2025/05/05 by Rachel Neugarten, Courtney L. Davis, Guillermo Durán +1 · 1 voice
Environmental Science · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Land Use and Ecosystem Services #Economic and Environmental Valuation #Urban Green Space and Health
paper · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101733
The concept of co-benefits is both conceptually and practically appealing, as it suggests that conservation efforts can be optimized to safeguard biodiversity and provide ecosystem services. However, limited availability of high-quality data on both ecosystem services and biodiversity has made it difficult to demonstrate empirically where, and to what extent, co-benefits exist. Leveraging newly available data on priority areas for eleven ecosystem services (nature’s contributions to people) and high-resolution abundance data for 479 bird species, we quantified the extent to which priority areas for ecosystem services could contribute to bird conservation in the U.S. We found that priority areas for ecosystem services can contribute meaningfully—more than expected by chance—to the populations of more than half of U.S. bird species, including > 75 % of forest species. However, many other species, including species relying upon wetlands, water bodies and aridlands were poorly represented within important areas for ecosystem services. Spatial convergence of benefits points to areas where habitat conservation and restoration have the potential to help both biodiversity and people. Despite real potential for co-benefits, our results highlight the danger of generalizing about co-benefits in the absence of empirical data.