Beyond monetary measurement: How to evaluate projects and policies using the ecosystem services framework

In this paper we focus on how to achieve better decision support when decision-makers use the ecosystem services (ESS) framework to broaden their evaluations. We contribute to the debate on valuation of ecosystem services by inquiring into how the ESS framework relates to the judgement and measurement provided by Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) evaluation techniques. We argue that Multi-Criteria Cost-Benefit Analysis (MCCBA), which is a carefully designed combination of CBA and MCA, provides a good starting point for the evaluation of projects or policies involving changes in agricultural and natural ecosystem services.The main characteristic of this MCCBA approach linked to ESS framework is its threefold evaluative endpoint structure to account for (i) basic health, (ii) economic welfare, and (iii) higher well-being. The third endpoint includes concerns about the well-being of nature. The MCCBA approach utilises highly standardised cardinal or ratio scale measurements, in particular we use two existing measurements, known as Disability Adjusted Life Years for basic health, and monetary Net Present Values for economic welfare. We also introduce one new measurement: Threat weighted Ecological Quality Area to account for nature's well-being. We argue that evaluation of projects or policies involving many different ecosystem services should use these three endpoint measurements.

The relations between agro-ecosystem services and the standardised cardinal endpoint measurements of MCCBA.Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slideHighlights
► MCCBA is useful for evaluation of policies involving changes in ecosystem services.
► MCCBA evaluates (i) basic health, (ii) economic welfare, and (iii) higher well-being.
► MCCBA utilises highly standardised cardinal or ratio scale measurements.
► Threat weighted Ecological Quality Area (T-EQA) measures nature's well-being.