» Articles » PMID: 30614054

Effects of Human Demand on Conservation Planning for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Overview
Journal Conserv Biol
Date 2019 Jan 8
PMID 30614054
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity is critical to achieving sustainable development. To date, ecosystem services quantification has focused on the biophysical supply of services with less emphasis on human beneficiaries (i.e., demand). Only when both occur do ecosystems benefit people, but demand may shift ecosystem service priorities toward human-dominated landscapes that support less biodiversity. We quantified how accounting for demand affects the efficiency of conservation in capturing both human benefits and biodiversity by comparing conservation priorities identified with and without accounting for demand. We mapped supply and benefit for 3 ecosystem services (flood mitigation, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation) by adapting existing ecosystem service models to include and exclude factors representing human demand. We then identified conservation priorities for each with the conservation planning program Marxan. Particularly for flood mitigation and crop pollination, supply served as a poor proxy for benefit because demand changed the spatial distribution of ecosystem service provision. Including demand when jointly targeting biodiversity and ecosystem service increased the efficiency of conservation efforts targeting ecosystem services without reducing biodiversity outcomes. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating demand when quantifying ecosystem services for conservation planning.

Citing Articles

Identifying important ecosystem service areas based on distributions of ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China.

Cheng C, Zhang S, Zhou M, Du Y, Ge C PeerJ. 2022; 10:e13881.

PMID: 35999850 PMC: 9393009. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13881.


Significant reduction of carbon stocks and changes of ecosystem service valuation of Indian Sundarban.

Bera B, Bhattacharjee S, Sengupta N, Shit P, Adhikary P, Sengupta D Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):7809.

PMID: 35551238 PMC: 9098434. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11716-5.


Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Sonter L, Gordon A, Archibald C, Simmonds J, Ward M, Metzger J Ambio. 2019; 49(4):892-902.

PMID: 31506844 PMC: 7028886. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-019-01245-3.

References
1.
Doak D, Bakker V, Goldstein B, Hale B . What is the future of conservation?. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013; 29(2):77-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013. View

2.
Kremen C . Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?. Ecol Lett. 2011; 8(5):468-79. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x. View

3.
Lonsdorf E, Kremen C, Ricketts T, Winfree R, Williams N, Greenleaf S . Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann Bot. 2009; 103(9):1589-600. PMC: 2701767. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcp069. View

4.
McCauley D . Selling out on nature. Nature. 2006; 443(7107):27-8. DOI: 10.1038/443027a. View

5.
Ricketts T, Watson K, Koh I, Ellis A, Nicholson C, Posner S . Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat Commun. 2016; 7:13106. PMC: 5059779. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13106. View