Environmental degradation and remediation: is economics part of the problem?

It is argued that standard environmental economic and 'ecological economics', have the same fundamentals of valuation in terms of money, based on a demand curve derived from utilitymaximization. But this approach leads to three different measuresof value. An invariant measure of value exists only if the consumer has 'homothetic preferences'. In order to obtain a numerical estimate of value, specific functional forms are necessary, but typically these estimates do not converge. This is due to the fact that the underlying economic model is not structurally stable.According to neoclassical economics, any environmental remediation can be justified only in terms of increases in consumer satisfaction, balancing marginal gains against marginal costs. It is not surprising that the optimal policy obtained fromthis approach suggests only small reductions in greenhouse gases.We show that a unidimensional metric of consumer's utility measured in dollar terms can only trivialize the problem of global climate change.     

Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis

Environmental assessment (EA) aims to enhance environmental awareness and to ensure that environmental values are fully considered in decision-making. In the EA arena, different discourses exist on what EA should aim for and how it functions. We hypothesise that these discourses influence its application in practice as well as its effectiveness in terms of achieving the above goals. For instance, actors who consider EA as a hindrance to fast implementation of their projects will probably apply it as a mandatory checklist, whereas actors who believe that EA can help to develop more environmentally sound decisions will use EIA as a tool to design their initiatives. In this paper we explore discourses on EA in The Netherlands and elaborate on their implications for EA effectiveness. Based on an innovative research design comprising an online survey with 443 respondents and 20 supplementary semi-structured interviews we conclude that the dominant discourse is that EA is mainly a legal requirement; EAs are conducted because they have to be conducted, not because actors choose to do so. EA effectiveness however seems reasonably high, as a majority of respondents perceive that it enhances environmental awareness and contributes to environmental protection. However, the ‘legal requirement’ discourse also results in decision-makers seldom going beyond what is prescribed by EA and environmental law. Despite its mandatory character, the predominant attitude towards EA is quite positive. For most respondents, EA is instrumental in providing transparency of decision-making and in minimising the legal risks of not complying with environmental laws. Differences in discourses seldom reflect extreme opposites. The ‘common ground’ regarding EA provides a good basis for working with EA in terms of meeting legal requirements but at the same time does not stimulate creativity in decision-making or optimisation of environmental values. In countries characterised by less consensual political cultures we may expect more extreme discourses on EA, the consequences of which are reflected upon in this paper.     

Biological Indicators of Marine Environmental Health: Meiofauna – A Neglected Benthic Component?

This paper considers the use of meiofauna (benthic metazoa 45 to 500 m in size) as biological indicators for monitoring marine environmental health. To date, this abundant and ubiquitous group of invertebrates has been largely neglected in applied sampling programmes; instead, emphasis has been placed upon more conspicuous biological components such as seagrass, macrofauna and epiphytes. In an attempt to redress this balance, this paper sets out three objectives: (1) to explain the reasons for selecting biological response indicators from across the whole spectrum of phylogenetic organisation, (2) to summarise those aspects of meiofaunal life-history and demography that render this group suitable for monitoring anthropogenic pollution and disturbance, (3) to suggest how to optimise the inclusion of meiofauna in monitoring programmes so that they provide maximum information for management purposes. To achieve these objectives the environmental impact assessment framework of Ward and Jacoby (1992) is adopted as a matrix into which the relevant components of meiofaunal ecology are fitted. Using this matrix, meiofauna are shown to have advantages that include their sessile habit, high species diversity, short generation time, direct benthic development and ubiquitous distribution. Disadvantages include their small size, high level of spatial and temporal variability, the potential cost of sample processing and the limited taxonomic literature accessible to non-specialist workers. The paper concludes with a discussion of sampling strategies and methods of analysis that may be used to efficiently incorporate meiofauna as biological response indices into environmental monitoring. Emphasis is placed on cost-effective techniques such as taxonomic minimalism.     

Environmental benchmarks vs. ecological benchmarks for assessment and monitoring in Canada: Is there a difference?

Environmental benchmarks are widely used in Canadian environmental assessment as a standard against which to monitor air or water quality in response to human activities in the environment. Recent work in Canada has developed the concept of ecological benchmarks as a complement to environmental benchmarks. However, implementation of ecological benchmarks may be challenging. This paper presents an analogy between ecological benchmarks and the more commonly used environmental benchmarks, as an attempt to increase understanding and use of ecological benchmarks in resource management, assessment, and monitoring. Ecological benchmarks, and their corresponding indicators, will be challenging to identify and use. However, through the use of the principles of adaptive management, effective ecological indicators and benchmarks can be established. Although it is essential that ecological benchmarks are site-specific, the analogy and general principles outlined here are applicable to assessment and monitoring in any part of the world.     

Monitoring an ecosystem at risk: What is the degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies?

Increasing fragmentation of grassland habitats by human activities is a major threat to biodiversity and landscape quality. Monitoring their degree of fragmentation has been identified as an urgent need. This study quantifies for the first time the current degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies using four fragmentation geometries (FGs) of increasing specificity (i.e. more restrictive grassland classification) and five types of reporting units (7 ecoregions, 50 census divisions, 1,166 municipalities, 17 sub-basins, and 108 watersheds). We evaluated the suitability of 11 datasets based on 8 suitability criteria and applied the effective mesh size (m _eff) method to quantify fragmentation. We recommend the combination of the Crop Inventory Mapping of the Prairies and the CanVec datasets as the most suitable for monitoring grassland fragmentation. The grassland area remaining amounts to 87,570.45 km² in FG4 (strict grassland definition) and 183,242.042 km² in FG1 (broad grassland definition), out of 461,503.97 km² (entire Prairie Ecozone area). The very low values of m _eff of 14.23 km² in FG4 and 25.44 km² in FG1 indicate an extremely high level of grassland fragmentation. The m _eff method is supported in this study as highly suitable and recommended for long-term monitoring of grasslands in the Canadian Prairies; it can help set measurable targets and/or limits for regions to guide management efforts and as a tool for performance review of protection efforts, for increasing awareness, and for guiding efforts to minimize grassland fragmentation. This approach can also be applied in other parts of the world and to other ecosystems.