Evaluation of ecosystem services.

Which method is better suited to incorporate nature’s values into (political) decision-making? This question is addressed in this report. For this purpose, the cost-benefit analysis (CNA) was compared with the multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Both methods were tested in the Pöllauer Tal Nature Park in Styria on the basis of specific questions concerning the cultivation of stray fruit. The KNA represents the values in monetary units. In practice, it has been shown that in addition to ethical concerns, poorly assessable ecosystem services are not taken into account and monetisation involves a lot of effort. The MCA can represent economic, ecological, social and cultural dimensions, where stakeholder participation is of central importance. Both methods provide important basis for decision making.本报告旨在解答哪一种方法更适宜将自然价值纳入（政治）决策范畴这一问题。为此，本报告对成本效益分析（Cost-Benefit Analysis, CNA）与多准则分析（Multi-Criteria Analysis, MCA）展开了对比研究。两种方法均在奥地利施蒂利亚州的波劳厄塔尔自然公园中，围绕野生果树种植相关的具体议题开展了测试验证。成本效益分析（CNA）将自然价值以货币单位进行表征。实践表明，该方法不仅存在伦理层面的顾虑，还未将难以评估的生态系统服务纳入考量范畴，且货币化过程需投入大量人力与物力成本。多准则分析（MCA）则可涵盖经济、生态、社会与文化多个维度，其中利益相关方参与占据核心地位。两种方法均为决策制定提供了重要依据。