Mapping Trade-Offs in Ecosystem Services from Reforestation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review

“…For example, Barnett et al (2016) found trade-offs between reforestation to improve water quality (focusing on riparian buffers) and reforestation to connect black bear habitats. Joint management of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Cordingley et al, 2016;Reyers et al, 2012) coupled with appropriate regulation (Albert et al, 2016) is needed to minimise trade-offs and avoid adverse impacts.…”

Landscape consequences of aggregation rules for functional equivalence in compensatory mitigation programs

“…We expect cobenefits and trade-offs to be significant factors determining the distribution of functions in restored landscapes. For example, the tradeoffs identified between WP and B functions in our landscape have been identified in other studies (Hansson et al 2005;Barnett et al 2016). Barnett et al (2016) recommend spatially quantifying ecosystem trade-offs when optimizing restoration benefits.…”

Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook

“…Their analysis showed that policies aimed at increasing carbon sequestration led to decreased provision of habitats for species conservation and vice versa. Forest restoration scenarios in bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi River Basin showed clear spatial trade-offs between configurations targeting wildlife habitat and those targeted at improving water quality (Barnett et al 2016). A country-level study in Costa Rica showed that biodiversity hot spots have high co-benefits for carbon, water and scenic beauty, but areas with high carbon storage have lower co-benefits for water and scenic beauty (Locatelli et al 2014).…”

“…Forest plantations for timber supply more provisioning services per unit area than natural forests, but offer fewer habitats for wildlife and lower levels of biodiversity ). As no single spatial configuration and few areas can deliver high levels of multiple ecosystem services, it is important to consider large areas for landscape-scaling planning, permitting more efficient supply of ecosystem services by identifying lands that are most likely to provide the greatest return on restoration investments (Barnett et al 2016). Another important consideration in assessing trade-offs among different ecosystem services involves pathways of co-production, defined by how stages of ecosystem service supply are mediated by human labor, technology, financial capital and institutions (Palomo et al 2016).…”