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%.
Highlights
The ecosystem services (ES) concept comprises multiple contributions of ecosystems to human well-being [1], and has increasingly been used to raise awareness about the benefits that people derive from ecosystems [2,3]
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
A land sharing principle was included in our study in the partial use zone, which partly allows for the development of synergies between ES, biodiversity and timber production and which complements strict protection zones in policyscapes analysed in this study
Summary
The ecosystem services (ES) concept comprises multiple contributions of ecosystems to human well-being [1], and has increasingly been used to raise awareness about the benefits that people derive from ecosystems [2,3]. Considering ES when making decisions about the use of ecosystems could provide additional, anthropocentric arguments to support either management aimed at sustainable use of ecosystems or biodiversity conservation [4]. There is a still unresolved debate about to what extent components of biodiversity correspond with ES provision [4,5,6,7] and about the extent to which considering ES in decision making matches with biodiversity conservation objectives. Trade-offs between extractive provisioning services, such as clear-cutting timber harvest, and other ES [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
