Cases analysis and presentation

The criteria used to describe the methods (lines in the table) follow closely what have been presented as core dimensions of VAIs (Vatn, 2005). In order to facilitate the discussion in the rest of the analysis, one letter (A, B, C, D) is attributed to each case, as presented in the table.

140 Table 2 – Case studies comparison based on core the dimensions of VAI.

Case studies Holmes et al. (2004) - A James and Blamey (2005) - B Messner et al. (2006) - C Proctor and Drechsler (2003) - D

Issues tackled by the study: ES are generally unaccounted which causes ecosystem degradation. CBA important for DM to gauge the economic efficiency of projects.

Issues on the region: impacts of human uses (agriculture and urban

development), on the natural

environment along the Little Tennessee River (LTR), North Carolina.

Method: CV/CBA: determine which scale of restoration would provide the greatest benefits.

Issues tackled by the study: Incorporating community values into environmental DM;potential to overcome limits of CV (levels of information and deliberation) by citizen’s Jury (CJ)

Issues on the region: Management of national parks (5 different categories of parks managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service) in the most populous state of Australia: New South Wales

Method: DMV; research application of the citizen’s jury (CJ) technique to economic valuation

Issues tackled by the study: lack of consideration for stakeholders in DM, scientific difficulties of dealing with uncertainties and complexity, methodological flaws of CBA

Issues on the region: Water allocation conflict between locations (upstream/ downstream) and user types (federal, states, energy, mining, fish-farming, water utilities, tourism associations…) Method: Integrated Methodological Approach (IMA) combining CBA and MCA as 2 phases of the same process and participation for large scale DM; improve de quality of DM through advances in competence and fairness

Issues tackled by the study: identifying and prioritizing ecosystem services;

decide upon a suitable option for the management of tourism and recreation activities

Issues on the region: Annual influx of tourists causing severe environmental problems, partly related to water issues with influences on downstream users.

Method: Deliberative multicriteria evaluation: combining advantages provided by the MCA structure and advantages of deliberation in a CJ framing

Elements under

ES: habitat for fish (abundance of game fish), habitat for wildlife (in buffer zones), erosion control and water purification (clarity), recreational uses (allowable water uses), ecosystem integrity (index of naturalness)

Five major national park management activities: fire management (number of parks with good fire management), weed control (area controlled per year), feral animal control (area controlled per year),

maintenance of visitor facilities (proportion well-maintained) and management of historic sites (number of well-protected sites)

Long term variations (50 years) of economical benefits for fish-farming; lake-tourism; public water management; lake water treatment and of ecological indicators (mean water availability for minimum flow, average water flow for Berlin and for Spreewald). This is done for 5 alternatives and two scenarios, one taking into account climate change.

ES: water quality and quantity, biodiversity, sediment filtration, erosion control, nutrient management, shading, stream health, aesthetics; social and cultural dimensions: public access, jobs, cultural heritage of sites, education;

economic costs and benefits; measured through various indicators, or

Two types of focus groups: with experts to characterize relationships between ecosystems and their services and select indicators, and with citizens to design CV surveys. 96 respondents

(consumers) to CV survey (statistical adjustment to the regional population).

CJ composed of 13 randomly selected jurors through phone surveys following

stratification rules (ensure representativeness of the regional population). 5 witnesses with particular expertise in each management activity and 2 witnesses on national park management assisted the jury. The jury met over 3 days (preparation, presentations and deliberation).

20 interviews with authorities and snow ball system to identify relevant stakeholders, to prepare scenarios and criteria, and raise awareness of global change issues. Group talk with one stakeholder group (cross-state group) around CBA (mono-criteria valuation).

Discussion of intermediate results with stakeholders. Final group talk with all

stakeholders, where the objective is to arrive at a compromise over the weights.

Workshops and questionnaires previous to jury. Stakeholder’s Jury with natural resource managers⁴⁶ already involved in a larger project. 4 witnesses (local water authority, local ski resort, state natural resource management, and a member of local parliamentary council) and a judge (community psychologist) assisted the jury during one day.

46 The authors do not specify how many jurors were present, but state that in a CJ in general, 10 to 20 jurors are invited

141 photographs and maps and specific biding structure.

Expressed WTP represent the benefits associated with each restoration scale, while costs estimated on the basis of similar projects implemented in the region. Net benefits, associated with marginal changes in ES provision.

Deliberation and debates with witnesses.

Debates and argumentation around current management practices, compared to alternatives options, complemented by qualitative suggestions.

Individual WTP, understood as the maximum amount the citizens can be charged for the given environmental improvement.

Documentation. Interviews. Modeling. Group talks. Co-production of alternatives strategies with DM, selection of criteria by scientists based on previous interviews and data availability.

Calculation and ranking (compared to current situation) of net benefits criteria and ecological criteria depending on alternatives under two development scenarios. Individual preferences through weights pre-identified by interviews and discussed in group talk. Analysis of preferences (trade-offs) and future uncertainties.

Preliminary phase (workshops and questionnaires): development of management options, decision criteria, preliminary rankings and impact matrix.

Arguments and debates around issues presented by witnesses. Identification and aggregation of jurors preferences (weights). Use of software (ProDecX) to screen and discuss weights and outcomes.

Sensitivity analysis posterior to the jury.

Valuation

Study of historical characteristics of the region. Study of costs sharing (public funds and landowners) to implement restoration. Implementation of 2 FG types and CV survey design.

Computerized CV. Statistical analysis.

CBA.

- Aggregation -

The jurors were presented two charges: under charge 1, jurors had to reach a consensus over 3 different options of management activities.

Consensus over status quo was reached.

Under the second charge, another option was presented: improvement of all activities in counter-part of a tax. No consensus was reached but a voting was applied.

- Consensus and voting -

Documentation about history. Two rounds of interviews to identify stakeholders, development scenarios and alternatives. Modeling of climate change impacts and calculation of alternatives impacts in economic and ecological terms. First phase of participatory CBA with ranking of alternatives. Interviews to identify stakeholder’s preferences (weights). Deliberative outranking MCA: compromise over weights and subsequent alternative. Iterative process with new

alternatives if no consensus is reached.

- Aggregation and weighting by consensus -

Preparation of jury to develop options, criteria and impact matrix. The jury included presentations of witnesses, debates and criteria weighting.

Aggregation of weights: each juror attributes points to criteria. Discussions of outcomes, explanations about each jurors weighting. Redefinition of the ES criteria.

New weighting and discussion. Sensitivity analysis showing a higher level of consensus after the process. WTP) for each restoration scale in the LTR. Full restoration has the highest benefit/cost ratio.

Insights about current management alternatives. Arguments and counter arguments regarding the implementation of a tax on the habitants. Partial agreement on a certain tax level, with discussions over equity issues.

N.B. the case is rather about testing a method than responding to a DM problem.

Ideally, the IMA is able to assess and evidence for a consensual alternative for DM, taking into account plural economic, ecological and social (weights) dimensions, global external futures changes (economic and climate) and a

multiplicity of stakeholders. However, the paper was published before the end of the process: only the intermediate results (i.e. CBA phase) are presented along with descriptions of what following phases would involve.

As most jurors were decision makers, the process of exchange of arguments and weighting elicitation is an important outcome per se for DM. The process confirmed (after criteria redefinition) the choice of a management option and highlighted the need to take specific dimensions into account. It showed the importance of breaking down the decision process. sciencewith social values; The FG helped but the communication around complex ecological issues was difficult.

Problems to understand how

ecosystems are valued by respondents (as substitutes or complementary).

Numerous issues are discussed, such as:

compliance behaviors, voting procedure, equity between jurors’ contributions, inconsistencies between citizen framing and individual WTP, articulation with CBA, representativeness and interpretation of WTP reached by consensus (...).

The authors underline that IMA does not fully meet the ideal claims on which it is based, regarding the participation debate (Webler, 1995), though it does improves the DM process in terms of competence and fairness. Other important limits concerning time spending and costs are mentioned.

The authors mostly highlight problems with the software used to input multiple weighting and present them to the jurors and underline the necessity to discuss in more details the criteria and impact matrix.

142

In document Global Environmental Governance (sider 149-152)