Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization

Abstract

Context Spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) concerns, for example, identification of spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation or for impact avoidance in economic development. Software useable for SCP include Marxan, C-Plan and Zonation. SCP is often based on data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitats), costs, threats, and/or ecosystem services (ES). Objectives and methods At simplest ES can be entered into a SCP analysis as independent supply maps, but this is not very satisfactory because connectivity requirements and consequent ideal spatial priority patterns may vary between ES. Therefore, we examine different ES and their connectivity requirements at the conceptual level. Results We find that the ideal spatial priority pattern for ES may differ in terms of: local supply area size and regional network requirements for the maintenance of ES provision, for flow between provision and demand, and with respect to the degree of dispersion that is needed for ES provision and access across different administrative regions. We then identify existing technical options in the Zonation software for dealing with such connectivity requirements of ES in SCP. Conclusions This work helps users of SCP to improve how ES are accounted for in analysis together with biodiversity and other considerations.

Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity

“…Nevertheless, coverage is just one of several ways that can be used to judge the effectiveness of a protected area. In order to deem a protected area successful, other factors may need to be considered, including ecosystem function and community structure (Barnes et al., ), ecosystem services (Kukkala & Moilanen, ), animal populations and habitat condition, and the effect of habitat loss and degradation in the broader landscape outside the protected area (Leverington, Costa, Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, ). How effective a protected area is can also be evaluated with metrics related to the social benefit, such as protection of cultural values, socioeconomic impacts and effectiveness of the management in protected areas (Eklund & Cabeza, ; Leverington et al., ).…”

More is more? Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services

“…In particular, if a larger range of ecosystem services is considered, the issue of finding the 'correct' scale for ecosystem service management may be greatly complicated by the fact that services may be the products of ecosystem processes taking place at different scales (Kremen 2005). For example, in our case carbon storage may be measured per any land unit irrespective of scale, but some other ecosystem services may be provided by processes that are linked to fixed spatial scales or connectivity patterns (Mitchell et al 2015;Kukkala and Moilanen 2016), such as processes regulating water quality and supply (Brauman et al 2007), the movements of mobile organisms (Kremen et al 2007), or the experience of aesthetic landscapes (Gobster et al 2007). In our study system, this means that the condition of areas covering several stands or interactions among stands may affect the supply of some ecosystem services and may need to be considered to secure high levels of all of them.…”

Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns

“…Under the background of global environmental change, the regulation and guarantee of regional ecological security has become an unavoidable problem. The new paradigm is an inevitable choice to move from isolated ecosystem control to integrateed ecological governance (Kukkala and Moilanen, 2017). Originating from landscape ecological planning, the construction of ecological security patterns provides a spatial solution to regional ecological security issues (Li et al, 2011;Li et al, 2013;Liu and Chang, 2015).…”