Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 A plea for quantitative targets in biodiversity conservation
- 2 Setting conservation targets: past and present approaches
- 3 Designing studies to develop conservation targets: a review of the challenges
- 4 Testing the efficiency of global-scale conservation planning by using data on Andean amphibians
- 5 Selecting biodiversity indicators to set conservation targets: species, structures, or processes?
- 6 Selecting species to be used as tools in the development of forest conservation targets
- 7 Bridging ecosystem and multiple species approaches for setting conservation targets in managed boreal landscapes
- 8 Thresholds, incidence functions, and species-specific cues: responses of woodland birds to landscape structure in south-eastern Australia
- 9 Landscape thresholds in species occurrence as quantitative targets in forest management: generality in space and time?
- 10 The temporal and spatial challenges of target setting for dynamic habitats: the case of dead wood and saproxylic species in boreal forests
- 11 Opportunities and constraints of using understory plants to set forest restoration and conservation priorities
- 12 Setting conservation targets for freshwater ecosystems in forested catchments
- 13 Setting quantitative targets for recovery of threatened species
- 14 Allocation of conservation efforts over the landscape: the TRIAD approach
- 15 Forest landscape modeling as a tool to develop conservation targets
- 16 Setting targets: tradeoffs between ecology and economics
- 17 Setting, implementing, and monitoring targets as a basis for adaptive management: a Canadian forestry case study
- 18 Putting conservation target science to work
- Index
- References
16 - Setting targets: tradeoffs between ecology and economics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 A plea for quantitative targets in biodiversity conservation
- 2 Setting conservation targets: past and present approaches
- 3 Designing studies to develop conservation targets: a review of the challenges
- 4 Testing the efficiency of global-scale conservation planning by using data on Andean amphibians
- 5 Selecting biodiversity indicators to set conservation targets: species, structures, or processes?
- 6 Selecting species to be used as tools in the development of forest conservation targets
- 7 Bridging ecosystem and multiple species approaches for setting conservation targets in managed boreal landscapes
- 8 Thresholds, incidence functions, and species-specific cues: responses of woodland birds to landscape structure in south-eastern Australia
- 9 Landscape thresholds in species occurrence as quantitative targets in forest management: generality in space and time?
- 10 The temporal and spatial challenges of target setting for dynamic habitats: the case of dead wood and saproxylic species in boreal forests
- 11 Opportunities and constraints of using understory plants to set forest restoration and conservation priorities
- 12 Setting conservation targets for freshwater ecosystems in forested catchments
- 13 Setting quantitative targets for recovery of threatened species
- 14 Allocation of conservation efforts over the landscape: the TRIAD approach
- 15 Forest landscape modeling as a tool to develop conservation targets
- 16 Setting targets: tradeoffs between ecology and economics
- 17 Setting, implementing, and monitoring targets as a basis for adaptive management: a Canadian forestry case study
- 18 Putting conservation target science to work
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Habitat loss is the main threat to biodiversity. Conversion of land to urban sprawl and agricultural land is widespread, particularly in southern temperate regions. In the boreal forest zone, landscapes have remained primarily forested while undergoing spatial and temporal changes in composition and age structure. Within the seemingly intact forest cover, habitat degradation has resulted in habitat loss for many species. Common to these types of landscape changes is that human activities have resulted in a shortage of area for species and their habitats. Preventing further habitat loss, that is conservation, causes restrictions to other land-use types and often incurs considerable economic costs in terms of foregone opportunities. Therefore, there is an immanent tradeoff between alternative land-use practices. How much trading in ecological values we are willing to accept for increasing economic welfare is an important ethical question, and relates to the discussion of weak versus strong sustainability (Costanza 1996). From a scientific point of view, the tradeoff between ecological and economic targets calls for the development of procedures and methods to cope with it in a balanced way.
The tradeoff between ecological and economic targets reflects land-use demands. Market value of land varies widely across sites according to, for example, location, potential other uses, and primary productivity. Pressures to develop a parcel of land increase in proximity to dense human populations, yet social benefits from undeveloped land (e.g. recreation and conservation) also increase with proximity. Therefore, land value tends to decrease with distance from cities.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 328 - 351Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and . 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97:5954–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and . 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1992. Conservation of communities – the importance of edges, surroundings and landscape mosaic structure. Pp. 9–70 in (ed.) Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation: Applications in Temperate and Boreal Environments. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2001. Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement No. 3:38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2004. Weighing conservation objectives: maximum expected coverage versus endangered species protection. Ecological Applications 14:1936–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2000. Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conservation Biology 14:597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:242–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. 2002. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13:805–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1996. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biological Conservation 76:105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. Ecological economics: reintegrating the study of humans and nature. Ecological Applications 6:978–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-species and plant-species richness. American Naturalist 137:27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biological Conservation 80:83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2000. An integer optimization approach to a probabilistic reserve site selection problem. Operations Research 48:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 2002. Optimizing habitat protection using demographic models of population viability. Conservation Biology 16:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37:271–80.Google Scholar
2005. The Shrinking World: Ecological Consequences of Habitat Loss. Excellence in Ecology, Vol. 14. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: International Ecology Institute.Google Scholar
, , and . 2000. Home range size, movements and nest site use in the Siberian flying squirrel Pteromys volans. Journal of Mammalogy 81:798–809.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 2003. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2000. The significance of protected area network for forest-dwelling species: vascular plants of herb-rich forests, beetles dependent on dead wood, birds of coniferous and mixed forests. The Finnish Environment440.Google Scholar
2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
, , et al. 2005. Building and evaluating predictive occupancy models for the Siberian flying squirrel using forest planning data. Forest Ecology and Management 216:241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 2007a. Local habitat patch pattern of the Siberian flying squirrel in a managed boreal forest landscape. Ecography 30:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2007b. Maintenance of flying squirrel habitat and timber harvest: a site-specific spatial model in forest planning calculationsLandscape Ecology 22:243–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2008. The role of the Siberian flying squirrel as an umbrella species for biodiversity in northern boreal forests. Ecological Indicators 8:246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. Biodiversity conservation in forestry: essays on the economics of site selection. Acta Universitatis OuluensisG18.Google Scholar
and . 2004. Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in old-growth boreal forests: ecology and economics. Ecological Economics 50:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2007. Alternative targets and economic efficiency of selecting protected areas for biodiversity conservation in boreal forest. Environmental and Resource Economics 37:713–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2004. Cost-effective preservation of boreal old forest. Forest Science 50:527–39.Google Scholar
, and . 2006. Cost-efficiency of decaying wood as a surrogate for overall species richness in boreal forests. Conservation Biology 20:74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Guidelines for Landscape Ecological Planning. Forestry Publications of Metsähallitus.Google Scholar
and . 2001. Optimal private and public harvesting under spatial and temporal interdependence. Forest Science 47:484–96.Google Scholar
, and . 1999. Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399:258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 1997. Landscape characteristics associated with the occurrence of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans L. in old-growth forests of northern Finland. Ecography 20:634–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2006. Energy availability, abundance, energy-use and species-richness in forest bird communities: a test of the species-energy theory. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:290–302.Google Scholar
, , and . 1999. Pricing biodiversity. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 38:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. Developing and testing of a method for the analysis and assessment of multiple forest use from a forest conservation perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 140:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2004. Modelling joint production of wildlife and timber. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48:997–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 1992. Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented. Conservation Biology 6:232–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 1995. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:9343–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and . 2001. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Economics 77:68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?Conservation Biology 8:662–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:124–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (eds.) 2001. Suomen Lajien Uhanalaisuus 2000. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. (In Finnish with an English summary.)Google Scholar
, and . 2000. Managing boreal forest landscape for flying squirrels. Conservation Biology 14:218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2004. Usefulness of umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds – a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biological Conservation 130:134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2000. Using presence-absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B267:897–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 2003. Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementarity site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biological Conservation 115:21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2003. Movements of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans in corridors and in matrix habitat. Ecography 26:641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris, and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11–41.Google Scholar
, , , and . 2006. Covariation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecological Indicators 6:686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997 Representativeness and efficiency of bird and insect conservation in Norwegian boreal forest reserves. Conservation Biology 11:101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. Reserve network of forests in Finland and the need for developing the network – an ecological approach. The Finnish Environment 16.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by