Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 11, 0112557, 13.11.2014.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity
AU - Schröter, Matthias
AU - Rusch, Graciela M.
AU - Barton, David N.
AU - Blumentrath, Stefan
AU - Nordén, Björn
N1 - We thank Lars Hein and Lucie Vermeulen for useful comments on an earlier draft. We thank the advisory board members of the POLICYMIX project as well as all participants of the expert workshop held in Oslo on 7 May 2014. We express our sincere gratitude to two reviewers whose constructive remarks helped to improve the paper.
PY - 2014/11/13
Y1 - 2014/11/13
N2 - Inclusion of spatially explicit information on ecosystem services in conservation planning is a fairly new practice. This study analyses how the incorporation of ecosystem services as conservation features can affect conservation of forest biodiversity and how different opportunity cost constraints can change spatial priorities for conservation. We created spatially explicit cost-effective conservation scenarios for 59 forest biodiversity features and five ecosystem services in the county of Telemark (Norway) with the help of the heuristic optimisation planning software, Marxan with Zones. We combined a mix of conservation instruments where forestry is either completely (non-use zone) or partially restricted (partial use zone). Opportunity costs were measured in terms of foregone timber harvest, an important provisioning service in Telemark. Including a number of ecosystem services shifted priority conservation sites compared to a case where only biodiversity was considered, and increased the area of both the partial (+36.2%) and the non-use zone (+3.2%). Furthermore, opportunity costs increased (+6.6%), which suggests that ecosystem services may not be a side-benefit of biodiversity conservation in this area. Opportunity cost levels were systematically changed to analyse their effect on spatial conservation priorities. Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services trades off against timber harvest. Currently designated nature reserves and landscape protection areas achieve a very low proportion (9.1%) of the conservation targets we set in our scenario, which illustrates the high importance given to timber production at present. A trade-off curve indicated that large marginal increases in conservation target achievement are possible when the budget for conservation is increased. Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.
AB - Inclusion of spatially explicit information on ecosystem services in conservation planning is a fairly new practice. This study analyses how the incorporation of ecosystem services as conservation features can affect conservation of forest biodiversity and how different opportunity cost constraints can change spatial priorities for conservation. We created spatially explicit cost-effective conservation scenarios for 59 forest biodiversity features and five ecosystem services in the county of Telemark (Norway) with the help of the heuristic optimisation planning software, Marxan with Zones. We combined a mix of conservation instruments where forestry is either completely (non-use zone) or partially restricted (partial use zone). Opportunity costs were measured in terms of foregone timber harvest, an important provisioning service in Telemark. Including a number of ecosystem services shifted priority conservation sites compared to a case where only biodiversity was considered, and increased the area of both the partial (+36.2%) and the non-use zone (+3.2%). Furthermore, opportunity costs increased (+6.6%), which suggests that ecosystem services may not be a side-benefit of biodiversity conservation in this area. Opportunity cost levels were systematically changed to analyse their effect on spatial conservation priorities. Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services trades off against timber harvest. Currently designated nature reserves and landscape protection areas achieve a very low proportion (9.1%) of the conservation targets we set in our scenario, which illustrates the high importance given to timber production at present. A trade-off curve indicated that large marginal increases in conservation target achievement are possible when the budget for conservation is increased. Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.
KW - Ecosystems Research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911884706&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/69d8111c-b068-36b8-8aa0-1cb1bf4fd8c1/
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0112557
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0112557
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 25393951
AN - SCOPUS:84911884706
VL - 9
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 11
M1 - 0112557
ER -