Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities

By R. Naidoo, A. Balmford, Robert Costanza, B. Fisher, R. Green, B. Lehner, T. Malcolm, Taylor H. Ricketts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008

1,069 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fbff4ea377302eb9995a8bac9c6d9c13595e375a

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

Conservation opportunities across the world's anthromes (2014, background): “, 2006) and patterns of ecosystem services provisioning (Naidoo et al., 2008), among other global patterns.”
Setting Conservation Priorities (2009, background): “…data sets on biodiversity values, threats, and costs are improving (Hoekstra et al. 2005; Orme et al. 2005; Ceballos and Ehrlich 2006; Naidoo and Iwamura 2007; Naidoo et al. 2008; Underwood et al. 2008), data that are available at a global scale are still typically sparse and of varying quality.”
The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania (2014, positive): “…by factors such as resource availability and population density (Naidoo and Ricketts, 2006; Pagiola and Bosquet, 2009; Turner et al., 2010), can help to define priority areas where limited budgets for forest and biodiversity conservation would have highest overall benefits (Naidoo et al., 2008).”
Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere (2015, background): “To the extent that trade-offs among production, biodiversity, and ecosystem services are considered (Bergen et al. 2001, DeFries et al. 2004, Naidoo et al. 2008) and the people and societies with a stake in the results are involved in codesigning and cooperating in these efforts (Berkes et al.…”
The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis (2013, methodology): “The use of land cover as a proxy indicator for the presence of various ecosystem services is a common technique used in ecosystem valuation (see e.g., Costanza et al., 2007; Naidoo et al., 2008, Troy and Wilson, 2006).”
Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (2019, background): “While the importance of protecting mountain ecosystems has been widely accepted (UN 1992), conventional conservation approaches have become a matter of debate and the concept of ecosystem services has risen to prominence (Singh 2002; Naidoo et al. 2008; Chaudhary et al. 2015a, b).”
Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects. (2013, background): “conservation it allows assessing “synergies and trade-offs in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services” (Naidoo et al. 2008).”
The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota (2011, background): “Several studies have characterized the spatial overlap among ecosystem service provision and biodiversity conservation (Chan et al. 2006; Egoh et al. 2008; Naidoo et al. 2008) but these studies have not analyzed how alternative land-use or land-management decisions affect the provision and value of ”
Mapping the Global Distribution of Livestock (2014, background): “They have been applied to the analysis of land use dynamics [20] and of global ecosystem services [21] and have contributed to the estimates of the environmental impacts of livestock [22–24] and to the characterization of livestock production systems in Eastern Africa [25].”
Landscapes' Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services - a Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments (2009, methodology): “In recent years, many new mapping approaches of ecosystem services have been developed by various scientists (e.g. Tallis & Polasky 2009, Nelson et al. 2009, Egoh et al. 2008, Naidoo et al. 2008, Troy & Wilson 2006, Willemen et al. 2008).”
Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. (2010, background): “The spatial mismatches among diversity components have widespread implications for environmental management and protected area design (Forest et al. 2007; Naidoo et al. 2008; Cumming & Child 2009).”