CONSERVING SPECIES IN A WORKING LANDSCAPE: LAND USE WITH BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES

By Stephen Polasky, E. Nelson, E. Lonsdorf, P. Fackler, A. Starfield. 2005

351 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5cc882f1baf27b6490abfb9429a25b0d9f94cf7b

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

Forest Figures: Ecosystem Services Valuation and Policy Evaluation in Developing Countries (2012, background): “Although economic valuation alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for successful policies (Heal 2000), it can provide important inputs into the policy process (Polasky et al. 2005).”
Evaluating cost-effectiveness of conservation management actions in an agricultural landscape on a regional scale (2007, background): “2005). However, for species conservation in human-dominated landscapes it is necessary to look beyond the boundaries of protected areas and consider the landscape as a whole, taking into account ecological and economic demands to allow for a coexistence of conservation and profitability (Bennett et ”
The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota (2011, methodology): “We have taken an optimization approach in earlier work where we use tools from operations research to find the frontier of maximum feasible landscape biodiversity scores for various levels of landscape of commodity production values and vice-versa ( Polasky et al. 2005, 2008 ), and the efficiency fr”
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).”
Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning (2012, background): “Habitat loss is continuing in many countries (Cowling et al., 2003; Fahrig, 2003; Polasky et al., 2005) and global warming appears to be progressing rapidly (Araujo et al.”
The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss (2009, methodology): “…has increasingly incorporated more complicated spatial considerations that affect species persistence including habitat fragmentation and dispersal ability (e.g., Cabeza and Moilanen 2003, Moilanen et al. 2005, Jiang et al. 2007, Nalle et al. 2004, Nicholson et al. 2006, Polasky et al. 2005, 2008).”
Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services (2010, background): “Recent work is however shifting the stand of economic analyses to starting with land use and 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).”
Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning (2009, background): “Using a uniform cost is the simplest—albeit crude and perhaps misleading (see Figure 1)—approach for giving consideration to socioeconomic factors (Polasky et al. 2005; Carwardine et al. 2008b).”