---

Mire classification for nature conservation:
the dialectics of difference

Hans Joosten

1.1. Classification is the process of
* recognizing that things (or concepts) have likeness,
* sorting and grouping these things into categories (classes, types) on the basis of this likeness,
* describing and naming these classes (terms should be distinctive and used consistently => terminology).

1.2.1. A classification typology is the result of classification: a system of classes related by logical principles and mental interests, in an order that is functional.
1.2.2. The type is the basic unit of a typology (cf. 6.4.). A class is any category within a typology (e.g. type, type group, subtype).
1.2.3. Classes are defined by properties in which the members of the class differ from the members of other classes. A class comprises all things that are regarded as like to (non-different from) other members of that class, and unlike to (different from) members of other classes.

1.3. Identification is the process of assigning unidentified things to a class, once the classes have been established. By means of identification, differences and similarities of things are made manifest. If reliable indicators are present, identification not necessarily has to use all properties of a class.

1.4. A classification procedure is the combined (and iterative) process of classification and identification.

2.1. The aim of classification is imposing conceptual order in order to facilitate the
* collecting,
* organisation/storage and
* communication of information (i.e. the characters of the objects in question).

2.2. A (good) classification typology:
* serves as the key to an information collection, storage and communication system,
* serves as the basis of generalization (= change of informational level),
* provides a basis for understanding and explanation,
* allows prediction and interpolation.

Example: If I tell you, after (correct) identification, that some object is an aapa, I immediately convey general information about its wetland and mire character, its macro- and micro-morphology, its nutrient conditions, and so on. The more you know about wetlands, mires and aapas, the more information is transfered. This even applies to information that the receiver can derive from class properties, but that is no part of the sender’s active knowledge.

3.1. If classification would be able to identify degrees of objective similarity (or better: difference), then some particular degree of difference could be chosen to discriminate between classes. A classification typology, that would be optimally suited to the organization and spread of information, should ideally consist of classes, of which the properties are objectively and sharply distinguishable, i.e. each class having properties in which members of a class are similar to other members of that class, and different to members from another class.

3.2. There are, however, (at least) two (interrelating) aspects that complicate reaching such a "unified" mire classification typology:
(a) the object of classification: mires are characterized by continuous gradation of properties with varyingly sharp and frequent discontinuities.
(b) the intent of classification: typology always depends on the purpose of the classification.
In practise there appear to be indefinitely many aspects of difference (and of similarity) between any two objects.

3.3. Therefore, there is no uniquely correct way of classifying mires:  "there may be as many classifications of any series of natural, or of other, bodies, as they have properties or relations to one another, or to other things; or, again, as there are modes in which they may be regarded by the mind..." (T.H.Huxley, 1869).

3.4. For (and before) every classification procedure, questions have to be asked with respect to:
(a)  quality: what kind of similarities or differences are the most important for my specific classification purpose?
(b)  quantity: resemble or differ to what extent? (but remember: every quality is a quantity and vice versa, dependent on the scale of observation!)

4.1. There are various reasons for mire conservation. These various reasons must lead to various classification typologies.

4.2. Mire conservation can basically be grounded on (a) non-anthropocentric and (b) anthropocentric motives.

4.3.1. Non-anthropocentrist motives relate to the value of non-human entities (mires, birds, peat), indepen-dent of their value for humankind (cf. the "intrinsic value of biological diversity", UNCED 1992).
4.3.2. Individualistic non-anthropocentrism (e.g. animal protection) adresses value to indivi-dual beings, e.g. a mire (?), a bird, a plant, a layer of peat. A (hierarchically organized) individualistic non-anthropocentrist mire typology could look as follows: orang-utan mires (supporting self-conscious beings),  moose mires (supporting sentient beings), vegetated peatlands (supporting living beings e.g. plants), peatlands (containing any entity, e.g. peat) ...
4.3.3. Holistic non-anthropocentrism (e.g. "deep ecology") attributes value to higher levels of organi-zation than the indivi-dual, e.g. to  ecosystems, species etc.. Individu-als are only granted value indirectly as contri-buting to valued proper-ties of these wholes. An example of a holistic non-anthropocentrist mire typology: microform mire (supporting a microform), vegetation mire (supporting a vegetation), mesotope mire (expressing "emergent" micro- and mesoform features), species mire (necessary for the survival of a species) ...
4.3.4. In spite of its worldwide support (cf. UNCED 1992), and in spite of the existence of major world "religions" that actually recognize the intrinsic value of non-human enitites, non-anthropocentric motives can not play a major role in global mire conservation and classification, as the globally dominant socio-economic and cultural (capitalistic and judeo-christian) force is extremely anthropo-centric. For strategical reasons, mire conservation should therefore primarily be founded on anthropocentric grounds.

4.4.1. In anthropocentrism, the value of entities is depen-dent on the functions these entities (may) have for (= benefits they may provide to) human-kind, including regulation, carrier, production and information functions.
4.4.2. Regulation functions relate to the capacity to regulate essential (human) life-support systems,  i.e. the maintenance of adequate climatic, atmosp-heric, hydrologic, pedologic, ecologic and gene-tic conditions. A mire typology from this point of view may look as follows: peatlands with strong radiative forcing, peatlands with little forcing, inundation amplifying mires, inundation mitigating mires, degraded soil peatlands, gene bank mires ...
4.4.3. Carrier functions relate to the capacity to provide space and a suit-able sub-strate for human habitation, cultiva-tion, energy conversion, recreation and nature protec-tion. A typology could look like this: agricultural peatlands, housing peatlands, tourist mires, driveable peatlands, hydrofoil peatlands, unaccessable peatlands ...
4.4.4. Production functions relate to the capacity to provide resources, ranging from oxygen, water and food, and raw materials for industrial use to energy resources and genetic materials. A possible typology: clean water mires, berry mires, black grouse mires, X-mas spruce mires, hatching reed mires, mosslitter peatlands, energy peat peatlands, gene bank mires ...
4.4.5. Information functions contribute to the maintenance of mental health by providing opportunities for reflection, spiritual enrichment, cognitive develop-ment, and aesthe-tic experience. A typology: social monument mires, meditation mires, type locality mires, archive value peatlands, rare plant mires, patterned peatlands, romantic sunset mires, wilderness mires...

4.5.1. The regulative value of mires is not constant in time, but may change with changes in envi-ronmen-tal (clima-tic, atmosp-he-ric, hydrologic) condi-tions. Furthermore, the valuation of these functions may change rapidly withy changing knowledge, politics and preferences. (Would we drain all mires, if increasing carbon dioxide levels would turn out to be a benefit for humankind?)
4.5.2. Natural mires are easily disturbed, especial-ly by any attempts to change the hydrolo-gy, which is precisely the first step in all kinds of peatland exploitati-on. Exploitation (=  carrier and production functions) can, therefore, not be the basis of a mire conservation classification.
(N.B. 1.: The degree of exploitational damage may be a base of a peatland classification typology that is useful for mire conservation. Such typology, however, would not pay adequate attention to natural mires.
N.B. 2.: The unsuitability of an exploitation based typology does not make the optimization of the carrier and production functions, e.g. the production of renewable goods under peat accumulating conditions, a useless strategy for nature conservation. Such optimization, however, conflicts with the "naturalness" of nature, i.e. an informational aspect.)
4.5.3. The central issue of mire conservation classification must therefore be the maintenance of the informational functions of mires.

5.1. All difference depends on the scale of observation (= resolution).

5.2. Diversity is based on difference. Information is that part of difference that is/can be useful. Within a scala of increasing difference, information occupies the range between useless "too little" difference (monotony) and non-usable "too much" difference (chaos, disorderedness).

5.3. Information is no objective feature, but depends on existing know-ledge. Knowledge determines the resolution of observed difference.

5.4.1. Diversity conservation and diversity classification are fundamentally conflicting activities.
5.4.2. The conservation of all difference (diversity), and hence the conservation of maximal potentially useable information, implies the conservation of everything, because everything differs from everyt-hing else when observed on a sufficiently fine scale. (Remember, however, that the absence of difference/ information  on a specific level will imply the presence of difference/ information on another level. A hiatus in a peat deposit is also information!)
5.4.3. Classification aims at the reduction of difference and therewith at the maximation of actually useable information.
5.4.4. This paradoxal relation can be solved by changing as much chaotic difference as possible into easily manageable and useful difference (= information). This requires an optimal typology.

6.1.1. A mire conservation typology has to be consistent in its theoretical bases:
(a)  A single parameter or set of parameters should be used consistently so that the classes on one level (e.g. types) are mutually exclusive (shouldn't overlap) and jointly exhaustive (should cover all diversity).
(b)  The parameters used should be "essential" and  "dominant". They should deal with the intrinsic features of mires themselves rather than with properties of something outside them (cf. "percolating mires" versus "valley mires"). Furthermore the properties used for classification should be high in the functional hierarchy (e.g. water > plants > animals). Only then, knowing the type to which a mire belongs tell us as much a possible about the properties of that mire.
6.1.2. In any classification procedure, people have to agree on these fundamentals before proceeding to analyze arguments.

6.2. A mire conservation typology has to be pragmatic. This may imply that easily and objectively observable "indicators" have to be used for indirectly assessing the nature of "essential" parameters. This may require processual and correlative research.

6.3. A good typology should have the following characteristics:
6.3.1. a high information content :
The information content of a typology is the number of characters or character states that can be deduced from the typology alone. Achieving high information content can be accomplished using the following heuristics:
(a)  Classes should be as homogenous as possible.
(b) The precise limits of classes should be clearly specified.
(c) An individual entity should be placed in that group with which it shares the most (essential) traits.
(d) Different degrees of difference may be represented by arranging the groups into a hierarchy of levels. In this hierarchy groups at a given level should express a similar level of distinctness.
6.3.2. a great stability:
In order to serve as an effective medium of communication, a typology and its associated lexicon need to be communicated, understood and stable. This can be reached by using a consistent set of criteria and terms on which a communis opinio is reached by a large group of "experts" and "users".
6.3.3. ease of use/ convenience:
A classification is more useful if it can be easily remembered, and if the appropriate type for a specimen can be determined easily by inspection. Cognitive science teaches us, that a typology having fewer categories is more easily remembered, and is thus more available for use. The optimum level of subdivision is from 2 to 6 classes at each new level.
6.3.4. balance:
The typology should be balanced, with an regular distribution of class branches over the typology tree. A balanced tree can be more quickly searched than an unbalanced one.

6.4. As the basal classificatory unit, the type can be defined at a level at which the gains from finer classification would be outweighed by the costs of learning, identifying or transmitting a more complicated set of classes.

6.5. For conservation purposes, the type should be placed on the lowest possible level, in order to safeguard as many mires as possible. Such a low level, being the optimization of the largest possible resolution and the largest possible comprehensibility, requires a "superb" classification.

6.6. If mires varied continuously with no discontinuities, this balancing of costs and benefits would be a largely indeterminate problem. However, current regional typologies indicate that for many kinds of mires and on various organisation levels, sharp discontinuities at a relatively fine classificatory level can be found.

7. Let’s test these typologies and let us try to identify both essential parameters and useful indicators on a global scale.