Limits...
Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.

Schröter M, Rusch GM, Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Nordén B - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: 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.Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.

ABSTRACT
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%.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Differences in selection frequency of sites for partial (a) and non-use (b) areas.The maps show the difference of scenario 2 (biodiversity and ES features) versus scenario 1 (biodiversity only). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230974&req=5

pone-0112557-g002: Differences in selection frequency of sites for partial (a) and non-use (b) areas.The maps show the difference of scenario 2 (biodiversity and ES features) versus scenario 1 (biodiversity only). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.

Mentions: Incorporating ES into the policyscape changed the absolute sum of area in the two zones, the opportunity costs (Table 2) as well as the spatial configuration of the policyscape (Figures 1 and 2). When considering ES, the sum of partial use areas increased by 36.2% and the sum of non-use-areas by 3.2% compared to the scenario that only considered biodiversity. Opportunity costs were 6.6% higher in scenario 2 than in scenario 1. As an illustration of a policyscape, Figure 1 shows the best solution per scenario for scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b). Selection frequencies of planning units for both scenarios can be found in Figure S1. The differences in selection frequencies are shown in Figure 2 for the partial (a) and non-use zone (b). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in the policyscape of scenario 2 than in scenario 1, while a negative difference indicates a lower selection frequency in the policyscape of scenario 2 than in scenario 1. Comparison of the spatial configuration of the policyscapes of both scenarios led to the following results. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between selection frequencies of sites in the non-use zone was r = 0.90, while for the partial use zone, it was r = 0.58. This indicates that relatively larger differences can be expected in the partial use zone than in the non-use zone when ES were considered, which partly rests upon the fact that ES can, in contrast to most of the biodiversity features in this study, partly be protected in this zone. Cohen’s Kappa statistics was K = 0.577 (sig≤0.0001) for the non-use zone and K = 0.398 (sig ≤0.0001) for the partial use zone. These results imply ‘moderate agreement’ in non-use and 'fair agreement’ in partial use zone, respectively [58], which supports the observation of a relatively larger agreement between non-use areas in the different spatial configurations of the policyscapes.


Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.

Schröter M, Rusch GM, Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Nordén B - PLoS ONE (2014)

Differences in selection frequency of sites for partial (a) and non-use (b) areas.The maps show the difference of scenario 2 (biodiversity and ES features) versus scenario 1 (biodiversity only). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230974&req=5

pone-0112557-g002: Differences in selection frequency of sites for partial (a) and non-use (b) areas.The maps show the difference of scenario 2 (biodiversity and ES features) versus scenario 1 (biodiversity only). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.
Mentions: Incorporating ES into the policyscape changed the absolute sum of area in the two zones, the opportunity costs (Table 2) as well as the spatial configuration of the policyscape (Figures 1 and 2). When considering ES, the sum of partial use areas increased by 36.2% and the sum of non-use-areas by 3.2% compared to the scenario that only considered biodiversity. Opportunity costs were 6.6% higher in scenario 2 than in scenario 1. As an illustration of a policyscape, Figure 1 shows the best solution per scenario for scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b). Selection frequencies of planning units for both scenarios can be found in Figure S1. The differences in selection frequencies are shown in Figure 2 for the partial (a) and non-use zone (b). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in the policyscape of scenario 2 than in scenario 1, while a negative difference indicates a lower selection frequency in the policyscape of scenario 2 than in scenario 1. Comparison of the spatial configuration of the policyscapes of both scenarios led to the following results. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between selection frequencies of sites in the non-use zone was r = 0.90, while for the partial use zone, it was r = 0.58. This indicates that relatively larger differences can be expected in the partial use zone than in the non-use zone when ES were considered, which partly rests upon the fact that ES can, in contrast to most of the biodiversity features in this study, partly be protected in this zone. Cohen’s Kappa statistics was K = 0.577 (sig≤0.0001) for the non-use zone and K = 0.398 (sig ≤0.0001) for the partial use zone. These results imply ‘moderate agreement’ in non-use and 'fair agreement’ in partial use zone, respectively [58], which supports the observation of a relatively larger agreement between non-use areas in the different spatial configurations of the policyscapes.

Bottom Line: 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.Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.

ABSTRACT
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%.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus