Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

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.

Efectos de la Demanda Humana sobre la Planeación de la Conservación para la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ambientales Resumen La salvaguardia de los servicios ambientales y de la biodiversidad es muy importante para lograr el desarrollo sustentable. A la fecha, la cuantificación de los servicios ambientales se ha enfocado en el suministro biofísico de servicios con un menor énfasis en los beneficiarios humanos (es decir, la demanda). Es sólo cuando se considera a ambos que los ecosistemas benefician a las personas, pero la demanda puede cambiar las prioridades de los servicios ambientales hacia los paisajes dominados por humanos, los cuales mantienen una menor biodiversidad. Cuantificamos cómo afecta la consideración de la demanda a la eficiencia de la conservación en la captura de los beneficios humanos y de la biodiversidad al comparar las prioridades de conservación con y sin la consideración de la demanda. Mapeamos el suministro y el beneficio para tres servicios ambientales (mitigación de inundaciones, polinización de cultivos y actividades recreativas basadas en la naturaleza) al adaptar los modelos de servicios ambientales existentes para que incluyeran y excluyeran los factores que representan la demanda humana. Después identificamos las prioridades de conservación para cada uno con el programa de planeación de la conservación Marxan. En el caso particular de la mitigación de inundaciones y la polinización de cultivos, el suministro fue un sustituto pobre para el beneficio debido a que la demanda cambió la distribución espacial de la provisión de servicios ambientales. La inclusión de la demanda cuando nos enfocamos en la biodiversidad y en los servicios ambientales como conjunto incrementó la eficiencia de los esfuerzos de conservación enfocados en los servicios ambientales sin reducir los resultados para la biodiversidad. Nuestros resultados resaltan la importancia de la incorporación de la demanda cuando se cuantifican los servicios ambientales para la planeación de la conservación.

Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services (ES) are an increasingly popular policy framework for connecting biodiversity with human well-being. These efforts typically assume that biodiversity and ES covary, but the relationship between them remains remarkably unclear. Here we analyse >500 recent papers and show that reported relationships differ among ES, methods of measuring biodiversity and ES, and three different approaches to linking them (spatial correlations, management comparisons and functional experiments). For spatial correlations, biodiversity relates more strongly to measures of ES supply than to resulting human benefits. For management comparisons, biodiversity of 'service providers' predicts ES more often than biodiversity of functionally unrelated taxa, but the opposite is true for spatial correlations. Functional experiments occur at smaller spatial scales than management and spatial studies, which show contrasting responses to scale. Our results illuminate the varying dynamics relating biodiversity to ES, and show the importance of matching management efforts to the most relevant scientific evidence.

Spatial and Temporal Dynamics and Value of Nature-Based Recreation, Estimated via Social Media.

Conserved lands provide multiple ecosystem services, including opportunities for nature-based recreation. Managing this service requires understanding the landscape attributes underpinning its provision, and how changes in land management affect its contribution to human wellbeing over time. However, evidence from both spatially explicit and temporally dynamic analyses is scarce, often due to data limitations. In this study, we investigated nature-based recreation within conserved lands in Vermont, USA. We used geotagged photographs uploaded to the photo-sharing website Flickr to quantify visits by in-state and out-of-state visitors, and we multiplied visits by mean trip expenditures to show that conserved lands contributed US $1.8 billion (US $0.18-20.2 at 95% confidence) to Vermont's tourism industry between 2007 and 2014. We found eight landscape attributes explained the pattern of visits to conserved lands; visits were higher in larger conserved lands, with less forest cover, greater trail density and more opportunities for snow sports. Some of these attributes differed from those found in other locations, but all aligned with our understanding of recreation in Vermont. We also found that using temporally static models to inform conservation decisions may have perverse outcomes for nature-based recreation. For example, static models suggest conserved land with less forest cover receive more visits, but temporally dynamic models suggest clearing forests decreases, rather than increases, visits to these sites. Our results illustrate the importance of understanding both the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecosystem services for conservation decision-making.