FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2003863324> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2003863324 endingPage "296" @default.
• W2003863324 startingPage "289" @default.
• W2003863324 abstract "1 The ecosystem approach and evaluation of ecosystem services is gaining increasing attention from scientists, practitioners and policy makers. An important part of this process is to establish the ‘value’ of the nature-conservation assets within an area. This value can then be compared with data for other ecosystem services to identify management priorities under different future scenarios. However, there is little consensus on how to perform such an evaluation. In this study, we assess seven methods of valuing nature-conservation interest and compare their utility. 2 Five agricultural land drainage schemes across lowland England were selected for study. The current land-use was determined and four different scenarios of future management were developed. The land-use and habitats predicted under each scenario were assessed using seven methods of determining value, namely: Ecological Impact Assessment method, reserve-selection criteria, target-based criteria, stakeholder-choice analysis, reserve-selection criteria guided by stakeholders, agri-environment scheme payments and contingent valuation. The first three methods derive values based on pre-defined priorities, the next two use stated preferences of stakeholders, and the last two methods derive monetary values based on revealed and expressed preference, respectively. 3 The results obtained from the different methods were compared. The methods gave broadly similar results and were highly correlated, but each method emphasized a different aspect of conservation value, leading to different possible outcomes in some cases. The advantages and disadvantages of each method were evaluated. 4 Synthesis and applications. As the ecosystem services approach becomes embedded in decision-making, ecologists are increasingly called upon to value the biodiversity of a site or to compare the value of different sites. This study has shown that seven different valuation methods, although all giving significantly correlated findings, resulted in seven different rankings of nature-conservation value for the 25 situations studied. This difference occurred in spite of the sites being of the same landscape type and occurring within the same country. The discussion concludes that each method has its strengths; monetary valuations are appropriate in some contexts, stakeholder preferences are paramount in others, but where objectivity is key, then assessment against independently defined criteria or targets should be the preferred method." @default.
• W2003863324 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5007724659 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5028690411 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5033531237 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5067159487 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5073747071 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5074240414 @default.
• W2003863324 creator A5086191236 @default.
• W2003863324 date "2009-03-03" @default.
• W2003863324 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W2003863324 title "Valuing nature‐conservation interests on agricultural floodplains" @default.
• W2003863324 cites W1988105737 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W1990757905 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W1991299320 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W1999842833 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2006240637 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2012829248 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2012839083 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2030264378 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2032938810 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2042340038 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2046400556 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2060259671 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2060651330 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2072238909 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2095017945 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2103809536 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2126219676 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2129974232 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2141262976 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2150199809 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2163340928 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2166402853 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W2168460539 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W4253469695 @default.
• W2003863324 cites W70450173 @default.
• W2003863324 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01627.x" @default.
• W2003863324 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2003863324 type Work @default.
• W2003863324 sameAs 2003863324 @default.
• W2003863324 citedByCount "21" @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242012 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242013 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242014 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242015 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242016 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242018 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242019 @default.
• W2003863324 countsByYear W20038633242022 @default.
• W2003863324 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5007724659 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5028690411 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5033531237 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5067159487 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5073747071 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5074240414 @default.
• W2003863324 hasAuthorship W2003863324A5086191236 @default.
• W2003863324 hasBestOaLocation W20038633242 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C110872660 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C118518473 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C134560507 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C186027771 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C201305675 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C2779293367 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C4792198 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C58941895 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C10138342 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C107826830 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C110872660 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C118518473 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C119857082 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C121955636 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C134560507 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C144133560 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C145097563 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C162324750 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C166957645 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C186027771 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C187736073 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C18903297 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C201305675 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C205649164 @default.
• W2003863324 hasConceptScore W2003863324C2776291640 @default.

• next