Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services

It is of crucial importance to understand the numerous benefits of, and threats to, the world's biodiversity. In this issue, we present innovative research in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services sciences as well as studies on local management of natural resources, protected areas and nature-based tourist destinations. Although all individual topics that are mentioned in this journal's title are already big themes themselves, it is worth noting that almost all studies in Issue 9(2) touch upon the linkages between biodiversity, management and/or ecosystem services. This once again shows that the topics should not just be studied and considered in decision-making in isolation.

A recurring theme in this Issue is the question whether biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (potentially) conflict or whether they complement each other. In earlier Issues, we presented interesting studies on the ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011a) as well as recent developments in the analysis and monitoring of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011b). Although the potential synergy between the concepts of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation has been doubted and criticised (e.g. Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams 2009), contributions in this issue clearly highlight the importance of considering the complementarity of both concepts in local management, spatial planning and decision-making.

Urbanisation has been found to be a clear threat to biodiversity and nature conservation (McKinney 2002). Villareal et al. (2013) studied potential biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs in relation to future urban growth scenarios. The studied ecoregions, the Sonoran desert and Apache Highlands, are characterised by only a few vegetation types that support relatively high vertebrate biodiversity. Because these vegetation types have limited spatial distributions, the impact of land use and urbanisation can have severe consequences for biodiversity in North America. Villareal and colleagues (2013) found that under the ‘Current Trends Scenario’ 45% of currently existing riparian woodland and 34% of semi-desert grassland species will be lost by the year 2050. Under the scenario that represents transnational growth corridor and open-space conservation, it was found that 44% and 24% would be lost. Moreover, under the latter scenario, avian-rich habitats were projected to decline rapidly, whereas under current trends mammal and herpetofauna habitats would be reduced and fragmentised. The outcomes not only show the potential effects of urbanisation on a large scale, but also that much depends on which indicator species would be chosen for assessing these effects and monitoring changes. The final selection of data and indicators ultimately affects the type of ecosystem services that could be assessed in line with biodiversity trends (Vihervaara et al. 2012).

It has become increasingly popular to assess the biodiversity status of flora and fauna through investigating local knowledge. Linguistic and cultural factors have often been linked to biodiversity (Maffi 2005), as words and cultural practices tend to decline rapidly when biodiversity disappears. Some research has already been done on the relation between human perception, biodiversity and natural resources, for instance in Tanzania (Kideghesho & Msuya 2010; Mfunda & Røskaft 2011). In this Issue, Clamsen and Røskaft (2013) have built on these studies, by investigating local knowledge and awareness of bird species of conservation interest in the Serengeti. Apart from its exceptional biodiversity and tourism, the Serengeti is also known for being the home of the Maasai and other indigenous people. It was found that older men and Maasai were able to recognise almost all bird species of conservation interest, but in general only half of all respondents showed a good ability to recognise the birds. Considering that activities of people living around the Serengeti can impact the birds’ abundance quite strongly, the authors highlight the importance of incorporating conservation awareness raising and traditional knowledge into local resources management and biodiversity conservation.

The usefulness of agroforestry schemes in terms of sustainability, biodiversity aspects and people's participation has been studied extensively (e.g. Ramachandran Nair 2007; Russell et al. 2010). An interesting aspect of agroforestry is the large variety of local initiatives, especially in southern Asia (Islam et al. 2012; Shrestha et al. 2012). Islam et al. (2012) reported on the human component of forest conservation projects in Bangladesh, focusing on the extent to which local livelihoods were improved and participation could therefore be influenced. In this issue, Nandy and Das (2013) made a comparison between phytosociological aspects of a traditional northeast-Indian agroforestry system and a nearby situated natural forest. Interestingly enough, the agroforestry sites all had higher species richness and diversity, stand density and basal area, compared to natural forests. This research shows that careful local management of forest areas could be valuable in terms of local resources availability as well as biodiversity conservation. Just across the border, in Bangladesh, the trade of non-timber forest products, especially bamboo, was studied by Mukul and Rana (2013). Thus far silvicultural aspects of bamboo have been the focus of most research (e.g. Muhammed et al. 2011), but this recent study focused more strongly on the socio-economic aspects. Through numerous interviews with local traders and entrepreneurs, the authors managed to unearth the complex dynamics of employment, trade and economic benefits related to bamboo and its by-products. The most-traded species and associated products were identified and it was established that smaller enterprises generated higher net incomes than medium-sized and large ones.

Research has shown that the European mountain regions are quite vulnerable to, among others, land use and climate change (c.f. Setten & Austrheim 2012). Since this has a strong effect on ecosystem services provision (especially water and food provision, tourism and avalanche protection), the need to quantify and value impacts of land use on Alpine ecosystem services has been recognised (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; Klug et al. 2012). In this issue, Schirpke et al. (2013) present results of a scenario analysis for the Austrian Alps, which was strongly based on workshops with local stakeholder and past trends. Under various socio-economic scenarios, clear trade-offs between tourism, regulating services and provision services were found. Especially considering the vulnerability of the Alps, the authors recommend that agricultural management should be included into land-use policies, and should more explicitly recognise the consequences for ecosystem services provision.

Urban ecosystem services, provided by green and blue infrastructure, have the potential to reduce air pollution, sequester carbon, provide cooling and mitigate floods (Martin et al. 2012; Larondelle & Haase 2013). Research in the United Kingdom by Farrugia et al. (2013) focused on flood control and urban cooling provided by urban green infrastructure. The authors developed a new integrated ecosystem services quantification tool that can be used at multiple scales and by different local stakeholders, on which they report in this issue. Land surface maps were used to quantify urban cooling and flood control, with Leaf Area Index and infiltration capacity as proxies, respectively. Although the urban cooling service is relatively easy to evaluate and measure, a lot of work needs to be done on flood control as an ecosystem service. This is mainly due to the dynamic nature of the service; floods are difficult to predict and model (especially in an urban environment), and the service is often provided on a different location than where the effects are experienced (Nedkov & Burkhard 2012).

Natural areas with high biodiversity are often popular tourist destinations at the same time, which explains why conflicts between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism have become increasingly prevalent. Whether an area is suitable for ecotourism or not depends on the presence of natural features with stated preference, such as hills, lakes, charismatic animal or plant species, beautiful landscapes and appealing land-cover types, among others (Zachrisson et al. 2006; Van Oudenhoven et al. 2012). However, management measures that facilitate tourism, such as realising accommodation, transport and infrastructure, are generally also required. Finally, surrounding landowners might also influence an area's suitability for tourism, either knowingly or unknowingly. In this Issue, Beltrame et al. (2013) report on the results of interviews they conducted with landowners (livestock farmers), protected area managers and representatives of public institutions to explore the dynamics between local management and biodiversity conservation in the wetland area of Camarque (France). An interesting aspect of their paper is that it aims to test whether the ecosystem service framework helps in understanding this link. It was found that both livestock farmers and protected area managers consider the sustainability of tourism as well as the required ecological state of the ecosystem when undertaking management measures. However, public institutions that are ultimately in charge of tourism in Camarque, indicated that damage inflicted on ecosystems was not explicitly considered in their management plans. This has already led to unsustainable use of beaches. The authors argue that the ecosystem services concept enabled them to provide useful conservation-related recommendations, such as accounting for both the use of ecosystem services and the necessary maintenance of ecosystems (Beltrame et al. 2013). Although the management of nature-based tourism is indeed crucial to the ecological state of an area, the role of the public should not be underestimated (Zachrisson et al. 2006; Ballantyne et al. 2009). Perceptions, knowledge and motives of all stakeholders, including tourists, should be considered in conservation and sustainable management measures in and around protected areas (Miller et al. 2010). The study by Beltrame et al. (2013) underlines not only that the concept of ecosystem services can play an important role in local land management issues, but also highlights the role of stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in local decision-making. This makes ecosystem service assessments part of a dynamic process that should be more than just a purely scientific endeavour (Seppelt et al. 2012).

Many of the topics that are being discussed in this issue will certainly be high on the agenda for the 6th annual Ecosystem Services Partnership conference, which will be held in Bali, Indonesia, from 26 to 30 August 2013 (www.espconference.org). With participants from many different countries, organisations and backgrounds attending, and more than 45 workshops, special sessions and open topic discussions planned, the conference promises to be an exciting event. The theme of the conference is ‘Making Ecosystem Services Count’, and from the research presented in this issue, the integration of ecosystem services with biodiversity conservation will likely be a crucial topic.

Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven and

Rudolf S. de Groot

Environmental Systems Analysis Group,

Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands