Goldman Rebecca L, Tallis Heather, Kareiva Peter, Daily Gretchen C
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9445-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800208105. Epub 2008 Jun 30.
Ecosystem service approaches to conservation are being championed as a new strategy for conservation, under the hypothesis that they will broaden and deepen support for biodiversity protection. Where traditional approaches focus on setting aside land by purchasing property rights, ecosystem service approaches aim to engage a much wider range of places, people, policies, and financial resources in conservation. This is particularly important given projected intensification of human impacts, with rapid growth in population size and individual aspirations. Here we use field research on 34 ecosystem service (ES) projects and 26 traditional biodiversity (BD) projects from the Western Hemisphere to test whether ecosystem service approaches show signs of realizing their putative potential. We find that the ES projects attract on average more than four times as much funding through greater corporate sponsorship and use of a wider variety of finance tools than BD projects. ES projects are also more likely to encompass working landscapes and the people in them. We also show that, despite previous concern, ES projects not only expand opportunities for conservation, but they are no less likely than BD projects to include or create protected areas. Moreover, they do not draw down limited financial resources for conservation but rather engage a more diverse set of funders. We also found, however, that monitoring of conservation outcomes in both cases is so infrequent that it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of either ES or BD approaches.
生态系统服务保护方法正作为一种新的保护策略受到推崇,其假设是这些方法将扩大并加深对生物多样性保护的支持。传统方法侧重于通过购买产权来预留土地,而生态系统服务方法旨在让更多的地方、人群、政策和财政资源参与到保护工作中。鉴于预计人类影响将加剧,人口规模和个人期望迅速增长,这一点尤为重要。在此,我们对西半球的34个生态系统服务(ES)项目和26个传统生物多样性(BD)项目进行实地研究,以检验生态系统服务方法是否显示出实现其假定潜力的迹象。我们发现,与BD项目相比,ES项目通过更多的企业赞助和使用更广泛的金融工具,平均吸引的资金多出四倍以上。ES项目也更有可能涵盖工作景观及其中的人群。我们还表明,尽管此前存在担忧,但ES项目不仅扩大了保护机会,而且与BD项目相比,在纳入或创建保护区方面的可能性并不低。此外,它们不会消耗有限的保护财政资源,而是吸引了更多样化的资助者。然而,我们也发现,在这两种情况下,对保护成果的监测都非常罕见,以至于无法评估ES或BD方法的有效性。