Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs?

There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These ‘marginal’ values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits.

[1]  Kathleen P. Bell,et al.  Ecological economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems , 1995 .

[2]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[3]  G. Daily Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. , 1998 .

[4]  M. Toman SPECIAL SECTION: FORUM ON VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - Why not to calculate the value of the world s ecosystem services and natural capital , 1998 .

[5]  W. Kurz,et al.  Carbon Budget Implications of the Transition from Natural to Managed Disturbance Regimes in Forest Landscapes , 1998 .

[6]  J. Terborgh Requiem for Nature , 1999 .

[7]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[8]  K. Arrow,et al.  The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value , 2000, Science.

[9]  S. Murray,et al.  Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: forest ecosystems. , 2000 .

[10]  John Creedy,et al.  The Economic Value of a Forested Catchment with Timber, Water and Carbon Sequestration Benefits , 2001 .

[11]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks , 2003 .

[12]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[13]  J. Regetz Landscape‐level constraints on recruitment of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River basin, USA , 2003 .

[14]  W. Michener Win‐Win Ecology: How the Earth's Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise , 2004 .

[15]  I. R. Johnson,et al.  Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[16]  Claire A. Montgomery,et al.  Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber , 2004 .

[17]  J. Post,et al.  Linking the dynamics of harvest effort to recruitment dynamics in a multistock, spatially structured fishery , 2004 .

[18]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity , 2004, Nature.

[19]  Robert L Pressey,et al.  Measuring and Incorporating Vulnerability into Conservation Planning , 2005, Environmental management.

[20]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design , 2005 .

[21]  S. Polasky,et al.  CONSERVING SPECIES IN A WORKING LANDSCAPE: LAND USE WITH BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES , 2005 .

[22]  David A. Newburn,et al.  Economics and Land‐Use Change in Prioritizing Private Land Conservation , 2005 .

[23]  W. Reid,et al.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2005 .

[24]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[25]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation , 2006, PLoS biology.

[26]  L. Arroja,et al.  The Role of Eucalyptus Globulus Forest and Products in Carbon Sequestration , 2006 .

[27]  P. Jordan The use of sediment budget concepts to assess the impact on watersheds of forestry operations in the southern interior of British Columbia , 2006 .

[28]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services , 2006 .

[29]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services , 2006, PLoS biology.

[30]  S. Polasky,et al.  Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Jai Ranganathan,et al.  When Agendas Collide: Human Welfare and Biological Conservation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[32]  Mathieu Rouget,et al.  Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. , 2007 .

[33]  M. Spalding,et al.  The world's protected areas : status, values and prospects in the 21st Century , 2008 .

[34]  Claire A. Montgomery,et al.  Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns , 2008 .

[35]  K. Lohse,et al.  Forecasting relative impacts of land use on anadromous fish habitat to guide conservation planning. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[36]  James Regetz,et al.  Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? , 2008, Ecology letters.

[37]  H. Possingham,et al.  Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  G. Daily,et al.  The payoff of conservation investments in tropical countryside , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[40]  T. Northcote,et al.  Fishes and Forestry: Worldwide Watershed Interactions and Management , 2008 .

[41]  David Waltner-Toews,et al.  The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability , 2008 .

[42]  G. Daily,et al.  Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  R. Costanza,et al.  Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[45]  Carissa J. Klein,et al.  Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning , 2009 .

[46]  P. Kareiva,et al.  State‐level variation in conservation investment by a major nongovernmental organization , 2009 .

[47]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges , 2009, Oryx.

[48]  G. Daily,et al.  Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver , 2009 .

[49]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  D. Richardson,et al.  Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa , 2009 .

[51]  Kai M. A. Chan,et al.  Protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity in the world's watersheds , 2009 .

[52]  Claire Kremen,et al.  Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. , 2009, Annals of botany.

[53]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[54]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Marxan good practices handbook , 2010 .

[55]  L. Ballance,et al.  Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans , 2010 .

[56]  Joshua Goldstein,et al.  Cultural services and non-use values , 2011 .

[57]  G. Daily,et al.  Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services , 2011 .

[58]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .