Ensuring the Long-Term Provision of Heathland Ecosystem Services—The Importance of a Functional Perspective in Management Decision Frameworks

The ecosystem services framework can be used as a way of balancing economic, ecological and societal drivers in land management decision-making processes. As heathland management is typically linked directly to services, the aim of this study was to quantify trade-offs related to the effects of five common heathland management measures (grazing, mowing, burning, choppering, and sod-cutting) using quantitative data from empirical studies within a northwestern heathland in Germany. Besides important services (groundwater recharge and quality, carbon stocks and appreciation by the general public) we included ecosystem functions (balances of nitrogen, phosphorus and major cations) and the net cost of management implementation as trade-off components. We found that all management practices have advantages and disadvantages leading to unavoidable trade-offs. The effect of a management practice on the trade-off components was often closely related to the amount of biomass and/or soil removed during a management cycle (Rannual). Choppering and sod-cutting (large Rannual by involving soil removal) were very good at maintaining a low N system whilst concurrently increasing groundwater recharge, albeit at the cost of all other components considered. If the aim is to preserve heathlands and their associated ecosystem services in the long-term this trade-off is inevitable, as currently only these high-intensity measures are capable of removing enough nitrogen from the system to prevent the transition to non-heather dominated habitat types. Our study, therefore, shows that in order to maintain structural integrity and thereby the service potential a habitat provides, management decision frameworks may need to prioritize ecosystem functioning over ecosystem services. Burning and mowing (low Rannual) were best at retaining phosphorus, cations and carbon and had the lowest costs. Grazing (intermediate Rannual) provided the highest relative benefit in terms of groundwater quality and appreciation. Together these results can help identify management combinations in both space and time, which will be more beneficial for functions and services than management practices considered in isolation. Furthermore, our study assists in recognizing key areas of action for the development of novel management practices and can help raise awareness of the diversity of rare species and potential benefits to people that protected cultural landscapes provide.

Publishing Environmental Assessment and Management Science: Crossing the Hurdles

Benefits accrue to scientists, resource managers, companies, and policymakers when environmental scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. However, environmental scientists and practitioners face challenges, including the sometimes low value placed on journal articles, institutional vested interests in outcomes, and the changing priorities of employers and project sponsors. Confidentiality agreements can also lead scientists to assume publication is not an option. Case studies may be viewed by potential authors as too routine for peer-reviewed journals. On the basis of 30 years of experience, we suggest that publishing hurdles can be overcome and that environmental scientists have a range of options. The topics of manuscripts can include not only results from case studies and perspectives based on them but also byproducts of assessments, including definitions, plans, monitoring methods and models, and decision frameworks. Environmental scientists have unique opportunities to move science forward with their practical knowledge if they can move across the institutional, logistical, data-related, and content-related hurdles.

On the impossibility of using “the correct” cost–benefit aggregation rule

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to deal with one of the technical difficulties of private and social cost–benefit analysis, i.e. the choice of the proper cost–benefit aggregation rule (or method) to use, when a private capital investment decision has to be taken or a public project appraisal has to be carried out.Design/methodology/approachAlthough the considerable amount of existing literature, the problem of the choice of the right mathematical aggregation rule is still an open one. The majority of authors claim that net present value is a superior method and thus it is the one to be always used. Other authors try to show that various aggregation methods, under specific conditions, arrive at the same recommendation. An exceptional case is the field of education economics where the internal rate of return is widely used.FindingsThis paper offers a survey of this controversial topic which focuses on some clear cut formal properties of the various aggregation methods and considers the empirical characteristics of the different fields of application. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist.Originality/valueIts main objective is to supply clear guidelines to orient practitioners and help the teaching on this topic. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist. On the contrary, even if one restricts her/himself to a particular class of investments, often no clear-cut selection can be made.