Climate change has become a key threat to biodiversity. As a response to climate change, species may adapt spatially (with range shifts) and temporally (with phenological adaptations), which may alter the impact of conservation measures. In cultural landscapes, where conservation often depends on specifically-timed land use, climate change may also induce spatial changes in opportunity costs of conservation measures and with respect to their timing. Thus, previously cost-effective conservation efforts may become less cost-effective. We develop a climate-ecological-economic model to investigate climate change-induced modifications of the cost-effective spatio-temporal allocation of conservation measures. We apply the model to a case study to investigate the cost-effectiveness of grassland measures to conserve the large marsh grasshopper in Northern Germany for the periods 2020-2039 and 2060-2079. Our model shows modifications in the cost-effective spatial allocation of conservation measures and that the timing of measures adapted to phenological changes remain cost-effective under climate change.

No abstract

No abstract

Climate change is a key threat to biodiversity. To conserve species under climate change, ecologists and conservation scientists suggest 2 main conservation strategies regarding land use: supporting species' range shifts to enable it to follow its climatic requirements by creating migration pathways, such as corridors and stepping stones, and conserving climate refugia (i.e., existing habitat areas that are somewhat buffered from climate change). The policy instruments that could be used to implement these conservation strategies have yet to be evaluated comprehensively from an economic perspective. The economic analyses of environmental policy instruments are often based on ecological effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria. We adapted these general criteria to evaluate policy instruments for species' conservation under climate change and applied them to a conceptual analysis of land purchases, offsets, and conservation payments. Depending on whether the strategy supporting species' range shifts or conserving climate refugia is selected, the evaluation of the policy instruments differed substantially. For example, to ensure ecological effectiveness, habitat persistence over time was especially important for climate refugia and was best achieved by a land-purchase policy instrument. In contrast, for the strategy supporting range shifts to be ecologically effective, a high degree of flexibility in the location of conserved sites was required to ensure that new habitat sites can be created in the species' new range. Offset programs were best suited for that because the location of conservation sites can be chosen comparatively freely and may also be adapted over time.

No abstract