Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary EIA setting

Abstract Value assessment is a central element in an EIA for the understanding of the impacts of specified projects. The value assessment contains subjective elements and this may cause errors and difficulties in numeric value assessment methods. There is a need for transparent common criteria to promote discussion and understanding. A common criteria base already exists, but lack of communication between different management systems and different disciplines, all with different traditions in value assessment, makes the situation complex. In this article we have looked into the basic understanding of value linked to the investigation themes of natural environment, cultural heritage and society. The investigation themes linked to social science is difficult to incorporate into a common system, basically because they have less focus on land use and contain different value types. Much of the relevant literature about value assessment is linked to the assessment of sites of special interest as candidates for legal protection or conservation. In an EIA a much broader range of areas is introduced, including the “every day landscape” with a lower and more general level of value. Together with a focus on mitigation and adjustments of plans, this results in a need for a more detailed value assessment scale than is normally in use today. We have suggested a new scale to ease communication between different disciplines and management systems. How we understand value is not constant over time, nor is the level of knowledge. This makes it necessary to sustain an ongoing debate on value assessment. The need for a dynamic value assessment system increases with the increasing use of database modelling, digital analysis of map data (GIS) etc. Lack of a ongoing value debate will rapidly lead to misleading and biased results.

[1]  J. Heilmann‐Clausen,et al.  Fungal diversity on decaying beech logs – implications for sustainable forestry , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[2]  E. Papadakis.  Environmental values and political action , 2000 .

[3]  R. Burdge,et al.  A conceptual approach to social impact assessment : collection of writings by Rabel J. Burdge and colleagues , 1994 .

[4]  Åke Berg,et al.  Habitat preferences of red-listed fungi and bryophytes in woodland key habitats in southern Sweden – analyses of data from a national survey , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[5]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  Kurt Finsterbusch,et al.  Methodology of Social Impact Assessment , 1977 .

[7]  C. Taylor,et al.  Social Assessment: Theory, Process, and Techniques , 2004 .

[8]  C. Sharples.  A Methodology for the identification of significant landforms and geological sites for geoconservation purposes , 1993 .

[9]  The effect of terrain structures and environmental factors on the distribution marine habitats , 2004 .

[10]  F. H. W. Green,et al.  A Nature conservation review : the selection of biological sites of national importance to nature conservation in Britain , 1978 .

[11]  Grete Swensen,et al.  Assessing environmental vulnerability in EIA—The content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach to standard EIA procedure , 2006 .

[12]  Bryan G. Norton,et al.  Searching for Sustainability: Commodity, Amenity, and Morality: The Limits of Quantification in Valuing Biodiversity , 1988 .

[13]  M. Bennett.  Issues in Environmental Geology: A British Perspective , 1998 .

[14]  R. Ejrnæs,et al.  The Valuation of Habitats for Conservation : Concepts, methods and applications , 2005 .

[15]  J. Pigram,et al.  Outdoor Recreation Management , 1999 .

[16]  Kevin Lynch,et al.  The Image of the City , 1960 .

[17]  R. Burdge,et al.  The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment , 2004 .

[18]  Arne Naess,et al.  The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary∗ , 1973 .

[19]  Wilfred Beckerman,et al.  Justice, Posterity, and the Environment , 2001 .

[20]  Keith Thomas,et al.  Man and the natural world. Changing attitudes in England 1500–1800 , 1983 .

[21]  Lyle Glowka,et al.  A guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity , 1994 .

[22]  L. Owen.  Geological and landscape conservation , 1996 .

[23]  R. Noss.  Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach , 1990 .

[24]  Ian Hodder,et al.  Reading the past , 1986 .