Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation

Grimm, Marie; Köppel, Johann

doi:10.3390/su11246903

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As more attention has been paid to the wastewater treatment capabilities of CWs, the enhancement of the biogeochemical processes has increasingly become a primary design objective. In contrast, hydrological processes are largely overlooked, despite their important role in sustaining wetland biodiversity [114]. Indeed, hydrological regimes (i.e., temporal and spatial variations in water levels), which are considered the main driver of vegetation zonation in natural wetlands, are broadly homogenized in CWs [115].…”

Section: Cws Are Simplified Replications Of Natural Wetlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degradation of wetland ecosystems is currently recognized as one of the main threats to global biodiversity. As a means of compensation, constructed wetlands (CWs), which are built to treat agricultural runoff and municipal wastewater, have become important for maintaining biodiversity. Here, we review studies on the relationships between CWs and their associated biodiversity published over the past three decades. In doing so, we provide an overview of how wildlife utilizes CWs, and the effects of biodiversity on pollutant transformation and removal. Beyond their primary aim (to purify various kinds of wastewater), CWs provide sub-optimal habitat for many species and, in turn, their purification function can be strongly influenced by the biodiversity that they support. However, there are some difficulties when using CWs to conserve biodiversity because some key characteristics of these engineered ecosystems vary from natural wetlands, including some fundamental ecological processes. Without proper management intervention, these features of CWs can promote biological invasion, as well as form an ‘ecological trap’ for native species. Management options, such as basin-wide integrative management and building in more natural wetland components, can partially offset these adverse impacts. Overall, the awareness of managers and the public regarding the potential value of CWs in biodiversity conservation remains superficial. More in-depth research, especially on how to balance different stakeholder values between wastewater managers and conservationists, is now required.

show abstract

Section: Cws Are Simplified Replications Of Natural Wetlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, HBCs are rather diverse in purpose of what species and/or ecosystems is worth of conservation. Species and ecosystem specific economic analysis would provide much focused insight into financial success for new HCBs [36]. A different suite of case-specific variables would likely produce different results, and hence, detailed case studies that monitor the costs and benefits of conservation banks over time are needed to determine the ecological efficiency and return on investment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California

Poudel

Pokharel

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat conservation banking is a policy instrument for conserving endangered species by providing financial incentives for the landowners in the United States. This policy instrument aims to protect habitat, but little or no thought has been given to its financial performance. A financial analysis of habitat conservation banks (HCB) informs policymakers and conservation biologists of the long-term success of this policy and the future of HCBs. This paper evaluates 26 habitat conservation banks (HCB) in California by calculating their Net Present Values (NPV). We do so by compiling the cost and revenue data for habitat conservation banks. The average annual cost of operating HCBs was $42.78/acre (median: $22.58/acre), and the average credit price or revenue from credit sale was $6014.72/acre (median: $553.65/acre). The average NPV for 26 HCBs was $4205.90/acre at a 4% rate of return, indicating an overall positive return from such an easement instrument. However, only 14 HCBs out of 26 produced a positive return. With the inclusion of land acquisition costs, three of eight HCBs performed financially well. On the brighter side, the number of HCBs has increased with time. But there is not enough evidence to ascertain financial certainty from their revenues. A right selection of space (land acquisition costs can make or break finances for HCB) and species could encourage landowners to establish HCBs. This could build confidence on those who may have been discouraged from lack of knowledge and fear of losing revenue due to regulatory compliance to conserve endangered species habitat in their land. The findings are helpful in identifying lands and prioritizing investments to generate conservation credits.

show abstract

“…This suggests that the policy requirements do not support credible ecological requirements for NNL (Moilanen & Kotiaho 2018). The operational decisions that define the ecological success of a biodiversity offsetting project have been discussed in the scientific and gray literature (e.g., OECD 2016;Gardener et al 2013;Grimm & Köppel 2019). Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) grouped important offset design factors around objectives, characteristics of offset actions, and 3 well-known fundamental axes of the ecological reality: space, time, and biodiversity.…”

Section: R Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets

Moilanen

Kotiaho

2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.

show abstract

Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation

Cited by 20 publications

References 92 publications

Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value

Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value

Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About