Dataset Information

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning.

ABSTRACT: Ecosystem services (ES), commonly defined as the benefits people get from ecosystems, are key components in improving human well-being. However, as land utilization transitions from forest and agricultural land to urban areas and industrial complexes, the continuous provision of ES is affected. To ensure sustainable development, conservation programs should be implemented that consider both the stakeholders' well-being while also maintaining ecosystem health and integrity. Consequently, to improve the strategic implementation of conservation programs, it is critical to understand stakeholders' preferences. Using an online survey, we elicited South Carolina residents' preference in prioritizing the target ecosystems and ecosystem services in the state. The results identified that the priority ecosystem service is water quality regulation. However, the residents' preference for water quality regulation does not discredit the importance of maintaining the continuous water supply provision. In terms of ecosystem preference, residents indicated that the forest ecosystem is the priority ecosystem to be conserved, particularly for younger residents, respondents with high income, and those in the midland and the upstate. This could be attributed to the forest's effect on the ecosystem services that these respondents receive, particularly towards water-related ecosystem services. Understanding the residents' preference provides information that could improve the state water plans and other potential policy implications to land use-land cover planning and landscape sustainability management.

SUBMITTER: Ureta JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7773879 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning.

Ureta J Carl JC Vassalos Michael M Motallebi Marzieh M Baldwin Robert R Ureta Joan J

Heliyon 20201223 12

Ecosystem services (ES), commonly defined as the benefits people get from ecosystems, are key components in improving human well-being. However, as land utilization transitions from forest and agricultural land to urban areas and industrial complexes, the continuous provision of ES is affected. To ensure sustainable development, conservation programs should be implemented that consider both the stakeholders' well-being while also maintaining ecosystem health and integrity. Consequently, to impro ...[more]

PMID: 33409394

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning.

Publications

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets