A global analysis reveals a collective gap in the transparency of offset policies and how biodiversity is measured

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Letters Pub Date : 2023-10-27 DOI:10.1111/conl.12987
Erica Marshall, Darren Southwell, Brendan A. Wintle, Heini Kujala
{"title":"A global analysis reveals a collective gap in the transparency of offset policies and how biodiversity is measured","authors":"Erica Marshall,&nbsp;Darren Southwell,&nbsp;Brendan A. Wintle,&nbsp;Heini Kujala","doi":"10.1111/conl.12987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Offsetting policies have increased worldwide, utilizing a range of biodiversity metrics to compensate for development impacts. We conducted a global analysis of offset legislation by reviewing policies from 108 countries, which have voluntary offsets, or which require offsets by law. We sought to understand how well biodiversity metrics and offset currencies are documented in current policies. Where biodiversity metrics are documented we aimed to understand how metrics were scored, combined, and multiplied to create offset currencies. We found only 22 jurisdictions (from 14 countries) had guidelines documenting how biodiversity should be assessed during offsetting, representing a significant gap in the guidance available for offsets. Of the 22 guidelines, 14 (63%) documented use of aggregated currencies, eight (23%) did not aggregate biodiversity metrics into a single currency, and three (17%) did not specify either approach. Habitat type and condition, as well as area, were widely recommended across policies (&gt;50%). Where species-level metrics were considered, guidelines generally focused on habitat distributions rather than abundance or population metrics. The lack of consistent and clear guidance about how biodiversity should be measured in offsets reduces our ability to determine the effectiveness of offsets in compensating for development impacts long term.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12987","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12987","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Offsetting policies have increased worldwide, utilizing a range of biodiversity metrics to compensate for development impacts. We conducted a global analysis of offset legislation by reviewing policies from 108 countries, which have voluntary offsets, or which require offsets by law. We sought to understand how well biodiversity metrics and offset currencies are documented in current policies. Where biodiversity metrics are documented we aimed to understand how metrics were scored, combined, and multiplied to create offset currencies. We found only 22 jurisdictions (from 14 countries) had guidelines documenting how biodiversity should be assessed during offsetting, representing a significant gap in the guidance available for offsets. Of the 22 guidelines, 14 (63%) documented use of aggregated currencies, eight (23%) did not aggregate biodiversity metrics into a single currency, and three (17%) did not specify either approach. Habitat type and condition, as well as area, were widely recommended across policies (>50%). Where species-level metrics were considered, guidelines generally focused on habitat distributions rather than abundance or population metrics. The lack of consistent and clear guidance about how biodiversity should be measured in offsets reduces our ability to determine the effectiveness of offsets in compensating for development impacts long term.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项全球分析揭示了抵消政策的透明度以及如何衡量生物多样性方面的集体差距
全球范围内的抵消政策有所增加,利用一系列生物多样性指标来补偿发展影响。我们通过审查108个国家的政策,对抵消立法进行了全球分析,这些国家有自愿抵消,或需要法律抵消。我们试图了解生物多样性指标和抵消货币在当前政策中的记录情况。在记录生物多样性指标的地方,我们旨在了解如何对指标进行评分、组合和相乘,以创建抵消货币。我们发现,只有22个司法管辖区(来自14个国家)有记录在抵消过程中应如何评估生物多样性的指导方针,这表明可用于抵消的指导方针存在重大差距。在22项指南中,14项(63%)记录了汇总货币的使用,8项(23%)没有将生物多样性指标汇总为一种货币,3项(17%)没有具体说明这两种方法。栖息地类型和条件以及面积在政策中得到了广泛建议(>;50%)。在考虑物种水平指标的情况下,指南通常侧重于栖息地分布,而不是丰度或种群指标。对于如何用补偿来衡量生物多样性,缺乏一致和明确的指导,降低了我们确定补偿在长期补偿发展影响方面的有效性的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
How Do We Identify Anthropogenic Allee Effects in the Wildlife Trade? Hunting for Sustainability: Indigenous Stewardship in the Cofán Territory of Zábalo Collective PES Contracts Can Motivate Institutional Creation to Conserve Forests: Experimental Evidence First Evidence of Individual Sharks Involved in Multiple Predatory Bites on People Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1