Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery?

被引:62
作者
Eastwood, A. [1 ]
Brooker, R. [1 ]
Irvine, R. J. [1 ]
Artz, R. R. E. [1 ]
Norton, L. R. [2 ]
Bullock, J. M. [3 ]
Ross, L. [1 ]
Fielding, D. [1 ]
Ramsay, S. [1 ]
Roberts, J. [4 ]
Anderson, W. [5 ]
Dugan, D. [4 ]
Cooksley, S. [1 ]
Pakeman, R. J. [1 ]
机构
[1] James Hutton Inst, Aberdeen, Scotland
[2] Lancaster Environm Ctr, NERC Ctr Ecol & Hydrol, Lancaster, England
[3] NERC Ctr Ecol & Hydrol, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxon, England
[4] Abernethy Natl Nat Reserve, RSPB Scotland, Nethy Bridge, Scotland
[5] Seafield Estate, Grantown On Spey, Scotland
关键词
Biodiversity conservation; Conservation designation; Ecosystem services; Expert opinion; Protected Areas; ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION; CULTURAL SERVICES; BIODIVERSITY; POVERTY; STRATEGIES; MANAGEMENT; PROVISION; PATTERNS; BENEFITS; IMPACTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.001
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Whilst a number of studies have examined the effects of biodiversity conservation on the delivery of ecosystem services, they are often limited in the scope of the ecosystem services (ES) assessed and can suffer from confounding spatial issues. This paper examines the impacts of nature conservation on the delivery of a full suite of ES across nine case studies in the UK, using expert opinion. The case studies covered a range of habitats and explore the delivery of ES from a 'protected site' and a comparable 'non-protected' site. By conducting pair-wise comparisons of ES delivery between comparable sites our study attempts to mitigate confounding cause and effect factors in relation to spatial context in correlative studies. The analysis showed that protected sites deliver higher levels of ecosystem services than non protected sites, with the main differences being in the cultural and regulating ecosystem services. Against expectations, there was no consistent negative impact of protection on provisioning services across these case studies. Whilst the analysis demonstrated general patterns in ES delivery between protected and non-protected sites, the individual responses in each case study highlights the importance of the local social, biophysical, economic and temporal context of individual protected areas and the associated management. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:152 / 162
页数:11
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand
    Andam, Kwaw S.
    Ferraro, Paul J.
    Sims, Katharine R. E.
    Healy, Andrew
    Holland, Margaret B.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2010, 107 (22) : 9996 - 10001
  • [2] Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities
    Anderson, Barbara J.
    Armsworth, Paul R.
    Eigenbrod, Felix
    Thomas, Chris D.
    Gillings, Simon
    Heinemeyer, Andreas
    Roy, David B.
    Gaston, Kevin J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2009, 46 (04) : 888 - 896
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2013, CONSULT VERSION 4, DOI [DOI 10.1093/NQ/S3-XII.307.392-A, DOI 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.024]
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2010, R LANG ENV STAT COMP
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2010, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2013, 2020 CHALL SCOTL BIO
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being, V5, DOI DOI 10.1119/1.2344558
  • [8] The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites
    Bastian, Olaf
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2013, 24 : 12 - 22
  • [9] Lowland farmland bird conservation in the context of wider ecosystem service delivery
    Bradbury, Richard B.
    Stoate, Chris
    Tallowin, Jerry R. B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2010, 47 (05) : 986 - 993
  • [10] Burkhard B., 2014, LANDSC ONLINE, V34, P1, DOI [DOI 10.3097/LO.201434, 10.3097/LO.201434]