Assessing ecosystem value
I get quite annoyed when statements about 'low ecosystem value' get made without any reference to scale or ecosystem type. What might be classified as 'low ecosystem value' at a small scale e.g. at a development site, could be high ecosystem value at a larger scale. The point being we are living on a planet of dwindling resources where natural ecosystems are being destroyed for the sake of development, so surely any ecosystem is high value on a global scale because ECOSYSTEMS SUPPORT LIFE. If we continue to assess ecosystems without reference to scale we are on a downward spiral. I also see comparisons made between ecosystem types saying one is low value because it doesn't match up to the value of a comparison ecosystem in a development area. This is not comparing apples with apples. e.g. I have seen people say perennial stream systems have a higher ecosystem value than intermittent stream systems. Why? They are both unique ecosystems with a unique fauna and climate change will eliminate our intermittent stream systems currently and many perennial systems will become intermittent. SHOULD WE DOWNGRADE EVERYTHING? take home point: there is no such thing as low ecosystem value without consideration of scale or the potential of what it could be!