Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.
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%.
Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.
Matthias
M
Schröter
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.
Graciela M
GM
Rusch
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.
David N
DN
Barton
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.
Stefan
S
Blumentrath
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim/Oslo, Norway.
Björn
B
Nordén
D044822:Biodiversity; D002980:Climate; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000379:methods*; D004463:Ecology / Q000379:methods*; D016468:Forestry; D065928:Forests; D005843:Geography; D009664:Norway