Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies

Darius J. Semmens; James E. Diffendorfer; Laura López-Hoffman; Carl D. Shapiro

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.002

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70009674

Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies

Darius J. Semmens·James E. Diffendorfer·Laura López-Hoffman·Carl D. Shapiro

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Migratory species support ecosystem process and function in multiple areas, establishing ecological linkages between their different habitats. As they travel, migratory species also provide ecosystem services to people in many different locations. Previous research suggests there may be spatial mismatches between locations where humans use services and the ecosystems that produce them. This occurs with migratory species, between the areas that most support the species' population viability – and hence their long-term ability to provide services – and the locations where species provide the most ecosystem services. This paper presents a conceptual framework for estimating how much a particular location supports the provision of ecosystem services in other locations, and for estimating the extent to which local benefits are dependent upon other locations. We also describe a method for estimating the net payment, or subsidy, owed by or to a location that balances benefits received and support provided by locations throughout the migratory range of multiple species. The ability to quantify these spatial subsidies could provide a foundation for the establishment of markets that incentivize cross-jurisdictional cooperative management of migratory species. It could also provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts over the sustainable and equitable allocation of exploited migratory species.

Explore related subjects

Ecological Economics Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 15.623036831528264° to 62.103882522897855° latitude; -145.8984375° to -99.140625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Darius J. Semmens, James E. Diffendorfer, Laura López-Hoffman, Carl D. Shapiro. 2011. Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

Are wildfire risk mitigators more prepared to evacuate? Insights from communities in the western United States

As the realized experiences of wildfires threatening communities increase, the importance of proactive evacuation preparation and wildfire risk mitigation on private property to reduce the loss of lives and property is shaping wildfire policy and programs. To date, research has focused on pre-wildfire evacuation preparation and risk mitigation independently. This paper examines the substitutability or complementarity of these proactive risk-reducing actions. If mitigation and evacuation preparedness are substitutes, wildfire education programs may take a life-over-property approach. However, if proactive risk-reducing efforts are complements, wildfire education programs can confidently encourage residents to prepare for evacuation while also mitigating wildfire risk on their properties. This complementarity may also demonstrate that poorly mitigated households are less prepared to evacuate, compounding their risks. Using household survey data from 25 wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities across five Western states, we explore how wildfire risk mitigation actions affect evacuation preparedness. We find that improving household wildfire mitigation is associated with an improvement in wildfire evacuation preparedness. This complementary relationship between wildfire mitigation and evacuation preparedness actions highlights the potential benefits of a wildfire education approach that encourages residents to simultaneously prepare for evacuation and reduce wildfire risk on their properties before they are threatened by a wildfire.

western United States↗

USGS2024

Rethinking cost-share programs in consideration of economic equity: A case study of wildfire risk mitigation assistance for private landowners

Public agencies and organizations often deliver financial assistance through cost sharing, in which recipients contribute some portion toward total costs. However, cost sharing might raise equity concerns if it reduces participation among populations with lower incomes. Here, we revisit a past study using a richer dataset (n=1,689) to assess whether stated income levels affect survey respondents' willingness to participate in a cost share program for vegetation reduction to mitigate wildfire risk in western Colorado. Results show that residents with lower incomes are less likely to participate even though they can choose to contribute 0% toward a cost share. Residents reporting incomes less than $50,000 are 11 percentage points less likely to participate than those reporting incomes of $200,000 or more. They also are willing to pay a lower share (26 percentage points less) if they do participate. Results indicate potential economic equity concerns from the use of such programs.

Colorado↗

USGS2024

The economics of decarbonizing Costa Rica's agriculture, forestry and other land uses sectors

In 2018, Costa Rica demonstrated its commitment to the Paris Agreement and published its Decarbonization Plan for achieving zero net emissions by the year 2050. We evaluate the impacts of the country's strategy for decarbonizing its Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) sectors by coupling the Integrated Economic-Environmental Modeling framework with high-resolution spatial land use-land cover change and ecosystem services modeling (IEEM+ESM). Our results show that decarbonization of AFOLU would simultaneously enhance carbon storage, water purification, water regulation and erosion mitigation ecosystem services. Moreover, the positive cumulative wealth impact of decarbonization would be approximately US$7.27 billion by 2050 while lifting an additional 3810 individuals out of poverty. From a public investment perspective, decarbonization would have a fiscally neutral impact with the economic benefits sufficient in magnitude to off-set policy implementation costs and generate economic returns of over US$852 million when changes in natural capital stocks and environmental quality are considered. This application to Costa Rica is the first integrated economy-wide analysis of a growing number of decarbonization plans globally. The IEEM+ESM approach provides an integrated framework for analyzing decarbonization plans and can be used to refine AFOLU mitigation strategies to capitalize on synergies and minimize negative trade-offs across the three dimensions of wealth and sustainable economic development, namely economy, society and the environment.

Ecological Economics↗