Literature DB >> 28493017

Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

Lucie Bezombes1,2, Stéphanie Gaucherand3, Christian Kerbiriou4, Marie-Eve Reinert5, Thomas Spiegelberger3.   

Abstract

In many countries, biodiversity compensation is required to counterbalance negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity by carrying out ecological measures, called offset when the goal is to reach "no net loss" of biodiversity. One main issue is to ensure that offset gains are equivalent to impact-related losses. Ecological equivalence is assessed with ecological equivalence assessment methods taking into account a range of key considerations that we summarized as ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty. When equivalence assessment methods take into account all considerations, we call them "comprehensive". Equivalence assessment methods should also aim to be science-based and operational, which is challenging. Many equivalence assessment methods have been developed worldwide but none is fully satisfying. In the present study, we examine 13 equivalence assessment methods in order to identify (i) their general structure and (ii) the synergies and trade-offs between equivalence assessment methods characteristics related to operationality, scientific-basis and comprehensiveness (called "challenges" in his paper). We evaluate each equivalence assessment methods on the basis of 12 criteria describing the level of achievement of each challenge. We observe that all equivalence assessment methods share a general structure, with possible improvements in the choice of target biodiversity, the indicators used, the integration of landscape context and the multipliers reflecting time lags and uncertainties. We show that no equivalence assessment methods combines all challenges perfectly. There are trade-offs between and within the challenges: operationality tends to be favored while scientific basis are integrated heterogeneously in equivalence assessment methods development. One way of improving the challenges combination would be the use of offset dedicated data-bases providing scientific feedbacks on previous offset measures.

Keywords:  Biodiversity offset; Compensation; Ecological equivalence; Ecological equivalence assessment methods; Mitigation hierarchy; No net loss

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28493017     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  17 in total

Review 1.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.

Authors:  O E Sala; F S Chapin; J J Armesto; E Berlow; J Bloomfield; R Dirzo; E Huber-Sanwald; L F Huenneke; R B Jackson; A Kinzig; R Leemans; D M Lodge; H A Mooney; M Oesterheld; N L Poff; M T Sykes; B H Walker; M Walker; D H Wall
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-03-10       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Ecological compensation in Dutch highway planning.

Authors:  R Cuperus; M M Bakermans; H A De Haes; K J Canters
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change.

Authors:  David U Hooper; E Carol Adair; Bradley J Cardinale; Jarrett E K Byrnes; Bruce A Hungate; Kristin L Matulich; Andrew Gonzalez; J Emmett Duffy; Lars Gamfeldt; Mary I O'Connor
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Modeling with uncertain science: estimating mitigation credits from abating lead poisoning in Golden Eagles.

Authors:  Jean Fitts Cochrane; Eric Lonsdorf; Taber D Allison; Carol A Sanders-Reed
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.657

5.  Offsets and conservation of the species of the EU habitats and birds directives.

Authors:  Baptiste Regnery; Denis Couvet; Christian Kerbiriou
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 6.560

Review 6.  Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss.

Authors:  Toby A Gardner; Amrei VON Hase; Susie Brownlie; Jonathan M M Ekstrom; John D Pilgrim; Conrad E Savy; R T Theo Stephens; Jo Treweek; Graham T Ussher; Gerri Ward; Kerry Ten Kate
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 6.560

7.  The Cultural Dimensions of Freshwater Wetland Assessments: Lessons Learned from the Application of US Rapid Assessment Methods in France.

Authors:  Stéphanie Gaucherand; Eugénie Schwoertzig; Jean-Christophe Clement; Brad Johnson; Fabien Quétier
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 3.266

8.  Mining and biodiversity offsets: a transparent and science-based approach to measure "no-net-loss".

Authors:  Malika Virah-Sawmy; Johannes Ebeling; Roslyn Taplin
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 6.789

9.  Improving marine biodiversity offsetting: A proposed methodology for better assessing losses and gains.

Authors:  Adeline Bas; Céline Jacob; Julien Hay; Sylvain Pioch; Sébastien Thorin
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 6.789

10.  A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence.

Authors:  Jussi Laitila; Atte Moilanen; Federico M Pouzols
Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 7.781

View more
  1 in total

1.  Precision, Applicability, and Economic Implications: A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes.

Authors:  Johanna Kangas; Peter Kullberg; Minna Pekkonen; Janne S Kotiaho; Markku Ollikainen
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.644

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.