Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems

When evaluating the impact of a biodiversity conservation intervention, a ‘counterfactual’ is needed, as true experimental controls are typically unavailable. Counterfactuals are possible alternative system trajectories in the absence of an intervention and comparing observed outcomes against the chosen counterfactual allows the impact (change attributable to the intervention) to be determined. Since counterfactuals are hypothetical scenarios, and by definition never occur, they must be estimated. Sometimes there may be many plausible counterfactuals, given that they can include multiple drivers of biodiversity change, and be defined on a range of spatial or temporal scales. Here we posit that, by definition, conservation interventions always take place in social-ecological systems (SES; ecological systems integrated with human actors). Evaluating the impact of an intervention within an SES therefore means taking into account the counterfactuals assumed by different human actors. Use of different counterfactuals by different actors will give rise to perceived differences in the impacts of interventions, which may lead to disagreement about its success or the effectiveness of the underlying approach. Despite that there are biophysical biodiversity trends, it is often true that no single counterfactual is definitively the ‘right one’ for conservation assessment, so multiple evaluations of intervention efficacy could be considered justifiable. Therefore, we propose the need to calculate a quantity termed the sum of perceived differences, which captures the range of impact estimates associated with different actors within a given SES. The sum of perceived differences gives some indication how closely actors within an SES agree on the impacts of an intervention. We illustrate the concept of perceived differences using a set of global, national and regional case studies. We discuss options for minimising the sum, drawing upon literatures from conservation science, psychology, behavioural economics, management and finance

Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges

Biodiversity offsetting aims to achieve at least ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity by fully compensating for residual development-induced biodiversity losses after the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, remediate) has been applied. Actions used to generate offsets can include securing protection, maintaining condition, or enhancing condition of targeted biodiversity at an offset site. Protection and maintenance actions aim to prevent future loss of biodiversity, so such offsets are referred to as ‘averted loss’ offsets. However, the benefits of such approaches can be highly uncertain and opaque, because assumptions about the change in likelihood of loss due to the offset are often implicit. As a result, the gain generated by averting losses can be intentionally or inadvertently overestimated, leading to offset outcomes that are insufficient for achieving no net loss of biodiversity. We present a method and decision tree to guide consistent and credible estimation of the likelihood of loss of a proposed offset site with and without protection, for use when calculating the amount of benefit associated with the ‘protection’ component of averted loss offsets. In circumstances such as when a jurisdictional offset policy applies to most impacts, plausible estimates of averted loss can be very low. Averting further loss of biodiversity is desirable, and averted loss offsets can be a valid approach for generating tangible gains. However, overestimation of averted loss benefits poses a major risk to biodiversity

Cross-boundary collaboration: Key to the conservation puzzle

Conservation science is advancing rapidly, yet the majority of research overlooks a key factor that can play a major role in shaping the outcomes of conservation initiatives: collaboration. Here, we review the importance, benefits and limitations of incorporating collaboration into conservation and specifically into systematic conservation planning, providing a general framework for considering collaboration in conservation planning. Recent work shows that cross-boundary collaboration can have both positive and negative impacts on the outcomes of conservation and management efforts for protected areas, ecosystems, threatened and invasive species. The feasibility of collaboration, its likely effects and associated trade-offs should therefore be explicitly incorporated into conservation science and planning. This will ensure that conservation decisions avoid wasted funding when collaboration is infeasible, promoting collaboration when the benefits outweigh the costs

Modelling trade offs between public and private conservation policies

To reduce global biodiversity loss, there is an urgent need to determine the most efficient allocation of conservation resources. Recently, there has been a growing trend for many governments to supplement public ownership and management of reserves with incentive programs for conservation on private land. At the same time, policies to promote conservation on private land are rarely evaluated in terms of their ecological consequences. This raises important questions, such as the extent to which private land conservation can improve conservation outcomes, and how it should be mixed with more traditional public land conservation. We address these questions, using a general framework for modelling environmental policies and a case study examining the conservation of endangered native grasslands to the west of Melbourne, Australia. Specifically, we examine three policies that involve: i) spending all resources on creating public conservation areas; ii) spending all resources on an ongoing incentive program where private landholders are paid to manage vegetation on their property with 5-year contracts; and iii) splitting resources between these two approaches. The performance of each strategy is quantified with a vegetation condition change model that predicts future changes in grassland quality. Of the policies tested, no one policy was always best and policy performance depended on the objectives of those enacting the policy. This work demonstrates a general method for evaluating environmental policies and highlights the utility of a model which combines ecological and socioeconomic processes.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figure

Biodiversity offsetting can relocate nature away from people: an empirical case study in Western Australia

Regular contact with nature provides multiple health benefits for people, but biodiversity is declining fast in an urbanizing world. Biodiversity offsets are implemented to compensate for the negative residual impacts of economic development projects on biodiversity, but the impacts on people who stand to lose biodiversity from their local environment are rarely considered. Offsetting typically involves creating, restoring or protecting biodiversity values at a specified site that can be located some distance away from the development site. In this article, we explore whether any relocation of nature is occurring due to development and offsets in Western Australia (WA); a jurisdiction with one of the world’s few spatially referenced and comprehensive public offset registers. We analysed data from 158 projects within the WA Environmental Offsets Register. We compared the location of development sites within 50 km (the urban and peri urban zone) and 50-500 km (~one day’s drive) of the central business district (CBD) of Perth with the associated offset sites. The development and offset process together can be considered to contribute to a loss of urban nature as the offset sites tended to be further away from urban areas than the associated development sites. The offset sites were also located in significantly lower population density areas. However, offsets increased the publicly accessible land area by changing land ownership and creating amenity benefit by improving nature values on public land. Nevertheless, it is unclear to what extent relocation of nature further from people is balanced by increased public access to nature. In order to maintain nature connectedness, ecosystem service delivery and environmental justice in cities, we argue offset policies should require spatial proximity between impact and offset sites

Biodiversity offsetting can relocate nature away from people: An empirical case study in Western Australia

Regular contact with nature provides multiple health benefits for people, but biodiversity is declining fast in an urbanizing world. Biodiversity offsets are implemented to compensate for the negative residual impacts of economic development projects on biodiversity, but the impacts on people who stand to lose biodiversity from their local environment are rarely considered. Offsetting typically involves creating, restoring or protecting biodiversity values at a specified site that can be located some distance away from the development site. In this article, we explore whether any relocation of nature is occurring due to development and offsets in Western Australia (WA); a jurisdiction with one of the world's few spatially referenced and comprehensive public offset registers. We analyzed data from 158 projects within the WA Environmental Offsets Register. We compared the location of development sites within 50 km (the urban and peri urban zone) and 500 km (~one day's drive) of the central business district (CBD) of Perth with the associated offset sites. The development and offset process together can be considered to contribute to a loss of urban nature as the offset sites tended to be further away from urban areas than the associated development sites. The offset sites were also located in significantly lower population density areas. However, offsets increased the publicly accessible land area by changing land ownership and creating amenity benefit by improving nature values on public land. Nevertheless, it is unclear to what extent relocation of nature further from people is balanced by increased public access to nature. In order to maintain nature connectedness, ecosystem service delivery and environmental justice in cities, we argue offset policies should require spatial proximity between impact and offset sites.</p

The impact of terrestrial protected areas on vegetation extent and condition : a systematic review protocol

Background Establishing protected areas is a key approach to protecting nature. However, protected areas are often biased towards remote and less productive lands. It is important to evaluate the impacts protected areas have had, or in other words, what changes in outcomes of interest are attributable to protected areas. Studies that evaluate the impact of protected areas on vegetation-the state and processes that support biodiversity-are scarce and published in a range of disciplines. This systematic review will scope, identify, and synthesize studies that quantitatively measure the impact of protected areas on vegetation extent and condition. The findings will be useful for researchers and policy makers and provide important knowledge for setting post 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This review will also identify research gaps in the current evidence base and provide direction for future research. Methods This review follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidelines for evidence synthesis and complies with the ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis) reporting framework. We will use a comprehensive search strategy developed through several rounds of scoping review to cover databases; Web of Science, Scopus and CAB s, 16 organizational websites, google scholar and existing review documents. Our search terms and strategies aim to find impact evaluation studies (both peer-reviewed and grey literature) in English from protected areas globally. The search results will be screened at title, abstract, and then full text by two independent reviewers. A quality appraisal of evidence will be conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) risk of bias tool. Review results will be presented in the form of narrative synthesis, as well as in meta-analysis form, where data quality and amount allow.Peer reviewe

Spatial scale influences how people value and perceive green open space

It is important for landscape planners and managers to understand how urban residents value and interact with green open spaces. However, the effect of spatial scale on values and perceptions of green open spaces has to date received little attention. This study explored the influence of spatial scale using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) methods in the Lower Hunter region of Australia. By asking respondents to assign markers denoting various values and preferences to green spaces displayed on maps of their suburb and municipality, the influence of scale could be assessed experimentally. A greater abundance and diversity of value markers were consistently assigned at the suburb scale, yet this pattern was more pronounced for some values (e.g. physical activity) than others (e.g. nature, cultural significance). The strength of this relationship was related to socio-demographic variables such as education and income. These results have implications for understanding human-environment relationships and the use of PPGIS techniques to inform environmental planning

Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers to confirm no net loss

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The AuthorsIn the face of the ongoing biodiversity crisis, questions are arising regarding the success, or lack thereof, of biodiversity offset schemes, where biodiversity losses from human development are compensated by producing equitable gains elsewhere. The overarching goal of offsetting is to deliver no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. Assessing whether offsetting does indeed deliver NNL is, however, challenging because of a lack of clear and reliable information about offset schemes. Here we consider barriers in tracking NNL outcomes, outline criteria of public offset registers to enable accessible and credible reporting of NNL, and show how existing registers fail to satisfy those criteria. The lack of accessibility and transparency in existing registers represents a fundamental gap between NNL targets and a valid tracking system, which challenges the impetus to enact the transformative changes needed to reverse biodiversity decline.Peer reviewe

The hidden biodiversity risks of increasing flexibility in biodiversity offset trades

Market-like mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting have emerged globally as supposedly cost-effective approaches for mitigating the impacts of development. In reality, offset buyers have commonly found that required credits are scarce and/or expensive. One response has been to seek improved market functionality, increasing eligible offset supply by allowing greater flexibility in the offset trading rules. These include increasing the size of geographical trading areas and expanding out-of-kind trades (‘geographical’ and ‘ecological’ flexibility). We summarise the arguments for and against flexibility, ultimately arguing that increasing flexibility undermines the achievement of No Net Loss (or Net Gain) of biodiversity where high-quality governance is lacking. We argue expanding out-of-kind trading often increases the pool of potentially eligible offsets with limited conservation justification. This interferes with vital information regarding the scarcity of the impacted biodiversity feature, thereby disincentivising impact avoidance. When a biodiversity feature under threat of development is scarce, expensive offsets are an essential feature of the economics of offsetting which communicate that scarcity, not a problem to be regulated away. We present examples where increasing ecological flexibility may be justifying the loss of conservation priorities. We also discuss how increasing geographical flexibility might compromise the additionality principle. We highlight alternative mechanisms for enhancing offset supply without the risks associated with increasing flexibility, including reducing policy uncertainty and improving engagement and awareness to increase landholder participation. Although there are legitimate reasons for increasing offsetting flexibility in some specific contexts, we argue that the biodiversity risks are considerable, and potentially undermine ‘no net loss’ outcomes