Co‐benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States

• Published in: Conservation letters Vol. 15; no. 5
• Main Authors: Vijay, Varsha, Fisher, Jonathan R. B., Armsworth, Paul R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.09.2022; Wiley
• Subjects: 30 × 30; Biodiversity; Carbon; Carbon sequestration; Conservation organizations; conservation planning; Context; Costs; co‐benefits; Decision making; Ecosystem services; Ecosystems; Habitats; Human populations; Land purchases; Policies; Protected areas; Recreational use; Species richness; Statistical analysis; Threatened species; tradeoffs; United States > US
• ISSN: 1755-263X; 1755-263X
• DOI: 10.1111/conl.12907

Conservation organizations seek to achieve multiple benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services through protected area expansion, necessitating an understanding of potential co‐benefits and trade‐offs. We use benefit functions derived from modeled and best‐available data to characterize five benefits (habitat area, total species richness, threatened species richness, carbon storage, and recreational use) and examine how trade‐off assessments are influenced by policy context, when controlling for the effect of cost and future conversion threat. We applied a pairwise correlation (broad actions) and a “best sites” approach (narrow actions) for land protection across the contiguous United States. We also considered the spatial footprint of regional and thematic policies. Nationally, we find strong potential for co‐benefits between biodiversity, habitat, and carbon storage. Scope for co‐benefits is weaker when including recreational use, an ecosystem service driven primarily by human population. Crucially, we show that the conclusions one would draw regarding scope for co‐benefits can change markedly depending on the context and spatial footprint of policy decisions.