At the world meeting on marine biodiversity, in Aberdeen, early this year, Shahid Naeem, one of the most prominent scientists working about the link of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, candidly admitted that, for most marine species, we do not know the ecological role. Of course some species might be important just for the size of their populations, but we do not even have estimates of these populations. So, how can we value something that we ignore? We do it anyway, i.e. we guess something. On land the exercise might be easier. But there are too many subtleties that make ecosystems work, besides primary production, to assign roles (and produce valuations) to species. A proxy to species can be the habitat. It is not by chance that the European Union has launched the habitats directive. In this case we protect and manage a "container" without having a solid knowledge of the content. In terrestrial systems we have more or less mapped the habitats, but this is not done in marine systems. So we are ignorant even under this respect, not to speak about species. I am not saying that we cannot do conservation until we know everything about species and habitats, but it is unwise to make too many plans about things that we do not know. Before valuating species, we should valuate the knowledge about them. How much are we investing in building up this knowledge? We want to skip this passage and go straight to the valuation. But this is very unwise. There are two wise things to do at this stage: use the precautionary principle, and invest more in gaining knowledge about nature. The ecological paradigm is stronger than the economic paradigm. But we give more value to economics than to nature.

If states were to pay to fix the damages that they inflicted to nature in the name of economics, then they would go bankrupt. Which is what is happening anyway. Obviously our economists think that their laws are stranger than natural ones, and want to reduce nature to economics. The right choice is the other way round. Also from an economic point of view. Giving an economic value to ecological systems is wrong. Because somebody might even consider that we gain more from the destruction of nature than we have to pay for it, and so we can go on. Measuring all things with a monetary value.

I would value our economic enterprises in terms of natural costs. Instead of measuring in economical terms the ecological costs. And we should invent a currency for it, without transforming everything into money.

Anyway, we can give a price to something, but the ecological knowledge to valuate species in ecological terms is not there. Besides a very small number of species. So, this exercise is purely academic.

At the world meeting on marine biodiversity, in Aberdeen, early this year, Shahid Naeem, one of the most prominent scientists working about the link of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, candidly admitted that, for most marine species, we do not know the ecological role. Of course some species might be important just for the size of their populations, but we do not even have estimates of these populations. So, how can we value something that we ignore? We do it anyway, i.e. we guess something. On land the exercise might be easier. But there are too many subtleties that make ecosystems work, besides primary production, to assign roles (and produce valuations) to species. A proxy to species can be the habitat. It is not by chance that the European Union has launched the habitats directive. In this case we protect and manage a "container" without having a solid knowledge of the content. In terrestrial systems we have more or less mapped the habitats, but this is not done in marine systems. So we are ignorant even under this respect, not to speak about species. I am not saying that we cannot do conservation until we know everything about species and habitats, but it is unwise to make too many plans about things that we do not know. Before valuating species, we should valuate the knowledge about them. How much are we investing in building up this knowledge? We want to skip this passage and go straight to the valuation. But this is very unwise. There are two wise things to do at this stage: use the precautionary principle, and invest more in gaining knowledge about nature. The ecological paradigm is stronger than the economic paradigm. But we give more value to economics than to nature.

If states were to pay to fix the damages that they inflicted to nature in the name of economics, then they would go bankrupt. Which is what is happening anyway. Obviously our economists think that their laws are stranger than natural ones, and want to reduce nature to economics. The right choice is the other way round. Also from an economic point of view. Giving an economic value to ecological systems is wrong. Because somebody might even consider that we gain more from the destruction of nature than we have to pay for it, and so we can go on. Measuring all things with a monetary value.

I would value our economic enterprises in terms of natural costs. Instead of measuring in economical terms the ecological costs. And we should invent a currency for it, without transforming everything into money.

Anyway, we can give a price to something, but the ecological knowledge to valuate species in ecological terms is not there. Besides a very small number of species. So, this exercise is purely academic.

Unfortunately we are loosing species and natural habitats more quickly than the information we are getting from them.

Valuation of biodiversity in terms of economy would have academic significance, but what is important to understand the ecosystem services for our survival. Perhaps, the perception of biodiversity loss among common people is insignificant. We are always trying to enhance our economic development ignoring the future of our next generations. There is over consumption, there is poverty. Rich people destroying the environment by consuming fossil fuels, running air conditioning; while the poor people destroying it by deforestation. In fact biodiversity loss is not a single issue rather a multidisciplinary approach should be implemented at all level at least to stop the present trends of biodiversity loss.

Though the issue sounds academic, it is more of a section of nature being lost forever, important genes which the species may contain, may not be found in any other species. People / scientists in and around the Centres of diversity and centres of origin of any species, should take the lead towards documenting and maintaining databases, so that conservation will automatically be the next step!

wow awesome opinions, I know it sounds academically in fact it happens to our resources before we realized they are already gone. We are need fresh air, the last is found at our forested area which are decreasing more quickly than we thought. Species biodiversity Valuation it doesn't mean economic et all, sometimes indigenous people know better about it in the term of non-economic.. I am learning more from them about the value of certain species for ritual, flavor, herbs and other purposes. evenmore, some of the plants that I think just contribute carbon stock they use it to cure cancer or other diseases. Many law cases in relation with our natural resources "illegal harvesting" use similar punishment/verdict even though each species has its own value (rate of growth, productivity, degree of decrease, conservation status, total number, etc). value of each species can be viewed differently among scientists, for me myself we should do it step by step coincide with our fields and power no matter how stressful/hard it is

Giving an economic value to nature and its components (species, ecosystems, landscapes, etc.) could sound like an easy way to evaluate (and compare) the value of different elements when a choice is needed. However, this is entering a system which is responsible for most of the destruction of nature occuring on our planet, i.e. a market system where the only value is the economic one.

Giving an economic value in order to protect ecosystems or animals can go back to the face of conservation and conservationnists. Of course, it looks like it makes sense to ask environmentalists how much money they would pay to protect a species or an ecosystem (the willingness to pay). But if you give that economic value, you can ask the reverse question, that is how much money they would like to receive to accept the destruction/eradication of this ecosystem or this species! Does-it make sense to anyone to ask for example all the tiger protectionnists how much money they would receive to accept the eradication of the tiger?

For me that doesn't make sense and it is an ethical problem here, beyond an ecological one. Can we put economic value on life?

can not value what is not known, many species of forest areas in the south, are unknown in their biology and ecological aspects. If so, how they can assess its potential as a natural resource?

It is better to conserve everything which nature has gifted to us and later valuation for both ecological and economical aspects may be carried out very carefully for sustainable development and usage. It is to be kept in mind that nature's balance is the primary aspect. The materials which are not useful or even harmful to human being definitely have roles in this nature. Only proper research can evaluate such things.

The above comments raise two great points.

1) To place a monetary value on our vital ecosystems is to consent to their removal from the realm of ethics to the arbitrary laws of economics.

2) Ecosystems need to be seen as systems - our knowledge of the role of individual species is limited and we can easily underestimate their value. For example, even though they are tiny, if it weren't for a few kinds of micro-organisms that can digest chiton, the surface of the earth would be buried under the shed exoskeletons of arthoropods.

The nature should be seen and protected as a system of ecosystems, meaning as a network. Unfortunately, concepts like EECONET are too demanding (in economical and spatial terms) and haven’t been implemented. Instead, the EU has Natura 2000 project, but it can be discussed if it’s really a network.

Placing an economical value on particular species/habitat/system has been discussed for many, many years and probably we’ll never reach a point when everybody would agree to certain price expressed in monetary value. The question is: do we really need to express it this way? Many would say that this is a violation because nature is “priceless”. On the other hand, for some people it would mean that the nature’s value is zero.

On the topic of biodiversity valuation, ten African nations recently signed a Declaration to include the valuation of natural resources and ecosystems in their national accounts.

I agree this is a controversial method but it will be interesting to see what effect these valuations will have when future resource conservation vs. destruction decisions are made within these nations.

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/science-at-rio-20/features/african-nations-agree-to-put-a-price-on-nature-2.html

Thanks everybody for all the information, plant species can be valued not only based on their usage but also their existence, endemic/geographic distribution, conservation status, richness, diversity, and frequency in order to view integrated valuation as genetic diversities of natural resources and to prevent further genetic erosion. Of course, it will come up with solution for conservation management.

Biodiversity valuation of a species - you might want to distinguish between the case where the issue is about loosing/keeping a species within a specific area VS. the case of maintaining/loosing a species from the face of earth entirely.

Yes I understand that but still both cases are interconnected each other. Thank' you doc, my work is the first case . It is because to develop indicators for model monitoring (early warning system) we have to do field work in areas identified at high risk of loosing species (genetic erosion) to gather baselines.

Good day colleagues...! I am Inocencio E. Buot Jr of the University of the Philippines' Institute of Biological Sciences. I am so pleased of the discussion topic. I do appreciate everyone for taking time to think and contribute. This concerns everyone of us. Hence, it is quite urgent that we should come up with indicators, parameters and/or scale that we can start experimenting with and later improve upon. All the best to all of us...!

The value of natural areas or the species within them is priceless and immeasurable and i tell you why. Regardless of the detailed knowledge about the values of nature for our everyday living, the majority of the people on earth knows that nature is a selfmaintaining necessity to make this planet habitable for us. In the past, scientists and engineers have tried to create artificial selfmaintaining ecosystems (e.g. the 'Biosphere' projects). But up to now all these projects failed. In conclusion we not only lack the ability to replace the natural ecosystems we destroy, we don't even know how they are self-maintaining. And be it simply about ample spatial extent to compensate local perturbations, we do not know, how much space is enough. Consider any random species on earth that comes to your mind. Do you know its value and function for the imaginary artificial Biosphere, we would have to build, if we destroy the one we have? It's simply priceless and yet it is beyond our measure!

Is there some paper dealing with the economic versus cultural or ecological value of bird species?

there are many of them you just access the google search, some example of the articles:http://www.epa.gov/owow/birds/basics.html

http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue25/article9.htm

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACP233.pdf

http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/uploads/files/LiteratureAttachments/59_can-environmental-economic-valuation-techniques-aid-ecological-economics-and-wildlife-conservation.pdf

http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=eeb_articles

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Total_economic_valuation_of_threatened_and_endangered_species?topic=49590

http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/inf/wyd/WP/WNE_WP77.pdf

so good luck for the search and enjoy to read them

Dear Sulistiyowati Hari, dear colleagues! There are very different ways how species and ecosystems can be valuated. If we refer to **economic valuation** of species and/or ecosystems - and particularly in way that makes sense with respect to economic mainstream theory (which is welfare economics in this case) - then the assessment of value takes on a very specific form. For example, economic value is by conceptual necessity always an ex ante value (decision utility), value is defined as exchange value not as value in use, I cannot valuate a species or an ecosystem per se but only a change in its status, etc. Within such a framework, it is principally possible to come to a (more or less) complete economic valuation including existence value aspects. There are numerous pragmatic restrictions though, specifically if you want to get to a valid valuation of many protected areas.

@ Erich: "It's simply priceless and yet it is beyond our measure! " Well, that depends on the goggles you wear. From an economical sciences perspective, that is not the case. I do not need to take this perspective, and I am not trying to convince everyone that it is a good idea to do so. However, there are respectable reasons why an scientifically economic perspective may make sense at times. All the best, jan

Dear Dr. Hari: With respect to the contribution of each species to the total functioning of the ecosystem of which it is a participant, it is necessary first to quantify the network of trophic exchanges in which that species is embedded. Then the valuation procedure can progress using techniques from ecological network analysis. In particular, the sensitivity of the overall functioning of the ecosystem with respect to a particular population can be reckoned using Eqn 6 on p162 of .

See, for example, Table 2 on p18 of . Good luck! Bob

Thank you Sir, for all the suggestions and appreciations. All best regard, Hari

Dear Sir Robert I could not access the article that you are suggested. If you don't mind, could you please send me the article?

Dear Dr. Hari: Unfortunately, these social websites appear to filter out any information that can lead to direct communication. I tried to find your email using Google and the Jember University website, but I was unable to locate it. Could you please try Google to find my website and email address and send me your email address. I will be more than happy to send you a copy of the article in question. Peace! Bob Ulanowicz

Thank you Sir for your kindness, my email address are [email protected] and [email protected]

The science of biodiversity and ecosystem continues to evolve. The services they provide to humanity are still only partially inventoried and very imperfectly understood. It is still difficult to know all the links between operations and services. Understanding the relationship between the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services requires levels to go through a better understanding of the role of the diversity of life in the functioning of ecosystems, that is to say, s of interest to the process. Knowledge of food webs is insufficient. The host-parasite interactions, symbiotic relationships, pathogens, vectors and hosts are also important. Especially when ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss brought profound changes in the balance of interactions within communities of species. These interactions are still poorly understood, such as the impact of parasites with complex life cycles with multiple hosts can play a role in regulating populations.

This is to improve our understanding of the ecological mechanisms underlying their development due to stress and sometimes their impact on human activities.

We can not manage nature, but only our interactions with it. At this level, an interesting contribution to the process undertaken since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is to highlight that our knowledge of how ecosystems are partial, and consequently the services and benefits that can be expected from these ecosystems .

Dear Bob U.: The interesting but *very* challenging question, then, is: How does a contribution to total ecosystem functioning translate to (economic) value? I hve argued elsewhere (and still think) that measures such as ascendency relate most closely to a generalised "insurance property" of the ecosystem or its capacity for long-term self-organisation (principle explained here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227180330_Environmental_Indication_A_Field_Test_of_an_Ecosystem_Approach_to_Quantify_Biological_Self-Organization). In the popular economic value tables of the environment, this would be a specific option value. I think this is immensely important - but it is a small component compared to the more directly used goods of the environment. We have shown that people on the ground recognize this value in economic terms (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230680779_User_community_preferences_for_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation_measures_around_Hainich_National_Park_Germany).

All the best, jan

Article Environmental Indication: A Field Test of an Ecosystem Appro...

Article User community preferences for climate change mitigation and...

Dear all, as a marine biologist, I wanted to add to the insightful comment by Ferdinando Boero. It does seem as if the field of marine biology is lagging in comparison with terrestrial research fiels, in that it indeed has not yet arrived at identifying ‘all’ species, populations, or even habitats, so the exercise of holistic economic valuation is a very difficult one. I am a novice in this, but will embark on a research project soon to evaluate the contributions of a component (small interstitial fauna living in marine sediments) of the marine benthic ecosystem in its functioning, and assess the effects of natural and anthropogenic stressors on their contribution, including modelling efforts to quantify this contribution. In a later step,the aim is to reach an economic valuation of the investigated benthic component based on function or the contribution to the resources needed for ecosystem health and sustainable production levels of economically important marine activities. Exercises like these are crucial, because they add to the ecosystem function valuation of the marine realm with indirect input for total valuation efforts. In such an approach, species-level information is too detailed to include, but at least the focus lies on a medium-sized component and not whole habitats or ecosystems... which will improve our understanding, or as Ferdinando rightly puts it, valuation of the knowledge of smaller ecosystem components before we valuate ecosystems themselves in a two-step process. I agree with him that investment in building up knowledge is imperative, and not a ‘passage to skip’.

The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment highlighted the multiple benefits that ecological systems provide to society, and also recognised that if policy and planning decisions are to be truly sustainable, there is a need to quantify and value the ecosystem services provided by diversity and ecosystem function. In order to ensure that we are adequately capturing biodiversity and functioning in all types of assessments, evaluations, and decision making, we need to know what the contributions are of the different marine ecosystem components (pelagic realm, benthos, microbes, different organism size classes, etc.) to the socio-economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services. So far, socio-economic valuations seem rather limited to large-scale, holistic assessments without details on the smaller components that are the building blocks of the ecosystems (black-box approach). More detailed information on the contributions of different marine ecosystem components will allow more informed decision and policy making. Best wishes, J

Dear Jeroen, many ecological structures and processes provide biophysical conditions either (i) for the production of human goods and services, or (ii) for goods and services that are directly utilized by humans. I suppose that many of the system elements you are investigating fall into this category of "inputs" for further production or consumption. For economic valuation, this means that a relation needs to be established between changes in the value of human production (and/or consumption) and changes in the supply of the system elements. The value of a marginal (or a discrete) change in supply equals the value in change in production/consumption. Alternative, one can ask how citizen "income" changes as a result of changes in the system elements. I placed income in quotation marks as income needs to be adjusted here for non-financial components of utility. One example would the knowledge that the respective environmental systems have increased or decreased in terms of thier future regulative potential or their capacity for ecosystem self-organisation. In any case, the *ultimate* benefits to humans need to be valuated. Much of the earlier work on en environmental valuation has not paid sufficient attention to this problem incl. the famous Costanza et al. paper. Best regards, jan

Dear Jeroen, Actually, there are a number of marine/estuarine ecosystems that have been quantified in surprising detail. Take, for example, Florida Bay, where the flows into and out of some 125 components have been estimated . Please also note the two papers on the quantification of functional contributions to the whole ecosystem that I pointed out above to Hari. All the best of success with your work! Bob

Dear Robert and Jan, thank you very much for your very useful suggestions, I really appreciate it and I'm looking forward to digging deeper into this subject. You have broadened my view already!

FYI, One of the goals of my work will be to develop further the benthic component in a coupled ecosystem model (benthopelagic with links to hydrodynamic models) to see how benthic stress effects migrate through the model to other components under certain environmental predictions (fitting within the EU FP7 MEECE project). The step proposed by Jan is a difficult one, but attempts to see changes in system elements relevant to resources used by humans should result in assessing (hopefully at least part of) the changes relevant to valuations in an anthropocentric context.

@Robert, I have similar problems as Hari, I will try contacting you via email?

Thanks again, and best wishes,

dear all, this is for Jeroen (and also for Robert)

when studying the interstitial fauna consider also the benthic resting stages of plankton. The sediments are full of them. Plankton is the driving machine of the functioning of the ecosystems of the whole planet, and its functioning is usually explained with biogeochemical approaches. Nutrients and light lead to phytoplankton production, and this sustains zooplankton, and then nekton. Of course there is spontaneous generation of phytoplankton from nutrients. Take a standard ecology textbook and there will be no mention of benthic resting stages of plankton. In a very obscure paper, I analyzed, with my co-authors, the living stuff in sediments, considering both the meiofauna and the resting stages of both phyto and zooplankton. I think that nobody else has even repeated such simple observation. In that paper we suggest that the meiofauna (represented by many species with piercing mouthparts and sucking pharynxes) might be a keystone guild regulating the diversity of both phyto and zooplankton. This stuff (a hypothesis that deserves being tested) is called "natural history" and if the beautiful equations describing the functioning of the systems are not based on solid knowledge about these things, they are a pure exercise in mathematics, but their ecology is very thin. We know NOTHING about what most species do, so how can we infer about their roles in making ecosystems function? I agree that in a simple system we might even do something, but I am speaking about plankton production, the most important ecological event of the planet.

There is a widespread tendency, when trying to answer to a difficult question, to answer an easier one, pretending to have answered the difficult one.

You know what is the most studied ecological system in marine ecology (in terms of published papers)? It is the impact of limpet grazing on algal mats, in the intertidal. What is the overall importance of this system? Zero. But it is easy to manipulate, so one can publish elegant papers on this, and for a change one can even study some barnacles. Very few scientists, if any, study the impact of thaliacean grazing on phytoplankton production. Which is something that might change the functioning of ecosystems at basin scale.

So, Jeroen, do not focus only on the meiofauna, try to include also resting stages in your analyses and, if you can, try to measure the impact of meiofauna predation on resting stage banks. Then passing to the plankton. Not easy eh? better play with equations in your computer. Or with limpets and barnacles.

Summarizing:

1 - we have not explored marine biodiversity with sufficient detail, even considering just the existence of species (but we keep preaching about biodiversity).

2 - we know very little about what the species do, even those we know the existence of.

for most species the life cycles are unknown (think about the resting stages of plankters) or, if the life cycles are known, they are ignored in ecological studies (again plankton, benthos and resting stages) with a decoupling of biology and ecology. In the face of this, we speak about biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

3 - the ways to measure ecosystem functioning are based on insufficient knowledge of what makes ecosystems function (usually there are no life cycles, no parasites, no mutualists, etc.). The most successful papers on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are based on the analysis of prairie grasses (one trophic level) taken as a proxy of biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning is their production above ground (no animals involved, even if Darwin tried to explain, for instance, the importance of earthworms for plant production).

There is a lot of work to do, both from a conceptual point of view and from a data gathering point of view.

ah, in August I gave a course on hydrozoan taxonomy at the Portaferry Marine Laboratory, in Northern Ireland. I was invited because there are no more specialists of the group in the British Isles. Hydroids and their medusae are all over the place, but the knowledge about them is vanishing. And they will not end up in equations, since those who produce equations usually do not even know that they exist, not to speak about what they do.

Look for the presidential address by Robert Ricklefs at the last meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, published in the American Naturalist this year, if you like to read some more about this kind of arguments.

Dear Ferdinando, thanks for your insights! RG is proving to be a very productive outlet for ideas and discussions :-) Perhaps this discussion merits a separate question or topic?

The idea is indeed to focus on meiofauna, but that includes their feeding rates to an extent. Starting from getting insights into how different aspects of meiofauna communities affect benthic functioning by long-term observational data and experiments, the modelling and valuation steps are secondary. There are some interesting modelling examples, which use experimental quantitative data and observation of interactions to identify for instance food-web flows, in papers by Van Oevelen and/or Soetaert using linear inverse modelling. These studies give insights into some interactions between taxa in a food-web context.

I have a deep-sea background, so our previous attempts to resolve rates and effects on mineralisation by meiobenthos were based on experiments and observations using only phytodetrital and bacterial food sources (or some other food sources that are available in the deep sea).

Interesting you mention the resting stages and the general importance of phyto- and zooplankton, because the model that will be used is a plankton functional type model with C, N, P, Si, O as currencies (cf. ERSEM model for temperate shelf environments)... with basically a benthic compartment added to that which includes a meiobenthic subcompartment. I wonder to what extent the issues you raise are integrated in the modelling, if at all... would be good to explore.

I have little experiences with modelling at this moment, my main activity at the moment and initially in the future project is to investigate similar hypotheses as the one you put forward, e.g. effect of meiofauna/nematode diversity and trophic complexity (linked to stressors) on feeding rates and efficiency, mineralisation, bioturbation, and taxon-interactions, etc. Even within the meiofauna, there are many different feeding types, and trying to resolve that picture is indeed important in understanding what is going on in the sediments. As far as I know, the focus on interactions between meiofauna and other taxa in the marine environment, have been mainly limited to interactions with macrofauna, bacteria, viruses (recently) and phytoplankton; the resting stages of plankton in shallow water merits further study in this, I follow you in this.

Do you think the effect of meiofauna predation on resting banks could be tested experimentally? Meiofauna diversity can be manipulated as seen in more recent work with nematodes (cf. Tom Moens, G Dos Santos, etc.), but what about adding benthic resting banks to experimental sediments? Sounds like an interesting exercise.

I realize that reality will only allow many of us to investigate only a very small part of the integrative puzzle, there is so much work to do!

dear Jeroen,

the impact of meiofauna predation on resting stage banks, so as to influence the diversity in the plankton realm (and, from there, the functioning of ecosystems in general) is a model that I made in that paper. Models can be mathematical (and I am not very good at that) or verbal. Mine is a verbal model. Mathematically oriented people call it "story telling", and this implies that it is not so scientific. Well, The Origin of Species is written with a story telling approach, and I think that it cannot be translated into a series of equations, and even it it were possible, the result would not be so innovative as it is still reading that book, unless you are autistic. That model is a hypothesis. I want to repeat it again: the predation of meiofauna on the resting stage banks of marine plankters (and not only in coastal systems, there are plenty of them in canyons) contributes to the control of plankton diversity and, hence, to ecosystem functioning.

Hypotheses are the motor of science. Then they have to be tested. And here your question comes. Can it be experimented? My answer is: I do not know. I have fun putting things together, elaborating hypotheses, and finding faults in former hypotheses (e.g. the spontaneous generation of phytoplankton from nutrients that still dominates standard textbooks and research projects), so as to refine them and build better hypothese. I think that only the knowledge of the systems (and not of mathematics) can help. Mathematics sometimes is an impediment, because it cannot treat too complex problems, and the tendency is to reduce the complexity. This is the job of physics, but there are emergent properties. It is the old story of tacking a complex problem transforming it into a series of simple problems and then pretending to have solved the complex one. When things become too complex, we have to pass from the science of lord Kelvin to the stamp collection of Darwin. Kelvin takled simple problems, Darwin tackled the most complex problems that we can envisage.

So, testing these hypotheses can be very boring. And I have not much fun in doing it. Some people have to build hypotheses, other people can try to translate them into equations, some other people can try to test them. Popperian logic is bullshit in this context. Because these hypotheses are not like the laws of physics. So, if you find a positive result is fine, the mechanism exists. But if you do not find it, it is not that you have falsified the hypothesis and so it has to be rejected. You have simply falsified its universality. But the possibility that things can go also in that way still exists. Ecology is described by existential statements, classical physics is described by universal statements. Evolution can be gradual, sometimes, but it can be saltational at other times. The existence of one type of evolution falsifies the universality of the other, but both exist! The same is true with ecology. So, before working, you have to collect all the stamps, put them together, and write a story about their interactions. You cannot hope to solve the problems by restricting your focus. Even if this will increase your publication scores. If you are very young, do not do it. Restrict your focus. But at a certain moment one has to look at the overall picture.

The problem of ecology is that nobody is looking at it, and all focus on very restricted topics, sometimes translating them in beautifully colored maps of the world that show global situations based on a very restricted understanding of reality. Again to boost own publication scores.

We can do better! Maybe.

Valuing each species in terms of ecology and economics is difficult. I think conservation of biodiversity is more important than valuing.

Dear Fatik,

valuation only makes sense as a step in a process of "rational" decision-making on environmentaly relevant legal, development or conservation decisions. In itself it has no meaning (besides filling the pages of academic journals).

Any specific valuation exercise needs to refer to a "frame" given by at least an outline of the projects contemplated. If you know for yourself (or our patron, or your government, or your citizens) that you want a precise additional amount of conservation - just implement it! In that case you are not in need of additional "rational" valuation steps. Just go ahead!

My experience, however, is that conservation (as well as development projects) often have substantial impacts at least on local production and consumption, i.e. on proples income and other factors of thier utility. In such a situation, it is unlikely that everybody agrees on the project. If the decision-making community want to find out more about the social impact of the projects, that is the moment for valuation. Best regards, jan

I agree with Jan that we need valuation (including that in monetary terms) just for decision-making process and choosing the best “win-win” option. This process is taking place already, e.g. in environmental impact assessment procedure, which requires detail environmental information with specification of protected/rare species and habitats and potential impact of the investment to them. And, I think, I works quite well.

In Poland we only have monetary value assigned to cutting out trees. Unfortunately, the law regulation has some gaps and “shortcuts” (I don’t want to go into details now) and the payment is not always executed but e.g. removal of oak tree with 110 cm circuit would cost ca. 8 600 euro.

Great subject Sulistiyowati Hari.

Biodiversity valuation stays at the base of the bioeconomics development. Can I suggest you to also add tags to this SUBJECT? Tags TOPICS such as: Biophysics, Economics, Environment, Ecology IN ADDITION TO the existing one.?

In my opinion, people involved in the above listed areas of interest. can / should participate at this conversation or at leas learn from the posted comments.

Regards,

Adrian TW

Dear Sir, very please to tag this topic that's the meaning we are here, aren't we? It must be interesting to hear more share and suggestions from other (connected) fields.Especially all the contributors here give their very valuable information. My best regard, Hari

Yes Sulistiyowati Hari, please go to the top of the page, TOPICS and add more connected fields of interest.

thank you Sir, it's done already