Costs and benefits of protecting linear landscape elements: Applying systematic conservation planning on a case study in the Netherlands.

Protecting and increasing linear landscape elements (LLEs) in agricultural lands is regarded as a possible solution for a transition to a more biodiverse agricultural system. However, optimizing the spatial configuration of LLEs protected areas is challenging, especially given the demand for land for food production. Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) can address this challenge, by prioritizing cost-efficient protection areas. We used a SCP approach to look at the LLEs network in the Province of Noord-Brabant in the Netherlands, identifying the possible trade-off between optimizing species conservation, costs and the monetary values of ecosystem services (ES). For this we defined two scenarios. One scenario focuses on achieving species conservation targets at the minimum cost, and the other focuses on achieving targets while maximizing the benefits provided by ES. For each scenario, we further developed two land-management options, namely land-sharing and land-sparing. For each solution, we tested their cost-effectiveness by calculating implementation costs, economic benefits provided by ES, and cost/benefit ratios. First, our scenario analysis indicates that the economic benefits provided by ES always outweigh the implementation costs. Second, it shows that including ES as co-benefits in SCP (Maximize ES Scenario) yields more cost-efficient conservation solutions. Third, both land-sharing and land-sparing are possible cost-efficient approaches to achieve conservation targets. Our results are spatially explicit and identify crucial habitat areas for the conservation of the selected species, which represent 12–20% of the current unprotected network of LLEs. Our findings showcase net economic benefit of conserving species and LLEs, thus representing an additional reason for biodiversity conservation. • Monetary values of Ecosystem Services (ES) in Systematic Conservation Planning. • Trade-off between nature conservation, economic benefits and costs. • Economic benefits from ES by linear landscape elements always outweigh costs. • Land sharing and sparing are both possible cost-efficient conservation approaches. • Need of a bigger basket of Ecosystem Services for planning conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]