Ecological and Economic Implications of Alternative Metrics in Biodiversity Offset Markets

Katherine Simpson; Frans de Vries; Martin Dallimer; Paul Armsworth; Nick Hanley

doi:10.1111/cobi.13906

Ecological and Economic Implications of Alternative Metrics in Biodiversity Offset Markets

Katherine Simpson^* (Corresponding Author), Frans de Vries, Martin Dallimer, Paul Armsworth, Nick Hanley

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Policy tools are needed which allow us to reconcile human development pressures with conservation management priorities. Biodiversity offsetting is a tool that can be used to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activities. Landowners can choose to undertake conservation actions including habitat restoration to generate biodiversity offsets. Consideration of the incentives facing landowners as potential biodiversity offset providers, and developers as potential buyers of credits, is critical when considering the ecological and economic landscape scale outcomes of alternative offset metrics. There is an expectation that landowners will always seek to conserve the least profitable land parcels and in turn, this determines the spatial location of biodiversity offset credits. We developed an ecological-economic model to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of offsetting for a habitat-based metric and a species-based metric. We were interested in whether these metrics would adequately capture the indirect benefits of offsetting on species not defined under the no net loss policy. We simulated a biodiversity offset market for a case study landscape, linking species distribution modelling and an economic model of landowner choice based on economic returns of the alternative land management options (restore, develop, or maintain existing land use). We found that neither the habitat nor species metric adequately captured the indirect benefits of offsetting on related habitats or species. The underlying species distributions, layered with the agricultural and development rental values of parcels, resulted in very different landscape outcomes depending on the metric chosen. Where policymakers are aiming for the metric to act as an indicator to mitigate impacts on a range of closely related habitats and species, then a simple no net loss target is not adequate. Furthermore, if we wish to secure the most ecologically beneficial design of offsets policy, we need to understand the economic decision-making processes of the landowners.

Original language	English
Article number	e13906
Number of pages	11
Journal	Conservation Biology
Volume	36
Issue number	5
Early online date	14 Mar 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13906
Publication status	Published - 1 Oct 2022

Bibliographical note

We thank the Leverhulme Trust for part-funding this work, as well as the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 project “EFFECT” (Grant Agreement 817903).

Data Availability Statement

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

Keywords

biodiversity loss
biodiversity metrics
biodiversity offsets
no net loss
simulation model

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/cobi.13906Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Simpson_etal_CB_Ecological_and_economic_AAM
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13906. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/licensing/self-archiving.html
Accepted author manuscript, 2.18 MBLicence: Unspecified
Simpson_etal_CB_Ecological_and_Econmic_VOR
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivsLicense, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.© 2022 The Authors.Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Sociejavascript:void(0);ty for Conservation Biology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Final published version, 2.66 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{e7f4348137974ca7befdc7d798df0fa8,

title = "Ecological and Economic Implications of Alternative Metrics in Biodiversity Offset Markets",

abstract = "Policy tools are needed which allow us to reconcile human development pressures with conservation management priorities. Biodiversity offsetting is a tool that can be used to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activities. Landowners can choose to undertake conservation actions including habitat restoration to generate biodiversity offsets. Consideration of the incentives facing landowners as potential biodiversity offset providers, and developers as potential buyers of credits, is critical when considering the ecological and economic landscape scale outcomes of alternative offset metrics. There is an expectation that landowners will always seek to conserve the least profitable land parcels and in turn, this determines the spatial location of biodiversity offset credits. We developed an ecological-economic model to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of offsetting for a habitat-based metric and a species-based metric. We were interested in whether these metrics would adequately capture the indirect benefits of offsetting on species not defined under the no net loss policy. We simulated a biodiversity offset market for a case study landscape, linking species distribution modelling and an economic model of landowner choice based on economic returns of the alternative land management options (restore, develop, or maintain existing land use). We found that neither the habitat nor species metric adequately captured the indirect benefits of offsetting on related habitats or species. The underlying species distributions, layered with the agricultural and development rental values of parcels, resulted in very different landscape outcomes depending on the metric chosen. Where policymakers are aiming for the metric to act as an indicator to mitigate impacts on a range of closely related habitats and species, then a simple no net loss target is not adequate. Furthermore, if we wish to secure the most ecologically beneficial design of offsets policy, we need to understand the economic decision-making processes of the landowners.",

keywords = "biodiversity loss, biodiversity metrics, biodiversity offsets, no net loss, simulation model",

author = "Katherine Simpson and {de Vries}, Frans and Martin Dallimer and Paul Armsworth and Nick Hanley",

note = "We thank the Leverhulme Trust for part-funding this work, as well as the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 project “EFFECT” (Grant Agreement 817903).",

year = "2022",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/cobi.13906",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

journal = "Conservation Biology",

issn = "0888-8892",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ecological and Economic Implications of Alternative Metrics in Biodiversity Offset Markets

AU - Simpson, Katherine

AU - de Vries, Frans

AU - Dallimer, Martin

AU - Armsworth, Paul

AU - Hanley, Nick

N1 - We thank the Leverhulme Trust for part-funding this work, as well as the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 project “EFFECT” (Grant Agreement 817903).

PY - 2022/10/1

Y1 - 2022/10/1

N2 - Policy tools are needed which allow us to reconcile human development pressures with conservation management priorities. Biodiversity offsetting is a tool that can be used to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activities. Landowners can choose to undertake conservation actions including habitat restoration to generate biodiversity offsets. Consideration of the incentives facing landowners as potential biodiversity offset providers, and developers as potential buyers of credits, is critical when considering the ecological and economic landscape scale outcomes of alternative offset metrics. There is an expectation that landowners will always seek to conserve the least profitable land parcels and in turn, this determines the spatial location of biodiversity offset credits. We developed an ecological-economic model to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of offsetting for a habitat-based metric and a species-based metric. We were interested in whether these metrics would adequately capture the indirect benefits of offsetting on species not defined under the no net loss policy. We simulated a biodiversity offset market for a case study landscape, linking species distribution modelling and an economic model of landowner choice based on economic returns of the alternative land management options (restore, develop, or maintain existing land use). We found that neither the habitat nor species metric adequately captured the indirect benefits of offsetting on related habitats or species. The underlying species distributions, layered with the agricultural and development rental values of parcels, resulted in very different landscape outcomes depending on the metric chosen. Where policymakers are aiming for the metric to act as an indicator to mitigate impacts on a range of closely related habitats and species, then a simple no net loss target is not adequate. Furthermore, if we wish to secure the most ecologically beneficial design of offsets policy, we need to understand the economic decision-making processes of the landowners.

AB - Policy tools are needed which allow us to reconcile human development pressures with conservation management priorities. Biodiversity offsetting is a tool that can be used to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activities. Landowners can choose to undertake conservation actions including habitat restoration to generate biodiversity offsets. Consideration of the incentives facing landowners as potential biodiversity offset providers, and developers as potential buyers of credits, is critical when considering the ecological and economic landscape scale outcomes of alternative offset metrics. There is an expectation that landowners will always seek to conserve the least profitable land parcels and in turn, this determines the spatial location of biodiversity offset credits. We developed an ecological-economic model to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of offsetting for a habitat-based metric and a species-based metric. We were interested in whether these metrics would adequately capture the indirect benefits of offsetting on species not defined under the no net loss policy. We simulated a biodiversity offset market for a case study landscape, linking species distribution modelling and an economic model of landowner choice based on economic returns of the alternative land management options (restore, develop, or maintain existing land use). We found that neither the habitat nor species metric adequately captured the indirect benefits of offsetting on related habitats or species. The underlying species distributions, layered with the agricultural and development rental values of parcels, resulted in very different landscape outcomes depending on the metric chosen. Where policymakers are aiming for the metric to act as an indicator to mitigate impacts on a range of closely related habitats and species, then a simple no net loss target is not adequate. Furthermore, if we wish to secure the most ecologically beneficial design of offsets policy, we need to understand the economic decision-making processes of the landowners.

KW - biodiversity loss

KW - biodiversity metrics

KW - biodiversity offsets

KW - no net loss

KW - simulation model

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.13906

DO - 10.1111/cobi.13906

M3 - Article

SN - 0888-8892

VL - 36

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

IS - 5

M1 - e13906

ER -

Ecological and Economic Implications of Alternative Metrics in Biodiversity Offset Markets

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Data Availability Statement

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this