Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs?
2011

Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning

publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Chan Kai M. A., Hoshizaki Lara, Klinkenberg Brian

Primary Institution: University of British Columbia

Hypothesis

How can ecosystem services be effectively integrated into conservation planning?

Conclusion

Including ecosystem services as co-benefits in conservation planning can lead to more cost-effective outcomes.

Supporting Evidence

  • Conservation-compatible services were positively correlated with biodiversity.
  • Timber production was found to be the greatest opportunity cost to conservation.
  • Using ecosystem services as co-benefits can reduce the costs of conservation planning.

Takeaway

This study shows that when planning to protect nature, it's better to think about the benefits people get from nature, like clean water and places to fish, rather than just focusing on protecting plants and animals.

Methodology

The study used GIS to calculate and map economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling, comparing different approaches in conservation planning using the software Marxan.

Limitations

The analysis did not account for spatially variable threats and relied on coarse-scale data.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0024378

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication