Challenges in using valuation in ecosystem-based management in a marine context: the case of UK Marine Protected Area designation - Ocean Sustainability in the 21st Century

Geoscience Reference

In-Depth Information

7.3.2 Approach and outcomes

The methodology is split into the following elements: (1) defining a typology of ecosystem

services and estimating aggregate values for these services typologies: ecosystem services

and the biophysical structures and processes in the marine ecosystem that deliver these ser-

vices; (2) biophysical framework; (3) biophysical impact scoring - BAU versus MCZ im-

plementation - per habitat type; (4) assessing individual estimates of the value of the change

per ecosystem service/habitat type; (5) aggregation.

Each element is treated in turn in the sections that follow. The methodology and results

arediscussedtogetherforeachsubsectionforeaseofexposition,asthemethodologicalsteps

are arguably more discernible and 'concrete' if outcomes are presented at each stage.

7.3.2.1 Defining typologies and estimating the value of aggregate service

provisioning

Section 7.2 discussed typologies of ecosystem services. The typology adopted for the MCZ

case study in Hussain et al . ( 2010 ) is based on Beaumont et al . ( 2006 ) and is summarized

in Table 7.2 . Note that the list of 11 ecosystem services is a sub-set of the 22 services in

TEEB ( 2010 ) . Although a theoretical case can be made for the inclusion of other ecosys-

tem services to supplement those in Beaumont et al . ( 2006 ) , in pragmatic terms the typology

is fit for purpose in that the designation of the service within the typology affects policy if

and only if a value can be estimated, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Further, in policy

terms a management option must feasibly be able to change provisioning.

Table 7.2 Marine ecosystem services - categories, definitions, and values in 2007 (after Beaumont et al .,

2006 ; Hussain et al ., 2010 )

Ecosystem