Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods

被引:37
作者
Gamarra, Maria Jose Carreras [1 ]
Lassoie, James Philip [1 ]
Milder, Jeffrey [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Cornell Univ, Coll Agr & Life Sci, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
[2] Rainforest Alliance, 233 Broadway,28th Floor, New York, NY 10279 USA
关键词
Biodiversity accounting; Biodiversity metric; Biodiversity offset; No net loss; Ecological equivalency; ECOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; CONSERVATION; POLICY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.008
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Biodiversity offset strategies are based on the explicit calculation of both losses and gains necessary to establish ecological equivalence between impact and offset areas. Given the importance of quantifying biodiversity values, various accounting methods and metrics are continuously being developed and tested for this purpose. Considering the wide array of alternatives, selecting an appropriate one for a specific project can be not only challenging, but also crucial; accounting methods can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of an offsetting strategy, and if not well-suited to the context and values being offset, a no net loss outcome might not be delivered. To date there has been no systematic review or comparative classification of the available biodiversity accounting alternatives that aim at facilitating metric selection, and no tools that guide decision-makers throughout such a complex process. We fill this gap by developing a set of analyses to support (i) identifying the spectrum of available alternatives, (ii) understanding the characteristics of each and, ultimately (iii) making the most sensible and sound decision about which one to implement. The metric menu, scoring matrix, and decision tree developed can be used by biodiversity offsetting practitioners to help select an existing metric, and thus achieve successful outcomes that advance the goal of no net loss of biodiversity.
引用
收藏
页码:36 / 43
页数:8
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2020, STAND GUID NOT
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, BIOD OFFS DES HDB UP
[3]  
BBOP, 2012, RES PAP NO NET LOSS
[4]   Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? [J].
Bezombes, Lucie ;
Gaucherand, Stephanie ;
Kerbiriou, Christian ;
Reinert, Marie-Eve ;
Spiegelberger, Thomas .
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2017, 60 (02) :216-230
[5]  
Brownlie S., 2009, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais., V27, P227, DOI DOI 10.3152/146155109X465968
[6]   Comparing biodiversity offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan [J].
Bull, J. W. ;
Milner-Gulland, E. J. ;
Suttle, K. B. ;
Singh, N. J. .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2014, 178 :2-10
[7]   Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice [J].
Bull, Joseph W. ;
Suttle, K. Blake ;
Gordon, Ascelin ;
Singh, Navinder J. ;
Milner-Gulland, E. J. .
ORYX, 2013, 47 (03) :369-380
[8]  
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), 2012, STAND BIOD OFFS TOOL
[9]   Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions [J].
Cook, DJ ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Haynes, RB .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) :376-380
[10]  
DEFRA, 2011, TECHN PAP PROP METR