Skip header and navigation

1 records – page 1 of 1.

Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.
PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112557
Publication Type
Matthias Schröter
Graciela M Rusch
David N Barton
Stefan Blumentrath
Björn Nordén
PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112557
Publication Type
Computer simulation
Conservation of Natural Resources - methods
Ecology - methods
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%.
Cites: Nature. 2000 May 11;405(6783):243-5310821285
Cites: Glob Chang Biol. 2014 Feb;20(2):382-9323913584
Cites: J Biosci. 2002 Jul;27(4 Suppl 2):309-2612177531
Cites: Ambio. 2003 Sep;32(6):389-9614627367
Cites: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74843571
Cites: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 28;360(1454):443-5515814356
Cites: PLoS Biol. 2006 Oct;4(11):e37917076586
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2009 Feb;90(2):901-1118423841
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Feb 3;106(5):1305-1219179280
Cites: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 22;276(1669):2903-1119474040
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 20;106(42):17667-7019815522
Cites: Ecol Lett. 2009 Dec;12(12):1394-40419845725
Cites: Science. 2009 Dec 4;326(5958):136819965752
Cites: PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e827320011603
Cites: Conserv Biol. 2010 Aug;24(4):1021-3020136871
Cites: Conserv Biol. 2010 Dec;24(6):1529-3720561000
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2011 Jun;92(6):1642-5021334134
Cites: Science. 2011 Mar 25;331(6024):1606-821436453
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e1893021526118
Cites: Ambio. 2011 May;40(3):248-5521644453
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e2437821915318
Cites: Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Jan;27(1):19-2621943703
Cites: PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e7898624223870
Cites: J Biosci. 2002 Jul;27(4 Suppl 2):299-30812177530
PubMed ID
25393951 View in PubMed
Less detail