Cumulative effects management requires understanding the environmental impacts of development and finding the right balance between social, economic, and environmental objectives. We explored the use of choice experiments to elicit preferences for competing social, economic, and ecological outcomes in order to rank land and resource development options. The experiments were applied in the Southeast Yukon, a remote and resource rich region in Northern Canada with a relatively large aboriginal population. The case study addresses two issues of concern in cumulative effects management: the willingness to discount future environmental costs for immediate development benefits, and the existence of limits of acceptable change for communities affected by development. These issues are thought to be particularly relevant for First Nations in Northern Canada where cultural identify is tied to the land and continuity of the community is an important value. We found that residents of the Southeast Yukon value benefits from both development and conservation and must make trade-offs between these competing objectives in evaluating land use scenarios. Based on the preference information we evaluated four land use scenarios. Conservation scenarios ranked higher than development scenarios, however, there was significant heterogeneity around preferences for conservation outcomes suggesting a low degree of consensus around this result. We also found that residents did not discount the future highlighting the importance of intergenerational equity in resource development decisions. We did not find evidence of development thresholds or limits of acceptable change. Interestingly we found no difference in preferences between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations.
[1]
D. Medin,et al.
Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: when principles are more important than consequences
,
2008
.
[2]
M. Qureshi,et al.
Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models
,
2000
.
[3]
Monica G. Turner,et al.
Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application?
,
2006,
Ecosystems.
[4]
Great Britain. Foreign Office.,et al.
Labour force survey
,
1982
.
[5]
R. Scarpa,et al.
Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment
,
2005,
Land Economics.
[6]
G. Hampton.
Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making
,
2009
.
[7]
J. Duke,et al.
Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process
,
2002
.
[8]
N. Hanlon,et al.
Kill the lake? kill the proposal: accommodating First Nations’ environmental values as a first step on the road to wellness
,
2011
.
[9]
R. Gregory,et al.
Incorporating Value Trade-offs into Community-Based Environmental Risk Decisions
,
2002,
Environmental Values.
[10]
J. Baron,et al.
How serious are expressions of protected values?
,
2000,
Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.