Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:53:15.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Setting targets: tradeoffs between ecology and economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Mikko Mönkkönen ,
Artti Juutinen  and
Eija Hurme
Edited by
Marc-André Villard  and
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Mikko Mönkkönen
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Artti Juutinen
Affiliation:
University of Oulu, Finland
Eija Hurme
Affiliation:
University of Oulu, Finland
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Habitat loss is the main threat to biodiversity. Conversion of land to urban sprawl and agricultural land is widespread, particularly in southern temperate regions. In the boreal forest zone, landscapes have remained primarily forested while undergoing spatial and temporal changes in composition and age structure. Within the seemingly intact forest cover, habitat degradation has resulted in habitat loss for many species. Common to these types of landscape changes is that human activities have resulted in a shortage of area for species and their habitats. Preventing further habitat loss, that is conservation, causes restrictions to other land-use types and often incurs considerable economic costs in terms of foregone opportunities. Therefore, there is an immanent tradeoff between alternative land-use practices. How much trading in ecological values we are willing to accept for increasing economic welfare is an important ethical question, and relates to the discussion of weak versus strong sustainability (Costanza 1996). From a scientific point of view, the tradeoff between ecological and economic targets calls for the development of procedures and methods to cope with it in a balanced way.

The tradeoff between ecological and economic targets reflects land-use demands. Market value of land varies widely across sites according to, for example, location, potential other uses, and primary productivity. Pressures to develop a parcel of land increase in proximity to dense human populations, yet social benefits from undeveloped land (e.g. recreation and conservation) also increase with proximity. Therefore, land value tends to decrease with distance from cities.

Type
Chapter
Information
Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 328 - 351
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andelman, S. J. and Fagan, W. F.. 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97:5954–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. and Solow, A.. 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angelstam, P. 1992. Conservation of communities – the importance of edges, surroundings and landscape mosaic structure. Pp. 9–70 in Hansson, L. (ed.) Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation: Applications in Temperate and Boreal Environments. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelstam, P. and Andersson, L.. 2001. Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement No. 3:38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, J. L., Camm, J. D., Haight, R. G., Montgomery, C. A. and Polasky, S.. 2004. Weighing conservation objectives: maximum expected coverage versus endangered species protection. Ecological Applications 14:1936–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Rodriques, A. S. L. and James, A.. 2000. Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conservation Biology 14:597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A.. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:242–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calkin, D. E., Montgomery, C. A., Schumaker, N. H.et al. 2002. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro, T. M. and O'Doherty, G.. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13:805–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, R. L., Stoms, D. M. and Davis, F. W.. 1996. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biological Conservation 76:105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R. 1996. Ecological economics: reintegrating the study of humans and nature. Ecological Applications 6:978–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R.et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, D. J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-species and plant-species richness. American Naturalist 137:27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csuti, B., Polasky, S., Williams, P.et al. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biological Conservation 80:83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, R. G., Revelle, C. and Snyder, S.. 2000. An integer optimization approach to a probabilistic reserve site selection problem. Operations Research 48:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, R. G., Cypher, B., Kelly, P. A.et al. 2002. Optimizing habitat protection using demographic models of population viability. Conservation Biology 16:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37:271–80.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 2005. The Shrinking World: Ecological Consequences of Habitat Loss. Excellence in Ecology, Vol. 14. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: International Ecology Institute.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. K., Stevens, P., Ihalempiä, P. and Selonen, V.. 2000. Home range size, movements and nest site use in the Siberian flying squirrel Pteromys volans. Journal of Mammalogy 81:798–809.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, B. A., Field, R., Cornell, H. V.et al. 2003. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkinen, R., Punttila, P., Virkkala, R. and Rajasärkkä, A.. 2000. The significance of protected area network for forest-dwelling species: vascular plants of herb-rich forests, beetles dependent on dead wood, birds of coniferous and mixed forests. The Finnish Environment440.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hurme, E., Mönkkönen, M., Nikula, A.et al. 2005. Building and evaluating predictive occupancy models for the Siberian flying squirrel using forest planning data. Forest Ecology and Management 216:241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurme, E., Reunanen, P., Mönkkönen, M.et al. 2007a. Local habitat patch pattern of the Siberian flying squirrel in a managed boreal forest landscape. Ecography 30:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurme, E., Kurttila, M., Mönkkönen, M., Heinonen, T. and Pukkala, T.. 2007b. Maintenance of flying squirrel habitat and timber harvest: a site-specific spatial model in forest planning calculationsLandscape Ecology 22:243–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurme, E., Mönkkönen, M., Sippola, A.-L., Ylinen, H. and Pentinsaari, M.. 2008. The role of the Siberian flying squirrel as an umbrella species for biodiversity in northern boreal forests. Ecological Indicators 8:246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juutinen, A. 2005. Biodiversity conservation in forestry: essays on the economics of site selection. Acta Universitatis OuluensisG18.Google Scholar
Juutinen, A. and Mönkkönen, M.. 2004. Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in old-growth boreal forests: ecology and economics. Ecological Economics 50:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juutinen, A. and Mönkkönen, M.. 2007. Alternative targets and economic efficiency of selecting protected areas for biodiversity conservation in boreal forest. Environmental and Resource Economics 37:713–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juutinen, A., Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., Salmi, J. and Svento, L.. 2004. Cost-effective preservation of boreal old forest. Forest Science 50:527–39.Google Scholar
Juutinen, A., Mönkkönen, M. and Sippola, A.-L.. 2006. Cost-efficiency of decaying wood as a surrogate for overall species richness in boreal forests. Conservation Biology 20:74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, L. 2000. Guidelines for Landscape Ecological Planning. Forestry Publications of Metsähallitus.Google Scholar
Koskela, E. and Ollikainen, M.. 2001. Optimal private and public harvesting under spatial and temporal interdependence. Forest Science 47:484–96.Google Scholar
Manne, L. L., Brooks, T. M. and Pimm, S. L.. 1999. Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399:258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L.. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D. and Green, J. R.. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mönkkönen, M., Reunanen, P., Nikula, A., Forsman, J. and Inkeröinen, J.. 1997. Landscape characteristics associated with the occurrence of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans L. in old-growth forests of northern Finland. Ecography 20:634–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mönkkönen, M., Forsman, J. T. and Bokma, F.. 2006. Energy availability, abundance, energy-use and species-richness in forest bird communities: a test of the species-energy theory. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:290–302.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C., Pollak, R., Freemark, K. and White, D.. 1999. Pricing biodiversity. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 38:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrosek, T. 2001. Developing and testing of a method for the analysis and assessment of multiple forest use from a forest conservation perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 140:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalle, D., Montgomery, C., Arthur, J., Polasky, S. and Schumaker, N.. 2004. Modelling joint production of wildlife and timber. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48:997–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, C. and Götmark, F.. 1992. Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented. Conservation Biology 6:232–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L. and Askins, R. A.. 1995. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:9343–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polasky, S., Camm, J. and Garber-Yonts, B.. 2001. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Economics 77:68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, R. L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?Conservation Biology 8:662–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J, Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I. and Williams, P. H.. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:124–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. and Mannerkoski, I. (eds.) 2001. Suomen Lajien Uhanalaisuus 2000. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. (In Finnish with an English summary.)Google Scholar
Reunanen, P., Mönkkönen, M. and Nikula, A.. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscape for flying squirrels. Conservation Biology 14:218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P.. 2004. Usefulness of umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P.. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds – a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biological Conservation 130:134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A. S., Gaston, K. J. and Gregory, R. D.. 2000. Using presence-absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B267:897–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saetersdal, M., Gjerde, I., Blom, H. H.et al. 2003. Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementarity site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biological Conservation 115:21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selonen, V. and Hanski, I. K.. 2003. Movements of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans in corridors and in matrix habitat. Ecography 26:641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris, and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11–41.Google Scholar
Similä, M., Kouki, J., Mönkkönen, M., Sippola, A.-L. and Huhta, E.. 2006. Covariation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecological Indicators 6:686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokland, J. N. 1997 Representativeness and efficiency of bird and insect conservation in Norwegian boreal forest reserves. Conservation Biology 11:101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkala, R. 1996. Reserve network of forests in Finland and the need for developing the network – an ecological approach. The Finnish Environment 16.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×