Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities

Global efforts to conserve biodiversity have the potential to deliver economic benefits to people (i.e., “ecosystem services”). However, regions for which conservation benefits both biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be identified unless ecosystem services can be quantified and valued and their areas of production mapped. Here we review the theory, data, and analyses needed to produce such maps and find that data availability allows us to quantify imperfect global proxies for only four ecosystem services. Using this incomplete set as an illustration, we compare ecosystem service maps with the global distributions of conventional targets for biodiversity conservation. Our preliminary results show that regions selected to maximize biodiversity provide no more ecosystem services than regions chosen randomly. Furthermore, spatial concordance among different services, and between ecosystem services and established conservation priorities, varies widely. Despite this lack of general concordance, “win–win” areas—regions important for both ecosystem services and biodiversity—can be usefully identified, both among ecoregions and at finer scales within them. An ambitious interdisciplinary research effort is needed to move beyond these preliminary and illustrative analyses to fully assess synergies and trade-offs in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services.

[1]  E. Wilson,et al.  The Tropical Forest Canopy The Heart of Biotic Diversity , 1988 .

[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]  D. Olson,et al.  The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions , 1998 .

[5]  N. Ramankutty,et al.  Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992 , 1999 .

[6]  C. D. Becker PROTECTING A GARUA FOREST IN ECUADOR : THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM VALUATION , 1999 .

[7]  Hanqin Tian,et al.  The sensitivity of terrestrial carbon storage to historical climate variability and atmospheric CO2 in the United States , 1999 .

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

[9]  Raymond J. Kopp,et al.  On measuring economic values for nature , 2000 .

[10]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[11]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the Twentieth Century: Analyses of CO2, climate and land use effects with four process‐based ecosystem models , 2001 .

[12]  S. Polasky,et al.  Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon , 2001, Land Economics.

[13]  E. Wikramanayake,et al.  Ecoregions in Ascendance: Reply to Jepson and Whittaker , 2002, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[14]  P. Sutton,et al.  SPECIAL ISSUE: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation , 2002 .

[15]  Petra Döll,et al.  Validation of a new global 30-min drainage direction map , 2002 .

[16]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature , 2002, Science.

[17]  P. Döll,et al.  Global estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future “business-as-usual” conditions , 2003 .

[18]  J. D. Pilgrim,et al.  Wilderness and biodiversity conservation , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  P. Döll,et al.  Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability , 2003 .

[20]  B. Young,et al.  Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide , 2004, Science.

[21]  Garry R. Russ,et al.  Marine reserve benefits local fisheries , 2004 .

[22]  L. Bruijnzeel,et al.  Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? , 2004 .

[23]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves , 2004 .

[24]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  C. Kremen Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? , 2005, Ecology letters.

[26]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe , 2005, Science.

[27]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  Global Mammal Conservation: What Must We Manage? , 2005, Science.

[28]  A. Belward,et al.  GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data , 2005 .

[29]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat , 2005, Nature.

[30]  A. Belward,et al.  GLC 2000 : a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data , 2005 .

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

[32]  T. Lynam,et al.  Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs , 2006, Science.

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

[35]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing global conservation efforts , 2006, Nature.

[36]  T. Brooks,et al.  Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities , 2006, Science.

[37]  J. Sachs,et al.  Environment. Investments toward sustainable development. , 2006, Science.

[38]  Belinda Reyers,et al.  Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern African River Basin: a Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

[40]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism , 2006, Nature.

[41]  Walter V. Reid,et al.  Investments Toward Sustainable Development , 2006, Science.

[42]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change , 2006 .

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

[44]  S. Wunder The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[45]  R. Costanza,et al.  Global Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2007 .

[46]  Martin Kappas,et al.  Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Ming Dong,et al.  Quantification of the Impact of Land-Use Changes on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in Pingbian County, China , 2007, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[48]  N A N C,et al.  On Measuring Economic Values for Nature † , 2022 .