Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns

By Stephen Polasky, E. Nelson, J. Camm, B. Csuti, P. Fackler, E. Lonsdorf, Claire A. Montgomery, Denis White, J. Arthur, B. Garber-Yonts and 4 more. 2008

703 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b3ad6aa1527c3b5476dc5f216db93fe7ada2a86

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development (2016, methodology): “Polasky et al. (2008) integrate both spatially explicit biological and economicmodels and apply an optimization approach to analyze the consequences of alternative spatial land-use configurations on both biodiversity conservation and economic objectives in the Willamette Basin in Oregon, USA.”
A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management (2016, background): “Specifically, the productive efficiency is treated as a relative concept, which can be illustrated as Pareto-efficient options for optimal utilization of two or more services, where the system cannot increase one service without sacrificing other services (Nelson et al., 2008; Polasky et al., 2008).”
Integrating Ecology and Economics in the Study of Ecosystem Services: Some Lessons Learned (2009, background): “F or p er so na l u se o nl y. this approach to model agricultural and timber returns across space in conservation and ecosystem service assessments (e.g., Naidoo & Adamowicz 2006; Naidoo & Iwamura 2007; Polasky et al. 2005, 2008; and for a review, see Naidoo et al. 2006).”
Computational Sustainability (2011, background): “From a mathematical point of view, the site selection or reserve design problem (Ando et al. 1998, Moilanen et al. 2009, and Polasky et al. 2008) concerns the selection of sites optimizing certain criteria (e.g., habitat suitability for certain species), while satisfying one or more constraints…”
Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services (2016, methodology): “This habitat pattern arises because species are predicted to have higher persistencewhen habitat is less fragmented, more connected, and comprises larger suitable habitat patches (Polasky et al., 2008).”
To close the yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies (2013, background): “…planning of land use, recognising that in some landscapes optimising land use decisions at large scales appears likely to lead to real biodiversity gains without compromising landscape wide levels of production (e.g. Polasky et al., 2008; Hodgson et al., 2010; Barraquand and Martinet, 2011).”
Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? (2014, background): “In addition, the agricultural productivity of the landscapes (determined, for example, by its soil fertility) may affect the opportunity cost of conserving areas (Polasky et al., 2008), introducing AES on agricultural land (Gabriel et al.”
The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota (2011, background): “2009 for sediment delivery), and similarly for biodiversity conservation (e.g., Naidoo and Ricketts 2006; Polasky et al. 2008), there have been relatively few studies on the joint provision and value of multiple outcomes (multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and returns to landown”
Bringing Ecosystem Services into the Real World: An Operational Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Losing Wild Nature (2011, background): “In these cases a decision is likely to be more informed by the precautionary principle, safe minimum standards, and/or a cost-effectiveness approach ( Polasky et al. 2001, 2008; Laycock et al. 2009; Bateman et al. 2010).”
Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services (2010, background): “…into a change in the ecosystem services provided to humans, that will experiment changes in welfare associated with income. habitat functions to predict the provision of services and the value these services provide (Polasky et al., 2005; 2008; Naidoo et al., 2006; Naidoo and Iwamura, 2007).”
Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA (2011, background): “, 1997; Troy and Wilson, 2006), or highly detailed functional analysis of a single ecosystem service at small geographical scales (Polasky et al., 2008; Smith, 2007).”
The Economic Valuation of Environmental Amenities and Disamenities: Methods and Applications (2009, background): “Recent work has combined valuation of multiple ecosystem services (113) and developed spatially explicit models using the ecological production function approach (114, 115).”
“Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making (2013, background): “In fact, many of the scientific papers reviewed for this article which propose frameworks, methods and models for mapping ecosystem services for decision support (e.g. Burkhard et al., 2012; Egoh et al., 2008; Feld et al., 2010; Gascoigne et al., 2011; Naidoo et al., 2008; Polasky et al., 2008; Raud”
Smart spatial incentives for market-based conservation (2008, background): “Conservation costs may vary over space and time (Ando et al., 1998; Polasky et al., 2008).”