Evaluating the Return in Ecosystem Services from Investment in Public Land Acquisitions

Kovacs, Kent; Polasky, Stephen; Nelson, Erik; Keeler, Bonnie L.; Pennington, Derric; Plantinga, Andrew J.; Taff, Steven J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062202

Cited by 51 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Work that quantifies and values the natural capital (stocks) and ecosystem service (flows) of urban green spaces are therefore useful to inform planning decisions involving maintenance or creation of urban green space. Indeed, substantial advances have been made in urban ecosystem valuation [29][30][31]. Ecosystem valuation, however, is not without controversy.…”

Section: Valuing Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates small-scale variability in ecosystem services and disservices that is important for sustainable planning in urban areas (including suburbs surrounding the urban core). We quantified and valued natural capital (tree and soil carbon stocks) ecosystem services (annual tree carbon sequestration and pollutant uptake, and stormwater runoff reduction) and disservices (greenhouse gas emissions and soil soluble reactive phosphorus) within a 30-hectare heterogeneous green space that included approximately 13% wetland, 13% prairie, 16% forest, and 55% subdivision. We found similar soil organic carbon across green space types, but spatial heterogeneity in other ecosystem services and disservices. The value of forest tree carbon stock was estimated at approximately $10,000 per hectare. Tree carbon sequestration, and pollutant uptake added benefits of $1000+ per hectare per year. Annual per hectare benefits from tree carbon stock and ecosystem services in the subdivision were each 63% of forest values. Total annual greenhouse gas emissions had significant spatial and temporal variation. Soil soluble reactive phosphorus was significantly higher in the wetland than in forest and prairie. Our results have implications for urban planning. Adding or improving ecosystem service provision on small (private or public) urban or suburban lots may benefit from careful consideration of small-scale variability.

show abstract

Section: Valuing Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The government in US rarely intervenes in private eco- scope, only for few land exploitation behaviors that will damage others [9]. The most important goal is to protect people's legitimate rights.…”

Section: Public Control Of Non-ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on the Public Land Management in the United States and Its Reference for China

Zhang¹,

Zhang²

2018

AJIBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public land management in the United States has experienced these processes: extensive management to encourage land privatization-beginning to pay attention to the protection of public lands-protective development of public land. This article aims to explore the similarities and differences between China and the United States in the management of public land. From the perspective of organization, law and public interest, it provides reference for China's land management theory and practice. This paper found that at present, the features of public land management in USA are sound management institutions, complete laws and regulations, strict land use management system, strict implementation of paid land use, and implementation of public regulation of non-ownership. The legal system of land in the United States, the strict programming of land planning and the land property and market system are worthy of learning.

show abstract

“…This concept is routinely used in systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000) where algorithms are used to identify areas at a fine scale that efficiently meet feature targets at minimal cost ), for producing priority rankings for biodiversity and alternative land uses (Moilanen et al 2011a), and more recently for multifaceted conservation ROI analyses that consider additional dependencies (e.g. Kovacs et al 2013, Kramer et al 2013). However, with added algorithmic sophistication comes additional computational requirements and difficulty in translating results for stakeholders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally incorporating considerations of land conversion and on-going habitat loss threats , Withey et al 2012, off-reserve lands (Polasky et al 2005) and alternative land uses ) refines the analysis, as does considering additional actions such as policy incentives , Lewis et al 2011, habitat restoration (Goldstein et al 2008, Wilson et al 2011b, and abatement of threats such as invasive species ). Moreover, multiobjective ROI analyses reveal the contributions of desirable ecosystem services (Daily 1997) such as carbon sequestration and freshwater filtration (Kovacs et al 2013, Kramer et al 2013) in addition to the benefits of habitat conservation. These conservation ROI analyses provide informative outcomes in directing management by incorporating increasingly complex information, algorithms, and important dependencies.…”

Section: Moilanen 2008)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a high acquisition cost does not imply a high management cost . In addition, costs of conservation are offset by returns in ecosystem services (Daily 1997) such as carbon sequestration and freshwater filtration (Kovacs et al 2013, Kramer et al 2013) plus the existence value of biodiversity (Mace et al 2012). I have provided the methods I used to model management costs in the supplementary information of Chapter 3 (fox management) and Chapter 4 (fire management); I refer to the opportunity cost of grazing management as foregone agriculture profit (Marinoni et al 2012).…”

Section: Socio-economic Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatially explicit cost-effective actions for biodiversity threat abatement

Auerbach¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity decline is indisputable, and rates of future decline depend on whether threats to species persistence are abated. However, current resources for threatened species management are less than required to stop further decline. Management that abates many threats to many species is necessary, yet decisions about how to do this under resource constraints are inherently complex. My thesis incorporates systematic conservation planning and cost-effectiveness analysis in a decision-support framework for prioritising spatially-explicit management actions for many species across a region.By prioritising action where it is expected to provide the greatest benefit to the most species at least cost, my research advances the thinking on decision support, and contributes to the effort to reduce biodiversity decline.Using information on threats to species that was compiled by the Queensland, Australia government, my research develops a decision-support process for managing threats to threatened species in a bio-diverse regional-scale management area, the Burnett-Mary Natural Resource Management Region. In my thesis, predicted distributions for 65 threatened species are modelled on co-occurring presence-only species locations and ecologically-meaningful environmental data.Three threats are addressed: invasive red fox predation; too frequent and intense fire; and habitat degradation from overgrazing. Indirect threat maps are made by combining predicted distribution models of species vulnerable to specific threats and are used to identify locations where threatabating actions are most likely to provide benefit to species. Management action costs are estimated for fox control, on the basis of a roadside baiting strategy; proactive fire management, on the basis of vegetation type and proximity to human structures; and stewardship agreements to reduce grazing, on the basis of foregone agriculture profit. Spatially combining the costs and benefits of threat-abating actions leads to the ability to prioritise cost-effective locations for actions. Within the context of prioritising regional threat management actions, my research examines four topics.Firstly, an understanding of where species are affected by threats determines where to direct management. Indirect threat maps are made by combining threatened species distribution maps, but are sensitive to map scale in guiding spatially-explicit threat management efforts (Chapter 2).Using fine-scale predicted species distribution models to derive indirect threat maps, instead of general range maps, may lead to better regional management decisions.Funding limitations for threat management require that choices be made when not everything can be done. Transparent and rigorous decision support is provided by prioritising management ranked on the most, to least, cost-effective actions and locations, and is made accessible when calculated with readily-available spreadsheet and mapping software (Chapter 3). Cost-effective management iii priorities are determined by combining ind...

show abstract

Evaluating the Return in Ecosystem Services from Investment in Public Land Acquisitions

Cited by 51 publications

References 45 publications

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

Research on the Public Land Management in the United States and Its Reference for China

Spatially explicit cost-effective actions for biodiversity threat abatement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About