The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: linking local management, regional planning and global conservation efforts
- PMID: 12177537
- DOI: 10.1007/BF02704968
The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: linking local management, regional planning and global conservation efforts
Abstract
Biodiversity conservation planning requires trade-offs, given the realities of limited resources and the competing demands of society. If net benefits for society are important, biodiversity assessment cannot occur without other sectoral factors "on the table". In trade-offs approaches, the biodiversity value of a given area is expressed in terms of the species or other components of biodiversity that it has that are additional to the components protected elsewhere. That "marginal gain" is called the complementarity value of the area. A recent whole-country planning study for Papua New Guinea illustrates the importance of complementarity-based trade-offs in determining priority areas for biodiversity conservation, and for designing economic instruments such as biodiversity levies and offsets. Two international biodiversity programs provide important new opportunities for biodiversity trade-offs taking complementarity into account. Both the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Critical Ecosystems or "hotspots" programs can benefit from an explicit framework that incorporates trade-offs, in which a balance is achieved not only by land-use allocation among areas, but also by the crediting of partial protection of biodiversity provided by sympathetic management within areas. For both international programs, our trade-offs framework can provide a natural linkage between local, regional and global planning levels.
Similar articles
-
Identifying trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services delivery for land-use decisions.Sci Rep. 2020 May 14;10(1):7971. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64668-z. Sci Rep. 2020. PMID: 32409694 Free PMC article.
-
Conservation planning for ecosystem services.PLoS Biol. 2006 Oct;4(11):e379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379. PLoS Biol. 2006. PMID: 17076586 Free PMC article.
-
Conservation businesses and conservation planning in a biological diversity hotspot.Conserv Biol. 2013 Aug;27(4):808-20. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12048. Epub 2013 Apr 8. Conserv Biol. 2013. PMID: 23565917
-
Bycatch levies could reconcile trade-offs between blue growth and biodiversity conservation.Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Jun;5(6):715-725. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01444-w. Epub 2021 May 10. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021. PMID: 33972736 Review.
-
Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges.Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):163-82. doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006950. Epub 2005 Dec 12. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006. PMID: 16336747 Review.
Cited by
-
Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea.PLoS One. 2018 Feb 23;13(2):e0190754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190754. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 29474355 Free PMC article.
-
Finding the tradeoffs between the reserve design and representation.Environ Manage. 2006 Sep;38(3):327-37. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0258-3. Environ Manage. 2006. PMID: 16688511
-
Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the "partial protection" challenge.F1000Res. 2012 Oct 16;1:30. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.1-30.v1. eCollection 2012. F1000Res. 2012. PMID: 24358821 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources