چارچوب نظری برای تجزیه و تحلیل اقتصادی از مسائل زیست محیطی به طور فضایی خودآگاه

This paper proposes a theoretical framework for the integration of economic aspects and environmental aspects into the decision-making process for sustainable development strategies. The aim is integrate Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and environmental valuation methods in the structure of a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in order to better evaluate spatial concerns. The conceptual approach is augmented by a modest case study of a marina development in Santa Rosaliita on the Baja California peninsula in Mexico. This marina project is part of the proposed ‘Escalera Nautica’ an ambitious regional development scheme, which has caused controversy concerning its social, economic and environmental implications. The paper outlines the necessity to develop spatially conscious methodologies for a policy relevant research regarding sustainable regional development. Additionally, the paper contributes a spatial analytic perspective based on normative economic principles to the recent discussion on environmental economic geography.

1.1. Economic geography and the environment Environmental economic geography as a subfield of economic geography has recently been a point of discussion with respect to its current status and its future promise. In this discussion it is lamented that economic geography – in spite of geography’s inherently interdisciplinary focus and long research tradition of human–environment-relations – has until recently largely ignored the environment beyond its treatment as a more or less passive location condition or resource factor input (Angel, 2000, Braun, 2002, Hayter, 2004, Soyez, 2002a, Soyez, 2002b, Soyez and Schulz, 2002 and Wallace, 2002). The situation is troubling, especially given the continuing debate on environmental sustainability. Related disciplines (e.g. economics, sociology) have addressed questions that deal with the consequences of economic activities and other environmental issues but such research has been surprisingly rare in economic geography (Gibbs, 2006, Angel, 2000, Bridge, 2002 and Gibbs and Healy, 1997). The exception is research directly related to agriculture and/or forestry and land use change which is clearly rooted in economic geography (e.g., Munroe and York, 2003 and Bastian et al., 2002).1 Most of the discussion regarding the contribution economic geography as a sub-discipline can or should make to environmental issues has focused on the sub-discipline’s lack of a coherent focus. Economic geography, it is argued, has not developed a systematic theory to deal with the conflicts between the economy and the environment; geography’s fragmentation between ‘physical geography’ and ‘human geography’ is cited as one of the underlying factors for this lacuna (Soyez, 2002a and Soyez, 2002b). However, dealing with environmental issues in economic geography provides an important opportunity to bridge the gap between human and physical geography (Braun, 2002). On that basis, there has been a recent push to strengthen the role of economic geography as a research discipline in dealing with environmental issues and a number of researchers have started to increasingly engage with this topic.2 It is noteworthy that in the recent discussion regarding an environmental economic geography the relevance of spatial analytic approaches or the value of relevant research based on normative economic principles is seldom discussed. However a number of geographers (e.g., Hanink, 1995b, Hanon, 1994, Perrings and Hannon, 2001 and Munroe and York, 2003) have engaged in this type of work and it is the author’s opinion that there is much to learn from this. One of the concerns addressed in the research presented here is the integration of economic aspects and environmental aspects into the decision-making process for sustainable development strategies. Whereas human-economic behavior is easily measurable in monetary terms, capitalizing the ‘value of nature’ poses persisting challenges. Even though there are valid and important criticisms regarding the valuation of nature in monetary terms3, it is the author’s belief that: (a) Monetary values are still the only common denominator among stakeholders in any environmental or land use debate (b) that because of this decision makers still rely heavily on CBA methodologies and (c) concurring with Hanink (1995a, p. 373), “spatial analysis in general and spatial-economic analysis in particular, can help rather than hinder, progress towards solutions of environmental problems” – especially, if further research regarding the improvement of normative methods concerning the valuation of nature is undertaken. The contribution of this paper lies in the fact that the research presented here provides a spatial analytic perspective based on normative economic principles ‘a perspective that is clearly underrepresented in the recently emerging discussion about an ‘environmental economic geography’. The largely conceptual research offered here, extends Hanink’s (1995a) approach by providing a theoretical discussion on how it can be embedded into policy relevant applied geography and therefore answers to the call for such research (Braun, 2002 and Angel, 2000). In the context of policy relevancy this research presents a markedly different perspective (spatial analytic) than related research on policy and scale addressed by Jonas and Gibbs (2003) and others (Bridge and Jonas, 2002, Gibbs et al., 2002, Heynen, 2003, Jonas and Bridge, 2003, Swyngedow, 2004 and Swyngedow and Heynen, 2003), which is grounded primarily in political economy. The research presented here has two goals: a general and a more specific one. Relevant to the previous discussion the first and more general aim is to contribute to the literature on environmental economic geography by providing an interdisciplinary research perspective that links the field of environmental economics with the fields of economic geography. The focus here is to demonstrate that research based on normative economic principles can and should play a significant role as part of a coherent environmental economic geography. The second and more specific aim is to outline the need for ‘spatially sensitive’ – taking into consideration the concepts of scale and proximity – valuation methods of nature in a regional development context. This paper outlines some theoretical ideas on how GIS technologies can be used to improve land management decisions in a cost–benefit analysis (CBA)4 context. The failed Santa Rosaliita marina development – a part of the Escalera Nautica project in coastal Baja California and the Sea of Cortez areas in Mexico – is used to illustrate the conceptual framework in a real world context. The case study also provides a starting point for a discussion of CBA as an integral part of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)5 – a strategy for managing coastal development widely favored by policy makers (Turner, 2000). The research related to the Santa Rosaliita marina development is not intended to be an empirical investigation but rather aims to provide a real life framework for the discussion of the problem at hand and illustrates the need to develop better valuation and analysis methodologies in a CBA context. Though most of the information on the case study is based on secondary sources, using the Santa Rosaliita marina development as a relevant example aids in the shaping of the overall discussion; and reduces the level of abstraction. The remainder of this paper is divided into three parts. The first part provides a brief discussion about valuing nature from an environmental economics perspective and outlines the spatial shortcomings related to this perspective. The next part of the paper offers some thoughts on how GIS technology can be used to improve ‘spatial sensitivity’ in a CBA framework. The paper concludes with a few thoughts regarding the applicability of the discussed concepts into an integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) strategy in the context of the case study.

The discussion presented makes a case for furthering geographical inquiry of sustainability issues rooted in environmental economic principles through the presentation of a conceptual approach aimed at the union of CBA and GIS methodologies. Even though the model here is conceptual and simplified, it does provide a relevant starting point for discussion regarding the importance of spatial aspects in a CBA framework, especially of CBA in the context of development schemes at the regional versus the local level. The author is aware of the number and variety of criticisms related to CBA in general and economic valuation techniques of ‘nature’ specifically. These criticisms can be either of practical (Diamond and Husman, 1994) or philosophical nature (Harvey, 1996 and Eberle and Hayden, 1991). Regarding CBA, one significant criticism is put forth by Collins (1999) pertaining to the potential Pareto improvement criterion – which is the basis for decisions in CBA – and sustainability. Collins states that if intragenerational sustainability is to be assured, the potential Pareto improvement criterion has to give way to actual compensation from gainers to losers. However, while this is certainly a valid point in the sustainability debate, this paper is not intended to provide a philosophical discussion about CBA and the economic valuation of nature specifically. The opinion presented here is, that CBA it is an important and widely employed technique for improving the decision-making process in regional development schemes. However, it is not a ‘perfect’ method and needs to be improved on a number of levels. Certain guidelines or environmental standards for CBA, such as following the precautionary principle (Haigh, 1993) and the save minimum standard (Bishop, 1978) approach can go along way in making economic valuation of the environment a useful approach for protecting the environment (Bräuer, 2003). Some of the criticisms of a more practical nature have to necessarily be considered such as the lack of spatial sensitivity and therefore regional applicability of traditional CBA. The modest approach presented here provides some initial suggestions for improvement of CBA methodologies regarding its spatial inadequacies. The discussion clearly outlines the need for increased spatial sensitivity of CBA and provides useful observations to deal with this. However, a number of related aspects need to be explored further, such as the effect of scale. It is apparent that changing the scale of analysis – or the areal unit – will have marked effects on the outcome of a GIS enhanced CBA. Here, availability at different scale will have an effect on the robustness of the results. Further research needs to also be undertaken regarding the implementation of the integration of a GIS enhanced CBA into ICZM. Appraisal of environmental impacts of economic development in the coastal zone has been problematic because the behavior of fragile ecological systems and the responses of these systems to human intervention are far from fully understood. It is therefore necessary to develop a methodology of analysis that is able to not only value the social costs and benefits but is also sensitive to issues of sustainability and ecosystem health. ICZM strategies are intended to just that and also allow for a continuous feedback approach from stakeholders to aid in the identification of variables affecting coastal development as well as the methods available to assess the sustainable use of the coastal zone. Given the scope of ICZM, it is not surprising that economic valuation-schemes, even though they need improvement to reduce their spatial limitations, are an important part ICZM (Turner et al., 1998 and Turner, 2000). The conceptual approach presented can be very useful as it will allow us to observe local changes at a regional scale. Further research needs to include a methodology aimed at the integration of this approach with ICZM. Linking the approach presented here with ideas proposed by Fabbri’s (1998), whose research provides an interesting approach for improved decision aid in ICZM, linking GIS-based Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) methods within a spatial decision support system (SDSS), may be fruitful. ICZM can provide a framework for a regional analysis of environmental, as well as socioeconomic implications of the Escalera Nautica project taking in account the unique conditions and constraints in the coastal zone. The development of such a methodology in the Escalera Nautica context is necessary because, “the early assessment of the impacts of human activities on the quality of the environment in coastal areas is important for decision-making, particularly in cases of environment/development conflicts, such as environmental degradation and saturation in tourist areas (Kitsiou et al., 2002, p. 1). Even though the goal of the Mexican Government is to eventually develop a functioning ICZM, it is noteworthy that ICZM strategies are not sufficiently developed regarding the coastal areas of the Baja California peninsula and the Sea of Cortez (Rivera-Arriaga and Villalobos, 2001). The result of this can be witnessed in the not only proposed but already started Escalera Nautica Project, which arguably has some challenges to overcome regarding the environmental evaluation of economic behavior (Dean and Pesenti, 2003). Even though, the application of GIS enhanced CBA in the context of the Escalera Nautica may prove worthwhile, it would require extensive empirical research. It would be necessary to obtain TCM or CVM estimates with more spatial resolution. TCM would have to be based on smaller zones and CVM would have to be based on surveys with more respondents across a number of scales and improved spatial sampling techniques. This paper not only provided an initial discussion about some of the available methods of valuing nature but also illustrates the possibility of spatially adapting already useful CBA methods in the context of integrated coastal zone management and CBA – especially if enhanced through GIS – can provide a useful dimension in the decision-making process regarding ICZM and sustainable development. It is an approach that employs a measure everyone understands, money. It is argued that sustainable development can only be achieved through communication among stakeholders (Chaineaux and Charlier, 2003) – so why not use a measure everyone can understand. Finally, and referring back to first goal of this paper which is to contribute to the emerging discussion on environmental economic geography, it is the author’s belief that this paper provides a compelling example for an interdisciplinary research perspective that links the field of environmental economics with the fields of economic geography. The research presented is a continuation of environmental economic research from a spatial analytic perspective. This type of research is not able to contribute much to the larger philosophical questions regarding the value of nature or questions regarding who should or should not be involved in the decision-making process. However, the concepts discussed are clearly important in any applied, policy relevant discussion dealing with the conflicts between the economy and the environment. Therefore, this research approach addresses the need for a spatial economic perspective as part of a coherent environmental economic geography.