Abstract
It is increasingly common for developers to be asked to manage the impacts of their projects on biodiversity by restoring other degraded habitats that are ecologically equivalent to those that are impacted. These measures, called biodiversity offsets, generally aim to achieve ‘no net loss’ (NNL) of biodiversity. Using spatially-explicit modeling, different options were compared in terms of their performance in offsetting the impacts on wetlands of the planned urban expansion around Grenoble (France). Two implementation models for offsetting were tested: (a) the widespread bespoke permittee-led restoration project model, resulting in a patchwork of restored wetlands, and (b) recently-established aggregated and anticipated “banking” approaches whereby larger sets of adjacent parcels offset the impacts of several projects. Two ecological equivalence methods for sizing offsets were simulated: (a) the historically-prevalent area-based approach and (b) recently introduced approaches whereby offsets are sized to ensure NNL of wetland functions. Simulations showed that a mix of functional methods with minimum area requirements was more likely to achieve NNL of wetland area and function across the study area and within each subwatershed. Our methodology can be used to test the carrying capacity of a landscape to support urban expansion and its associated offsetting in order to formulate more sustainable development plans.
Highlights
The old way scenario leads to no net loss’ (NNL) of ecological function and biodiversity at the scale of the whole case study landscape, but this conceals local net loss outcomes
This reflects the limits of the area-based approaches to offsetting that were widely used for many years in France, and still are in many countries [1]
Taking into account the likely reluctance of farmers to give up their best farmland for wetland restoration exacerbates this risk, leading to an overall net loss
Summary
In an increasing number of countries, the mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems includes compensating for any unavoidable impacts through ecological conservation or restoration actions in the field [1]. Ecological compensation should remain the last resort, after all other avoidance and reduction measures have been implemented to minimize the residual impact of a development project on the environment. Developers are required to apply the aforementioned mitigation hierarchy. Biodiversity offsetting is a “specific and rigorously quantified type of compensation measure” [2]. 1690) with the stated objective of achieving ‘no net loss’ (NNL) of biodiversity—in other words, an ecological equivalence between the impacted and the compensated biodiversity. (p. 1690) with the stated objective of achieving ‘no net loss’ (NNL) of biodiversity—in other words, an ecological equivalence between the impacted and the compensated biodiversity. 4.0/).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
