Fig. 2.3 Different cases of trade-off applied to conservation. a Maps of sensitivity ((a) habitat
productivity) confronted to exposure ((b) road-based mortality risk) to identify sink (c) and refuge
areas (d) for bear populations in Alberta, Canada (Braid and Nielsen 2015). b Solution for a
reserve model considering the trade-off between owl populations (x-axis) and timber harvest
(y-axis) (CM, current management scenario) in Oregon, USA (Nalle et al. 2004). c Trade-off
among provisioning service (meat) and regulating services (carbon sequestration and water
conservation) in alpine grasslands of Tibet, China (Pan et al. 2014). d Maps of modelled outputs of
fire management considering a trade-off between fuel reduction by prescribed fires and limited
resources: expected tree density (A) fire intensity (flame height) (B), and predictions after wildfire
with and without previous fuel reduction treatments (Ager et al. 2013)
2 Trade-offs in High Mountain Conservation
43
productivity) confronted to exposure ((b) road-based mortality risk) to identify sink (c) and refuge
areas (d) for bear populations in Alberta, Canada (Braid and Nielsen 2015). b Solution for a
reserve model considering the trade-off between owl populations (x-axis) and timber harvest
(y-axis) (CM, current management scenario) in Oregon, USA (Nalle et al. 2004). c Trade-off
among provisioning service (meat) and regulating services (carbon sequestration and water
conservation) in alpine grasslands of Tibet, China (Pan et al. 2014). d Maps of modelled outputs of
fire management considering a trade-off between fuel reduction by prescribed fires and limited
resources: expected tree density (A) fire intensity (flame height) (B), and predictions after wildfire
with and without previous fuel reduction treatments (Ager et al. 2013)
2 Trade-offs in High Mountain Conservation
43