Abstract
The rates of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss are alarming and current conservation efforts are not sufficient to stop them. The need for new tools is urgent. One approach is biodiversity offsetting: a developer causing habitat degradation provides an improvement in biodiversity so that the lost ecological value is compensated for. Accurate and ecologically meaningful measurement of losses and estimation of gains are essential in reaching the no net loss goal or any other desired outcome of biodiversity offsetting. The chosen calculation method strongly influences biodiversity outcomes. We compare a multiplicative method, which is based on a habitat condition index developed for measuring the state of ecosystems in Finland to two alternative approaches for building a calculation method: an additive function and a simpler matrix tool. We examine the different logic of each method by comparing the resulting trade ratios and examine the costs of offsetting for developers, which allows us to compare the cost-effectiveness of different types of offsets. The results show that the outcomes of the calculation methods differ in many aspects. The matrix approach is not able to consider small changes in the ecological state. The additive method gives always higher biodiversity values compared to the multiplicative method. The multiplicative method tends to require larger trade ratios than the additive method when trade ratios are larger than one. Using scoring intervals instead of using continuous components may increase the difference between the methods. In addition, the calculation methods have differences in dealing with the issue of substitutability.
Highlights
Biodiversity offsetting is a conservation tool designed to compensate for the loss of biodiversity caused by development projects (McKenney and Kiesecker 2010)
We found that the outcomes of the calculation methods differ in many aspects
The results are in line with Bull et al (2014a) who found significant differences between Habitat Hectares (HH) and the method developed in the UK and that their modified version of HH came closest to achieving no net loss of biodiversity (NNL) of biodiversity in their case study
Summary
Biodiversity offsetting is a conservation tool designed to compensate for the loss of biodiversity caused by development projects (McKenney and Kiesecker 2010). The trade ratio can be adjusted with multipliers to increase the offset requirement to account for factors such as risks and uncertainties regarding the success of restoration, time lags, leakage, flexibility, spatial issues, and other important aspects of offsetting (Laitila et al 2014; Moilanen and Kotiaho 2018; Moilanen et al 2009) Some of these issues could be better addressed with complementary approaches instead of multipliers (e.g., temporal issues can be overcome with habitat banking) (Bull et al 2017). We add to the literature by comparing numerically three different approaches to develop an offset calculation method: a multiplicative or additive function that combines multiple indicators or a simpler matrix method. Decaying wood (m3/ha) Decaying wood, stage 1 (m3/ha) Decaying wood, stage 2 (m3/ha) Decaying wood, stage 3 (m3/ha) Broad-leaved trees (m3/ha) Large trees (≥40 cm, pcs/ha)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
