为人类和自然制定系统的保护规划:生物多样性、生态系统服务和公平惠益分享

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecosystem Services Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101637
Myriam J. Perschke , Linda R. Harris , Kerry J. Sink , Amanda T. Lombard
{"title":"为人类和自然制定系统的保护规划:生物多样性、生态系统服务和公平惠益分享","authors":"Myriam J. Perschke ,&nbsp;Linda R. Harris ,&nbsp;Kerry J. Sink ,&nbsp;Amanda T. Lombard","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Including human dimensions in conservation practice is increasingly recognized as being essential for creating sustainable and equitable solutions to the current biodiversity crisis. However, including ecosystem services in conservation planning is challenging because services can be intangible and difficult to map, and incorporating equitable access to the resulting benefits of ecosystem services has hardly been considered. Ecological Infrastructure (EI) is a promising framework for integrating ecosystem services into systematic conservation planning (SCP), yet its application remains to be tested. We aimed to quantify the effects of including EI, with and without equitable access, in a biodiversity-based SCP, where EI is the spatial representation of ecosystem services. We took an experimental, scenario-planning approach, running five scenarios in Marxan software with different combinations of input features: biodiversity (n = 135 features), EI (n = 6) and EI with equitable access (hereafter EI*, n = 84) for the South African coastal zone. The resulting conservation networks were compared using multivariate statistics, considering: the proportion of feature targets met; coverage of core areas (areas with 100 % selection frequency for biodiversity features, EI, and EI*); conservation network size and cost; and spatial configuration. Including biodiversity and equitable access drove the dissimilarity among scenarios, and only when all input features were included, were all core areas well covered and all feature targets met. Therefore, biodiversity features were not an adequate surrogate for EI or EI*, and including ecosystem services (via EI*) in SCP is necessary to ensure equitable access to benefits. However, including EI increased the mean size (7.0 % more planning units) and cost (by 9.1 %) of conservation networks. Despite this, the social and economic benefits of investing in EI (e.g., securing dunes for coastal protection) likely outweigh these costs, especially in the longer term.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"68 ","pages":"Article 101637"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000445/pdfft?md5=ed8b8b4ff2e919a0e561b417d8993f32&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000445-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic conservation planning for people and nature: Biodiversity, ecosystem services, and equitable benefit sharing\",\"authors\":\"Myriam J. Perschke ,&nbsp;Linda R. Harris ,&nbsp;Kerry J. Sink ,&nbsp;Amanda T. Lombard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Including human dimensions in conservation practice is increasingly recognized as being essential for creating sustainable and equitable solutions to the current biodiversity crisis. However, including ecosystem services in conservation planning is challenging because services can be intangible and difficult to map, and incorporating equitable access to the resulting benefits of ecosystem services has hardly been considered. Ecological Infrastructure (EI) is a promising framework for integrating ecosystem services into systematic conservation planning (SCP), yet its application remains to be tested. We aimed to quantify the effects of including EI, with and without equitable access, in a biodiversity-based SCP, where EI is the spatial representation of ecosystem services. We took an experimental, scenario-planning approach, running five scenarios in Marxan software with different combinations of input features: biodiversity (n = 135 features), EI (n = 6) and EI with equitable access (hereafter EI*, n = 84) for the South African coastal zone. The resulting conservation networks were compared using multivariate statistics, considering: the proportion of feature targets met; coverage of core areas (areas with 100 % selection frequency for biodiversity features, EI, and EI*); conservation network size and cost; and spatial configuration. Including biodiversity and equitable access drove the dissimilarity among scenarios, and only when all input features were included, were all core areas well covered and all feature targets met. Therefore, biodiversity features were not an adequate surrogate for EI or EI*, and including ecosystem services (via EI*) in SCP is necessary to ensure equitable access to benefits. However, including EI increased the mean size (7.0 % more planning units) and cost (by 9.1 %) of conservation networks. Despite this, the social and economic benefits of investing in EI (e.g., securing dunes for coastal protection) likely outweigh these costs, especially in the longer term.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"volume\":\"68 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101637\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000445/pdfft?md5=ed8b8b4ff2e919a0e561b417d8993f32&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000445-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000445\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000445","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的人认识到,在保护实践中纳入人类因素对于为当前的生物多样性危机提供可持续的公平解决方案至关重要。然而,将生态系统服务纳入保护规划具有挑战性,因为服务可能是无形的,难以绘制地图,而且几乎没有人考虑过公平获取生态系统服务带来的益处。生态基础设施(EI)是将生态系统服务纳入系统保护规划(SCP)的一个前景广阔的框架,但其应用仍有待检验。我们的目标是量化在基于生物多样性的 SCP(EI 是生态系统服务的空间代表)中纳入 EI(有公平获取和无公平获取)的效果。我们采用了一种实验性情景规划方法,在 Marxan 软件中运行了五种情景,并对输入特征进行了不同的组合:南非沿海地区的生物多样性(n = 135 个特征)、EI(n = 6)和公平获取的 EI(以下简称 EI*,n = 84)。利用多变量统计对由此产生的保护网络进行比较,考虑因素包括:达到特征目标的比例;核心区域的覆盖范围(生物多样性特征、EI 和 EI* 的选择频率为 100% 的区域);保护网络的规模和成本;以及空间配置。将生物多样性和公平获取包括在内导致了不同方案之间的差异,只有当所有输入特征都包括在内时,才能很好地覆盖所有核心区域并实现所有特征目标。因此,生物多样性特征并不能充分替代 EI 或 EI*,将生态系统服务(通过 EI*)纳入 SCP 是确保公平获取效益的必要条件。然而,纳入生态系统服务增加了保护网络的平均规模(规划单位增加了 7.0%)和成本(增加了 9.1%)。尽管如此,投资于环境影响指标的社会和经济效益(例如,确保沙丘用于海岸保护)很可能超过这些成本,特别是在长期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic conservation planning for people and nature: Biodiversity, ecosystem services, and equitable benefit sharing

Including human dimensions in conservation practice is increasingly recognized as being essential for creating sustainable and equitable solutions to the current biodiversity crisis. However, including ecosystem services in conservation planning is challenging because services can be intangible and difficult to map, and incorporating equitable access to the resulting benefits of ecosystem services has hardly been considered. Ecological Infrastructure (EI) is a promising framework for integrating ecosystem services into systematic conservation planning (SCP), yet its application remains to be tested. We aimed to quantify the effects of including EI, with and without equitable access, in a biodiversity-based SCP, where EI is the spatial representation of ecosystem services. We took an experimental, scenario-planning approach, running five scenarios in Marxan software with different combinations of input features: biodiversity (n = 135 features), EI (n = 6) and EI with equitable access (hereafter EI*, n = 84) for the South African coastal zone. The resulting conservation networks were compared using multivariate statistics, considering: the proportion of feature targets met; coverage of core areas (areas with 100 % selection frequency for biodiversity features, EI, and EI*); conservation network size and cost; and spatial configuration. Including biodiversity and equitable access drove the dissimilarity among scenarios, and only when all input features were included, were all core areas well covered and all feature targets met. Therefore, biodiversity features were not an adequate surrogate for EI or EI*, and including ecosystem services (via EI*) in SCP is necessary to ensure equitable access to benefits. However, including EI increased the mean size (7.0 % more planning units) and cost (by 9.1 %) of conservation networks. Despite this, the social and economic benefits of investing in EI (e.g., securing dunes for coastal protection) likely outweigh these costs, especially in the longer term.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
期刊最新文献
Ecosystem service supply and (in)equality archetypes Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews Ecosystem services and cost-effective benefits from the reclamation of saline sodic land under different paddy field systems Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in protected areas: Hotspots and influencing factors based on tourists’ digital footprints Valuation of ecosystem services in marine protected areas: A comprehensive review of methods and needed developments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1