Plottu E. et Plottu B. (2012),"Total Landscape values : a multidimensional approach", Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol.55, n°6, pp.797-811. (CNRS 3, AERES C)
Total Landscape values: a multidimensional approach
Eric Plottu CAP EVALUATION,
5 rue d’italie, 49460 Montreuil-Juigné, France Tel : +33 (0)7.86.12.64.56; eric.plottu@capevaluation.fr
Béatrice Plottu
AGROCAMPUS OUEST – Centre of Angers National Institute of Horticulture and Landscape, 2 rue André Le Nôtre , 49045 Angers cedex 01, France
Tel : + 33 (0) 2.41.22.55.18 ; Fax : +33 (0) 2.41.22.54.13 beatrice.plottu@agrocampus-ouest.fr
Eric Plottu a, Béatrice Plottu b, *
ACAP EVALUATION, 5 rue d’italie, 49460 Montreuil-Juigné, France
B AGROCAMPUS OUEST – Center of Angers, National Institute of Horticulture and Landscape, 2 rue André Le Nôtre , 49045 Angers cedex 01, France
*Corresponding author : Email: beatrice.plottu@agrocampus-ouest.fr
Abstract: Landscape involves several sources of valuation (for example ecological, economic, social) which are advisable to integrate into an evaluation. The notion of Total Economic Value, distinguishing use values and non-use values, allows for a reporting of the many features of landscape. However, a purely monetary definition of these values does not allow for reporting of the multi-dimensionality of stakes inherent in landscape management. We propose to reinterpret the value of the landscape within a framework of multi-dimensional analysis based on the distinction of three levels of stakes (profitability, strategic and indentitary) bound to the management of space. We will demonstrate under which conditions (decision rules and decision-making tool) it is possible to implement this multi-dimensional approach to value, and to integrate the landscape as a real criterion of decision-making in development projects.
Keywords: Evaluation, landscape, multi-dimensionality, aggregation rules, sustainable land settlement
1. Introduction
Landscape has multiple meanings, which can be interpreted according to a particular interest: the built-up landscape (form, lay-out…), its history, geography (relief, land- use…) and its environment (hydrology, ecology…). For the 2000 European Landscape Convention, "Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors". Landscape valuation sources and management stakes are multiple, depending on economic, heritage, symbolic and other factors. Landscape appraisal and its use as a criterion in decision-making raises the question of the ability of decision-support methods and tools to integrate such multi-dimensionality into the discussion of rational choice.
The notion of Total Economic Value of the environment drawing together the use and non-use values of an environmental commodity, will, from an analytical point of view, enable taking into account the diversity of services offered by the landscape.
From a practical point of view, monetarisation of the entirety of these use and non-use values will also enable, in theory, the integration of environmental commodities into cost-benefit analysis of planning choices.
While monetarisation of use values does not pose any insurmountable problem to the economist, the case of non-use values is entirely different. The heritage dimension of landscape thus appears difficult to reduce to a quantifiable and “monetarised”
criterion. This is particularly challenging because this dimension is highlighted by the European Landscape Convention, which emphasizes the heritage character of landscape and the need to include its management in any sustainable development strategy.
The problem is that in the absence of monetarisation, qualitative elements such as the heritage dimension of landscape do not constitute decision criteria integrated with economic calculation. Consequently, as they cannot be used in the determination of rational choice, landscape itself does not appear as a real decision criterion.
How can we find ways around this? One route is to supplement the quantified results of economic calculation with the non-monetarised elements arising from public debate and discussion with inhabitants. For example, for the choice between various possible plans of a high-tension line, we shall complete the Cost-Benefit Analysis by more qualitative elements stemming from the consultation of the concerned populations (elements concerning for example the attachment in the landscape, the quality of the landscapes, the history). In France, this method is recommended in the 2001 Boiteux Report, which specified the official reference value of externality generated by transport. This solution has the merit of being relatively easy to implement and does not question the economic foundations of choice determination. It also has the merit of bringing the role of public debate to the forefront in the evaluation process.
However, this recommendation does not meet the goal of the integration of landscape as a decision criterion in the evaluation of public landscape planning policies.
In effect, by these means, landscape is not always a decision criterion. In fact, for some thirty years now, such is the case of the environment and more generally, for all non- moneterisable impacts in landscape infrastructure projects. The test is that a decision made on other grounds, based on essentially economic criteria, is socially acceptable from the point of view of these non-monetarisable dimensions.
A second, more ambitious route is to seek to integrate landscape as a decision criterion, next to, and with the same status as the more easily quantifiable criteria. In that case, and to take back the example of the choice between various possible plans of a high-tension line, we shall decide between plans on the basis of a set of balanced quantitative and qualitative criteria considered relevant for the decision-making.
Technically speaking, taking into account criteria, which are both quantitative and qualitative in decision-support, does not pose any particular problem. Multi-criteria
decision-aid methodologies offer decision tools and aggregation rules enabling the comparison of landscape planning options based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The difficulty resides in an acceptance of “deciding otherwise”. That is to say, basing a decision on rules other than those traditionally of the monetarised cost-benefit balance sheet of economic calculation.
The principal goal of our paper is precisely to examine the conditions for the implementation of this second solution. In the first part, we propose a process for the representation of landscape in the multi-dimensional analysis framework developed by Plottu and Plottu (2007) and based on the distinction of three levels of stakes linked to space management. This framework integrates a multi-criteria analysis. The second part is dedicated to highlighting conditions of workability of this approach and the integration of this multi-dimensional value into evaluation and decision-support.
2. A multi-dimensional definition of landscape value.
In the space of one century, landscape has evolved from being completely ignored in land-planning choices to obtaining a heritage status which must be preserved and valued. Landscape, which is considered as a determining element in the identity and development of urban and rural areas, must henceforth be taken into account in land- planning processes. The aim is to represent in its entirety, the value of landscape through its services and functions such as recreation, contemplative, ecological.
The taking into account of landscape in public decision-making is difficult given its character as a public commodity, and the absence of prices linked to its use. This characteristic leads to wastage and bad management of resources. Consequently, how should the value of all services delivered by landscape be presented and integrated into discussions of planning choices?
From an analytical point of view, the concept of Total Economic Value (TEV), which appeared in the early 1990s for environmental commodities (Pearce, Barbier and Markandya, 1990) allows for identification of all services delivered by the landscape.
The interest of TEV lies in the fact that apart from the direct and indirect use values of an environmental commodity, it integrates values of option and non-use linked to the very existence of the environment. For example, aesthetic and recreational values of landscape can be assimilated as use values and heritage value as a non-use value.
From an operational point of view, the difficulty for the economist lies in the monetary estimation of this total economic value. The monetary expression of this value is in effect indispensable for the integration of landscape into the “monetarised” cost- benefit balance sheet of economic calculation. The concept of TEV is in fact based on individual preferences. Not only use values, but also non-use values are thus linked to preferences expressed by consumers. Staying within the framework of the theory of utility and individual preferences, the only need is to remove the technical obstacle of monetary expression of these values in order to integrate landscape into economic calculation.
The methods of revealing and stating preferences are now well known and widely employed such as the transport cost method, hedonistic prices method, contingent valuation method. Madureira, Rambonilaza and Kaprinski (2007) list numerous studies which have applied these methods to landscape for around twenty years.
The transport cost method estimates the value of landscape based on costs paid by visitors to access a particular area. It offers the advantage of being able to estimate total use value, but cannot assess non-use values.
The hedonistic prices method is an evaluation technique, which calculates the value of the quality of landscape based on differences in rent or property prices in a
particular area. The hedonistic prices method provides an estimation of total value, but focuses only on use values.
The contingent valuation method estimates the value of landscape from stated preferences based on hypothetical behaviour. It consists in presenting people through surveys with hypothetical offers of landscape commodities, and asking them to express willingness to pay for, or to receive, a modified offer of this commodity. The method is based on immediate uses, but also has the advantage of being able to measure the economic benefits of commodities, which are not yet offered. It is the only method, which is, in principal, able to measure non-use values such as existence and legacy values (Kuik et al., 1992). It is also sometimes presented as a technique for implementation of “participative democracy” (O’Neill, 1997). It allows for both the monetary expression of the TEV of landscape and enables the provision of a response to any recommendations to favour public expression and stakeholder participation in an evaluation process.
The multi-attribute choices evaluation method (Adamowick and Boxall, 2001) constitutes an alternative to the contingent valuation method. This method was notably used by Rambonoliza and Dachary-Bernard (2007) for the evaluation of the Monts d’Arrée landscape in Brittany, France. It consists in asking people through a survey, to choose between a number of alternatives, each one representing changes in several attributes and levels of attributes to the environmental commodity in question. The answers given translate (through willingness to pay) to preferences for each multi- attribute change. The advantage of this method in evaluating landscape value is to be able to provide monetary indicators for a particular landscape attribute, not just on a general scale. In the case of landscape, an attribute constitutes a particularly pertinent evaluation scale because public policy rarely has effects on landscape in its entirely, but rather at the scale of the attribute itself (Rambonoliza and Dachary-Bernard, 2007).
It is sometimes well defined in literature (Green and Tunstall, 1991) that TEV only represents part of landscape value, and that it is necessary to distinguish between this total economic value which is defined monetarily by individual preferences, and other values offered by the landscape. TEV incorporates only the part visible to the economist, the part relative to individual preferences. One should not forget the hidden part of landscape value, that which is linked to the concept of heritage, symbolic and identitary value of landscape. This part is difficult to take into account, because it falls outside the private goods box in. It refers to the problem of incommensurability (Aldred, 2006).
TEV cannot represent landscape values in their entirety. From this fact, by giving identical expression (monetary) to use and non-use values, it “harmonises” the difference in nature that exist between the considerations of use of an environmental commodity and the heritage conditions of legacy to future generations. By “erasing” the differences, TEV cannot represent landscape values in their whole multi-dimensionality.
By reasoning only in terms of analysis of utility of individual preferences, TEV worries only about the multi-functionality of landscape. The terms used are not chosen randomly. It is usual to speak of different “services” given by the landscape, and of landscape “offer” and “demand”. We must bear in mind that these ideas represent a vision, which is both particular and therefore diminishing of the value of landscape born from the theory of utility of individual preferences. In an economy, an object has value only if it is useful, capable of satisfying the need of the individual. The terms used refer only to the many features of landscape; not to all the dimensions covered.
To encapsulate landscape value in its multi-dimensional aspect most certainly requires us to move away from the framework of defining value arising from the single theory of individual preference and utility. We refer to the methodology developed by
Plottu and Plottu (2007) and applied to the environment to propose a framework for definition and analysis of the multi-dimensional value of landscape. It aims to represent the difference in characters which exists between different types of landscape values. It proposes a re-interpretation of TEV within a framework which distinguishes respectively three types of choices (profitability, strategic and identitary), linked to the management of space and the environment. The concept of TEV is not irrelevant but is re-interpreted within a new framework where its constituents are not all expressed in monetary terms.
These types of choices refer to three standard principles of objectives pursued by a human organisation (Mélèse, 1990): reproduction, development and optimisation of the present time. We can associate the three types of choices mentioned above with these objectives against which any human organisation, and in this case, any system-decision linked to the management of space and the environment can be confronted. Any other stakes inherent in landscape management such as ecological are part of them.
The identification of the stakes linked to a decision – identitary (if heritage elements are at stake), strategic (touching on the development potential of an area), profitability (choice motivated by the search for short-term profitability which does not affect potential for future development)- provides for a highlighting of the choices of environmental and urban and rural planning.
An essential characteristic of the approach we propose is the hierarchy which arises between these different types of decision. Heritage considerations cannot be placed on the same footing as objectives for optimising the present time. Identitary stakes are in effect of a nature and importance beyond measure as compared to short- term profitability stakes. This is where we find the second essential characteristic of the approach: the nature of the stakes is not fixed once and for all, it is relative to the value system and point of view of the player. Consequently, a different decision can arise from profitability stakes for one type of player or region, as compared with identitary stakes for another.
The difference in nature and the hierarchy between the stakes raised by these problems of choice requires an approach to the decision problem, which is specific to each level of choice. Concepts of use, option and existence values can be defined relative to three types of stakes, profitability, strategic and identitary. The TEV concept can thus be re-interpreted in the framework of this hierarchised rationality (Plottu and Plottu, 2007). The same goes for landscape value. The different values and multi- dimensionality of the stakes linked to landscape management such as heritage, amenities, are thus naturally redefined in this framework of analysis (Fig. 1).
2.1 –Landscape: amenities for present generations (living environment, recreational aspects, beauty) and production resources.
These can be incorporated according to their production value or represented through analysis in terms of utility. These values are traditionally transformed into monetary value via monetarisation methods shown above (part 2). These values refer to the use values of the TEV concept. They correspond to short term satisfaction stakes, optimisation of the present time and refer to profitability stakes.
Figure 1 – A multi-dimensional representation of landscape value.
2.2- Landscape: resources for future development.
Landscape is the product of the development dynamic of a human community on the land. It is both the result of past development, the framework for present development and a reservoir of choice for the future. The stakes linked to this reservoir of options for the future concern the capacity of land for development and adaptation. They correspond to strategic stakes for the community. Here it is about valuing “an uncommitted potentiality for change” (Bateson, 1972) of the landscape. This strategic value of landscape is close to the concept of option value within the TEV concept.
2.3 – Landscape: elements of self-reference and identity allowing a particular region or area to be recognised as such.
Landscape is often a key element in the identity of an area or region, and is the feeling of belonging to the people of this same community. This link refers to the concept of attachment and to the traditional place attachment dimensions of identity and dependence (Hammitt, Kyle, Oh, 2009). Some researchers added others dimensions such as affective attachment (Kyle et al., 2004), social bonding (Kyle, Graefe &
Manning, 2005), and familiarity, belongingness, and rootedness (Hammitt et al., 2006).
This value of identification can be linked to a particular element of the landscape, an element which can be linked to tales and legends, or more simply to the historical relationship which links a local community to its environment. This identification value is not necessarily associated with a particularly remarkable landscape. It could be an ordinary or “deteriorated” landscape of which the typical example is that of mining regions. Carvajal, Gonzalez and Carvajal (2002) perfectly sum up how this identitary value is linked to landscape with regards to the mining region of Murcia in southeast Spain. In reference to the mined landscape, they note, “this heritage represents the own identity and idiosyncrasy of these local communities, it is the testimony, signs, emblems from one prosperous and glorious past that help to strengthen the image and self-esteem of these populations” (p.76).
BECOMING
DOING
Heritage of the past History of a community Dynamic trend
Amenities for actual generations / resources for production
(profitability value I)
Resources for the future Development,
Adaptability Key element of identity
Self recognition as a single community (identitary value III)
BEING
This heritage also represents a development potential for the local community, notably for cultural tourism to these areas. Examples of projects of touristic value of mining landscape have developed in various regions of Europe (for example, the Nord Pas de Calais in France, Wallonia In Belgium, the Highlands in Scotland,…). These projects are both an opportunity to preserve the industrial heritage and affirm the cultural identity of a local community, as well as an opportunity for restructuring and future development (Conesa, Schulin and Nowack, 2008, p.694). Two aspects of heritage valuation of landscape – identitary and strategic – can be seen here.
The example of mining landscapes is interesting because it perfectly illustrates the definition of the notion of heritage. The landscape represents both a heritage of the past conferring an identity upon a local community (identitary value) and a resource for future development (strategic value). The difficulty is how to present these different but additional dimensions of landscape in the evaluation and in decision-support.
Evaluation tools and decision rules are required which are capable of presenting and differentiating between all sources of landscape valuation, especially in order to take into account the difference in nature and hierarchy which exist between heritage considerations and those in the search for short term profitability.
3. Multi-dimensionality: from evaluation to decision.
The ability or not to integrate the multi-dimensionality of the value within an evaluation and decision-support depends firstly on the choice of method of aggregation of preference and the conception of rational decision. It is possible to distinguish two principal methods of aggregation of preferences: Aggregate then Compare (AC) and Compare then Aggregate (CA) (Fig. 2).
Figure 2 – Two methods of aggregation of preferences.
Aggregate then Compare (AC) Compare then Aggregate (CA)
Projects Projects
The choice of one or other method of aggregation is fundamental. It will condition the determination of rational choice and direct the public decision.
Aggregate then Compare (AC) is the traditional method, which enables a determination of rational choice via economic calculation. Cost-Benefit Analysis is based on an Aggregate then Compare (AC) method. It implies that all criteria (C1 ……
Criteria
A B C D E C1
C2 C3 C4 C5
A B C D E C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C5) judged relevant for the decision-making, helping to choose a project among several, are expressed as a single unit and then aggregate to obtain a total value. This unit is the currency in the framework of economic calculation. For this reason, monetarisation of environmental, social… dimensions are inevitable for all dimensions to be taken into account in the determination of rational choice between two options A and B.
Cost-benefit analysis, based on weighted sums of benefits-costs of options, enables a determining of rational choice for a local authority. Monetary definition of the different components of TEV meets this demand. It is only through monetary expression of a value that the integration of landscape value into analysis becomes possible. This method enables the public decision-maker to invest only in the projects which, from the point of view of the community, represent the best possible use of the resources.
The “Compare then Aggregate” method (CA) consists in comparing the performance of options A and B criteria by criteria. It enables the requirement to transform units of criteria into one single unit to be removed. Thus, monetarisation of the environment, which poses technical and ethical problems, is no longer an inevitable stage in the determination of a rational solution. On the other hand, it is necessary to acquire a rule to determine choice, such as, for example, “I choose A and not B if A is better than B for a majority of criteria”. This rule is the results of voting procedures (cf.
Condorcet, Borda).
Multi-criteria decision-support methods (Roy, 1996) make this method of aggregation operational and throw light on the choice between different options. This method is particularly interesting for the evaluation of sustainable development in which the different dimensions to be considered such as economic, environmental, social and good management, are naturally expressed for different units and associated with both qualitative and quantitative elements. The method is interesting in case no option seems more successful than the others for all the dimensions to be considered and so, furthermore, the criteria on which are judged the options are conflicting. The method aims at helping to operate a compromise between these various options on the basis of the various expressed criteria.
Cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria decision-aid can be mutually reinforcing.
They are complementary tools. Cost-benefit analysis is recommended when it is easy to aggregate all dimensions in monetary terms and multi-criteria decision-aid is advised when certain criteria are not necessarily monetarisable (for example, heritage).
“Vertical” reasoning on the “Aggregate then Compare” performance table enables determination, via a weighted sum, of the “absolute” value of an option. Then the value of an option is compared to the value of other options.
“Horizontal” reasoning of “Compare then Aggregate” (a comparison of performance criteria by criteria) enables a determination of the “relative” value of an option compared to another option. By maintaining the unit, which is specific to each characteristic of a project, “Compare then Aggregate” allows preservation of the multi- dimensionality of the decision problem.
In concrete terms, it is possible to illustrate what leads to a passing from the AC to the CA method of aggregation with the example of the criteria “landscape beauty”
(Fig. 3). Let us ask someone to compare three options of land planning according to the
“beauty” criteria, by showing three photos: landscape A, landscape B, landscape C.
With “Compare then Aggregate”, it is possible to ask this person to rank these three options according to beauty and to express a preference on an ordinal scale, for example, very bad (score 1), bad (score 2), quite good (score 3), good (score 4), very good (score 5). This ordinal scale is sufficient to integrate the particular criteria into the
determination of an option alongside other criteria expressed in other units of marking scales.
With “Aggregate then Compare”, an extra stage is needed on top of the qualitative and ordinal expression of preference for any particular landscape in order to integrate this criteria. It is also necessary to determine an individual’s willingness to pay (to receive) in order to take advantage of a particular landscape instead of another landscape.. This stage is much more conceptually difficult for the lay person to grasp, than simply expressing a preference between a particular landscape on an ordinal scale. Only when the criterion is monetarised can it be incorporated, alongside other monetarised criteria in the determination of the optimal option. It works in this way for methods born from the theory of utility of individual preferences widely used for estimating total economic value. The TEV concept is not irrelevant but can be re-interpreted in a “Compare then Aggregate” framework.
Figure 3 - Aggregation of preferences - applied to landscape beauty
I prefer C then A then B
Aggregate then Compare (AC) Compare then Aggregate (CA) Landscape
C Landscape
A
Landscape B
Mark on a scoring scale from 1 to 5.
Options
Criteria A B C
Cost $
Beauty 2 1 4
… How much are you prepared to pay to
benefit from C and not A?
Options
Criteria A B C Cost $ $
Beauty $ $
… $ $ Σ $ Σ $
We have used the example of the beauty aspect of landscape, which can be referred to as a value of use for which it is theoretically possible to use monetary valorisation methods. The decisive advantage of “Compare then Aggregate” methods appears especially for the option and non-use values (heritage aspects) for which a rationale in terms of use and monetarisation exceed the limits of their application.
“Compare then Aggregate” method enables to express on an ordinal scale the performances of various options of planning with regard to their heritage stakes in the side of the other criteria of decision expressed on the other scales of performances (ordinal or cardinal). This methods allows to determine a solution of the problem of decision.
Consider a problem of choice between tree planning options (X, Y, Z) on the basis of their performances according to five decision criteria (cost, use value of landscape, strategic value of landscape, identitary value of landscape and insertion of the project in the landscape).
The two first criteria are expressed in euros. Strategic and identitary value of landscape are expressed in an ordinal scale: notation system from 1 to 5 (1 being a very bad score and 5 a very good one). The “insertion” criterion is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 (very bad insertion) to 4 (very good insertion).
Decision-makers attribute a relative weight to each criteria in order to reflect the relative importance they gave to them for decision-making. In our example, the
“identitary value” criterion represents a weight of 4, because decision-makers attribute four times more importance to it than to the “cost “ criterion. (By concern of simplicity, the total sum of the different weights is equal to 10. This total is chosen by the actors, it can be bigger.) The performance of the different options according to different criteria is given below.
Table 1 - Multi-criteria performance table for a planning project
Options Criteria
X Y Z Weights threshold
of veto Cost of planning
(euros)
40, 000 80, 000 70, 000 1 20, 000 Use values
(euros)
50 180 70 1 150
Strategic values
(ordinal scale from 1 to 5)
3 5 2 2 4
Identitary values
(ordinal scale from 1 to 5)
4 3 5 4 3
Insertion in the landscape (notation from 1 to 3)
4 3 3 2 2
To help the decision-maker in his choice, the multi-criteria aggregation rule of the type ELECTRE (for a detailed presentation of ELECTRE methods, see Figueira, Mousseau, Roy, 2005) involves for example a determination of the global preference for option X over Y, if X is at least as good as the option Y , that is to say if a sufficient number of criteria are in favour of the statement “option X outperforms option Y” (for these criteria, we can establish a concordance index) and none of the criteria should oppose to the statement in a too strong way (non discordance index).
ELECTRE methods lean on the outranking relation: option or alternative X outranks option Y (noted XSY) if the performance of X on a given criterion is at least as good (superior or equal) as that obtained for Y on the same criterion. We present the ELECTRE Iveto method because it is simple to explain and it allows us to work from a table of performances expressed in various units, what corresponds to the table 1.
From outranking assumptions for an option on the other one, we are going to verify on which criteria the hypothesis of outranking is verified (which criteria suit to the composed hypothesis). Hence , we can establish a concordance index by adding the weights of the criteria verifying the hypothesis on the total sum of the weights. For example, for the hypothesis X outranks Y (noted XSY), the concordance index is equal to 0.7 (We made the sum of weights of the first one, the fourth and of fifth matching criteria brought back to the total sum of the weights , i.e. 1+4+2/10). The index of concordance so varies between 0 and 1 (0 when the composed hypothesis is verified by no criterion, 1 when it is verified by all the criteria). An index of concordance of 1 would so mean that the performance of the option X is so good at least as that of Y on all the criteria.
For the criteria for which the hypothesis of outranking is not verified (when the criterion is discordant with the hypothesis, that is when the performance of X is less good than that of the Y), we are going to verify that the difference of performances does not reach certain threshold (that we shall call veto threshold). The concept of veto threshold is related in some way, to the definition of an upper bound beyond which the discordance about the hypothesis “X outranks Y” can not surpass and allow an outranking. It is the case when X is as good as Y in a large majority of criteria but obtains for one criterion a unacceptable counter-performance from the point of view of the decision-maker who prevents him finally from choosing this option. To validate “X outranks Y”, it is necessary that, among the minority of criteria that are opposed to this hypothesis, that none of them puts its veto.
If this threshold is reached or exceeded, we reject the hypothesis of outranking (what is translated by an index of concordance equal to 0). For example, the index of concordance of YSX is equal to 0 because we reach the threshold of veto for the discordant criterion " cost ". For this criterion, the decision-maker does not accept a difference of performances of 20, 000 and more. Indeed, for the criterion “cost”, the difference of performances between the option Y (80, 000) and X (40, 000) is equal to 40, 000. This number exceeds the threshold of veto of 20 000. Therefore the index of concordance is equal to 0. The table 2 of the index of concordance is produced below:
Table 2- Table of the index of concordance
Options X Y Z
X 0 0
Y 0.7 0.7
Z 0.5 0.5
Note: The table is read of the height downward (according to the sense of the arrow).
Example : XSY, XSZ, …
To decide between the options, we are going to fix a minimum threshold of concordance to be reached. This threshold varies between 0 and 1. The more the decision-maker fixes this threshold close to 1, the more it is requiring to accept a hypothesis of outranking. Let us fix for example this threshold of concordance to 0.7.
With this level of requirement, two hypotheses of outranking are verified: XSY and ZSY.
We can determine among all the options one under set not outranked options in which the final choice of an option can be made. In our example, two options X and Z perform both conditions (threshold of veto and minimal threshold of concordance). The final choice of the decision-maker can thus be made between X and Z which are not outranked.
For the needs of the demonstration, we limited our presentation to the method ELECTRE Iveto on a very simplified case where intervenes only a weak number of options and criteria. This does not allow to seize all the wealth of the methods of outranking, in particular the possibility of working simultaneously with several weighty systems reflecting the value systems of actors' various types of the decision what allows to see if a consensual solution gets free.
Multi-criteria decision-aid methodologies enable the “Compare then Aggregate”
rule to operate and highlight the choice of the decision-maker. There are now numerous examples of the application of and multi-criteria decision-aid methods which are founded on aggregation rules and tools (software) adapted to different decisional contexts. Here we refer in particular to Roy (1996).
As well as being able to work on criteria expressed for different units, these methods have the advantage of also being tools for negotiation, support and dialogue between players. Multi-criteria decision-aid methodods allow to arrive at a compromise between the actors, which takes into account stakes and value system of every category of represented actors. The process is ‘value engaged’, it assumes that any human intervention in a process is not neutral and therefore conveys a set of values which helps determine the process (Plottu and Plottu, 2009). The final choice is the result of a social construction. With reference ro Kymlicka (2001), we recommend to define some rules to preserve the equality of dialogue between the groups of participants. This is particularly interesting within the participative evaluation process.
Participation, if considered as an imperative with regard to the good management and participative democracy of sustainable development, is especially inevitable in an evaluation process which intends to present the multi-dimensionality of stakes linked to all sustainable land planning projects (Selman, 2004). Participation, in particular, of local populations, is a necessary condition for the expression of non-use values (heritage). The heritage value of landscape is expressed, effectively, according to the environment people live in, and should be determined as close to the local population as possible.
If the idea of participation seems self-evident in terms of anticipating non-use values, a participative evaluation process for public policy is more complicated than it appears, on two fronts.
1- Participative evaluation requires adaptive methods and necessary time to inform, mobilise and accompany players in the evaluative process.
2- The value of an appraisal based on local knowledge is not always recognised.
What value should be attributed to this local knowledge in the evaluation process with regard to the technical appraisal?
To return to the example of landscape beauty, the question of whether evaluation of landscape quality should be founded on public opinion or the work of experts was widely debated during the 1980s (Craik, 1972; Jacques, 1980, …). Such defiance with regard to practical opinion (the population) can be found in the field of evaluation of public policy, and in debates surrounding participative evaluation (Pollitt, 1999).
Conflicts arising from planning projects are often a result of the different perceptions of the nature of impacts on an area. Shedding light on the nature of stakes
within a participative evaluation process – identitary, strategic, profitability – for each group of players enables conflict to be identified and prevented earlier in the process.
The more the stakes appear important for the two parties, the stronger the risk of conflict. In the case where the stakes are identitary for the two parties, the risk of impasse is maximal. The stakes appear to stem from “heritage” stakes are non- negotiable. When the stakes are of a strategic and/or heritage, the risks of conflict are numerous. In case profitability/identitary, the probability of compensation is high. The carrier of stake profitability will agree to compensation and the player pursuing level identitary objectives will be prone to agree to compensate in order to push the project through. On the other hand, negotiated outcomes are all the more probable when the stakes are deemed by both parties to be simple a question of profitability.
By using Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and by identifying upstream the nature of the stakes of a particular project upon a territory, it is possible to establish a diagram of the areas of Impasse/conflict/negotiation/compensation between two group of players. These two groups oppose: the one is for the project, the other one is against (Plottu and Plottu, 2007). Mapping of the areas of negotiation and conflict can thus be drawn up by comparing opposing interests around a planning project (Table 3).
Table 3 – “ICNC” Mapping of Impasse/Conflicts/Negotiations/Compensations
Conflicts between A and B around a planning project.
For A Nature of the impact For B
Profitability Strategic
Identitary
Profitability Negotiation Negotiation Compensation
Strategic Negotiation Conflicts Conflicts
Identitary Compensation Conflicts Impasse
It is therefore possible to think about rules for the coordination and priority of action to give to one or another player according to the level of impacts at stake. In a sustainable development dynamic context, for example, the sustainability objective requires at the least a preservation of the vital interests (heritage) of a local community.
These interests enable the community to recognise itself and survive in the future (identitary and strategic stakes) relative to short-term objectives seeking profitability.
Conclusion
What conclusion should be drawn about the capacity of our evaluation processes and tools to integrate multi-dimensionality in decision-making? The landscape evaluation example provokes two contrasting feelings with regard to the ability to take into account this multi-dimensionality in planning choices.
On one hand, there should be optimism because the technical barriers which can prevent the expression of this complexity are not insurmountable. It is possible to work on both quantitative and qualitative criteria, expressed in different units and thus respect the multi-dimensional nature of stakes linked to a planning decision. Aggregation rules and decision-support tools do effectively exist, and enable the planning decision to be
highlighted using these criteria. Rules of aggregation of preference such as “Compare then Aggregate” can be the basis of a decision. Multi-criteria decision-support can use a range of more or less complex tools adapted to different decision contexts (participation versus expertise). Cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria decision-aid can be mutually reinforcing. Cost-benefit analysis is recommended when it is easy to aggregate all dimensions in monetary terms and multi-criteria decision-aid is advised when certain criteria are not necessarily monetarisable (for example, heritage).
On the other hand, this is scepticism about the possibility of generalising such approaches because barriers are above all cultural. The choice of the “Compare then Aggregate” method signifies a questioning of the traditional conception of rational decision, which has directed public choices since the start of the 20th century.
The integration of subjective and qualitative criteria into economic calculation does not correspond to the scientific image of an evaluative process reposing on “hard figures”, figures that are however, only robust by convention. How can the fact of consenting to pay for one or another landscape be less arbitrary than expressing a preference on an ordinal scale? How can basing a decision on the comparison of performance options of each decision criteria (quantitative or qualitative) be less sound than basing it on the comparison of a monetarised sum of the costs and advantages of each option? Above and beyond the problem of method, the challenge of integrating multi-dimensionality into evaluation and decision-support depends above all, on the answer to these questions.
References
Adamowick, W. and Boxall, P., 2001. Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation. Choice experiments: a new approach to environmental valuation, London, England.
Aldred, J., 2006. Incommensurability and Monetary Valuation, Land economics, 82, 141-161.
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University Of Chicago Press.
Cavajal, D.J., Gonzalez, A, Carvajal, J.M., 2002. Patrimonio minero y paisaje urbano, III Congreso Internacional sobre Patrimonio Geologico y Minero, Defenda del Patrimonio y Desarrollo Regional, VII Sesion Cientifica, Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena, Instituto Geologico Minero de Espana, Cartagena, 24, 25, 26, de octubre de 2002, pp.76.
Conesa, H.M., Schulin, R., Nowack, B., 2008. Mining landscape: A cultural tourist opportunity or an environmental problem ? The study case of the Cartagena-La Union Mining District (SE Spain). Ecological Economics, 64, 690-700.
Craik, K.H., 1972. Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 4, 255-266.
Figueira, J., Mousseau, V. and Roy, B., 2005. ELECTRE Methods, In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (ed.), Multiple criteria decision analysis : State of the art surveys, Springer, International series in operations research & management science,133-162.
Green, C.H. and Tunstall, S.M., 1991. Is the economic valuation of environmental resources possible ?. Journal of Environmental Management, 33, 123-141.
Jacques, D.L., 1980. Landscape Appraisal: The Case for a Subjective Theory. Journal of Environmental Management,10, 107-113.
Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., and Bixler, R. D., 2006. Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25, 17-41.
Hammitt W. E., Kyle G. T. and Oh C. O., 2009. Comparison of Place Bonding Models in Recreation Resource Management, Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 55-70.
Kuik, O.J., Oosterhuis, F.H., Jansen, H.M.A., Holm, K., Ewers, H.J., 1992. Assessment of benefits of environmental measures. London, Graham et Trotman, 125 pp.
Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., and Tarrant, M., 2004. Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439-454.
Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A. R., and Manning, R. E., 2005. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreation settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 153-177.
O’Neill, J., 1997. Managing without prices: the monetary valuation of biodiversity.
Ambio, 26(8), 546-550.
Kymlicka, W., 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship, Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Madureira, L., Rambonilaza, M., Kaprinski, I. , 2007. Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 120(1), 5-20.
Mélèse J., 1990. Approches systémiques des organisations. Paris, Les Editions d’Organisation.
Pearce, D., Barbier, E., Markandya, A., 1990. Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment the Third World. Aldershot. Edward Elgar.
Plottu, E. and Plottu, B., 2007. The concept of Total Economic Value of environment : A reconsideration within a hierarchical rationality. Ecological Economics, 61, 52-61.
Pollitt, C., 1999. Stunted by Stakeholders ? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation. Public Policy and Administration, 14(2), 77-90.
Selman, P., 2004. Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3), 365-392.
Rambonoliza, M. and Dachary-Bernard, J., 2007. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments methods?. Landscape and Urban planning, 83, 318-326.
Roy, B., 1996. Multicriteria Methodology for Decsision Aiding. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
