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
Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF) for single, exemplary features.Old-growth forest L, S, BN, TR = impediment and low productivity, spruce dominated, boreonemoral zone, oceanic-inland transition zone. Old-growth forest H, P, SMB, TR = high & very high productivity, pine dominated, South & Mid- boreal zone, oceanic-inland transition zone.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0112557-g004: Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF) for single, exemplary features.Old-growth forest L, S, BN, TR = impediment and low productivity, spruce dominated, boreonemoral zone, oceanic-inland transition zone. Old-growth forest H, P, SMB, TR = high & very high productivity, pine dominated, South & Mid- boreal zone, oceanic-inland transition zone.

Mentions: While Figure 3 shows the average target achievement of all 64 features, Figure 4 shows the development of target achievement along changing opportunity cost constraints for single, exemplary features (for all features see Table S3). Some features meet high targets at low (20%) cost constraints (carbon sequestration and one type of low productive old-growth forest), which means that these features did not constrain the solution to a high degree. Some conservation features decreased at higher rates than the average (e.g., one type of high productive forest and recently burned forest). Such features are more costly to be comprehensively conserved in a compact reserve network.


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)

Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF) for single, exemplary features.Old-growth forest L, S, BN, TR = impediment and low productivity, spruce dominated, boreonemoral zone, oceanic-inland transition zone. Old-growth forest H, P, SMB, TR = high & very high productivity, pine dominated, South & Mid- boreal zone, oceanic-inland transition zone.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0112557-g004: Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF) for single, exemplary features.Old-growth forest L, S, BN, TR = impediment and low productivity, spruce dominated, boreonemoral zone, oceanic-inland transition zone. Old-growth forest H, P, SMB, TR = high & very high productivity, pine dominated, South & Mid- boreal zone, oceanic-inland transition zone.
Mentions: While Figure 3 shows the average target achievement of all 64 features, Figure 4 shows the development of target achievement along changing opportunity cost constraints for single, exemplary features (for all features see Table S3). Some features meet high targets at low (20%) cost constraints (carbon sequestration and one type of low productive old-growth forest), which means that these features did not constrain the solution to a high degree. Some conservation features decreased at higher rates than the average (e.g., one type of high productive forest and recently burned forest). Such features are more costly to be comprehensively conserved in a compact reserve network.

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