Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Biodiversity offsets may miss opportunities to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services

Sonter, Laura J. ; Gourevitch, Jesse ; Koh, Insu ; Nicholson, Charles C. LU orcid ; Richardson, Leif L. ; Schwartz, Aaron J. ; Singh, Nitin K. ; Watson, Keri B. ; Maron, Martine and Ricketts, Taylor H. (2018) In Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16(3). p.143-148
Abstract

Biodiversity offsets are most commonly used to mitigate the adverse impacts of development on biodiversity, but some offsets are now also designed to support ecosystem services (ES) goals. Here, we assemble a global database of biodiversity offsets (n = 70) to show that 41% already take ES into consideration, with the objective of enhancing cultural, regulating, and provisioning services. We found that biodiversity offsets were more likely to consider ES when (1) development projects reported impacts on services, (2) offsets had voluntary biodiversity goals, and (3) conservation organizations were involved. However, offsets that considered ES were similar in design (eg offsetting approach, extent, and location) to offsets focused solely... (More)

Biodiversity offsets are most commonly used to mitigate the adverse impacts of development on biodiversity, but some offsets are now also designed to support ecosystem services (ES) goals. Here, we assemble a global database of biodiversity offsets (n = 70) to show that 41% already take ES into consideration, with the objective of enhancing cultural, regulating, and provisioning services. We found that biodiversity offsets were more likely to consider ES when (1) development projects reported impacts on services, (2) offsets had voluntary biodiversity goals, and (3) conservation organizations were involved. However, offsets that considered ES were similar in design (eg offsetting approach, extent, and location) to offsets focused solely on biodiversity, suggesting that including ES goals may represent an attempt to strengthen community support for development projects, rather than to offset known ES impacts. We also found that 34% of all offsets displaced people and negatively affected livelihoods. Therefore, when biodiversity and ES are linked, current practices may not actually improve outcomes, instead incurring additional costs to communities and companies.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
in
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
volume
16
issue
3
pages
143 - 148
publisher
Ecological Society of America
external identifiers
  • scopus:85044793589
ISSN
1540-9295
DOI
10.1002/fee.1781
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Funding Information: We thank N Crossman, J Goldstein, L Mandle, J Morrell, and members of the Gund Institute for Environment for helpful comments, as well as the Lintilhac Foundation and the Gund and Parker families for support. LJS receives support from ARC Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE170100684) and USDA McIntire-Stennis program (VTZ-00138); JG and KBW receive support from USDA McIntire-Stennis (2014-32100-06050); IK receives support from USDA-NIFA (2012-51181-20105); CCN and AS receive support from NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (DGE1451866); LLR receives support from USDA-NIFA (11588247); NKS receives support from TNC Vermont (VT063016-01); and MM receives support from ARC Future Fellowship (FT140100516). The authors declare no conflict of interest. Publisher Copyright: © The Ecological Society of America
id
faaa13ee-8bff-44a5-bef4-b4421f20718f
date added to LUP
2023-02-09 16:42:31
date last changed
2023-03-29 17:48:11
@article{faaa13ee-8bff-44a5-bef4-b4421f20718f,
  abstract     = {{<p>Biodiversity offsets are most commonly used to mitigate the adverse impacts of development on biodiversity, but some offsets are now also designed to support ecosystem services (ES) goals. Here, we assemble a global database of biodiversity offsets (n = 70) to show that 41% already take ES into consideration, with the objective of enhancing cultural, regulating, and provisioning services. We found that biodiversity offsets were more likely to consider ES when (1) development projects reported impacts on services, (2) offsets had voluntary biodiversity goals, and (3) conservation organizations were involved. However, offsets that considered ES were similar in design (eg offsetting approach, extent, and location) to offsets focused solely on biodiversity, suggesting that including ES goals may represent an attempt to strengthen community support for development projects, rather than to offset known ES impacts. We also found that 34% of all offsets displaced people and negatively affected livelihoods. Therefore, when biodiversity and ES are linked, current practices may not actually improve outcomes, instead incurring additional costs to communities and companies.</p>}},
  author       = {{Sonter, Laura J. and Gourevitch, Jesse and Koh, Insu and Nicholson, Charles C. and Richardson, Leif L. and Schwartz, Aaron J. and Singh, Nitin K. and Watson, Keri B. and Maron, Martine and Ricketts, Taylor H.}},
  issn         = {{1540-9295}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{143--148}},
  publisher    = {{Ecological Society of America}},
  series       = {{Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment}},
  title        = {{Biodiversity offsets may miss opportunities to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fee.1781}},
  doi          = {{10.1002/fee.1781}},
  volume       = {{16}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}