Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:56:09.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Payments for environmental service’s role in landscape connectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2020

Margot A Wood Open the ORCID record for Margot A Wood [Opens in a new window] ,
Jessica A Gilbert  and
Thomas E Lacher Jr
Margot A Wood*
Affiliation:
Global Synthesis, Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, 1201 3rd Ave. #19, Seattle, WA98101, USA
Jessica A Gilbert
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77843-2258, USA
Thomas E Lacher Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77843-2258, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Margot A Wood, Email: mwood@conservation.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Creating landscapes with connectivity is vital for protecting biodiversity and meeting the environmental targets embedded in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, with connectivity specifically mentioned in Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Targets. Costa Rica created the National Biological Corridor Program (NBCP) in 2006 to enhance connectivity among protected areas. Targeted investments of payments for environmental services (PES) are the main tools used within the designated biological corridors. We conducted spatially explicit analyses to determine whether Costa Rica’s NBCP, using PES, enhanced landscape connectivity within the Paso de las Nubes Biological Corridor. We conducted landscape modelling in order to determine the connectivity held within PES’s properties by developing connectivity resistance surfaces and electrical current models. The results indicate that PES properties established after the NBCP contributed more to areas with intermediate values of connectivity and less to areas with high connectivity values as compared to properties before the NBCP. Although overall connectivity within the corridor has decreased since NBCP establishment, our results confirm the importance of PES properties for landscape connectivity, but emphasize the need for spatially targeted PES in order to improve viable paths of landscape connectivity among protected areas. Future targeted PES investments could contribute greatly to meeting connectivity goals.

Keywords

biological corridorCircuitscapeenvironmental policyleast-cost path
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 89 - 96
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arias, L (2015) Government pledges to speed up construction of San Carlos highway. Tico Times, Costa Rica [www document]. URL https://ticotimes.net/2015/12/10/government-pledges-speed-construction-san-carlos-highwayGoogle Scholar
Aryal, A, Brunton, D, Shrestha, T, Koirala, R, Lord, J, Thapa, Y, Adhikari, Bet al. (2012) Biological diversity and management regimes of the northern Barandabhar Forest Corridor: an essential habitat for ecological connectivity in Nepal. Tropical Conservation Sciences 5: 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, KA, Haynes, KJ, Dillemuth, FP and Cronin, JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85: 2671–2676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, J, Baylis, K, Corbera, E, Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Honey-Rosés, J, Persson, UM and Wunder, S (2017) The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96: 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellard, C, Bertelsmeier, C, Leadley, P, Thuiller, W and Courchamp, F (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters 15: 365–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bull, JW, Gordon, A, Law, EA, Suttle, KB and Milner-Gulland, EJ (2014) Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 28: 799–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canet-Desanti, L, Finegan, B, Bouroncle, C, Giterrez, I and Herrera, B (2008) El monitoreo de la efectividad del manejo de corredores biológicos. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 54: 51–58.Google Scholar
Chazdon, RL and Guariguata, MR (2016) Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica 48: 716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, KM, Anderson, E, Chapman, M, Jespersen, K and Olmsted, P (2017) Payments for ecosystem services: rife with problems and potential – for transformation towards sustainability. Ecological Economics 140: 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X, Lupi, F, Vina, A, He, G and Liu, J (2010) Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 6: 1469–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Target 11 [www document]. URL https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11Google Scholar
Cumming, GS, Cumming, DH and Redman, CL (2006) Scale mismatches in social–ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11: 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, AE, Bagstad, K, Esposito, V, Moulaert, A and Rodriguez, CM (2010) Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica’s PES: are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics 69: 2116–2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFries, R, Hansen, A, Turner, B, Reid, R and Liu, J (2007) Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17: 1031–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, S (2016) The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 13: 131–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S, Wünscher, T and Wunder, S (2009) Increasing the efficiency of forest conservation: the case of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. In: Avoided Deforestation: Prospects for Mitigating Climate Change, eds Palmer, C and Engel, S, pp. 208–216. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Wunder, S, Ruiz-Pérez, M and del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11: e0149847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagan, ME, DeFries, RS, Sesnie, SE, Arroyo-Mora, JP and Chazdon, RL (2016) Targeted reforestation could reverse declines in connectivity for understory birds in a tropical habitat corridor. Ecological Applications 26: 1456–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferber, AE (1958) Windbreaks in Conservation Farming. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.Google Scholar
Ferraro, PJ and Pattanayak, SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4: e105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gené, EI (2007) The profitability of forest protection versus logging and the role of payments for environmental services (PES) in the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert-Norton, L, Wilson, R, Stevens, JR and Beard, KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24: 660–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gloyne, CC and Clevenger, AP (2001) Cougar Puma concolor use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorn, G (1983) Costa Rican Natural History. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, CA (2000) Windbreaks enhance seed dispersal into agricultural landscapes in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 10: 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, A, Chong, KY, Chua, MAH and Clements, GR (2014) Moving away from paper corridors in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 28: 889–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleist, AM, Lancia, RA and Doerr, PD (2007) Using video surveillance to estimate wildlife use of a highway underpass. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2792–2800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koen, EL, Bowman, J and Walpole, AA (2012) The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates. Molecular Ecology Resources 12: 686–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindenmayer, DB and Fischer, J (2006) Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Margoluis, R, Stem, C, Salafsky, N and Brown, M (2009) Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects. New Directions for Evaluation 122: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, JL, Lawler, JJ, McRae, BH, Nuñez, TA and Theobald, DM (2016) Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 7195–7200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, BH, Dickson, BG, Keitt, TH and Shah, VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89: 2712–2724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, BH, Hall, SA, Beier, P and Theobald, DM (2012) Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS ONE 7: e52604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, BH, Shah, VB and Mohapatra, TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 User Guide. Portland, OR, USA: The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
McRae, BH, Popper, K, Jones, A, Schindel, M, Buttrick, S, Hall, K, Unnasch, RS and Platt, J (2016) Conserving Nature’s Stage: Mapping Omnidirectional Connectivity for Resilient Terrestrial Landscapes in the Pacific Northwest. Portland OR, USA: The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
MINAE (2006) Descreto 33106-MINAE. MotEa Energy, Costa Rica: La Gaceta.Google Scholar
MINAE (2008) Regulation to the Biodiversity Law. MotEa Energy, Costa Rica: Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica.Google Scholar
MINAE (2014) N° 38323-MINAE. MotEa Energy, Costa Rica: La Gaceta.Google Scholar
MINAE, SINAC, CONAGEBIO and FONAFIFO (2018) Resumen del Sexto Informe Nacional de Costa Rica ante el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (6NR-LAC) Costa Rica [www document]. URL http://www.sinac.go.cr/ES/docu/Informe%20pas/VI-Informe.pdfGoogle Scholar
Muñoz-Rojas, J, Nijnik, M, González-Puente, M and Cortines-García, F (2015) Synergies and conflicts in the use of policy and planning instruments for implementing forest and woodland corridors and networks; a case study in NE Scotland. Forest Policy and Economics 57: 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradian, R, Arsel, M, Pellegrini, L, Adaman, F, Aguilar, B, Agarwal, B, Corbera, Eet al. (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conservation Letters 6: 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murgueitio, E, Calle, Z, Uribe, F, Calle, A and Solorio, B (2011) Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1654–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkhurst, GM, Shogren, JF, Bastian, C, Kivi, P, Donner, J and Smith, RB (2002) Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics 41: 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkhurst, GM and Shogren, JF (2007) Spatial incentives to coordinate contiguous habitat. Ecological Economics 64: 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, D, Clark, M, Anderson, MG, Rayfield, B, Wulder, MA and Cardille, JA (2014) Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS ONE 9: e84135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, J, Deakin, L and Sunderland, T (2015) What are ‘integrated landscape approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 4: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saura, S, Bodin, Ö and Fortin, M-J (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long- distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schippers, P, van der Heide, CM, Koelewijn, HP, Schouten, MA, Smulders, RM, Cobben, MM, Sterk, Met al. (2015) Landscape diversity enhances the resilience of populations, ecosystems and local economy in rural areas. Landscape Ecology 30: 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SINAC (2009) Five Year Strategic Plan of Costa Rica’s National Biological Corridors Program 2009–2014. SIAC 1–40. San José, Costa Rica: Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación.Google Scholar
SINAC (2018) Herramienta para medir la efectividad de gestión de Corredores Biológicos. San José, Costa Rica: Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación.Google Scholar
Taylor, PD, Fahrig, L, Henein, K and Merriam, G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1: 571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, PA and Masters, KL (2015) Lattice-work corridors for climate change: a conceptual framework for biodiversity conservation and social–ecological resilience in a tropical elevational gradient. Ecology and Society 20: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, M, Klein, C, Stewart, R, Ball, I and Possingham, H (2008) Marxan with Zones (V1. 0.1): Conservation Zoning Using Spatially Explicit Annealing, a Manual. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Williams, P, Hannah, L, Andelman, S, Midgley, G, AraúJo, M, Hughes, G, Manne, Let al. (2005) Planning for climate change: identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape proteaceae. Conservation Biology 19: 1063–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, MA, Sheridan, R, Feagin, RA, Castro, JP and Lacher, TE (2017) Comparison of land use change in payments for environmental services and National Biological Corridor Programs. Land Use Policy 63: 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodley, S, Bertzky, B, Crawhall, N, Dudley, N, Londoño, JM, MacKinnon, K, Redford, Ket al. (2012) Meeting Aichi Target 11: what does success look like for protected area systems. Parks 18: 23–36.Google Scholar
Worboys, G, Francis, WL and Lockwood, M (2010) Connectivity Conservation Management: A Global Guide (with Particular Reference to Mountain Connectivity Conservation). New York, NY, USA: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Wunder, S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117: 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbinden, S and Lee, DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA Program. World Development 33: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Wood et al. supplementary material

Wood et al. supplementary material

Download Wood et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.3 MB