pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conservation planning for ecosystem services - PubMed

Conservation planning for ecosystem services

Kai M A Chan et al. PLoS Biol. 2006 Oct.

Abstract

Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services-crop pollination and forage production-eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Central Coast Ecoregion of California, with Geographic Features Mentioned in the Text
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial Analysis of Biodiversity and the Chosen Ecosystem Services

The seven benefit functions (feature values) are displayed in color with the accompanying best networks of selected planning units in gray insets. Feature values range from 0 (or locked out; white), to low (light blue), moderate (dark blue), and high (purple). The boundary indicates the ecoregion plus the 10-km buffer. Yellow lines indicate stratification units, within which individual targets were pursued. Numbers in the thousands (×000) are stratification unit labels. Not shown are planning-unit–specific constraints and stratification-unit–specific targets.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Pair-Wise Spatial Associations between Biodiversity and the Production of Ecosystem Services

Associations are expressed as (A) the correlation coefficient (r) between feature values; (B) actual/expected number of planning units shared between best networks; and (C) actual number of shared planning units as a percentage of the smaller network. Arithmetic averages for each ecosystem service with each other ecosystem service are also noted. Shading indicates strength of correlation/overlap, as indicated by the legends. The shading in (C) follows values in (B). All correlations are statistically significant except for pollination with recreation, flood control, and biodiversity. All overlaps are statistically significant by G-tests for goodness of fit.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Ecosystem Service and Biodiversity Hotspots

Colors represent the number of features for which each planning unit was selected in the individual-service best MARXAN network. We selected 1.8% of planning units for ≥5 features and 8.5% for ≥4.

Figure 5
Figure 5. The Achievement of Alternative Strategies at Meeting Conservation Targets

Target achievement is represented as the proportions of the seven targets achieved by four different conservation scenarios: Biodiversity (only biodiversity); Non-biodiversity (all except biodiversity); All; and Strategic (all but forage production and pollination: biodiversity, carbon storage, flood control, recreation, and water storage). (A) The average target achieved (achieved feature/target) across stratification units weighted by amount of target, capped at 1 where targets were exceeded. (B) The average amount by which targets were exceeded, weighted by target. The total target achievements and surpluses, summed across ecosystem services, appear enclosed in square brackets in the legend. This unweighted total underrepresents the contribution of biodiversity (which alone had hundreds of features, compared with one for each ecosystem service per stratification unit) to the planning process.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Daily GC, editor. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press; 1997. 392
    1. Heal G. Nature and the marketplace: Capturing the value of ecosystem services. Washington (DC): Island Press; 2000. 203
    1. Balvanera P, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Ricketts TH, Bailey SA, et al. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science. 2001;291:2047–2047. - PubMed
    1. Olson DM, Dinerstein E. The global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:502–515.
    1. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403:853–858. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources