Multi-criteria Assessment of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: New Dimensions and Stakeholders in the South of France

Stanislav Shmelev ()

QEH Working Papers from Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford

Abstract: This paper summarises research undertaken to develop a methodology for multi-criteria assessment of biodiversity which takes into account a multitude of criteria and stakeholder perspectives. The proposed methodology will be of particular value for developing countries, where conflicts of interest regarding ecosystems and biodiversity are numerous and often involve businesses, government, local residents, and other stakeholders. The article reviews the state of the art in the field of multi-criteria methods and assessment of ecosystems and biodiversity. It presents the results of analytical work undertaken on the basis of interviews carried out in the Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (PACA) region of France, focusing on biodiversity in the Reserve Naturelle Coussouls de Crau. The paper addresses three main issues: selection of the multi-criteria assessment method, selection of the assessment criteria, and a comparison of stakeholder interests in the context of biodiversity analysis. Identification of potential decision criteria was based on a survey of key stakeholders, namely Management of the Reserve Naturelle Coussouls de Crau; Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, a national biodiversity research institution; the Laissez-faire Association, protecting the interests of the agricultural community; CDC Biodiversite (a branch of Caisse des Depots), a group carrying out long-term investments in the public interest; and Direction regionale de l'environnement Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (DIREN-PACA). Based on these interviews, 14 ecological, nine economic, and 12 social criteria were identified. Further analysis revealed very few points of overlap among the interests of the stakeholders, which complicates the case for consensus building. Not accepting the idea that the value of ecosystems and biodiversity can be expressed in monetary terms, the author suggests an alternative, more inclusive approach, focusing on multiple social, economic, and ecological dimensions of ecosystem value, and illustrates the existence of divergent interests among the stakeholders. This experience would be particularly useful in situations where local communities have to defend their right to a clean environment and preserve important virgin ecosystems for the future generations.

References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://workingpapers.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/qehwps/qehwps181.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 500 Can't connect to workingpapers.qeh.ox.ac.uk:80 (A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:qeh:qehwps:qehwps181

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in QEH Working Papers from Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford Queen Elizabeth House 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB United Kingdom. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by IT Support ().