Ecological Archives A025-089-A1

Steve J. Sinclair, Peter Griffioen, David H. Duncan, Jessica E. Millett-Riley, and Matthew D. White. 2015. Quantifying ecosystem quality by modeling multi-attribute expert opinion. Ecological Applications 25:1463–1477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1485.1

Appendix A. Instructional material supplied to experts.

Written instructions to expert participants

1. Rank the 15 imaginary sites from best to worst by arranging the cards in order. Tied ranks are permitted for sites of equivalent value.

2. Assign a “value” to the sites in the following format:

• 0 = least valuable (worst) possible site you can imagine
• 100 = most valuable (best) possible site you can imagine
• Use 5 point increments (0,5,10,15,20…etc)
• Multiple sites can be given the same score if they are of equivalent value

3. If you can imagine sites better or worse than the range of cards in your set, such that none of the cards warrant a score 0 and/or 100, ask for a blank card and create your own sites to provide a score of 0 and/or 100.

Notes on the conception of ‘Value’

Consider the value of the grassland in any / all of the following terms:

• as habitat for animals or plants (e.g. contribution to the persistence of species),
• its current balance between native and exotic species,
• its species diversity,
• the abundance of particular species (e.g. as a genetic resource for evolutionary processes, or as a seed supply),
• its value to society as an aesthetic, recreational or educational asset,
• how important or desirable the site should be for government agencies or conservation organisations to fight to protect,
• how much you, as an expert, “like” the vegetation.

Please try NOT to introduce the following considerations. We acknowledge they are important, but they will not be dealt with in this exercise:

• The actual cost of maintaining or improving the vegetation,
• The likely future for the site (whether good or bad),
• The liability or danger the site poses to other sites (e.g. as weed or pest harbour; as a fire hazard),
• Any presumed size or spatial context of the site.

Notes on the description of sites:

• The sites are of the same indeterminate size,
• All sites are on basalt terrain,
• The natural rock cover was between 0-40% (but may have been altered, as described),
• Average annual rainfall is 400-550mm,
• Assume the sites were once (‘naturally’) covered by Themeda-dominated herb-rich grassland,
• We know that not all sites are likely or even plausible, please treat such sites as a thought experiment, we need the data anyway.
• The cover values are absolute covers (note overlapping cover may exceed 100%).

Example of cards format

[Back to A025-089]