Cost-efficiency assessments of marine monitoring methods lack rigor—a systematic mapping of literature and an end-user view on optimal cost-efficiency analysis
-
Published:2021-06-09
Issue:7
Volume:193
Page:
-
ISSN:0167-6369
-
Container-title:Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Environ Monit Assess
Author:
Hyvärinen HeiniORCID, Skyttä Annaliina, Jernberg Susanna, Meissner Kristian, Kuosa Harri, Uusitalo Laura
Abstract
AbstractGlobal deterioration of marine ecosystems, together with increasing pressure to use them, has created a demand for new, more efficient and cost-efficient monitoring tools that enable assessing changes in the status of marine ecosystems. However, demonstrating the cost-efficiency of a monitoring method is not straightforward as there are no generally applicable guidelines. Our study provides a systematic literature mapping of methods and criteria that have been proposed or used since the year 2000 to evaluate the cost-efficiency of marine monitoring methods. We aimed to investigate these methods but discovered that examples of actual cost-efficiency assessments in literature were rare, contradicting the prevalent use of the term “cost-efficiency.” We identified five different ways to compare the cost-efficiency of a marine monitoring method: (1) the cost–benefit ratio, (2) comparative studies based on an experiment, (3) comparative studies based on a literature review, (4) comparisons with other methods based on literature, and (5) subjective comparisons with other methods based on experience or intuition. Because of the observed high frequency of insufficient cost–benefit assessments, we strongly advise that more attention is paid to the coverage of both cost and efficiency parameters when evaluating the actual cost-efficiency of novel methods. Our results emphasize the need to improve the reliability and comparability of cost-efficiency assessments. We provide guidelines for future initiatives to develop a cost-efficiency assessment framework and suggestions for more unified cost-efficiency criteria.
Funder
Finnish Environment Institute
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Pollution,General Environmental Science,General Medicine
Reference30 articles.
1. Andersen, J. H., Halpern, B. S., Korpinen, S., Murray, C., & Reker, J. (2015). Baltic Sea biodiversity status vs. cumulative human pressures. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 161, 88–92. 2. Bennett, K., Wilson, S. K., Shedrawi, G., McLean, D. L., & Langlois, T. J. (2016). Can diver operated stereo-video surveys for fish be used to collect meaningful data on benthic coral reef communities? Limnology and Oceanography, 14, 874–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10141 3. Brodin, Y., Ejdung, G., Strandberg, J., & Lyrholm, T. (2013). Improving environmental and biodiversity monitoring in the Baltic Sea using DNA barcoding of Chironomidae (Diptera). Molecular Ecology Resources, 13(6), 996–1004. 4. Cadima.info. (2019). CADIMA. [online] Available at: https://www.cadima.info/ [Accessed 22 Aug 2019]. 5. Clapton, J., Rutter, D., & Sharif, N. (2009). SCIE systematic mapping guidance. http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/researchresources/rr03.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|