Uncertainty in the Design and Implementation of Conservation Offsets

A special issue of Land (ISSN 2073-445X). This special issue belongs to the section "Landscape Ecology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 September 2021) | Viewed by 4109

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Ecological Modelling, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
Interests: ecology and economics of biodiversity conservation; (market-based) land-use policies; ecological–economic modeling

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Despite various political efforts, biodiversity is still declining dramatically, which is to a large extent due to land-use intensification. Although an increasing proportion of the Earth’s surface is protected for biodiversity conservation, much of the world’s biodiversity is on private land. Next to regulations, market-based instruments such as conservation payments and conservation offsets are important tools for biodiversity conservation on private lands. Conservation offsets are based on the concept of tradable permits that is successfully applied, e.g., in pollution control. Airborne emissions, such as those of greenhouse gases, can be rather easily traded, because it does not play a major role where (and largely when) they take place. Additionally, the relative impacts of the different greenhouse gases are relatively well-known, so substitution rates can be calculated easily to trade different gases. Applying the tradable permits concept to biodiversity conservation, in contrast, is much more difficult, because biodiversity is multifaceted, spatially heterogeneous, and dynamic. Whether a conservation offset scheme is able to avoid net loss of biodiversity or achieve no net loss cost-effectively is subject to considerable uncertainty. This Special Issue welcomes theoretical and empirical papers that address issues of uncertainty in the design and implementation of conservation offsets. Regardless of the type of study, papers should have practical relevance or advance our theoretical understanding, or (ideally) both.

Prof. Dr. Martin Drechsler
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Land is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • biodiversity
  • conservation offsets
  • cost-effectiveness
  • effectiveness
  • market-based conservation instruments
  • spatial heterogeneity
  • uncertainty

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 259 KiB  
Article
Bundling of Ecosystem Services in Conservation Offsets: Risks and How They Can Be Avoided
by Martin Drechsler
Land 2021, 10(6), 628; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060628 - 11 Jun 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1277
Abstract
Conservation offsets are increasingly used as an instrument to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services on private lands. Bundling ecosystem services (ES) in the market transactions saves costs but implies that only the bundle of ES is conserved while individual ES may decline. This [...] Read more.
Conservation offsets are increasingly used as an instrument to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services on private lands. Bundling ecosystem services (ES) in the market transactions saves costs but implies that only the bundle of ES is conserved while individual ES may decline. This paper presents a simple model analysis of a conservation offset scheme to identify conditions under which bundling can lead to such undesired declines. As it turns out, these are favoured by rarity of the ES as well as a positive correlation between their abundance and the cost of their conservation. A market rule is proposed that is able to avert undesired ES declines. Rather than on sums or means of ES, this market rule focuses on the least abundant ES. Systematic variation of model parameters shows that this trading rule is most effective in those cases where the likelihood of undesired ES losses is highest. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Uncertainty in the Design and Implementation of Conservation Offsets)
14 pages, 246 KiB  
Article
Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking
by Marie Grimm
Land 2021, 10(6), 565; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060565 - 27 May 2021
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 2132
Abstract
Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the [...] Read more.
Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the US Endangered Species Act. This article provides a case study analysis of two conservation banks in the state of California, comparing the conservation gains provided by banks with the losses from development impacts. It provides an analysis of credits and metrics to determine whether the gains are equal to the losses in terms of type, condition, and amount. Results do show that the gains exceed the losses in terms of acreage. However, the program uses indirect metrics (acreage), and the equivalence of the losses and gains, besides habitat type and size, is not reflected. Banks provide a baseline in their documentation and conduct monitoring of species abundance and habitat quality, but they do not use it to measure additional conservation gains. More detailed metrics and transparent indices to certify the acres in production could allow for a quantification of conservation benefits and an evaluation of program success. However, selecting standardized metrics is challenging because they need to be species-specific to reflect the goal of species recovery, and still be operational in practice. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Uncertainty in the Design and Implementation of Conservation Offsets)
Back to TopTop