Integrating ecosystem services within spatial biodiversity conservation prioritization in the Alps
Ecosystem Services, ISSN: 2212-0416, Vol: 45, Page: 101186
2020
- 50Citations
- 118Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
As anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems increases, so does the potential threat to the supply of ecosystem services, a key contribution of nature to people. Biodiversity has often been used in spatial conservation planning and has been regarded as one among multiple services delivered by ecosystems. Hence, biodiversity conservation planning should be integrated in a framework of prioritizing services in order to inform decision-making. Here, we propose a prioritization approach based on scenarios maximising both the provision of ecosystem services and the conservation of biodiversity hotspots. Different weighting scenarios for the α-diversity in four taxonomic groups and 10 mapped ecosystem services were used to simulate varying priorities of policymakers in a mountain region. Our results illustrate how increasing priorities to ecosystem services can be disadvantageous to biodiversity. Moreover, the analysis to identify priority areas that best compromise the conservation of α-diversity and ecosystem services are predominantly not located within the current protected area network. Our analyses stress the need for an appropriate weighting of biodiversity within decision making that seek to integrate multiple ecosystem services. Our study paves the way toward further integration of multiple biodiversity groups and components, ecosystem services and various socio-economic scenarios, ultimately fuelling the development of more informed, evidence-based spatial planning decisions for conservation.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620301285; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101186; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85091240062&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2212041620301285; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101186
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know