This product or service but it is not the

This scientific paper discusses also the different merits of MCDA and
CBA in ecosystem service, for an integrated evaluation of the ecosystem service
we need to take into consideration all the ecologic, social, economic…
criteria. The first merit is aggregated vs. non-aggregated(17) policy options, in Choice Experiment participants
are asked to express their preference for a single product or service but it is
not the case in multiple and often conflicting services. MCDA invites people to
choose between different alternatives regarding their disaggregated values. The
second merit is that CBA has universal utilities because the choice is based on
the monetary value (CE) but MCDA uses the unit of measurement (ranking or
weights) only to apply it on the specific decision-making situation. (18) The key difference between MCDA and CBA is that,
the latter transforms all in information’s into monetary units, NPV of each
alternative, which lead to unitary conclusions, otherwise MCDA method leads to
conditional conclusions, (19) as it deals with group and conclusion can not be extracted, unless all
the participants agreed how the values can be traded off. Another merit is in
case of income asymmetries, the ecosystem services that are instrumental to
social welfare will be underestimated because the willingness to pay is related
to the individual income. In addition,there are distributional impacts, as an
example the preference and interests of the participants in the market will
heavily influence the future generation,(20) In MCDA all the participants ranking or weights are calculated equally
despite their income asymmetries, therefore, the distributional effects are
most of the time clearly discussed. Individual vs. social rationality, (21) CE or CV methods based on individualism that can
cause problems by ecosystem services evaluation, because people are not
familiar with these issues such as carbon sequestration, they choose their
preferences according to their individual satisfaction and ignore other
criteria, nevertheless stakeholders are always engaged in the MCDA process
(criteria selection, alternatives ranking).(22) Monetary valuation can give only overview about personal satisfaction
or welfare because intangible ecosystem services that have ethical judgment
cannot be added to monetary values (interests judgments), but in MCDA the
participants make decisions with respect to all criteria (ethical judgments).(23) Furthermore, representativeness unlike CBA, in
which CE and CV are providing individual interests, the preferences of a group
of decision makers are suited to integrated valuation of the ecosystem services
(MCDA). The last merit is biases, (24) both in MCDA and CBA exist different biases, like anchoring bias,
farming bias… the decisions made under pressure in order to accommodate with
the interests of the majority.

 

This paper has also applied the MCDA process on an
example of conflict between state forestry and reindeer herding in Finnish
Upper Lapland about getting access to the old growth

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 

 

 

4

forests, which is considered as an economically
viable potential but the problem is that in extreme winter these forests are
suitable for reindeer herding more over the most reindeer herders are the
original people of the region» Sámi people”, they are protected through the
Finnish constitution and it is recognized that reindeer herding is their basis
culture. (25)

 

The
most challenging task is to find an optimal solution with aid of the MCDA
process, among the large number of stakeholders that are forest industry, Sami
people, organizations, local municipalities… the proposal was to begins with
indicating the main objective of the stakeholders into value tree. The core
objective was the sustainable multiple use of the forests, criteria like
social, cultural, ecological and economical sustainability that are main
criteria were elicited from experts and stakeholders. Consequently each
criterion has its indicators or sub-criteria has to be taken into
consideration. The study result shows that the preferences orders of
alternatives were grouped into three cases that have similar interests. This
example shows that stakeholders have to be engaged not only in the weighting
stage or ranking alternatives but also in the negotiation of the impacts of the
assessment.