Cited by 1,048Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities

Open access
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., Ricketts, T. H.·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Global efforts to conserve biodiversity have the potential to deliver economic benefits to people (i.e., “ecosystem services”). However, regions for which conservation benefits both biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be identified unless ecosystem services can be quantified and valued and their areas of production mapped. Here we review the theory, data, and analyses needed to produce such maps and find that data availability allows us to quantify imperfect global proxies for only four ecosystem services. Using this incomplete set as an illustration, we compare ecosystem service maps with the global distributions of conventional targets for biodiversity conservation. Our preliminary results show that regions selected to maximize biodiversity provide no more ecosystem services than regions chosen randomly. Furthermore, spatial concordance among different services, and between ecosystem services and established conservation priorities, varies widely. Despite this lack of general concordance, “win–win” areas—regions important for both ecosystem services and biodiversity—can be usefully identified, both among ecoregions and at finer scales within them. An ambitious interdisciplinary research effort is needed to move beyond these preliminary and illustrative analyses to fully assess synergies and trade-offs in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0707823105

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Linear programming yields exact solutions to linear optimization problems, whereas heuristic algorithms often used in conservation yield feasible solutions whose optimality is unknown.

    “Linear programming identifies exact solutions to linear optimization problems 15,16 -unlike the heuristic algorithms that are more commonly used in conservation [12][13][14] , which identify feasible solutions of unknown optimality 17,18 .”

    From Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

    The citation is attached to the claim that heuristic algorithms are more commonly used in conservation. The Comparisons Between Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity section instead says this paper used integer programming; the Discussion calls its analyses heuristic in purpose, not its algorithms heuristic. Our copy does not establish how commonly conservation uses heuristic algorithms or whether their solutions have unknown optimality. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., & Ricketts, T. H.
Affiliations
  • World Wildlife Fund (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-07-15
Volume
105
Issue
28
Pages
9495-9500
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2027370059
Cited by
1,048
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 96 · 2012: 87
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Natural England
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • Royal Society
  • University of East Anglia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, conservation priorities, ecosystem service mapping, ecoregions, data availability
MeSH terms
Carbon, Conservation of Natural Resources, Geography, Maps as Topic, Ecosystem, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review