Conservation priorities: Can we have our biodiversity and ecosystem services too?

Principal Investigators:

Peter Kareiva, Gretchen Daily, Stephen Polasky, and Taylor Ricketts

The delineation of biodiversity hotspots that protect as many species as possible with as little land as possible has been the dominant paradigm in conservation science. Recently, however, this paradigm has been challenged on two accounts. The first challenge is that the burgeoning human population will make it impossible to adequately secure biodiversity in "protected areas", and that instead we must turn to working landscapes with substantial human use as places of biodiversity value. Second, with so much of the world impoverished, there is... more

This will be much more than a simple mapping exercise because it will be important to extend methods of ecosystem valuation to services and levels of detail that have been lacking thus far in the literature. Most existing maps of ecosystem services simply categorize each land area as a habitat type, and then assign to that habitat type some "generalized dollar value". In contrast we seek to create a spatially explicit accounting of biodiversity targets and ecosystems services, along with a consideration of who benefits from the services, and who might be expected to pay for them and how.

Our purpose is not to replace the goal of biodiversity protection with the goal of ecosystem service protection. Rather we seek to understand if and how the two goals might both be met, as well as how to minimize tradeoffs between the two goals where biodiversity and services are not strongly correlated. In addition to doing the spatial analyses of services and biodiversity, we will explore financial mechanisms that might help pay for the services.

Our working group will start with a mapping and valuation exercise entailing the Upper Yangtze River in China because of the many critical resource decisions this biodiversity rich region is currently facing. We will then extend our analyses to other systems, as well as different spatial scales. Our working group will be fluid with membership varying depending on the systems and analyses under discussion; however the two hallmarks of this effort are its mix of on-the-ground conservation experience from international conservation NGO's and academic scholars, including economists, ecologists and conservation planners. collapse

Participants and Meetings

A group photo is coming soon.
ActivityDatesFurther Information
Working Group26th—29th September 2005Participant List  
Working Group21st—23rd February 2006Participant List  
Working Group23rd—27th April 2007Participant List  

Participant Contact Information

Paul R. of Sheffield
Andrew of Cambridge
Kai M.A. Chankaichan@ires.ubc.caUniversity of British Columbia
Gretchen Dailygdaily@leland.stanford.eduStanford University
Tom Dillontom.dillon@wwfus.orgWorld Wildlife Fund
Qun Nature Conservancy
William F. Faganbfagan@glue.umd.eduUniversity of Maryland
Kathleen Farleykfarley@tnc.orgThe Nature Conservancy
Jixi Research Academy of Environment Sciences
Michael Heinermheiner@tnc.orgThe Nature Conservancy
David Hulsedhulse@macfound.orgJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Peter Kareivapkareiva@tnc.orgThe Nature Conservancy
Bernhard LehnerWorld Wildlife Fund
Li Lifenglfli@wwfchina.orgWorld Wildlife Fund, China
Jack Liujliu@panda.msu.eduMichigan State University
Robin Naidoorobin.naidoo@wwfus.orgWorld Wildlife Fund
Stephen Polaskypolasky@umn.eduUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Ye Nature Conservancy
Taylor RickettsTaylor.Ricketts@uvm.eduWorld Wildlife Fund
James N. Sanchiricojsanchirico@ucdavis.eduResources for the Future
M. Rebecca Shawrshaw@edf.orgStanford University
Paul Westpwest@tnc.orgUniversity of Wisconsin
Kate Braumankbrauman@umn.eduStanford University
Jeffrey Cammjeff.camm@uc.eduUniversity of Cincinnati
Richard M. of Port Elizabeth
Emma E. Goldbergeeg@uic.eduUniversity of California, San Diego
Claire Kremenckremen@nature.berkeley.eduUniversity of California, Berkeley
Russell Landerlande@biomail.ucsd.eduUniversity of California, San Diego
Eric Lonsdorfericlonsdorf@lpzoo.orgLincoln Park Zoo
Heike K. Lotzeheike.lotze@dal.caDalhousie University
William W. Murdochmurdoch@lifesci.ucsb.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Erik Nelsonenelson2@bowdoin.eduUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Jim Regetzregetz@nceas.ucsb.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Andrew Solowasolow@whoi.eduWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Boris Wormbworm@dal.caDalhousie University
Wiktor L. AdamowiczVic.Adamowicz@ales.ualberta.caUniversity of Alberta
Juliann E. Aukemajaukema@gmail.comUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Neil Burgessneil.burgess@wwfus.orgUnknown
D. Richard
Holly DavisHdavis@tnc.orgThe Nature Conservancy
Andy Drummadrumm@tnc.orgThe Nature Conservancy
Guillermo Mendozagmendoza@stanford.eduUnknown
Pantaleo Munishipmunishi2001@yahoo.comSokoine University of Agriculture
Matthieu of Cambridge
Heather Tallishtallis@tnc.orgStanford University
Christine Tamctam@wwfafrica.orgStanford University
Barton H. Thompsonbuzzt@law.stanford.eduStanford University
Sue University
Bart Wickelbart.wickel@wwfus.orgWorld Wildlife Fund

Products: Publications, Reports, Datasets, Presentations, Visualizations

TypeProduct of NCEAS Research
Journal Article Nelson, Erik; Mendoza, Guillermo; Regetz, Jim; Polasky, Stephen; Tallis, Heather; Cameron, D. Richard; Chan, Kai M.A.; Daily, Gretchen; Goldstein, Joshua; Kareiva, Peter; Lonsdorf, Eric; Naidoo, Robin; Ricketts, Taylor; Shaw, M. Rebecca. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Vol: 7(1). Pages 4-11.
"Conservation priorities: Can we have our biodiversity and ecosystem services too?" is project ID: 8200