Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSchröter, Matthias
dc.contributor.authorRusch, Graciela
dc.contributor.authorBarton, David Nicholas
dc.contributor.authorBlumentrath, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorNordén, Bjørn
dc.coverage.spatialTelemark, Norwayen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-19T08:03:21Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-14T08:35:50Z
dc.date.available2014-11-19T08:03:21Z
dc.date.available2023-03-14T08:35:50Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationPLoS ONE 2014, 9(11)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3058072
dc.description.abstractInclusion 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%.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectforesten_US
dc.titleEcosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift SpatialPriorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversityen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2014-11-19T08:03:22Z
dc.rights.holder© 2014 The Authorsen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Økonomi: 210::Samfunnsøkonomi: 212en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488en_US
dc.source.volume9en_US
dc.source.journalPLoS ONEen_US
dc.source.issue11en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0112557
dc.identifier.cristin1174461
dc.relation.projectAndre: POLICYMIXen_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal