Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
1. Ecosystems support biodiversity and also provide goods and services that are benecial to
humans. The extent to which the locations that are most valuable for ecosystem services coincide
with those that support the most biodiversity is of critical importance when designing conservation
and land management strategies. There are, however, few studies on which to base any kind of con-
clusion about possible spatial patterns of association between ecosystem services and biodiversity.
Moreover, little is known about the sensitivity of the conclusions to the quality of the data available,
or to the choice and size of the region used for analysis.
2. Here, we rst present national-scale estimates of the spatial covariance in areas important for
ecosystem services and biodiversity (richness of species of conservation concern), using Britain as a
case study. We then explore how these associations are sensitive to the spatial resolution of the avail-
able data, the spatial extent of our study region and to regional variation across the study area.
3. Our analyses reveal a mixture of negative and positive associations. In particular, the regionali-
zation analysis shows that one can arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions about relationships
between ecosystem services and biodiversity by studying the same question within dierent areas,
even within a moderately small island.
4. Synthesis and applications. In a policy context, the location-specic nature of relationships
between ecosystem services and biodiversity underscores the importance of multi-scale environmen-
tal decision-making, so as to reect both local conditions and broader-scale priorities. The results
also suggest that eorts to establish general patterns of congruence in ecosystem services and biodi-
versity may oer a less constructive way forward than do more regional approaches.
Key-words: agriculture value, BAP species, Britain, carbon storage, conservation, ecosystem
services, planning, recreation, species richness, trade-offs
services and biodiversity benets, then dicult trade-os must government for conservation (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/New
be confronted. At best, a portfolio of bespoke conservation PriorityList.aspx). We considered three ecosystem services: (i)
strategies will be needed to deliver the suite of benets from carbon storage (above ground and below ground to 1 m depth;
ecosystems that society demands. And at worst, by focusing in kg m)2); (ii) agriculture value (in terms of annual income);
attention on some ecosystem services, the conservation and and (iii) recreational use of the countryside (in terms of num-
policy communities risk diverting limited resources away from bers of day visits, available for England only).
habitats important for providing other benets (McCauley
2006) or displacing development pressures on to them.
There are few studies on which to base conclusions about Materials and methods
the spatial relationships between habitats important for dier-
ent ecosystem services and benets for biodiversity. Generally, DATA
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
890 B. J. Anderson et al.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
Trade-os between biodiversity and ecosystem services 891
To achieve this we used a representative survey of leisure trips of the farmland, in particular, was associated with low carbon, except
entire English population the England Leisure Visits Survey 2005 for a few lowland areas on peat soils of importance to horticul-
(main survey) (http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/ELVS05_ ture (Fig. 1). Recreation in England was weakly negatively cor-
tripbased_revised_tcm2-31285.zip). More specically, we considered related with both ecosystem carbon and agriculture value
the number of day leisure visits (n = 6279 for all of England) to rural
(Fig 3c,d), probably reecting that human population densities
locations (where the main purpose was enjoyment of the landscape)
are relatively low in regions with high carbon and high agricul-
to be representative of the recreation value of the landscape. We con-
sidered walking, cycling, swimming, visiting a beach, playing sport, a
tural productivity.
rural hobby (e.g. shing), visiting a rural attraction, park or garden, When we examine the overlap of hotspots for biodiversity
going for a drive in the countryside and relaxing in the countryside, and ecosystem services, the evidence of spatial overlap at a
all to constitute enjoyment of the landscape. Day leisure visits are 10 10 km resolution looks weaker (Table 1 and Table S2,
dened as any round trip of less than 1 day in duration made from Supporting Information). We compared the sets of grid
home (or a holiday destination in England) for leisure purposes squares identied as being among the top 10%, 20% and 30%
(http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/elvsbrochure_tcm6-4896. of areas for providing each ecosystem service and biodiversity.
pdf). The overlap between these sets was typically very poor. There
was less than 4% overlap between the sets of hotspot loca-
ANALYSES tions identied for all pairwise combinations of ecosystem ser-
vices, and between biodiversity and carbon storage or
All statistical analyses were carried out in R 27 (R Development Core
Team 2008), and all GIS analyses in ArcGIS ArcInfo 9.2 (ESRI
recreation. The greatest overlap (up to 14% of the grid squares
2006). Spearman rank correlations were carried out for all associa- selected, depending on how strict a criterion denes a hotspot)
tions as the distribution of the data are clearly not normal and trans- came between locations important for biodiversity and high
formations failed to correct this. In order to illustrate the agriculture value, reecting the strong positive relationship
associations, values of the variable on the x-axes of Fig. 2 (Biodiver- between these surfaces revealed in the correlation analysis
sity) and Fig. 3 (Carbon and Recreation) were grouped binned into (Table 1 and Table S2).
eight quantiles (the spatial distribution of these quantiles is shown in
Fig. 1) and presented as box-plots. Correlations are based in all cases
on the raw data. SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF THE DATA
Hotspots for biodiversity, carbon and agriculture value were calcu-
The available data are such that we can test the sensitivity of
lated using three cut-o points, the top 10%, 20% and 30% of
our results to the resolution over which biodiversity data and
squares for each layer. Hotspots involving the Recreation layer were
based on the top 10%, 20% and 30% of squares within England for
data on carbon storage and agriculture value are available. We
each layer. repeated all of the above analyses using data reported on a ner
resolution 2 2 km square grid. Enhancing the resolution of
Results the data in this way did not change the broad spatial covariance
structures. Once again, carbon storage and agriculture value
Initial examination of the spatial surfaces of biodiversity and were respectively negatively and positively associated with bio-
ecosystem services (Fig. 1) suggests that they are not congru- diversity, and negatively associated with each other (Figs 2bd,
ent. The richness of species of conservation concern is concen- 3b). Overlap of hotspot squares was still generally very poor,
trated in the south and east of Britain (Fig. 1a), whereas and greatest between locations that were most important for
important carbon stores lie predominantly in the colder and biodiversity and agriculture value (Table 1). In all cases,
wetter north and west, as well as in a few areas with lowland increasing the resolution of the data weakened the rank corre-
peat soils (Fig. 1b). High-value agriculture is mainly in the lation estimates across all grid squares, but improved the per-
non-urban lowlands of the south (Fig. 1c). The recreation sam- centage overlap of the highest value grid squares.
ple, available for England only, suggests peak activity in
regions with high human population densities around London
SPATIAL EXTENT OF THE DATA
and the arc of conurbation that encompasses the cities of Man-
chester, Birmingham, Sheeld and Leeds (Fig. 1d). We then tested the sensitivity of the spatial covariance struc-
Correlations between biodiversity and ecosystem services tures to the spatial extent of the study area. Using the higher
measured on 10 10 km squares reect these patterns (Fig. 2) resolution data (2 2 km) we compared the correlations
and this pattern is robust to the measure of biodiversity used (see between biodiversity and ecosystem services within each of the
Figs S1S3, Supporting Information). Areas that are important 100 100 km British National Grid squares and for an identi-
stores of carbon support low biodiversity over national scales cal number of 2 2 km cells randomly sampled from across
(Fig. 2a; Figs S1S3). In contrast, agriculture value is positively Britain. The relationship between biodiversity and carbon was
associated with high biodiversity (Fig. 2c; Figs S1S3) and there signicantly dierent from the national pattern for 34 of 41 of
is no relationship between areas important for biodiversity and the 100 100 km squares, being less negative in all cases (see
recreation in England (Fig. 2e; Figs S1S3). Table S3). The relationship between biodiversity and agricul-
Turning to the relationships between the dierent ecosystem ture value was also signicantly dierent in 32 of 41, mostly
services themselves, carbon storage is, unsurprisingly, nega- being less positive than the association for Britain as a whole
tively correlated with agriculture value (Fig. 3a); high value (see Table S4). Finally, for carbon and agriculture value, 28 of
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
892 B. J. Anderson et al.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
41 of the 100 100 km squares showed a signicantly dierent tats, such as forests and wetlands (Fig. 4a). Although slightly
relationship compared with Britain, most being less negative less clear, the same regional reversal is seen in the relationship
(see Table S5). between biodiversity and agriculture value. In this case, biodi-
versity is signicantly positively associated with agriculture
value in the north and west, but negatively related in some
REGIONAL VARIATION IN COVARIANCE STRUCTURES
parts of southern and eastern Britain (Fig. 4b). Carbon vs.
Finally, taking the nest resolution data and the smallest of agriculture value shows a similar pattern to carbon vs. biodi-
the spatial extents, we tested the sensitivity of the results to versity but is slightly less clear with some positive (but non-
the choice of study area. To this end, we compared the corre- signicant) regions further north (Fig. 4c).
lations obtained when measured within each 100 100 km
British National Grid square. This analysis revealed strong
Discussion
regional variation in associations between biodiversity and
ecosystem services (Fig. 4; Fig. S4 and Tables S3S5). Stan- In examining the spatial covariance structure between areas
dardizing the sample size by randomly selecting anywhere important for providing three ecosystem services (carbon stor-
between 100 and 750 samples reduces the signicance of some age, agriculture value and recreation) and supporting priority
relationships but not the direction of the associations (for the species for conservation, we have found a mixed pattern with
100 sample results, see Tables S3S5). Biodiversity (regardless some positive relationships, some negative, and sometimes no
of the measure used) shows a signicant negative relationship relationship at all.
with carbon in the wet and cold areas of the north-west and At the scale of Britain, habitats that are important carbon
uplands, where low levels of biodiversity are associated with stores (generally peat and moorlands) are relatively depauper-
deep peat soils. The opposite is true in the south and east, ate in species of conservation concern and there is very little
where high biodiversity is associated with high-carbon habi- congruence between those cells that are best for carbon and
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
Trade-os between biodiversity and ecosystem services 893
(a) (b)
Table 1. Hotspots (overlapping grid squares) for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Carbon, Agriculture Value and Recreation) in Britain.
Count is the number of squares (either 100 or 4 km2) that overlap; per cent total is the per cent of squares that overlap out of the total number of
squares in that analysis
Resolution Variables Count Per cent total Count Per cent total Count Per cent total
those that are best for biodiversity, regardless of the measure likely to be to the detriment of biodiversity. High-value, inten-
of biodiversity that we use. As such, the considerable interest sive, agriculture is largely incompatible with achieving conser-
in land use policies that encourage more secure carbon storage vation priorities. The high spatial congruence we nd suggests
is unlikely to help to deliver substantially on national-scale bio- that options for spatially separating agriculture and biodiver-
diversity commitments or to improve the provision of other sity though land-sparing strategies (Green et al. 2005; Fischer
ecosystem services, such as recreation. In contrast, in their et al. 2008) are limited when we consider Britain as a whole.
study in the Central Coast region in California, Chan et al. Conservation within high agriculture value regions is needed,
(2006) found no relationship between these variables which, perhaps through smaller-scale land sparing within these
while not oering a policy win-win, at least does not suggest regions (for some species), a broader greening of intensive
the strong trade-o revealed by our study. agriculture (for others) or a combination of both. Chan et al.
The strong positive correlations between habitats that are (2006) and Naidoo et al. (2008) found only weak (negative and
important for biodiversity and those that provide high-value positive respectively) correlations between agriculture and bio-
agriculture might be interpreted as oering greater prospects diversity, but each only considered the contribution of pasture
for policy win-wins. However, this relationship is unlikely to to livestock production in their estimate of the agricultural
be causative and we suspect that this spatial coincidence is value of an ecosystem.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
894 B. J. Anderson et al.
(a) (b)
(c)
The lack of a relationship between recreation and either of ideal resolution of the data to perform such analyses would
the other ecosystem services or biodiversity suggests that be. The answer probably depends on what resolution the data
enhancing recreation requires bespoke policy approaches permit (for example, insucient sampling points preclude us
designed for the landscapes where people live, work and play from analysing the recreation data at the ner resolution) and
at highest densities (Rulison et al. 2003; Onal & Yanprechaset over what resolution the ecosystem services provided by dier-
2007), something that is poorly provided by current conserva- ent habitats show signicant variation. But perhaps the most
tion and land use strategies in Britain (Eigenbrod et al. 2009). meaningful resolution for analyses is set by that over which
When we tested the sensitivity of these national-scale covari- decisions regarding the management of habitats are taken. The
ance structures to the spatial resolution of the data, we found very small size of agricultural land parcels and habitat patches
that correlations were weaker at ner resolutions but the spa- more generally in Britain suggests that our analyses at the ner
tial overlap of priority grid squares increased. This agrees with resolution may be reasonable for many questions in this
the ndings of some studies of patterns of biodiversity priori- region. Of course management agreements need to reect the
ties, which show declines in correlations between the richness spatial scale of the biological processes that are important (e.g.
of dierent higher taxa at ner spatial resolutions (Pearson & species home ranges size, blanket bog formation) as well as
Carroll 1999; Grenyer et al. 2006). In our analyses, varying land parcel size.
the spatial resolution of the data did not, however, change the When varying the spatial extent of analyses, we found that
underlying covariance structures. One might ask what the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
Trade-os between biodiversity and ecosystem services 895
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896
896 B. J. Anderson et al.
Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, Figure S1. Associations between Bird Biodiversity and Ecosystem
343, 7985. Service Variables.
Rulison, J.A., Haight, R.G., Gobster, P.H. & Homans, F.R. (2003) Metro-
politan natural area protection to maximize public access and species repre-
sentation. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 291299. Figure S2. Associations between Buttery Biodiversity and Ecosys-
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Aairs Department (2006) June tem Service Variables.
Agricultural Survey. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Aairs
Department (SEERAD), Edinburgh, UK.
Shriner, S.A., Wilson, K.R. & Flather, C.H. (2006) Reserve networks based on Figure S3. Associations between Bird Buttery BAP Biodiversity
richness hotspots and representation vary with scale. Ecological Applications, and Ecosystem Service Variables.
16, 16601673.
Strange, N., Rahbek, C., Jepsen, J.K. & Lund, M.P. (2006) Using farmland
Figure S4. Regional associations for alternative measures of Biodiver-
prices to evaluate cost-eciency of national versus regional reserve selection
in Denmark. Biological Conservation, 128, 455466. sity and Ecosystem Services.
Sutherland, W.J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P.R., Brereton, T.,
Brickland, J., Campbell, C.D., Chamberlain, D.E., Cooke, A.I., Dulvy, Table S1. Summary of values used in calculating the gross margin of
N.K., Dusic, N.R., Fitton, M., Freckleton, R.P., Godfray, H.C.J., Grout,
agriculture value
N., Harvey, H.J., Hedley, C., Hopkins, J.J., Kift, N.B., Kirby, J., Kunin,
W.E., Macdonald, D.W., Marker, B., Naura, M., Neale, A.R., Oliver, T.,
Osborn, D., Pullin, A.S., Shardlow, M.E.A., Showler, D.A., Smith, P.L., Table S2. Hotspots (overlapping grid squares) for alternative mea-
Smithers, R.J., Solandt, J.L., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D., sures of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Carbon, Agriculture
Thompson, J., Webb, S.E., Yalden, D.W. & Watkinson, A.R. (2006) The
Value & Recreation)
identication of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the
UK. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 617627.
Troy, A. & Wilson, M.A. (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical chal- Table S3. Regional associations between Biodiversity and Carbon
lenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Eco-
nomics, 60, 435449.
Table S4. Regional associations between Biodiversity and Agriculture
Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Costanza, R., da Fonseca, G.A.B.
& Portela, R. (2007) Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem value
services. Bioscience, 57, 868873.
Welsh Assembly Government (2006) Agricultural Small Area Statistics. Car- Table S5. Regional associations between Carbon and Agriculture
di, UK.
value
Received 20 November 2008; accepted 11 May 2009 Appendix S1. Calculation of production values for agriculture
Handling Editor: Fangliang He
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or
functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors.
Supporting Information Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the
Additional supporting information may be found in the online corresponding author for the article.
version of this article:
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888896