**5. Challenges and opportunities for multi-objective land-use planning**

### **5.1. Funding multiple objectives**

Despite the mounting interest in focusing conservation efforts on ecosystem services, there is still much debate over the implications for the protection of biological diversity. There is growing evidence of disconnection or opposition between environmental conservation and socio-economic development. Although the maintenance of ecosystem services is often used to justify biodiversity conservation actions, it is still unclear how ecosystem services relate to different aspects of biodiversity and to what extent the conservation of biodiversity will ensure the provision of services.

Part of the difficulty of using biodiversity as a measure of success is that its link to value is unclear. Value of ecosystem services, on the other hand, is easier to define and provides a useful common metric and measure of success [116–118]. Budgets for biodiversity conserva‐ tion are thinly stretched and thus measuring success is essential to ensuring that scarce funds are optimally used. This recent switch to ecosystem services rather than biodiversity as an organizing principal has led to a more trans-disciplinary approach to biodiversity planning. Though the concept of ecosystem services is anthropogenic (measurements of success are particularly focused on monetary gains or losses), tools such as Ecosystem Services Valuation aim to build and link economic and ecological/biological metrics and work out solutions that correspond to optimal social and ecological decisions. Providing a monetary value to ecosys‐ tem services also provides a mechanism to uncover which economic decisions affect biodi‐ versity of an ecosystem and consequently resilience, productivity and value of services.

An ecosystem service approach to managing productive landscapes offers a way to align multiple objectives such as the protection of biodiversity and increased land productivity. Where traditional approaches focus on setting aside land for protection the ecosystem service approach aims to engage a wider range of stakeholders and integrate economic incentives into the planning framework. This is particularly important given that the majority of Earth's natural systems, (containing important biodiversity and provide key ecological services) rest outside protected areas and it is projected that human impacts on these systems are to continue to intensify. In recent years ecosystem services projects have attracted on average more than four times as much funding and are more likely to expand opportunities for conservation [119, 120]. Given that ecosystems services projects are engaging a wider set of funders and becoming increasingly popular around the globe, there is a great need to continue to build alignment between biodiversity protection, human well-being and the delivery of ecosystem services.

There is growing support for understanding the economic costs and benefits of conserving ecosystems, particularly if it will help allocate scarce dollars more efficiently. Investments in biodiversity conservation may be strategically aligned to ecological services of high economic value, and vice versa. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, it may be possible to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower costs with greater co-benefits [111]. Cost-benefit analyses are widely used in other fields to inform policy decision making (e.g. health, safety, and transport), however conservation planning tools have been slow to integrate this into their framework [121–123]. Spatial cost-benefit analysis could prove invaluable for informing conservation planning, even when relevant data may be limited [122]. There is increased awareness of the economic value of ecosystem services (including biodi‐ versity) and quantifying these values can help decision makers best allocate scarce resources to various policy objectives.

#### **5.2. Thinking beyond habitat provision**

changing or unknown acquisition costs, species-specific connectivity requirements, or temporally varying distributions of features [115]. Nor do they formally incorporate multiple conservation actions such as land acquisition, restoration or easements. Furthermore, both software packages allow for detailed non-linear process descriptions and/or account for sophisticated spatial neighbourhood relationships. However, they are predominantly focused on conservation biology and hence offer only limited flexibility to configure the number and type (i.e. minimisation or maximisation) of objective functions as well as the specification of constraints. It would therefore appear they are less applicable to general land-use pattern

**5. Challenges and opportunities for multi-objective land-use planning**

Despite the mounting interest in focusing conservation efforts on ecosystem services, there is still much debate over the implications for the protection of biological diversity. There is growing evidence of disconnection or opposition between environmental conservation and socio-economic development. Although the maintenance of ecosystem services is often used to justify biodiversity conservation actions, it is still unclear how ecosystem services relate to different aspects of biodiversity and to what extent the conservation of biodiversity will ensure

Part of the difficulty of using biodiversity as a measure of success is that its link to value is unclear. Value of ecosystem services, on the other hand, is easier to define and provides a useful common metric and measure of success [116–118]. Budgets for biodiversity conserva‐ tion are thinly stretched and thus measuring success is essential to ensuring that scarce funds are optimally used. This recent switch to ecosystem services rather than biodiversity as an organizing principal has led to a more trans-disciplinary approach to biodiversity planning. Though the concept of ecosystem services is anthropogenic (measurements of success are particularly focused on monetary gains or losses), tools such as Ecosystem Services Valuation aim to build and link economic and ecological/biological metrics and work out solutions that correspond to optimal social and ecological decisions. Providing a monetary value to ecosys‐ tem services also provides a mechanism to uncover which economic decisions affect biodi‐ versity of an ecosystem and consequently resilience, productivity and value of services.

An ecosystem service approach to managing productive landscapes offers a way to align multiple objectives such as the protection of biodiversity and increased land productivity. Where traditional approaches focus on setting aside land for protection the ecosystem service approach aims to engage a wider range of stakeholders and integrate economic incentives into the planning framework. This is particularly important given that the majority of Earth's natural systems, (containing important biodiversity and provide key ecological services) rest outside protected areas and it is projected that human impacts on these systems are to continue to intensify. In recent years ecosystem services projects have attracted on average more than

optimisation for maximising ecosystem services.

**5.1. Funding multiple objectives**

12 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

the provision of services.

Provision of habitat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for threatened species popula‐ tion increases in productive landscapes. Threatened species may be completely absent from the landscape so that translocations will be required for them to occupy habitat made available through restoration or preserved through protection. Further management actions may be required, such as exclusion of domestic livestock, control of invasive predators, herbivores, and weeds (e.g. 124, 125). Consequently, ecological restoration activities required to improve ecosystem services such as water quality or carbon storage may often be insufficient to enhance biodiversity (Figure 3;60).

Obviously, any attempt to enhance threatened species requires an understanding of the primary factors limiting threatened species populations in productive landscapes. We also need to know whether or not threatened species populations are likely to increase in response to management interventions before they are applied on large scales. Obtaining this informa‐ tion for all groups of the indigenous biota is challenging. It may be impracticable to document responses of all high priority species to the pressures imposed by productive landscapes. Similarly, it may not possible to document the response of all high priority species to man‐ agement interventions aimed at mitigating pressures. Indeed, many studies focus on demon‐ strating the effect of pressures and management interventions on community-level changes in species composition, without considering implications for high-priority species. This is understandable since rare species are often poorly captured by objective sampling designs. A shift towards studies focussed on capturing variation in high-priority species might help improve our understanding of how pressures and management interventions harm and benefit national conservation goals. However, it might be more efficient to find a way of using existing studies on changes in species composition to predict responses of high-priority species to pressures and management interventions. Functional traits provide such a means of

**5.3. Land-use planning when data are scarce**

that assume stasis [143].

for protecting biodiversity.

In most practical land-use and biodiversity planning situations, the information available falls short of that required for informed prioritisation of resource allocation or conservation actions. Many organisations therefore invest resources into gathering and developing data instead of other environmental management activities. There is a growing literature on the cost-effec‐ tiveness and optimality of data gathering for guiding land-use planning [103, 131, 135, 136]. A key message from this work is that diminishing returns are inherent in data gathering for conservation planning; at some point, it becomes more effective for conservation organisations to stop data gathering and instead implement protection, albeit with imperfect information. When data or data-gathering resources are scarce, surrogates are often used. There has been considerable assessment of, and debate on, the effectiveness of surrogates for the distribution of species and taxa [137–141]. Most land-use planning approaches use surrogates for mapping pressures on biodiversity and vulnerability [77], yet relatively little attention has been paid to their relative effectiveness. Surrogates for vulnerability in planning land protection included tenure and land use, environmental or spatial variables correlated with past conversion, threatened species distributions, and maps compiled from expert judgement [77]. Many assumptions are inherent in the application of these surrogates. For example, use of land tenure as a surrogate assumes vulnerability can be estimated from associated permitted land uses; surrogates based on past conversion and threatened species patterns assume that future distributions and impacts of threatening processes are indicated by those in the past [78].

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

15

Recently, attention in land-use planning research has shifted from techniques to static reserve blueprints, such as those produced by optimisation, to solving the challenge of conservation planning in the context of dynamic threats [142, 143]. Practitioners preferred not to use static optimised maps, and required tools that helped them make quick decisions for estimating marginal benefits [104]. In fact simple decision rules may have greater practical utility than detailed optimised plans when degradation rates and uncertainty are high, and implementa‐ tion is carried out over a number of years [144]. These approaches acknowledge that threats are dynamic in most conservation planning situations, that prioritisation that ignores dyna‐ mism can be ineffective, and that the need for dynamic updating of conservation priorities is based on updated vulnerability data. However, a major implication of dynamic prioritisation is that solutions may be more demanding of data, and more complex to produce, than those

This situation brings trade-offs between data gathering and conservation effectiveness into stark relief. Clearly, as with data on biodiversity distribution, diminishing returns are inherent in the gathering and validation of accurate data on expanding threats. Land-use planning tools based on less accurate data and simpler solutions may be more effective for conservation, once the cost and flexibility limitations of incorporating more accurate data are accounted for. For example, comprehensive reserve network design may be counterproductive in situations where site availability is uncertain, reserve acquisition is protracted, and rates of biodiversity loss are high [44]. In these situations, simple decision rules, such as protecting the available site with the highest irreplaceability or with the highest species richness, may be more effective

**Figure 3.** Example of the cumulative averted impacts against restoration effort (millions of New Zealand dollars biodi‐ versity (i.e. restored significance) gain, the cost–benefit optimisations. The variable being optimised is given in brack‐ ets. For example, Erosion (Biodiversity) indicates the cumulative erosion reduction achieved when allocating restoration effort to maximise biodiversity gains. Mean indicates that the mean cost–benefit ratio across all variables was optimised. For each optimisation, land was selected in steps of NZ\$100, 000 in order of decreasing benefit:cost ratio. In each panel, the vertical distances between the uppermost curve and the other curves indicate the size of trade-offs [60].

generalising results obtained from detailed studies on small subsets of the total indigenous biota to predict responses for threatened species.

Advanced statistical methods using traits to predict species distributions along environmental and disturbance gradients [126–128] could also be used to develop trait-based responses to pressures and management interventions. There is a large literature demonstrating relation‐ ships between functional traits to pressures such as anthropogenic disturbance or herbivory from domestic livestock (e.g. 129–133). These relationships could be used to predict threatened species vulnerabilities to such pressures. A smaller number of studies have demonstrated the influence of traits on species responses to the removal or reduction of pressures, such as exclusion of invasive herbivores [59], and post-agricultural forest spread in heavily fragmented landscapes [134]. Thus there appears to be potential for traits to fill in the knowledge gaps that might hinder integrated conservation planning from being applied to productive landscapes, especially in terms of responses to pressure and management. However, we are unaware of any studies testing the ability of trait-based response models to predict accurately responses on independent data or for a different set of species. There is a real need to test whether trait relationships demonstrated in a small-scale study on a subset of species can really be used to extrapolate outcomes for a larger set of species.

#### **5.3. Land-use planning when data are scarce**

generalising results obtained from detailed studies on small subsets of the total indigenous

**Figure 3.** Example of the cumulative averted impacts against restoration effort (millions of New Zealand dollars biodi‐ versity (i.e. restored significance) gain, the cost–benefit optimisations. The variable being optimised is given in brack‐ ets. For example, Erosion (Biodiversity) indicates the cumulative erosion reduction achieved when allocating restoration effort to maximise biodiversity gains. Mean indicates that the mean cost–benefit ratio across all variables was optimised. For each optimisation, land was selected in steps of NZ\$100, 000 in order of decreasing benefit:cost ratio. In each panel, the vertical distances between the uppermost curve and the other curves indicate the size of

Advanced statistical methods using traits to predict species distributions along environmental and disturbance gradients [126–128] could also be used to develop trait-based responses to pressures and management interventions. There is a large literature demonstrating relation‐ ships between functional traits to pressures such as anthropogenic disturbance or herbivory from domestic livestock (e.g. 129–133). These relationships could be used to predict threatened species vulnerabilities to such pressures. A smaller number of studies have demonstrated the influence of traits on species responses to the removal or reduction of pressures, such as exclusion of invasive herbivores [59], and post-agricultural forest spread in heavily fragmented landscapes [134]. Thus there appears to be potential for traits to fill in the knowledge gaps that might hinder integrated conservation planning from being applied to productive landscapes, especially in terms of responses to pressure and management. However, we are unaware of any studies testing the ability of trait-based response models to predict accurately responses on independent data or for a different set of species. There is a real need to test whether trait relationships demonstrated in a small-scale study on a subset of species can really be used to

biota to predict responses for threatened species.

14 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

trade-offs [60].

extrapolate outcomes for a larger set of species.

In most practical land-use and biodiversity planning situations, the information available falls short of that required for informed prioritisation of resource allocation or conservation actions. Many organisations therefore invest resources into gathering and developing data instead of other environmental management activities. There is a growing literature on the cost-effec‐ tiveness and optimality of data gathering for guiding land-use planning [103, 131, 135, 136]. A key message from this work is that diminishing returns are inherent in data gathering for conservation planning; at some point, it becomes more effective for conservation organisations to stop data gathering and instead implement protection, albeit with imperfect information.

When data or data-gathering resources are scarce, surrogates are often used. There has been considerable assessment of, and debate on, the effectiveness of surrogates for the distribution of species and taxa [137–141]. Most land-use planning approaches use surrogates for mapping pressures on biodiversity and vulnerability [77], yet relatively little attention has been paid to their relative effectiveness. Surrogates for vulnerability in planning land protection included tenure and land use, environmental or spatial variables correlated with past conversion, threatened species distributions, and maps compiled from expert judgement [77]. Many assumptions are inherent in the application of these surrogates. For example, use of land tenure as a surrogate assumes vulnerability can be estimated from associated permitted land uses; surrogates based on past conversion and threatened species patterns assume that future distributions and impacts of threatening processes are indicated by those in the past [78].

Recently, attention in land-use planning research has shifted from techniques to static reserve blueprints, such as those produced by optimisation, to solving the challenge of conservation planning in the context of dynamic threats [142, 143]. Practitioners preferred not to use static optimised maps, and required tools that helped them make quick decisions for estimating marginal benefits [104]. In fact simple decision rules may have greater practical utility than detailed optimised plans when degradation rates and uncertainty are high, and implementa‐ tion is carried out over a number of years [144]. These approaches acknowledge that threats are dynamic in most conservation planning situations, that prioritisation that ignores dyna‐ mism can be ineffective, and that the need for dynamic updating of conservation priorities is based on updated vulnerability data. However, a major implication of dynamic prioritisation is that solutions may be more demanding of data, and more complex to produce, than those that assume stasis [143].

This situation brings trade-offs between data gathering and conservation effectiveness into stark relief. Clearly, as with data on biodiversity distribution, diminishing returns are inherent in the gathering and validation of accurate data on expanding threats. Land-use planning tools based on less accurate data and simpler solutions may be more effective for conservation, once the cost and flexibility limitations of incorporating more accurate data are accounted for. For example, comprehensive reserve network design may be counterproductive in situations where site availability is uncertain, reserve acquisition is protracted, and rates of biodiversity loss are high [44]. In these situations, simple decision rules, such as protecting the available site with the highest irreplaceability or with the highest species richness, may be more effective for protecting biodiversity.

### **6. Conclusion**

Most of the world's biological diversity currently exists outside protected areas and this is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. Maintaining the ecological integrity of this matrix is essential to support biological diversity, maintain the embedded protected areas and support changing land use needs. However, achieving both conservation and resource extraction across the landscape will require careful consideration of the different trade-offs between biodiversity protection, ecosystem function, and socio-economic well-being. Future research needs to bring a quantitative approach to the general question: How best to allocate land use (or prioritise decisions) to ensure optimal delivery of both ecosystem services and biodiversity protection – more specifically, which land-use strategy delivers the greatest return on investment.

ecosystem services is illustrated in Figure 4. A fuller characterisation of the biophysical and social context for ecosystem services should improve future prioritisation and the identifica‐ tion of locations where ecosystem-service management is especially important or cost effective.

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

Demand Supply

Costs Threats

The extent to which ecosystem services can be integrated into conservation planning remains largely unknown. Although ecosystem services are increasingly acknowledged in conserva‐ tion planning, the formal integration of ecosystem services into conservation assessments remains low [14, 21]. There is little research into developing methods to include ecosystem services in conservation assessments or into the extent of concordance between prioritising biodiversity features and the spatial features required for ecosystem services. As a result there is an urgent need to develop an appropriate conceptual framework, an operational model [149], and software tools for planning for ecosystem services. The first step, however, is to map the extent of ecosystem services and identify synergies and trade-offs in conserving areas of high biodiversity value and areas important for service delivery [28, 147, 148].The second step is to use this information to build a dynamic land-use model that can be integrated into a unified framework. This model should build on existing models but should also integrate habitat restoration and consider both biodiversity protection and ecosystem services. From this, further research is required to contrast the performance of habitat protection, restoration or resource management. This could be applied to divergent examples – one where the metric of performance is the persistence of threatened species, and the other where the metric of performance is an ecosystem service. Aside from finding optimal solutions to the problem the method should include rules of thumb for the general conditions and timing at which natural resource managers should shift their emphasis from management to protection or restoration.

marginal effect of the change on all ecosystem services. Future

Future work needs to (in terms of lost).

tools [146], reflecting more complex and often and adaptable to these approach to modelling targets with minimum services [114]. A more the implementation of

problem – assessing services, determining of these actions. The ecosystem services is ecosystem services should management is especially

17

remains largely unknown. formal integration of developing methods between prioritising is an urgent need to tools for planning for synergies and trade-148].The second step framework. This model biodiversity protection

integrate ecosystem services may exist, the science The challenge is how to conditions and management

biodiversity (in terms of services gained) relative to marginal costs (in

ecosystem services, there are still many challenges to integrate framework showing how to integrate ecosystem services may decisions and ecosystems still remains unclear [3, 145]. The operational across a range of landscapes, changing conditions

planning is accompanied by an increasing number of software tools objectives. As conservation planning continues to incorporate more prioritisation framework, models should continue to be flexible and

improvement.some of the same elements as any conservation prioritisation

characterisation of the biophysical and social context for ecosystem

process considered for ecosystem services [147].

can be integrated into conservation planning remains increasingly acknowledged in conservation planning, the formal assessments remains low [14, 21]. There is little research into developing conservation assessments or into the extent of concordance between features required for ecosystem services. As a result there is framework, an operational model [149], and software tools however, is to map the extent of ecosystem services and identify synergies

• Identify threats • Assess impacts • Determine if impacts on threats are irreversible

dynamic land-use model that can be integrated into a unified framework. should also integrate habitat restoration and consider both biodiversity

biodiversity value and areas important for service delivery [28, 147, 14

conservation tools is limited by using a target-based approach illustrates that a priority ranking rather than "satisfying targets objective conservation prioritisation, such as ecosystem services social and values of ecosystem services that might affect the

demand, identifying ecosystem features that could supply services potential for the future supply of services and the costs of each of these components into spatial prioritization for ecosystem

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

identification of locations where ecosystem-service management

• Define metric to measure supply • Calculate difference made by action • Assesse dependence • Identify alternatives

Demand

Costs

**Figure 4.** Key aspects to the prioritisation process considered for ecosystem services [147].

change to society depends on the net marginal quantify the marginal benefits of biodiversity

Even with the growing literature on ecosystem into decision making. Although a basic framework needed to inform the link that connects decisions make the ecosystem services framework operational

The increasing use of conservation planning diverse ideas about conservation objectives. competing objectives into the prioritisation

Ecosystem services prioritisation share some the capacity for an ecosystem to meet demand threats to service provision, creating the potential conceptual framework for integrating each illustrated in Figure 4. A fuller characterisation improve future prioritisation and the identification

> • Identify stakeholders • Determine socioeconomic needs • Assess ecosystem condition to meet needs

Figure 4. Key aspects to the prioritisation process

• Estimate cost of action • Determine budget

The extent to which ecosystem services Although ecosystem services are increasingly ecosystem services into conservation assessments to include ecosystem services in conservation biodiversity features and the spatial features develop an appropriate conceptual framework ecosystem services. The first step, however offs in conserving areas of high biodiversity is to use this information to build a dynamic should build on existing models but should

important or cost effective.

changes. The capability of most current conservation conservation priorities. Recent research illustrates costs" is more applicable to multi-objective comprehensive treatment of the types of social conservation plans is a key area for improvement.

settings.

Biologists and economists have recognized that they need to work more closely to develop a framework to estimate the marginal value of biological diversity. Many countries that appear to have annual increases in gross domestic products may have stagnant or even declining economies when it comes to the costs of development on the loss of species and the depletion of ecosystems. Ecosystems deliver multiple services and many involve trade-offs. The value of biodiversity change to society depends on the net marginal effect of the change on all ecosystem services. Future work needs to quantify the marginal benefits of biodiversity (in terms of services gained) relative to marginal costs (in terms of lost).

Even with the growing literature on ecosystem services, there are still many challenges to integrate ecosystem services into decision making. Although a basic framework showing how to integrate ecosystem services may exist, the science needed to inform the link that connects decisions and ecosystems still remains unclear [3, 145]. The challenge is how to make the ecosystem services framework operational across a range of landscapes, changing conditions and management settings.

The increasing use of conservation planning is accompanied by an increasing number of software tools [146], reflecting diverse ideas about conservation objectives. As conservation planning continues to incorporate more complex and often competing objectives into the prioritisation framework, models should continue to be flexible and adaptable to these changes. The capability of most current conservation tools is limited by using a target-based approach to modelling conservation priorities. Recent research illustrates that a priority ranking rather than "satisfying targets with minimum costs" is more applicable to multiobjective conservation prioritisation, such as ecosystem services [114]. A more comprehensive treatment of the types of social and values of ecosystem services that might affect the imple‐ mentation of conservation plans is a key area for improvement.

Ecosystem services prioritisation share some of the same elements as any conservation prioritisation problem – assessing the capacity for an ecosystem to meet demand, identifying ecosystem features that could supply services, determining threats to service provision, creating the potential for the future supply of services and the costs of these actions. The conceptual framework for integrating each of these components into spatial prioritization for marginal effect of the change on all ecosystem services. Future

Future work needs to (in terms of lost).

tools [146], reflecting more complex and often and adaptable to these approach to modelling targets with minimum services [114]. A more the implementation of

> services, determining of these actions. The ecosystem services is

formal integration of developing methods between prioritising is an urgent need to tools for planning for synergies and trade-148].The second step

biodiversity protection

integrate ecosystem services may exist, the science The challenge is how to conditions and management

biodiversity (in terms of services gained) relative to marginal costs (in

ecosystem services, there are still many challenges to integrate framework showing how to integrate ecosystem services may decisions and ecosystems still remains unclear [3, 145]. The operational across a range of landscapes, changing conditions

planning is accompanied by an increasing number of software tools objectives. As conservation planning continues to incorporate more prioritisation framework, models should continue to be flexible and

conservation tools is limited by using a target-based approach illustrates that a priority ranking rather than "satisfying targets objective conservation prioritisation, such as ecosystem services social and values of ecosystem services that might affect the

demand, identifying ecosystem features that could supply services

ecosystem services is illustrated in Figure 4. A fuller characterisation of the biophysical and social context for ecosystem services should improve future prioritisation and the identifica‐ tion of locations where ecosystem-service management is especially important or cost effective. threats to service provision, creating the potential conceptual framework for integrating each illustrated in Figure 4. A fuller characterisation improve future prioritisation and the identification potential for the future supply of services and the costs of each of these components into spatial prioritization for ecosystem characterisation of the biophysical and social context for ecosystem identification of locations where ecosystem-service management ecosystem services should management is especially

change to society depends on the net marginal quantify the marginal benefits of biodiversity

Even with the growing literature on ecosystem into decision making. Although a basic framework needed to inform the link that connects decisions make the ecosystem services framework operational

The increasing use of conservation planning diverse ideas about conservation objectives. competing objectives into the prioritisation

the capacity for an ecosystem to meet demand

important or cost effective.

changes. The capability of most current conservation conservation priorities. Recent research illustrates costs" is more applicable to multi-objective comprehensive treatment of the types of social conservation plans is a key area for improvement.

settings.

**6. Conclusion**

16 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

on investment.

and management settings.

Most of the world's biological diversity currently exists outside protected areas and this is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. Maintaining the ecological integrity of this matrix is essential to support biological diversity, maintain the embedded protected areas and support changing land use needs. However, achieving both conservation and resource extraction across the landscape will require careful consideration of the different trade-offs between biodiversity protection, ecosystem function, and socio-economic well-being. Future research needs to bring a quantitative approach to the general question: How best to allocate land use (or prioritise decisions) to ensure optimal delivery of both ecosystem services and biodiversity protection – more specifically, which land-use strategy delivers the greatest return

Biologists and economists have recognized that they need to work more closely to develop a framework to estimate the marginal value of biological diversity. Many countries that appear to have annual increases in gross domestic products may have stagnant or even declining economies when it comes to the costs of development on the loss of species and the depletion of ecosystems. Ecosystems deliver multiple services and many involve trade-offs. The value of biodiversity change to society depends on the net marginal effect of the change on all ecosystem services. Future work needs to quantify the marginal benefits of biodiversity (in

Even with the growing literature on ecosystem services, there are still many challenges to integrate ecosystem services into decision making. Although a basic framework showing how to integrate ecosystem services may exist, the science needed to inform the link that connects decisions and ecosystems still remains unclear [3, 145]. The challenge is how to make the ecosystem services framework operational across a range of landscapes, changing conditions

The increasing use of conservation planning is accompanied by an increasing number of software tools [146], reflecting diverse ideas about conservation objectives. As conservation planning continues to incorporate more complex and often competing objectives into the prioritisation framework, models should continue to be flexible and adaptable to these changes. The capability of most current conservation tools is limited by using a target-based approach to modelling conservation priorities. Recent research illustrates that a priority ranking rather than "satisfying targets with minimum costs" is more applicable to multiobjective conservation prioritisation, such as ecosystem services [114]. A more comprehensive treatment of the types of social and values of ecosystem services that might affect the imple‐

Ecosystem services prioritisation share some of the same elements as any conservation prioritisation problem – assessing the capacity for an ecosystem to meet demand, identifying ecosystem features that could supply services, determining threats to service provision, creating the potential for the future supply of services and the costs of these actions. The conceptual framework for integrating each of these components into spatial prioritization for

terms of services gained) relative to marginal costs (in terms of lost).

mentation of conservation plans is a key area for improvement.

Figure 4. Key aspects to the prioritisation process process considered for ecosystem services [147]. **Figure 4.** Key aspects to the prioritisation process considered for ecosystem services [147].

The extent to which ecosystem services Although ecosystem services are increasingly ecosystem services into conservation assessments to include ecosystem services in conservation biodiversity features and the spatial features develop an appropriate conceptual framework ecosystem services. The first step, however offs in conserving areas of high biodiversity is to use this information to build a dynamic should build on existing models but should can be integrated into conservation planning remains increasingly acknowledged in conservation planning, the formal assessments remains low [14, 21]. There is little research into developing conservation assessments or into the extent of concordance between features required for ecosystem services. As a result there is framework, an operational model [149], and software tools however, is to map the extent of ecosystem services and identify synergies biodiversity value and areas important for service delivery [28, 147, 14 dynamic land-use model that can be integrated into a unified framework. should also integrate habitat restoration and consider both biodiversity remains largely unknown. framework. This model The extent to which ecosystem services can be integrated into conservation planning remains largely unknown. Although ecosystem services are increasingly acknowledged in conserva‐ tion planning, the formal integration of ecosystem services into conservation assessments remains low [14, 21]. There is little research into developing methods to include ecosystem services in conservation assessments or into the extent of concordance between prioritising biodiversity features and the spatial features required for ecosystem services. As a result there is an urgent need to develop an appropriate conceptual framework, an operational model [149], and software tools for planning for ecosystem services. The first step, however, is to map the extent of ecosystem services and identify synergies and trade-offs in conserving areas of high biodiversity value and areas important for service delivery [28, 147, 148].The second step is to use this information to build a dynamic land-use model that can be integrated into a unified framework. This model should build on existing models but should also integrate habitat restoration and consider both biodiversity protection and ecosystem services. From this, further research is required to contrast the performance of habitat protection, restoration or resource management. This could be applied to divergent examples – one where the metric of performance is the persistence of threatened species, and the other where the metric of performance is an ecosystem service. Aside from finding optimal solutions to the problem the method should include rules of thumb for the general conditions and timing at which natural resource managers should shift their emphasis from management to protection or restoration.

Ideally, six key features should be incorporated into conservation planning tools in order to plan effectively for ecosystems services [110, 147, 148]. First, a new tool should incorporate different features within a single network. Second, it should include the option that targets may not be met with available resources or within the planned region. Third, an ideal tool would account, spatially and temporally, for potential impacts of management and threats on species and services. Fourth, the tool would also account for the likeliness of conflicting management practices. Fifth, a tool must consider the flow from ecosystems to user. Last, a tool should allow for "flexibility between the ends of benefit maximisation and suitabilitymaximizing target achievement, which will each be appropriate for individual ecosystem services in different circumstances".

Research must provide sufficient ecological understanding of productive systems and identify the value of important ecosystems services. Agriculture science, for example, must move beyond understanding ecological constraints to productivity and must focus on identifying the biodiversity and associated ecological processes that underpin the delivery of ecosystem

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

19

Ideally, conservation efforts in productive landscapes should contribute to national and regional conservation objectives. This means that the aim should be to go beyond enhancing "native dominance" in productive landscapes, which might simply reflect increasing the "bulk supply" of indigenous species and ecosystem types that are already common. Rather, the aim should be to increase the populations and distribution of rare and threatened species (i.e. increase "species occupancy") and the distribution of threatened ecosystems (i.e. increase "environmental representation"). The first step in achieving this is to determine which threatened species and ecosystems occur, or could potentially occur, in productive (unpro‐

Ultimately an effective conservation plan is one that translates science into action, and it is increasingly recognised that systematic conservation planning must be complemented by an implementation strategy [149], or at least consider implementation issues in its design. Complex optimisation models may not only have greater information needs, but could also be more difficult to communicate to practitioners, and to embed and implement within the operational framework of an organisation. While there is a need for science to solve the problems of dynamic planning, there is also a pressing need for policy and practice to catch up with science [139, 148, 157]. Practitioners prefer not to use static optimised maps [104], and therefore require tools that help them make quick decisions for estimating marginal benefits. Simple decision rules may have greater practical utility than detailed optimised plans, particularly when land-use change is rapid, uncertainty is high, and implementation is carried out over a number of years. Fitting the solution to the practical situation is a challenge that still

This work was supported by the National Land Resource Centre and Landcare Research. We particularly thank Chris Muckersie for useful comments on an earlier draft of the chapter and

, Anne-Gaelle E. Ausseil2

and Alexander Herzig2

services essential for maintaining a highly productive system [17, 18].

tected) landscapes.

requires greater attention.

**Acknowledgements**

Anne Austin for editing.

, Norm Mason2

1 National Land Resource Centre, New Zealand

2 Landcare Research, New Zealand

**Author details**

Emily S. Weeks1

In reality, coming up with a model that balances all needs is complicated by uncertain data, conflicting needs at different spatial resolutions, and the need to consider costs. There are currently two approaches to ecosystem service assessments. The first uses a broad-scale assessment of multiple services to extrapolate a few estimates of values, based on habitat types, at large spatial scales (including global assessments) [1, 150–152]. In contrast, in the second approach ecosystems services are assessed at the production level of a single service within a small area. Although this approach is more reliable than the first, it lacks both scope (number of services) and scale (geographic and temporal) to be relevant for most policy decisions. What is needed is an approach that is ecologically relevant and appropriate to the scale of landmanagement decisions.

Some studies have found a decline in the congruence between species richness of different higher taxa at higher spatial resolution [153, 154]. Such findings lead to the question – what is the 'ideal' spatial resolution to outweigh the benefits and costs of loss of biodiversity? It is obvious that management agreements should reflect the spatial scale of the biological proc‐ esses that are important, but the challenge remains how best to fit this into the various legislative processes. Conservation planning for biodiversity has traditionally tended to adopt a vertical integration of governance to national scales [155, 156]. The emphasis on vertical integration stems from the nature of the spatial turnover in biodiversity, which is not neces‐ sarily the case in all ecosystem services (e.g. carbon storage). For ecosystems services, different relationships exist at different scales [19]. Though in general, investing in conservation that increases the value of ecosystems services is also beneficial for biodiversity [15, 64], policy should be underpinned by science that highlights the many roles biodiversity has in ecological processes at different scales

Currently, too little is known about the ecological interactions (including role of biodiversity) in major productive landscapes and about the economic value of the ecosystem services on which they rely or which they potentially provide. To address this lack of knowledge there is a need to adopt an ecological approach to current management. Crop and livestock production systems must be managed as ecosystems, with management decisions fully aware of environ‐ mental costs and benefits. Actively managing productive systems for both biodiversity protection and productivity could result in the delivery of multiple services. Many biodiversity management actions can result in multiple benefits. For example, maintaining invertebrate diversity in soils promotes fertility, plant water use efficiency, and increased carbon storage [157].Creative science should provide multiple options and a sound basis for decision. Research must provide sufficient ecological understanding of productive systems and identify the value of important ecosystems services. Agriculture science, for example, must move beyond understanding ecological constraints to productivity and must focus on identifying the biodiversity and associated ecological processes that underpin the delivery of ecosystem services essential for maintaining a highly productive system [17, 18].

Ideally, conservation efforts in productive landscapes should contribute to national and regional conservation objectives. This means that the aim should be to go beyond enhancing "native dominance" in productive landscapes, which might simply reflect increasing the "bulk supply" of indigenous species and ecosystem types that are already common. Rather, the aim should be to increase the populations and distribution of rare and threatened species (i.e. increase "species occupancy") and the distribution of threatened ecosystems (i.e. increase "environmental representation"). The first step in achieving this is to determine which threatened species and ecosystems occur, or could potentially occur, in productive (unpro‐ tected) landscapes.

Ultimately an effective conservation plan is one that translates science into action, and it is increasingly recognised that systematic conservation planning must be complemented by an implementation strategy [149], or at least consider implementation issues in its design. Complex optimisation models may not only have greater information needs, but could also be more difficult to communicate to practitioners, and to embed and implement within the operational framework of an organisation. While there is a need for science to solve the problems of dynamic planning, there is also a pressing need for policy and practice to catch up with science [139, 148, 157]. Practitioners prefer not to use static optimised maps [104], and therefore require tools that help them make quick decisions for estimating marginal benefits. Simple decision rules may have greater practical utility than detailed optimised plans, particularly when land-use change is rapid, uncertainty is high, and implementation is carried out over a number of years. Fitting the solution to the practical situation is a challenge that still requires greater attention.
