatingbiodiversityassetsinspatialplanning: method-ologicalproposalanddevelopmentofaplanningsupportsystem.Landscape UrbanPlan.84(3–4),252–265.

Graves,P.E.,2013.EnvironmentalEconomics:AnIntegratedApproach.CRCPress. Gray,J.S.,2000.Themeasurementofmarinespeciesdiversity,withanapplication

tothebenthicfaunaoftheNorwegiancontinentalshelf.J.Exp.Mar.Biol.Ecol. 250(1),23–49.

Gregory,A.J.,Atkins,J.P.,Burdon,D.,Elliott,M.,2013.Aproblemstructuringmethod forecosystem-basedmanagement:TheDPSIRmodellingprocess.Eur.J.Oper. Res.227,558–569.

Gren,M.,2013.TheeconomicvalueofcoastalwatersasnutrientfiltersfortheBaltic Sea.Reg.Environ.Change,1–9.

Gubbay,S.,2004.AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalIndicatorsReportingon Bio-diversityAspectsofEcosystemHealth.RoyalSocietyfortheProtectionofBirds, Sandy,UnitedKingdom.

Haab,T.C.,McConnell,K.E.,2002.ValuingEnvironmentalandNaturalResources:The EconometricsofNon-MarketValuation.EdwardElgarPublishing,Cheltenham, UnitedKingdom.

Hajkowicz,S.,2007.Canweputapricetagonnature?Rethinkingapproachesto environmentalvaluation.Aust.J.Environ.Manage.14(1),22–26.

Hanemann,W.M.,1994.Valuingtheenvironmentthroughcontingentvaluation.J. Econ.Perspect.,19–43.

Hanley,N.,Mourato,S.,Wright,R.E.,2001.Choicemodellingapproaches:Asuperior alternativeforenvironmentalvaluation?J.Econ.Surv.15(3),435–462. Harper,J.L.,Hawksworth,D.L.,1995.Preface.In:Hawksworth,D.L.(Ed.),

Biodiver-sity:MeasurementandEstimation.ChapmanandHall,London,pp.5–12. Hattam,C.,Atkins,J.P.,Beaumont,N.,Börger,T.,Böhnke-Henrichs,A.,Burdon,D.,

Groot,R.d.,Hoefnagel,E.,Nunes,P.A.L.D.,Piwowarczyk,J.,Sastre,S.,Austen, M.C.,2015.Marineecosystemservices:linkingindicatorstotheirclassification. Ecol.Indic.49,61–75.

Hausman,J.,2012.Contingentvaluation:fromdubioustohopeless.J.Econ.Perspect., 43–56.

Hector,A.,Bagchi,R.,2007.Biodiversityandecosystemmultifunctionality.Nature 448(7150),188–190.

Heip,C.H.R.,Herman,P.M.J.,Soetaert,K.,1998.Indicesofdiversityandevenness. Institutoceanographique24(4),61–87.

HELCOM,2013.HELCOMcoreindicators:FinalreportoftheHELCOMCORESET project,BalticSeaEnvironmentProceedingsNo.136.

(10)

Helle,I.,Lecklin,T.,Jolma,A.,Kuikka,S.,2011.Modelingtheeffectivenessofoil combatingfromanecologicalperspective—aBayesiannetworkfortheGulfof Finland;theBalticSea.J.Hazard.Mater.185(1),182–192.

Hill,M.O.,1973.Diversityandevenness:aunifyingnotationanditsconsequences. Ecology54(2),427–432.

Ihaksi,T.,Kokkonen,T.,Helle,I.,Jolma,A.,Lecklin,T.,Kuikka,S.,2011.Combining conservationvalue,vulnerability,andeffectivenessofmitigationactionsin spa-tialconservationdecisions:anapplicationtocoastaloilspillcombating.Environ. Manage.47(5),802–813.

Jensen,F.V.,Nielsen,T.D.,2007.BayesianNetworksandDecisionGraphs,2ndedition. Springer–Verlag,NewYork,pp.463.

Jobstvogt,N.,Hanley,N.,Hynes,S.,Kenter,J.,Witte,U.,2014.Twentythousand ster-lingunderthesea:estimatingthevalueofprotectingdeep-seabiodiversity. Ecol.Econ.97,10–19.

Jolma,A.,Lehikoinen,A., Helle,I.,Venesjärvi,R.,2014. Asoftwaresystem for assessingthespatiallydistributedecologicalriskposedbyoilshipping.Environ. Model.Softw.61,1–11.

Justus,J.,Colyvan,M.,Regan,H.,Maguire,L.,2009.Buyingintoconservation:intrinsic versusinstrumentalvalue.TrendsEcol.Evol.24(4),187–191.

Keeney,R.L.,1982.Featurearticle—decisionanalysis:anoverview.Oper.Res.30(5), 803–838.

Kiker,G.A.,Bridges,T.S.,Varghese,A.,Seager,T.P.,Linkov,I.,2005.Applicationof mul-ticriteriadecisionanalysisinenvironmentaldecisionmaking.Integr.Environ. Assess.Manage.1(2),95–108.

Kokkonen,T.,Ihaksi,T.,Jolma,A.,Kuikka,S.,2010.Dynamicmappingofnaturevalues tosupportprioritizationofcoastaloilcombating.Environ.Model.Softw.25(2), 248–257.

Kremen,C.,2005.Managingecosystemservices:whatdoweneedtoknowabout theirecology?Ecol.Lett.8(5),468–479.

Laikre,L.,Larsson,L.C.,Palmé,A.,Charlier,J.,Josefsson,M.,Ryman,N.,2008. Poten-tialsformonitoringgenelevelbiodiversity:usingSweden asanexample. Biodivers.Conserv.17(4),893–910.

Lamarque,P.,Quetier,F.,Lavorel,S.,2011.Thediversityoftheecosystemservices conceptanditsimplicationsfortheirassessmentandmanagement.Compter RendusBiol.344,441–449.

Lecklin,T.,Ryömä,R.,Kuikka,S.,2011.ABayesiannetworkforanalyzingbiological acuteandlong-termimpactsofanoilspillintheGulfofFinland.Mar.Pollut. Bull.62(12),2822–2835.

Legendre,P.,Borcard,D.,Peres-Neto,P.R.,2005.Analyzingbetadiversity: partition-ingthespatialvariationofcommunitycompositiondata.Ecol.Monogr.75(4), 435–450.

Lehikoinen,A.,Luoma,E.,M ¨antyniemi,S.,Kuikka,S.,2013.Optimizingtherecovery efficiencyofFinnishoilcombatingvesselsintheGulfofFinlandusingBayesian networks.Environ.Sci.Technol.47(4),1792–1799.

Lehikoinen,A.,Helle,I.,Klemola,E.,Mäntyniemi,S.,Kuikka,S.,Pitkänen,H.,2014. Evaluatingtheimpactofnutrientabatementmeasuresontheecologicalstatus ofcoastalwaters:aBayesiannetworkfordecisionanalysis.J.Multicrit.Decis. Mak.4(2),114–134.

Lehikoinen,A.2014.BayesianNetworkapplicationsforenvironmentalrisk assess-ment.

Lindberg,D.R.,Estes,J.A.,Warheit,K.I.,1998.Humaninfluencesontrophiccascades alongrockyshores.Ecol.Appl.8(3),880–890.

Loh,J.,Green, R.E.,Ricketts, T.,Lamoreux, J., Jenkins,M.,Kapos, V., Randers, J.,2005. Thelivingplanet index: usingspeciespopulation time series to tracktrends in biodiversity.Philos.Trans.R. Soc. BBiol. Sci. 360(1454), 289–295.

Loomis,J.B.,Larson,D.M.,1994.Totaleconomicvaluesofincreasinggraywhale populations:resultsfromacontingentvaluationsurveyofvisitorsand house-holds.Mar.Resour.Econ.9(3),275–286.

Loomis,J.B.,White,D.S.,1996.Economicbenefitsofrareandendangeredspecies: summaryandmeta-analysis.Ecol.Econ.18(3),197–206.

Loomis,J.,Kent,P.,Strange,L.,Fausch,K.,Covich,A.,2000.Measuringthetotal eco-nomicvalueofrestoringecosystemservicesinanimpairedriverbasin:results fromacontingentvaluationsurvey.Ecol.Econ.33(1),103–117.

Loomis,J.,2011.What’stoknowabouthypotheticalbiasinstatedpreference valu-ationstudies?J.Econ.Surv.25(2),363–370.

Lotze,H.K.,Lenihan,H.S.,Bourque,B.J.,Bradbury,R.H.,Cooke,R.G.,Kay,M.C.,Jackson, J.B.,2006.Depletion,degradation,andrecoverypotentialofestuariesandcoastal seas.Science312(5781),1806–1809.

Lovejoy,T.E.,1980.Changesinbiologicaldiversity.In:TheGlobal2000Report tothePresident.In:Barney,G.O.(Ed.),Thetechnicalreport,2.Penguin, Har-mondsworth,UnitedKingdom,pp.327–332,http://www.geraldbarney.com/ Global2000Report/G2000-Eng-GPO/G2000VolTwo.pdf.

MA,2005.MillenniumEcosystemAssessment.EcosystemsandHumanWell-Being. IslandPress,Washington,DC.

Mace,G.M.,Norris,K.,Fitter,A.H.,2012.Biodiversityandecosystemservices:a multilayeredrelationship.TrendsEcol.Evol.27(1),19–26.

Magurran,A.E.,2004.MeasuringBiologicalDiversity.Blackwell,Oxford,United Kingdom.

Martín-López,B.,Montes,C.,Benayas,J.,2007.Thenon-economicmotivesbehind thewillingnesstopayforbiodiversityconservation.Biol.Conserv.139(1), 67–82.

Martín-López,B.,Iniesta-Arandia,I.,García-Llorente,M.,Palomo,I.,Casado-Arzuaga, I.,Del Amo,D.G.,Montes,C.,2012.Uncoveringecosystem servicebundles throughsocialpreferences.PLoSONE7(6),e38970.

Martínez,A.C.,García-Llorente,M.,Martín-López,B.,Palomo,I.,Iniesta-Arandia,I., 2013.Multidimensionalapproachesinecosystemservicesassessment.Earth Observ.Ecosyst.Serv.,441.

Mascia,M.B.,Brosius,J.P.,Dobson,T.A.,Forbes,B.C.,Horowitz,L.,McKean,M.A., Turner,N.J.,2003.Conservationandthesocialsciences.Conserv.Biol.17(3), 649–650.

Maxim,L.,Spangenberg,J.H.,O’Connor,M.,2009.Ananalysisofrisksforbiodiversity undertheDPSIRframework.Ecol.Econ.69,12–23.

McClanahan,T.R.,2010.Effectsoffisheriesclosuresandgearrestrictionsonfishing incomeinaKenyancoralreef.Conserv.Biol.24(6),1519–1528.

Mikkelsen,P.M.,Cracraft,J.,2001.Marinebiodiversityandtheneedforsystematic inventories.Bull.Mar.Sci.69(2),525–534.

Mitchell,R.C.,Carson,R.T.,1989.Usingsurveystovaluepublicgoods:thecontingent valuationmethod.Resour.Future.

MSFD(MarineStrategyFrameworkDirective),2008.Directive2008/56/ECofthe EuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof17June2008establishinga frame-workforcommunityactioninthefieldofmarineenvironmentalpolicy. Murphy,J.J.,Allen,P.G.,Stevens,T.H.,Weatherhead,D.,2005.Ameta-analysisof

hypotheticalbiasinstatedpreferencevaluation.Environ.Resour.Econ.30, 313–325,NationalOceanicandAtmospheric.

Navrud,S., 2001.Economicvaluation ofinland recreationalfisheries: empiri-cal studiesand their policy usein Norway.Fish. Manage.Ecol. 8(4–5), 369–382.

Nicholson,E.,Collen,B.,Barausse,A.,Blanchard,J.L.,Costelloe,B.T.,Sullivan,K.M., Milner-Gulland,E.J.,2012.Makingrobustpolicydecisionsusingglobal biodiver-sityindicators.PLoSONE7(7),e41128.

Nieto-Romero,M.,Oteros-Rozas,E.,González,J.A.,Martín-López,B.,2014.Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediter-raneanagroecosystems:insightsforfutureresearch.Environ.Sci.Policy37, 121–133.

Nijkamp,P.,Vindigni,G.,Nunes,P.A.,2008.Economicvaluationofbiodiversity:a comparativestudy.Ecol.Econ.67(2),217–231.

Norse,E.A.,Rosenbaum,K.L.,Wilcove,D.S.,Wilcox,B.A.,Romme,W.H.,Johnston, D.W.,Stout,M.L.,1986.ConservingBiologicalDiversityinOurNationalForests. TheWildernessSociety,Washington,DC.

Nunes,P.A.,vandenBergh,J.C.,2001.Economicvaluationofbiodiversity:senseor nonsense?Ecol.Econ.39(2),203–222.

Nunes,P.A.,2002.Usingfactoranalysistoidentifyconsumerpreferencesforthe protectionofanaturalareainPortugal.Eur.J.Oper.Res.140(2),499–516. Nunes,P.A.,Onofri,L.,2004.TheProfileofa“warm-glower”:ANoteonConsumer’s

BehaviorandPublicPolicyImplications.FondazioneENIEnricoMattei. Nunes,P.A.,Schokkaert,E.,2003.Identifyingthewarmgloweffectincontingent

valuation.J.Environ.Econ.Manage.45(2),231–245.

Oliver,I.,Parkes,D.,2003.APrototypeToolkitforScoringtheBiodiversityBenefits ofLandUseChange.NSWDepartmentofInfrastructurePlanningandNatural Resources,Parramatta,pp.40.

OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment),2002.Handbook ofBiodiversityValuation:AGuideforPolicyMakers.OECDPublishing. Opaluch,J.J.,Grigalunas,T.,Diamantides,J.,Mazzotta,M.,Johnston,R.,1999.

Recre-ationalandResourceEconomicValuesforthePeconicEstuarySystem,Report preparedforthePeconicEstuaryProgram,SuffolkCountyDepartmentofHealth Services,Riverhead,NYbyEconomicAnalysis,Inc.

OxfordEconomics,2009.ValuingtheeffectsofGreatBarrierReefBleaching.Great BarrierReefFoundation,Brisbane.

Pagiola,S.,VonRitter,K.,Bishop,J.,2004.AssessingtheEconomicValueofEcosystem Conservation.TheWorldBank,EnvironmentDepartment,Washington,DC. Pandolfi,J.M.,Bradbury,R.H.,Sala,E.,Hughes,T.P.,Bjorndal,K.A.,Cooke,R.G.,Jackson,

J.B.,2003.Globaltrajectoriesofthelong-termdeclineofcoralreefecosystems. Science301(5635),955–958.

Parkes,D.,Newell,G.,Cheal,D.,2003.Assessingthequalityofnativevegetation:the ‘habitathectares’approach.Ecol.Manage.Restor.4(s1),S29–S38.

Parkkila, K., 2005. Simojoen lohen saalismäärän lisääntymisen taloudellinen arviointicontingentvaluation-menetelmällä.Progradu–tutkielma.University ofHelsinki,Taloustieteenlaitos(inFinnish).

Parr,T.W.,Sier,A.R.,Battarbee,R.W.,Mackay,A.,Burgess,J.,2003.Detecting envi-ronmentalchange:scienceandsociety—perspectivesonlong-termresearchand monitoringinthe21stcentury.Sci.TotalEnviron.310(1),1–8.

Pascual,M.,Borja,A.,Eede,S.V.,Deneudt,K.,Vincx,M.,Galparsoro,I.,Legorburu,I., 2011.MarinebiologicalvaluationmappingoftheBasquecontinentalshelf(Bay ofBiscay),withinthecontextofmarinespatialplanning.Estuar.Coast.ShelfSci. 95(1),186–198.

Paulrud,A.,2004.EconomicValuationofSport-FishinginSweden:Empirical Find-ingsandMethodologicalDevelopments.ActaUniversitatisAgriculturaeSueciae, Silvestria323.Doctoralthesis.Swedish UniversityofAgriculturalSciences, Umeå.

Pauly,D.,Christensen,V.,Dalsgaard,J.,Froese,R.,Torres,F.,1998.Fishingdown marinefoodwebs.Science279(5352),860–863.

Pauly,D.,Watson,R.,2005.Backgroundandinterpretationofthe‘MarineTrophic Index’asameasureofbiodiversity.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.BBiol.Sci.360(1454), 415–423.

Pearce,D.,2001.Valuingbiologicaldiversity:issuesandoverview.Valuat.Biodivers. Stud.,27.

Pearce,D.D.W.,Moran,D.,1994.Theeconomicvalueofbiodiversity.Earthscan. Petchey,O.L.,Gaston,K.J.,2002.Functionaldiversity(FD),speciesrichnessand

Figure

Updating...

Related subjects :