Search

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods has been promoted as an alternative approach to monetary economic valuation of ecosystem services in Cost-Benefit Analysis framework (CBA). We discuss the potential of MCDA in providing a framework for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. We conclude that MCDA does in general perform better than CBA and associated monetary valuation techniques in several aspects that are essential in ecosystem service valuation. These include the ability of a valuation method to account for multiple dimensions of well-being, including ecological and economic as well as cultural and moral aspects of a policy or management problem and to facilitate open and transparent public debate on the pros and cons of alternative courses of action, including the distribution of gains and losses across beneficiaries of ecosystem services. The capacity of MCDA to articulate values related to ecosystem services depends on individual methods used in the MCDA process. More importantly, it depends of the ways in which the process is organized and facilitated. However, MCDA cannot provide representative information of the values of wider population. Further empirical and theoretical research is needed on the potential of hybrid methodologies to combine monetary valuation and MCDA in fruitful ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• People placed little value on energy peat, biodiversity was regarded as the most important ecosystem service. • Carbon storage was a difficult concept for discrete choice experiment respondents. • Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis was helpful in structuring the analysis. • Deliberative valuation contributed to leaning on ecosystem services. • Full integration between valuation methods based on different understanding of rationality is problematic. This paper presents a multi-method valuation study using discrete choice experiment, participatory multi-criteria decision analysis and deliberative citizens' panels to evaluate the value of peatland ecosystem services in southern Finland. All three valuation studies addressed the same scenarios and drew on the same biophysical assessment data to facilitate a comparison of the valuation processes as well as the results. The results indicate that people place high value on regulating and cultural ecosystem services, especially on biodiversity, and less value on energy peat. The experiences sustain the argument that learning is important as people rarely have ordered set of preferences for unfamiliar objects like regulating services. They also illustrate the scope of citizen and consumer preferences and support the assumptions that preferences may change as a result of well-informed group deliberation. In terms of integration, the lesson learned is that regardless of the preference elicitation method, all valuation studies would benefit from structured and participatory approach when defining the scenarios as well as attributes and their levels. Furthermore, full integration is not possible among different valuation methods, which can be conceptualized as value articulating institutions, operating under different rationalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controversy between alternative uses of forests in Finnish Upper Lapland has been going on for decades, and in recent years it has been escalated to a serious conflict. The core of the conflict is the adverse impacts of forestry on old forests which are important grazing areas for reindeer and which are regarded as intact nature and wilderness areas. This paper describes the experiences of applying multi-criteria decision analysis interview approach on this conflict. The approach provides tools for structuring the problem and preferences of the stakeholders as well as for analyzing the effects of different alternatives in a common framework. We focus on the practical experiences gained from the application of this approach in this context. Multi-criteria decision analysis was found to be a useful approach to evaluate the economic, ecological and cultural aspects of this intense conflict. The obtained experiences also support the view that the approach works best when tightly integrated into the planning process. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Analysis of using the ES classification as the basis of an MCDA value tree. • Several potential pitfalls when building a value tree on the ES classification. • The ES classification can be used to support building a value tree but not as such. • Results illustrated with experience from a peat extraction case in Finland. The Ecosystem Service concept is a widely used framework to examine the links between the functioning of ecosystems and human well-being. There is a broad range of ecosystem services, which are often classified hierarchically as provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), an approach for analyzing complex problems that involve trade-offs between multiple objectives, has increasingly been applied in the ecosystem service context. In MCDA, a problem is typically represented hierarchically as a value tree, which resembles the hierarchical structure of the ecosystem service classifications. However, in practice, there are several potential pitfalls that could distort the analysis, if some commonly used ecosystems service classification was directly used as the basis of an MCDA value tree. In this paper, we discuss these potential pitfalls and how to avoid them. Our discussion is illustrated with experience from a case study focusing on the ecosystem services provided by the peatlands in Finland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]