Sustainable Development and Monument Conservation Planning: a Case Study on Olympia P. Nijkamp K. Bitbas Vrije Universileil. Amaslerdam Abstract This paper deals with some critical issues concerning the concept of sustainable environmental and cultural-economic development. It proposes a new methodology for the evaluation of such a development. Since the concept of sustainable development has become the corner stone of environmental-ecological economics, the present study aims to present both a conceptual and opérational basis for sustainable development. The analysis is illustrated by means of a case study for the ancient town of Olympia in Greece. Introduction The recent history of conservation planning has clearly shown that the issue of development and conservation is not only politically relevant, but also analytically interesting (see among others Lichfield, 1990 and Nijkamp, 1990). Several attempts have been made at fostering an understanding of the challenges to current conservation planning strategies. ln recent years many mainly descriptive contributions have been made to analyse prevailing policies, strategies and measures in policy situations marked by conflicts between development and conservation. Furthermore, much attention has been devoted to conservation impact analysis which tries to assess the foreseeable physical, social and economic effects of conservation strategies by using appropriate analytical tools for integrating conservation into development planning. The attention for conservation issues is clearly present in both developing count ries (e;g.. Thailand, Mexico, ~ndonesia) and developed countries (e.g., Italy, the Netherlands, Greece). Especially in the framework of urban restructuring (e.g., urban renewal, transformation of urbiln functions, gentrification of urban environments) the conservation issue has become an important one, as here the conflict between 'high tech' versus 'high touch' developments is at stake. For instance, in various cities the threat of urban degradation requires a physical and economic restructuring which very often is to the detriment of the historico- cultural heritage of the city. Despite many debates in this field, so far no uniformly acceptable urban development planning paradigm has emerged. While it is generaIly acknowledged that urban development means the creation of new assets in terms of physical, social and economic structures, it is at the same time recognized that each development process often also destroys traditional physical, social and cultural assets derived from our common heritage. Clearly, although not always immediately computable, alI cultural assets represent an economic value which has to be considered in any urban transformation process. Unfortunately, in most casesthe inclusion of such assets in the planning process cannot be left to the market mechanism, as most urban historico-cultural assets represent 'unpriced goods' characterized by external effects which are not included in the conventional 'measuring rod of money'. Thus the developntent of appropriate evaluation methods is of paramount importance here, as otherwise a careful and balanced nurturing of cultural assets wiIl never be realized.
Transcript
Sustainable Development and Monument Conservation
Planning: a Case Study on Olympia
P. Nijkamp
K. Bitbas
Vrije Universileil. Amaslerdam
Abstract
This paper deals with some critical issuesconcerning the concept of sustainableenvironmental and cultural-economicdevelopment. It proposes a newmethodology for the evaluation of such adevelopment. Since the concept ofsustainable development has become thecorner stone of environmental-ecologicaleconomics, the present study aims topresent both a conceptual andopérational basis for sustainabledevelopment. The analysis is illustratedby means of a case study for the ancienttown of Olympia in Greece.
Introduction
The recent history of conservationplanning has clearly shown that the issueof development and conservation is notonly politically relevant, but also
analytically interesting (see amongothers Lichfield, 1990 and Nijkamp,1990). Several attempts have been madeat fostering an understanding of thechallenges to current conservationplanning strategies. ln recent years
many mainly descriptivecontributions have been made to analyseprevailing policies, strategies andmeasures in policy situations marked byconflicts between development andconservation. Furthermore, muchattention has been devoted toconservation impact analysis which triesto assess the foreseeable physical, socialand economic effects of conservation
strategies by using appropriateanalytical tools for integratingconservation into development planning.
The attention for conservation issuesis clearly present in both developingcou nt ries (e;g.. Thailand, Mexico,
~ndonesia) and developed countries(e.g., Italy, the Netherlands, Greece).Especially in the framework of urbanrestructuring (e.g., urban renewal,transformation of urbiln functions,gentrification of urban environments)the conservation issue has become animportant one, as here the conflictbetween 'high tech' versus 'high touch'developments is at stake. For instance, invarious cities the threat of urbandegradation requires a physical andeconomic restructuring which very oftenis to the detriment of the historico-cultural heritage of the city. Despitemany debates in this field, so far nouniformly acceptable urbandevelopment planning paradigm hasemerged. While it is generaIlyacknowledged that urban developmentmeans the creation of new assets in termsof physical, social and economicstructures, it is at the same timerecognized that each developmentprocess often also destroys traditionalphysical, social and cultural assetsderived from our common heritage.
Clearly, although not alwaysimmediately computable, alI culturalassets represent an economic valuewhich has to be considered in any urbantransformation process. Unfortunately,in most cases the inclusion of such assetsin the planning process cannot be left tothe market mechanism, as most urbanhistorico-cultural assets represent'unpriced goods' characterized byexternal effects which are not includedin the conventional 'measuring rod ofmoney'. Thus the developntent ofappropriate evaluation methods is ofparamount importance here, asotherwise a careful and balancednurturing of cultural assets wiIl ne ver berealized.
Sustainab/e Deve/opment and Monument 99
or features (such as age, uniqueness,historical meaning, visual beauty,physical condition, artistic value, styleetc.). For instance, cities such as Venice,Florence, Siena or Padua would neverhave received an internationalreputation without the presence ofintangible values inherent in theircultural monuments.
Conventional Economic Methodology
The operational assessment of thesocioeconomic and historico-culturalvalue of monuments -or the impacts ofmonument policy -is fraught with manydifficulties. Monuments represent partof the historical, architectural andcultural heritage of a country or city, anddo not usually offer a direct productivecontribution to the economy. Clearly,tourist revenues sometimes may beregarded as a partial representation ofeconomic values of culture and nature,but su ch computations provide as best abiased and incomplete measure, so thatmonument policy can hardly be based ontourist values (or environmental policyon option values). On the contrary, invarious places one may even observe asituation in which large-scale tourism
(sometimes accompanied by congestion)sometimes affects the quality of acultural heritage (Venice or Florence,for example).
ln order to clarify the meaning of ourmultidimensional approach, somegeneral background observations on thepreservation of our cultural heritage willbe given first. The 19605 and 19705showed a strong dominance of economicevaluation tools in public planning (forexample, cost benefit analysis, costeffectiveness analysis). A major stimulusto the use of su ch tools was given by theUnited Nations Industrial DevelopmentOrganization (UNIDO), theOrganization for Economic Cooperationt4nd Development (OECD), and theWorld Bank. It was a widely held beliefthat a systematic application of rigorouseconomic thinking in evaluating andselecting public projects or plans wouldbe a major instrument in improving theperformance of the public sector .
The foregoing problems are especiallyrelevant, because in the current period ofbudgetary constraints there is a risk thatbudget cuts in the public sector first willaffect the 'less productive' or 'soft'sectors such as monument conservation,arts, and so forth. Therefore, it isnecessary to pay due attention to thesocioeconomic and historico-culturalsignificance of our heritage.
ln the past, many economists haveadopted the economic viewpoint that theeconomic meaning of a certain good canbe derived in a proper way from therevealed preferences of economic agentswho express their desires on an artificialmarket. It is, however, increasinglyrecognized that the socioeconomic andhistorical-artistic value of a culturalgood is a multidimensional (orcompound) indicator which cannot bereduced to one common denominator(such as the measuring rod of money ). lnfact, we are ~ from a planning viewpoint~ much more interested in the 'complex
social value' of cultural resources. Thisimplies that the meaning of historico-cultural resources is not in the first placedependent on its absolute quantities, buton its constituent qualitative attributes
4'
This conventional economic appraisalmethodology found mainly its basis inwelfare economics and was originallynormative and prescriptive in nature,but it also implied various restrictivevalue judgements such as the emphasison efficiency and the suppression ofequity. Besides, the use of 'fictitious'shadow prices to assess benefits foregonewas a major source of uncertainty in suchproject evaluations. Especially the aimto transform all relevant impacts into onecommon denominator, viz. the'measuring rod of money', has become asource of major criticism.
It is evident, however, that acompound evaluation of collective goods-and especially public capital goodssuch as chruches, palaces, parkslandscapes, 'cityscapes', etc. -is farfrom easy and cannot be undertaken bythe exclusive consideration of the touristand recreation sector (see also Lichfield,1990). Especially in the Anglo-Saxonliterature the expenditures made in
Economics of Conservation100
using Passet's approach but also those ofother scientists{Bertalanffy. 1972) andfinally our own interpretation of thisframework. The main feature of Passet'swork is the existence of three systems -
economic, human, natural- surroundingeach other in a cascade form (see FigureI). the internai system is the economicsystem which comprises ail economicactivities of man. The intermediatesystem is the human system whichincludes ail human activities andattributes, while the external system, thebiosphere system, is formed by the wholenatural environment of our planet andthe layers of the atmosphere. For thesake of simplicity we cali this system theenvironmental or natural system.
visiting recreational destinations areoften used as a proxy value for assessingthe financial or economic meaning ofnatural parks, palaces, museums, etc. A
geographically complicating problemhere is the fact that su ch recreationalcommodities and the various users aredistributed unequally over space. Thismeans that recreational expenditures arecodetermined by distance frictions, sothat the evaluation of recreationoportunities bas to take into account thetransportation costs inherent inrecreational and tourist visits.Consequently, the socio-economic valueof such recreational opportunitiesdepends both on their indigenousattractiveness and on their location ingeographic space. Therefore, increase ofaccessibility might then become aninstrument in enhancing thesocioeconomic value qf culturalheritage. On the other band, theindigenous historic-cultural value ofmonuments is usually invariant withrespect to geographical location (apartfrom the scale economies emanatingfrom a 'socio-cultural complex'), so thatwe are still left with the problem of acompound evaluation. ln order toprovide a solid background for a furtherdiscussion of the social impacts of ourcultural heritage, we will first outline amethodology that may serve as analternative analytical framework forevaluating the social value of ourcultural and natural heritage. For acritical review on the same issue we referto the article of Pearce ( 1992) andBrennan (1992).
The following questions are relevantnow:
(a) Why does each of these systemsconstitute a real system?
(b) Which are the elements of eachone?
(c) Which is the role of each of themand which are the dominatingrules?
(d) And finally, which is thehierarchy of these systems ( e.g. interms of subsystem relation)?
Sustaioability io a Three-Layer SystemIn the previous section we haveexpressed the need for an alternativemethodological frame which cao takeinto account the complexity involved inevaluating the social value of culturalassets or that of ecological systems.
The systems theory, and especiallyPasset's interpretation (Passet, 1979) ofthe systems theory related toenvironmental issues, seems to be afruitful tool for analyzing this problem.We will briefly present here the maincharacteristics of this theory, not only by
ln our case, the economic system
includes the economic elements of
human lire. These elements rerer to
l'igure I: GLOBAL SYSTEM REPRESENTATION
According to the founder of systems
theory (Bertalanffy, 1972) a system can
be defined as a group of elements with
mutual relations. Subgroups of the
elements may form subsystems in the
Ia:rgest system, provided that there is a
relationship between the elements of
these subgroups.
101Sustainab/e Deve/opment and Monument.
economic units (such as households,enterprises, individuals, etc.) and theirrelationships. The economic elementsare connected under the regime of theproduction, ex change and consumptionof so-called economic goods. Theeconomic system aims at producingeconomic goods in an efficient way underthe pressure of the existing scarcity ofthe necessary production means and aninfinite number of alternative uses ofthese means, given the hypothesis ofinfinity of human economic needs(although this hypothesis is questionablenowadays). It is obvious that flows, stockand relationships of the economic systemare oriented to the efficiency andeffectiveness of the performance of thesystem. Under such conditions theeconomic system is dominated by the
scarcity phenomenon (Robbins, 1940).
The next system, the human system,comprises alI activities of human beingson our planet. by definition this includesthe spheres of biological humanelements, of inspiration of aesthetics,and of morality which constitute theframe of human life. ln general, thehuman system may be subdivided intotwo categories. The first one includes thenatural elements of mankind and thesecond one the acquired features. Thushabits, ethics, culture, historical andartistic monuinents, and lifestyle pertainto the second category. It is thusplausible to consider the economicsyst~m as a subsystem of the humansystem, because economic activity is asubstantial part of humanactivity (as theformer provides the latter with essentialmaterials for its functioning). Since it isclear however, that the economic systemdoes not constitute the entire humansystem, or may assume that theeconomic system is a subsystem of thehuman system (Mishan, 1980). Themain targets of the human system seemto be the satisfaction of themultidimensional needs of aIl human
beings (Scitovsky, 1976).
(Nijkamp, 1990) and this namedemonstrates that the life system (orhuman system iri our terminology) is asubsystem of the natural system. As faras the ru les of the natural system areconcerned, these are governed by naturalsciences (such as physics, biology, etc.).Here it is worth mentioning that the rulesof the natural system are not fully knownbecause there remain .manyuncertainties on the mechanism of thatsystem, at least as far as it concerns itsevolution over time (Popper, 1959).
According to the systems theory eachhypersystem includes all elements ofeach subsystem, but all elements of itssubsystems do not necessarily constitutethe whole range of the hypersystem'selements. The same holds for the rules ofthese systems. The rules of eachsubsystem are subject to the rules of thehypersystem: the opposite does not hold.Consequently, in our case the rules of theeconomic system are subject to the rulesof both the human system and thenatural system. ln turn, the rules of thehuman system are subject to the rules ofthe environmental system. The abovenecessity is needed for a harmonicfunctioning of alI systems and theirreproduction over time (Passet, 1979).Given the above observations, we arenow able to propose an alternativedefinition of sustainable development.The idea of sustainability of an economicsystem has two main dimensions, viz.sustainability in respect to a naturalsystem and sustainability in respect to ahuman system.
The first dimension implies thateconomic development should minimizethe negative impacts on the functioningof the biosphere system, at least to anextent that ensures that econonmicdevelopment does not destroy naturalfunctions (or its elements) nor disturbthe biosphere system's rules. Unlessthese necessary conditions are secured,the economic system will face seriousproblems imposed by the disfunctioningof the biosphere system as thehypersystem. Examples of some of thesepotential threats are: pollution affectingeconomic production factors, exhaustionof resources, extinction qf crucialspecies, energy shortage, etc.
Finally, the natural system iricludesboth the human system and theeconomic system. It is often called a life-support or environmental system
Economics of Conservation102
The second dimension refers to therelationships between the human and theeconomic system, and especially toconstraints imposed by the humansystem, e.g. those securing its evolution.These constraints emerge from the twomain functions of the human system. Vil.the biological function of human beingsand the cultural function. Dy violatingthe rules or the biological function of thehuman system serious negative healthand psychological effects will corne intoexistence. Dy disturbing the culturalsystem of a society, social unrest,cultural impoverishment andpsychological problems may be likelyresults.
Consequently, economic developmentshould respect the rules of the humansystem and the biosphere system, if wewish economic development to continuein the long run.
Systemic Impact analysisGeneral.- Impact analysis is a scientifictool that is widely used to assess theresults of policies or projects at national,regional or locallevels (Chatterji, 1982:Nijkamp, 1989; Nijkamp et al., 1990). Itis a flexible tool as it permits us to useseveral types of analytical methods likeeconometric models, input-outputmodels, goal achievement methods andconceptt!;al qualitative models.
ln our study, spatial impact analysiswill be used to look into effects caused byeconomic decisions concerningeconomic development in a broad sense.These effects are spreading over theabove mentioned systems and su cheffects determine the possibilities foreconomic deveopment to be sustainable.Therefore, we need to consider all ofthem in decision-making framework.
As a first step, we have to develop acomplete picture, called impact scheme,which includes all information derivedfrom a coherent system's representation.This means that the main elementsofthehuman, natural and economic systemswill have to be identified, while also theirrelationships will have to be depicted.
oper! IOnal way aIl relevant ellec{s 01diffe ent p01icy scenarios, we canconst uct a so-called impact matrix (seeTabl 1 ).
Economic development affects eachsystem at different levels of the system's
organizatin (Tinbergen, 1967).
Ther~fore, it is useful to make aclassfication of these levels. A usefulclassirication is:
I(a) A technical-quantitative level.
This comprises the quantitativeeffects of economic developmentin one system. For example, a
paticular development mightincrease the inflation (economicsystem), decrease unemployment(human system) and decrease thestock of a certain natural species
(natural system).
(b) An institutional level. Thiscomprises the influences on theInstitutional orgnaization of asystem. For example, a specificdevelopment type may change thelegal framework of the economy(ecomomic system), inducechanges in the political structureof society (human system) anddisturb the biological equilibriumof some ecosystems.
(c) A foundation's level. Thisinfluences the basis of economicdevelopment in a system. Forexample, a change in socio-political systems may alter theeconomic organisation (market
economy, centrally plannedeconomy), impact on the moralmatrix of society or induceconsiderable geo-climatological
changes.
As a result, the impact scheme can bechar cterized for our purposes as a'mul i-facet impact scheme': each of theabov levels forms a facet of our impactsche e in Figure 2, which mirrorseffec s of economic decisions -in termsof e onomic development -on thesyste at hand. An economic decisionmay concern here an economicdeve opment alternative. e.g. adeve opment scenario, an environmentalman gement decision, a project choice, amon ment conservation plan. etc.
lIn order to include in a more!
Sustainab/e Deve/opment and Monument IO3
-Uono
f8ltematlv.I8(X)OOmk:!d8V~, (8CENAAK>S)
7 -NPO
-4
I c=r=
Figurc 2: MULTI-FACET IMPACT ANAL YSIS
scenario NSCENARIOS scenario A scenario B
IMPACTS
X1B X1Nelement X1 X1A
X2B X2Nelement X2 X2A
X3Nelement XJ XJA XJ8
~ ~ ~element Xn
impact ilnalysis must be able to assessthe impacts over time, and undersuccessive development polices.
On the horizontal axis we list thealternatives of socio-economic policies(scenarios) under consideration. On thevertical axis are listed the relevantimpact elements of our system; they canbe classified according to the subsystemsthey pertain to. Each entry of the impactmatrix represents the impact of aneconomic strategy (scenario) on anyelement of the system, for example; pointXIA represents the effects of the Athdevelopment strategy onsystem element
XI;
An operational dynamic impactmethod is the stepwise approachproposed by Nijkamp and Van Pelt( 1989). The characteristic of thismethod is that the impacts of a policy areasessed in successive time intervals,ta king into account new emergingpolicies in each time period (or step ). lnFigure 3 we illustrate the stepwise
approach.Dynamic impact analysis.- Policydecisions regarding econornicdevelopment are often dynamic innature. This means that such decisionsaffect a system in successive interlinkedtime intervals. Often economicinstruments, which form the basis ofeconomic policy, are designed in such away that they influence the behaviour ofthe system in the long run. Aa a result, an
This figure illustrates in an illustratiyeway the effects of a certain policy oyertime. Modules A, B, C, D representcomponents of our system; the figures x,y, z, Y, n represent the impact of a giYenpolicy on the system's elements duringthe time period concerned. ln the thirdstep we assume that a new element. E.emerges. The impact of each step
Economics of Conservation104
Figure 3: STEPWISE IMPAcr APPROACH
constitutes the stimulus for the next step.together with new policies introduced ineach step. etc.
Mu/ti-dimensiona/ impactana/ysis.- The impact analysis in ourstudy contains elements of threedifferent systems (economic, human,natural). There are different dimensionsin the measurement of variables and theassessment of each system. That is whythe impact analysis in our study can becharacterized as 'multi-dimensionalimpact analysis'. The advantage of thistype of analysis is that -in contrast totraditional analysis which only takesaccount of phenomena that can bemeasured in monetary units -this newanalytical framework permits us toconsider phenomena that areunmeasurable in monetary units. ln thisway we are able to take into accountrelevant non-monetary phenomena andimpacts related to a policy decision (seeSection 2).
This advantage becomes moresignificant if one works in the frameworkof a sustainable economic system, sincethis involves many effects of economicdecisions which cannot be quantifiedaccording to the measuring rod ofmoney. As a result, different dimensionssuch as money units, physical units,historical unique values, cultural valuesetc. can in principles be included.
Measurement issues.- ln theframework of an assessment of theimpacts on a system caused by economicdecisions, two kinds of information maybe distinguished: hard information ands()ft information (Nijkamp et al., 1990).
Hard information refers to datameasured on a cardinal scale; softinformation is used to denote qualitativedata (measured on an ordinal or nominalscale). Often an impact analysis includesboth types of information (mixedinformation). Clearly, the components ofthe impact matrix may be evaluated onthe basis of either bard or softinformation (Nijkamp et al., 1986).
ln case of bard information, one canmake cardinal assessments. Severalmethods are well-known for such type ofimpact assessment (e.g. econometricmethods, input-output tales, etc.).Qualitative measurements are lessknown and deserve more attention. Sincewe will use qualitative assessments in ourcase study, we give some moreinformaiton on these methodss here.Qualitative masurements have ,anordinal or nominal information content.
Oridnal assessment means that theimpacts are measured in a relative scalewhich permits only relative comparisonsbetween impacts. Then the impacts maybe assessed on one of the followingscales:
(a) qualitative symbolssuch as ++, +O, -, --and?, which indicaterespectively a relatively highpositive impact, a relatively smallpositive impact, a negligibleimpact, a small negative impact, astrongly negative impact, and anunknown impact.
(b) a numerical point system, forexample, a ten point systemranking from 0 to 10: (0.1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7, 8,9, 10. Thesenumbers are
Sustainab/e Deve/opment and Monument 105
used with an ordinal
interpretation, so that
O 1.2 3 This method
has the advantage of being able to
measure cumulative effects over
time.
qualitative data; hence it forms asuitable tool for conservation studies.For more details about multi-objectivedecision methods we refer to Rietveld(1980) or Nijkamp et al. (1990).
The general format of a multi.
objective optimization methods is:
max Wj, (x), x k j=l, 2,3 1,
The nominal assessment is used in
cases where much uncertainty exists in
the data. ln these cases the only
reasonable assessment which could be
drawn from the impact scheme, is of the
form of a 'negative' or 'positive' impact.
Such information may be symbolized bythe sings + and -, respectively.
Where Wj is a set of objectives (W l' W 2'W 3. WJ and x the vector ofdecision arguments, while K is thefeasible space of x. The vector x denotesin our case the various developmentscenarios to be evaluated. Each scenariogenerates an effect on each objective. K.denotes the total feasible spectrum of ailpotential alternatives or of ail potentialinstrument-policies which are used fordesinging the development alternatives
(scenarios).
Generally, there are two types ofmulti-objective optimization models: ( 1 )continuous models which have acontinuous range for the decjsionarguments x; in our case that wouldmean an infinite number of developmentstrategies (alterantives); (2) discretemodels which have a distinct finitenumber of feasible developmentalternatives; they are usually calledmulti-criteria models, Multi-criteriamodels seem to be a suitable frameworkfor our study, as we have in manypractical situations a finite number ofscenrios. More technicalities will not bediscussed here, but can be found in theextensive literature quoted in Rietveld(1980) and Nijkamp et al. (1990).
Multi-criteria Methods
There are two main characteristics of aproper methodology for an evaluation ofenvironmental or monumentconservation plans. The first is that adecision framework and its relatedevaluation method should be able toconsider multiple objectives, becauseeach economic decision concerns alIthree above mentioned systems, whileeach decision concern system requiresthe fulfilment of various targets for theachievement of sustainable development(Nijkamp, 1989). As a result, theevaluation methodology should be amulti-objective decision framework incontrast to a traditional framework,which normally focusses only on impactsrelated to economic efficiency in termsof benefits or costs foregone ( e.g., cost ofdiseases caused by economicdevelopment), lost economicopportunities due to environemntal
degradation, etc.).
The second feature is that the effectsand the information concerningeconomic decisions are in general multi-dimensional in nature with differentlevels of measurement. The selectedmethodology should then be able to takeinto account the multi-dimensionality ofeffects.
ln our empirical analysis we will usethe so-called regime method. Regimeanalysis has become a popular multi-criteria method, based on a pairwisecomparison of alternatives or scenarios.The central concept in the regimeanalysis is the so-called concordanceindex CAB. This index represents theextent to which alternative A is betterth an alternative B. This index may bedefined as the suffi of the weightsattached to the criteria (objectives).included in the so-called concordance setCAB (i.e., the set of alI evaluation criteria
Multi-objective evaluation serves tomeet to a large extent the aboverequirements to a large extent, as thismethodology takes into accountdirrerent and conflicting objectives,while it is able to evaluate sort
Economics of Conservation106
for which alternative A in the multi-objective matrix is at least equallyattractive as alternative B). Clearly, thisset can be determined irrespect ive of thelevel of information on the impactmatrix. Regime analysis focuses on thesign of this index rather than on its size.It can be shown that in certain cases,ordinal information on weights issufficient to determine this sign, so that afinal ranking of alternatives can bederived from the pairwise comparisonmatrix, consisting of values + I and -I.In other cases this sign cannot bedetermined unambiguously. It can beshown that in such cases a partitioning ofthe set of cardinal weights can bederived, that is in agreement with theordinal information on the weights (seefor details Nijkamp et al., 1990). Thefinal result of this method is a completeand transitive ranking of ali alternativesfor each set of weights. This method willnow be applied to our study area of
Olympia.
a large waters~ed which descends to theAlfios river. Because of the relativelyhigh mountains the area shows alandscape with much variety. Thehighest point is located at 1224m abovesea level, while the lowest point reachesto 300m. The latter is situated near theAlfios river in a relatively large valleywhere agriculture is the dominatingeconomic activity. The remaining part ismountainous and livestock production isthe dominating activity there.
C/imaric characteristics.- Generaly,the climate in the area is mild. Becauseof the gradualy increasing altitude, thereare dominating western winds, whichbring relatively strong rainfalls along.The humidity level reaches 75%. Theaverage rate of sunshine hours is 3.000hours per year. The a verage temperatureranges from 10-15 oC during the winterto 20-25 oC during the summer.
Description of the Study area
Our case study on sustainabledevelopment concerns the ancient regionof Olympia. Olympia is located in thewestern part of the Peloponnese whichforms the southern part of Greece'smainland. The name "province ofOlympia " goes back to the days of
Ancient Greece, since the Olympicgames used to take place in this area. lnour case study we are only concernedwith a part of the province, namely themountainous and the semi-mountainous
part.
Economic characteristics.- Theregion bas an economic orientationtowrds agricultural production (58%)and industsial processing of agriculturalproducts (30%). Since economicdevelopment is lagging behind thenational trends, the reg ion ischaracterized by the government as aregion needing economic aid andincentives.
Socia/ characteristics.- The regionhosts traditional Greek communities. lnthe area, socio-public facilities aremost I y lagging behind; this concernsareas such as health care, education,communication and other facilities.
Specia/ e/ements.- The region ischaracterized by a unique scenic beautywhich is threatened by social andeconomic activities such as use ofpesticides and fertilizers for agriculturalproduction, and hunting and fishing.There are several ancient monumentsdeserving attention and protection. Themost important of them is the "temple ofEpicurus Apolon", which is consideredafter the Acropolis as the most importantancient temple in Greece. This templewas designed by the sa me architects thatwere responsible for the construction ofthe Acropolis. Another importantancient site is the ancient town of Alifira.
This region covers a space of 264.000km2, constituting 10% of the total area ofthe Nomos nias (the overlappingadministrative region), The areacontains nineteen communities, while inthe town of Andritsaina theadministrative center and capital aresituated. The population amounts toabout 6.300 people (census 1981).
Geographical characteristics.- Theregion is a relatively closed geographicalarea surrounded by the Alfios river at theeast and the mountains "Minthy" and"Lykio" at the west. ln fact, the region is
Thus the Olympia area is altogether aregion with a high environmental, socio-cultural and historical value.
environmental "(watershed, terrestrialand atmospheric) systems which makeup the total regional system in our area(see Figures 4-8). Next we will specifythe basic relationships between thesecomponents. For each subsystem we willpresent a general concise figure thatincludes ail relevant system's elementsand their relatinships relevant tosustainaable development.
A System's Analysis for the Study Area
Following the methodology developedabove, this section will present thecomponents of the economic, human and
Figure 4: WATERSHEDSYSTEM
Figure 5 TERRESTRIAk SYSTEM
Q-
Economics of Conservation108
~
Figurc 7. HUMAN SYSTEM
Figure 8: ECONOMIC SYSTEM
'(
(exogenous) variables (listed at the top).The symbols of this table denote
respectively: R river water qua lit y, Wwater stock, w water quality, s soil.
quality, F forest and natural vegetation,L wildlife, H fish stock and its veriety, A
agricultural production, O olivesproduction, R other agricultural
activities, I industrial production, r
recreational activities, E income/
employment, C environmental policy
costs, T heritage protection, p
population, Q environmentaf quality,and D income distribution.
The Impact Model
In our case study the impact analysis will
mainly focus on the technical
relationships of the regional systemand
only to a limited extent on institutional
and foundational relations (see Section
4).
Figure 9 presents a concise impact
scheme for the area under consideration.
Table 2 indicates the way in which a
given endogenous variable (listed at the
left-hand side) is influenced by other
Economics of Conservation10
l E c T p Q Ds F L H I A o RR '.1 rw
R
w
w
s
F
L
H
A
o
R
E
c
T
p
Q
D
TABLE 2: SIGNS OF RELATIONSHIPS.
Clearly, the available information
necessitates us to use various types of
information. the direction of influence is
given by using + and -signs in the table,
so that this is a clear case of qualitative
information.
and recreational sectors and also provideincentives for large investments inindustrial and recreational sectors.
The second extreme orientation aimsat improving socio-economic equity andprotecting the cultural tradition(monuments and architecture). The rateof economic growth is then lower.Explicit measures concerning theprotection of the temples and ofarchitecture are undertaken as weil.
Scenario Orientations
Here we will present ten alternativepolicy orientations (scenarios) for theregion in question. The assumptionsmade in each policyorientation concernalternative policy measures aiming atthree different targets. The first target iseconomic efficiency (income andproduction), the second one is socio-economic equity (fair distribution ofwelfare increases) and culturalprotection, while the third one isenviron mental protection. These threetargets lead to various {single andcompound) orientation scenarios.
The first (extreme) orientation aimsexclusively at economic efficiency nomat ter how it would affect the two othertargets. This scenario would fa:vour highgrowth rates in agricultural, industrial
The third single extreme orientationaims at favouring environmentalprotection.It assumes elimination of theuse of pesticides and fertilizers inagriculture sector, and treatment ofindustrial and household wastewhenever it is necessary, as weIl asdrastic elimination of the waste emittedby the electivity plant on the AlfiosRiver. Specific measures are undertakenagainst illegal hunting and fishing.
The fourth (compound) policyorientation focuses on maximizingeconomic efficiency, socio-econo~icequity and cultural protection. Clearly,
Sustainable Development and Monument
measures are undertaken against thisshock. "
Finally, the tenth scenario is a variantof scenario 9, as it assumes that anadditional policy towards elimination ofwater consumption is introduced.
Having now concisely discussed outten scenarios, we will in the next sectionassess and evaluate their consequenceswith respect to relevant policy
objectives/criteria.
Impacts of Policy Orientations
Having presented now ten policyorientations or scenaTios, we will nextmake an attempt at judging thedesirability of each of these scenarios vis-a-vis the local-regional developmentpotential of Olympia. This means that -as a first step -we have to estimate the ex
post consequences of each of these tenscenarios for relevant variables in thearea under investigation. Five differentpolicy evaluation criteria will be usedhere:
-environmental quality (En)-income and employment (ln)-income distribution (In.D)
-population (P)-cost of environmental policy (Cs).These rive criteria are derived from
the elements described in Table 2. Usingthe above mentioned qualitative impactanalysis, we can in principle estimate theimpacts of each scenario on the systemselements discussed above. to account fordynamics, we have assessed theseimpactts for four year periods starting in1986 and ending in 20 14. The choiceofthis period has been made in order toinclude both short and long run effects inour study.
We use in our assessments the abovementioned ten point system with anordinal interpretation. We assume thatthe numbers from 0 to 4 denote negativeimpacts (or a negative state change), andthe numbers from 6 to 10 denote positiveimpacts (or a positive state change)while 5 implies negligible impacts (or aneutral state change) for the elementunder consideration. For each scenario a
multi-period impact table can beassessed. The impacts of each scenariocan be demonstrated by a multi-periodpattern, a typical example of which is
its assumptions are based on acompromise between scenario 1 and 2.High rates of economic growth arepursued parallel with measures towardsfilvouring socio-economic equity andcultural protection (monuments,
architecture).The fifth scenario is a compromise
between scenarios 1 and 3, so thateconomic efficiency and environ mentalprotection are pursued. No measuresconcerning socio-economic equity orcultural conservation are assumed.
The six th orientation scenario aims atmaximizing socio-economic equity,enviroQmental protection andmomument conservation. It can beregarded as a compromise betweenscenarios 2 and 3.
Scenario seven is a full compromise(compound) policy orientation, as itfocuses on economic efficiency, socio-economic equity, monuments protectionand environmental protection. Moderategrowth in each production sector isassumed combined with anenvironmental policy concerning the useof pesticides and fertilizers, thetreatment of industrial and householdswaste as weIl as the control of huntingand fishing. Special attention is given tothe protection of cultural heritage(momuments and architecture
conservation).The eighth scenario is an additional one
taking into consideration the long runimpacts of the introduction of "cleantechnology" in agriculture. Thisassumption favours dra:stic decreases ofpesticides and fetilizers in combinationwith scenario 7 production rates. It alsoassumes higher agricultural productprices due to the higher quality of theproducts. The assumptions concerningsocio-economic equity, culturalprotection and environmental policy arethe sa me as forscenario 7.
Scenario ni ne is using the sameassumptions as scenario 7, but itintroduces an external shock to ourregion, viz. the phenomenon of droughtsresulting from changes in the globalclimate. We assume a decrease of theannual precipitation with a yearly rate ofapprox. 1 -2% lasting for about lO years.ln addition. we assume that no effective
112
illustrated in Appendix A at the end ofthe paper. These multi-period impacttables function now as impact metricesto be evaluated for our multi-criteriaevaluation.Evaluation of Poliey OrientationsUsing the scenario impacts gauged in thepreceding section we can now evaluatethe desirability or variability of eachscenario and their effects on thesustainability of Olympia. We will carryout three types of evaluationexperiments, denoted as A, B, and C,repectively, representing a policypriority attached to environ mentalquality, income and employment, andincome distribution. ln these evaluationexperiments the above mentioned rivedifferent indicators -or criteria -areused in various combinat ions ofimportance (via a weighting system).The successive evaluations A, B and Cassume as the most important criterionenvironmental quality (En), income andemployment (ln), and incomedisrtibution (In.D), respectively. Theseevaluations may be considered as a kindof sensitivity analysis of the decisionfr~mework revealing how the scenariorankings change when we change thecriterion importance. It is clear that themain characteristics of our evaluationframework A (highest priority for En), B(highest priority for ln) and C (highestpriority for In.D) can be further refinedby looking also at the weights attached tothe remaining four criteria. Therefore, in
ranking of criteri8 resulting ranking of scenarios
2
8>5>6>7>4>2>9>10>3>1
8>5>6>7>4>3>2>9>10»
8>3>5>6>7>4>2>9>10>
6 En>In.D>In 6>8>3>5>7>2>4>9>10»
7 En>In-In,I»P 8>5>6>7>3>4>2>9>lO>L
8 En>In.D>In>P 6>8>5>7>2>3>4>9>10>1
Table 3. Sensitivity of the ranking of the 10 scenarios for different weights (rankings) of evaluation
criteria for evaluation framework A 1,
'No ranking of a given criterion (cases 3-8) denotes that no information is available on the rank order ofthe criterion concerned. Multi-criteria analysis is also able to handle this no-information situation.
Economics of Conservation
addition, we al~o will perform anothertype of sensitivity analysis, as presentedin cases I, 2, 3 ...for each evaluation A,B and C. This means that we will keepthe most important criterion constant,while we change, in an alternating way,the importance of the remainingcreteria. Each of the three mainevaluation frameworks and theirsensitivity analysis will briefly bedicussed here.
A. Eva/uation based on environmenta/qua/ity aspects. ln this evaluation thecriterion of "environmental quality"(En) is regarded as the most importantone and hence it has the highest weight;the remaining criteria obtain thus lowerweights. Several cases can now beexamined in this evaluation A as a typeof additional sensitivity analysis. Finally,a ranking of the ten scenarios can beobtained by means of the regime methoddiscussed above. This ranking will bepresented here only for the base year
( 1998).
ln our analysis we have distinguished8 sensitivity analysis for evaluationframework A, where environmentalquality (En) has always the highestpriority, but where the other four cri te riamay have different rankings. Each of the10 scenarios (policy orientations) 1 to 10,presented in Section 9, can then beranked for each of the 8 sentivityanalyses. The various results, based onthe use of the regime method, aresummarized in Table 3.
113Sustainab/e Deve/opment and Monument
intermediate scenarios, and the last one(III) the foui lowest ranking scenarios.The occurrence of scenarios in the threeabove evaluation frameworks A, B and Ccan now easily be calculated (see Table
B. Eva/uation based on the economic
performance aspect. Here we witt
consider the ranking of scenarios from
the view-point of income and
employment (In) as the most important
ranking of criteria resulting ranking of scenarios
8>6>5>4>7>2>1>9>10>31 In>En>In.D>P>Cs
8>4>7>1>2>5>6>9>10>32 In-In.D>En>P>C.
7>8>2>4>6>5>1>9>10>3J In>In.D>En>P-Cs
8>6>5>4>2>7>1>9>10>3In>En-In.D>P-Cs4
8>5>6>7>4>1>2>3>9>105 In>En>In.D>P
8>5>7>1>4>6>3>2>9>106 In>En>In,D
8>5>6>7>3>4>2>9>10>17 In>En-In.D
Table 4. Sensitivity of the Raking of the 10 Scenatios for Different Weights (Rankings) of EvaluationFramework B.
ranking of criteria resultin~ ranking of scenarios
6>2>8>7>4>5>9>10>1>31 In.D>En>In>P>Cs
2 In.D>In>En>P>Cs 6>2>8>4>7>5>9>10>1>3
3 In.D>En>In>P>-Cs 6>8>2>5>4>7>9>10>1>3
6>8>2>4>5>7>1>9>10>34 In.D>In>En>P-Cs
2>6>4>8>5>1>7>9>10>35 In.D>En>In>F
6>6>2>7>4>9>10>5>3>16 In.D>In>En>P-.
6>8>2>7>4>9>10>5»>17 In.D>En>In
6-8>7>2-5>4>3>9-10>18 In.D>In>-En
Table S. Sensitivity of the Ranking of the 1O Scenarios for Different Weights (Rankingso of EvaluationCriteria for Evalution Framework C.
6). ln case a scenario emerges with ties(i.e., in two groups), it is assigned to both
groups.
judgment criterion for the developmentof Olympia. The following results havebeen obtained by employing the abovementioned regime multi-criteria methodfor qualitaive evaluation (see Tab/e 4) The results of table 6 lead to
interesting conclusions. First, in terms ofelimination of irrelevant developmentscenarios it is evident that scenarios l, 3,9 and lOare inferior; in almost all casesthey are dominated by other scenarios. Itis noteworthy that scenarios 1 and 3assume extreme policy orientations:extreme economic growth and extremeenvironmental protection, respectively.
Having accomplished the above threeevaluations, it is now possible to make anoverall ranking of the lO scenarios, bycreating three important classes for thescenario rankings pesented in tables 3, 4and 5. The first group (I) includes thethree highest ranking scenarios, thesecond one (II) contains the three
Economics of Conservation14
IIIevaluation
framework
I II
4, 7, 2 9, 3, 10, l8, 6, 5A
5, 8 6 7, 4, 2 2, 1, 9, 10, 3B
c 8, 2, 6 4, 5, 7 1, 10 9 3
Il,111 by each of the ten scenarios for ten scenariosTable 6: Occurrence in Importance Classes
for 3 evaluation frameworks A, B and C.
designing and decision-making forenvironmdntal and cultural conservationplanning. This methodology should beperceived as a complement and not as asubstitute of a traditional economicmethodolqgy (based mainly on economiccost and benefit considerations). Itallows for considering some crucialevalution aspects which evade from thetraditional evaluation methodology. Onthe other band, it permits the use of non-economic 'measurement units as weIl asof qualitative information. Therefore,this approttch is suitable for deciding forsustainabl~ development in theframewor~ of monument conservation,since sucb an issue usually involves non-quantitative critical parameters. This isonce mord important in areas where theavailability of statistical data and ofregional data banks lags behind that ofdeveloped nations. Our proposed newdecision framework may also favour amore democratic decision-making, as itmay incorpora te the interests ofdifferent social groups in the form ofdifferent rankings of relevant decisioncriteria.
It seems that both policies would beproblematic whatever the justmentcriteria. On the other hand, theclassification of scenarios 9 and lOdepicts the overall sensitivity of theregional system against serious externalshocks like climatic changes.
Secondly, regarding a progressive
identification and selection of feasible
and desirable scenarios, it turns out that
scenarios 8 and 6- and to a lesser ex te nt
scenario 5 -are important serious
candidates to be considered in more
detail.
Generally, the previous evaluation
system -based on qualitative impactanalysis and multi-critieria analysis -
appears to offer a fruitful analytical
framework for ecologically sustainable
development and monuments
conservation planning in Olympia.
Concluding Remarks
We have presented here an alternative
methodology which may be used in
AppendixA
This appendix contains an illustration of the esimated effects of a given policy orientation or scenario on
the elements of the regional systemof Olympia. We present here only the assessment of the effects ofscenario 1 (see Table 7). For ali other scenarios similar assessments have been made using similar
