Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region
Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region
The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, 'wilderness'-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service-recreation-is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society
2903-2911
Eigenbrod, Felix
43efc6ae-b129-45a2-8a34-e489b5f05827
Anderson, Barbara J.
9cda6238-a0dc-4fad-b3a8-7849ba033766
Armsworth, Paul R.
b139013b-4201-4c71-804f-b3f9c01316b3
Heinemeyer, Andreas
4014ceb3-f411-42fc-8251-99c4a608eb7e
Jackson, Sarah F.
54f51168-4749-4eff-b018-422e121b2337
Parnell, Mark
87a0e3d0-d9ed-4e2c-a308-96de17ef1636
Thomas, Chris D.
bbcfba65-4f02-4a50-9a9e-04b8e046671d
Gaston, Kevin J.
8d5f7517-9d47-442a-a11c-1a53304041e3
August 2009
Eigenbrod, Felix
43efc6ae-b129-45a2-8a34-e489b5f05827
Anderson, Barbara J.
9cda6238-a0dc-4fad-b3a8-7849ba033766
Armsworth, Paul R.
b139013b-4201-4c71-804f-b3f9c01316b3
Heinemeyer, Andreas
4014ceb3-f411-42fc-8251-99c4a608eb7e
Jackson, Sarah F.
54f51168-4749-4eff-b018-422e121b2337
Parnell, Mark
87a0e3d0-d9ed-4e2c-a308-96de17ef1636
Thomas, Chris D.
bbcfba65-4f02-4a50-9a9e-04b8e046671d
Gaston, Kevin J.
8d5f7517-9d47-442a-a11c-1a53304041e3
Eigenbrod, Felix, Anderson, Barbara J., Armsworth, Paul R., Heinemeyer, Andreas, Jackson, Sarah F., Parnell, Mark, Thomas, Chris D. and Gaston, Kevin J.
(2009)
Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276 (1669), .
(doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0528).
Abstract
The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, 'wilderness'-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service-recreation-is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society
Text
Eigenbrod_et_al_ConservationStrategies_and_Ecosystem_Services_2009.pdf
- Version of Record
Restricted to Registered users only
Request a copy
More information
Published date: August 2009
Organisations:
Biological Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 181371
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/181371
ISSN: 1471-2954
PURE UUID: da117067-73dc-400d-9ac9-f6f84980efb9
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 18 Apr 2011 12:45
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 02:56
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Barbara J. Anderson
Author:
Paul R. Armsworth
Author:
Andreas Heinemeyer
Author:
Sarah F. Jackson
Author:
Mark Parnell
Author:
Chris D. Thomas
Author:
Kevin J. Gaston
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics