Biodiversity offsets may miss opportunities to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services
(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)
- author
- Sonter, Laura J. ; Gourevitch, Jesse ; Koh, Insu ; Nicholson, Charles C. LU ; Richardson, Leif L. ; Schwartz, Aaron J. ; Singh, Nitin K. ; Watson, Keri B. ; Maron, Martine and Ricketts, Taylor H.
- publishing date
- 2018-04
- 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}}, }