Comparing Conservation Value Maps and Mapping Methods in a Rural Landscape in Southern Finland

We tested to what extent conservation value maps are different if the valuation and mapping method is changed. We compared 66 different conservation value and 4 different ecosystem service maps. Using remote sensing and other georeferenced data, we produced 2 different habitat type maps, which were 50 % similar. We valued each mapped habitat type based on rarity corrected potential number of vascular plant species and naturalness using 6 different valuation alternatives. We mapped habitat type connectivity and complementarity using 2 main approaches. The habitat type valuation alternatives were quite similar, but if the habitat type naturalness was taken into account, differences were larger (correlations between maps 0.38– 1.00). Different connectivity and complementarity calculations yielded different results, variation between different approaches being larger (correlations -0.15–0.44) than inside an approach (correlations 0.31–0.60). Conservation value maps were very different from ecosystem service maps (carbon storage, timber production potential, landscape value for recreation) (correlations -0.29–0.47). We show that valuation and mapping approach has a large effect on the conservation value map and the correlation between ecosystem service and conservation value maps depends on the used mapping approach. As different mapping approaches provide different maps, maps should be used with care.