ecosystem services in conservation planning targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs生态系统服务在保护规划目标利益和效益或成本.pdfVIP

Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs? 1 1 2 Kai M. A. Chan *, Lara Hoshizaki , Brian Klinkenberg 1 Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 2 Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Abstract There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These ‘marginal’ values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan’s cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuiti