Net Present Biodiversity Value and the Design of Biodiversity Offsets

Overton, Jacob McC.; Stephens, R. T. Theo; Ferrier, Simon

doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0342-x

Cited by 51 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(5), bottom) are evaluated and integrated over the entire planning horizon, thereby reflecting the time discounted cumulative utility loss. This follows (Overton et al, 2013) who suggest that discounting biodiversity values over time provides a more appropriate measure for guiding offset policy making than taking an end point (assumed equal to the initial point in ecological terms) only. We thus have:…”

Section: Setting Objectives For Offset Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Of sets of offsets: Cumulative impacts and strategies for compensatory restoration

Thébaud

Boschetti

Jennings

et al. 2015

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBiodiversity offsets are increasingly advocated as a flexible approach to managing the ecological costs of economic development. Arguably, however, this remains an area where policy-making has run ahead of science. A growing number of studies identify limitations of offsets in achieving ecologically sustainable outcomes, pointing to ethical and implementation issues that may undermine their effectiveness. We develop a novel system dynamic modelling framework to analyze the no net loss objective of development and biodiversity offsets. The modelling framework considers a marine-based example, where resource abundance depends on a habitat that is affected by a sequence of development projects, and biodiversity offsets are understood as habitat restoration actions. The model is used to explore the implications of four alternative offset management strategies for a regulator, which differ in how net loss is measured, and whether and how the cumulative impacts of development are considered. Our results confirm that, when it comes to offsets as a conservation tool, the devil lies in the details. Approaches to determining the magnitude of offsets required, as well as their timing and allocation among multiple developers, can result in potentially complex and undesired sets of economic incentives, with direct impacts on the ability to meet the overall objective of ecologically sustainable development. The approach and insights are of direct interest to conservation policy design in a broad range of marine and coastal contexts.

show abstract

Section: Setting Objectives For Offset Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Of sets of offsets: Cumulative impacts and strategies for compensatory restoration

Thébaud

Boschetti

Jennings

et al. 2015

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for time discounting has also been recognized for biodiversity impacts given that the losses to species and habitats are often more certain than are the offset benefits in the future (e.g. given restoration time lags and uncertainty of success) (Overton et al, 2013).…”

Section: Mitigation Replacement Ratiosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Tallis

Kennedy

Ruckelshaus³

et al. 2015

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tEmerging development policies and lending standards call for consideration of ecosystem services when mitigating impacts from development, yet little guidance exists to inform this process. Here we propose a comprehensive framework for advancing both biodiversity and ecosystem service mitigation. We have clarified a means for choosing representative ecosystem service targets alongside biodiversity targets, identified servicesheds as a useful spatial unit for assessing ecosystem service avoidance, impact, and offset options, and discuss methods for consistent calculation of biodiversity and ecosystem service mitigation ratios. We emphasize the need to move away from area-and habitat-based assessment methods for both biodiversity and ecosystem services towards functional assessments at landscape or seascape scales. Such comprehensive assessments more accurately reflect cumulative impacts and variation in environmental quality, social needs and value preferences. The integrated framework builds on the experience of biodiversity mitigation while addressing the unique opportunities and challenges presented by ecosystem service mitigation. These advances contribute to growing potential for economic development planning and execution that will minimize impacts on nature and maximize human wellbeing.

show abstract

“…Of practical concern, however, is how the suitability of like-for-unlike exchanges is determined. While work is being undertaken on developing methods for comparing unlike exchanges, one has yet been accepted into common usage in New Zealand (Quertier & Lavorel 2011;Overton et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward

Brown

Clarkson

Barton

et al. 2013

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological compensation is widely used, and often criticised, for promulgating poor outcomes for biodiversity. There is a lack of systematic research on ecological compensation and, to date, limited research globally into the perspectives of the various stakeholders involved. We undertook 116 semistructured interviews with practitioners working with ecological compensation in New Zealand. Participants consider that benefits to biodiversity are the chief attraction of ecological compensation (49.2% of all responses), with the disadvantages mainly relating to the difficulties of practical implementation of the concept. Our results also show that 96.5% of participants support the concept fully or to a limited extent and most (83%) participants consider that it contributes to sustainable management, with significant support (87.9%) for a statutory approach. Formal statutory guidance at a national level in New Zealand, and an increased focus upon follow-up and monitoring, is considered likely to generate more robust exchanges.

show abstract

Net Present Biodiversity Value and the Design of Biodiversity Offsets

Cited by 51 publications

References 29 publications

Of sets of offsets: Cumulative impacts and strategies for compensatory restoration

Of sets of offsets: Cumulative impacts and strategies for compensatory restoration

Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About