Equivalence of data and weighting in marine biological evaluation?
This discussion is part of a summary of the results of a workshop on marine biological valuation, held from 6 to 8 December 2006 at Ghent (Belgium). The workshop was a joint venture of the EU CA ENCORA (http://www.encora.org) and the EU NoE MARBEF (http://www.marbef.org). Both Theme 7 within ENCORA and Theme 3 within MARBEF deal with marine/coastal biological valuation and the workshop aimed to reach a consensus on this topic. The article considers the difference between 'habitat maps' and marine biological valuation maps.
"At this point, we are only able to produce maps on the community level (i.e. biological valuation maps) and on the ecosystem level (i.e. habitat maps). The biological valuation map is obtained by adding separate component maps (e.g. fish, benthos, birds, etc.).
One way to add these component maps could be to plot only the subareas with a ‘high’ value for a certain component and to give a ‘higher’ value where ‘high’ values for different components overlap. In this way the final BVM shows all subareas which are of value for one or more component.
The separate component maps should always be attached, so the user can see for which components a subarea is of relevance.
The habitat maps are considered to be characterization maps and they should not be combined with the BVM. However they should be used next to each other to supply relevant additional information."
These paragraphs reflect the main discussion outcomes of the ENCORA Theme 7-MARBEF Theme 3 workshop on marine biological valuation (6-8 December 2006, Gent, Belgium). (http://www.marbef.org/documents/Theme3/GhentWS/report.pdf)