Pooling biodiversity offsets to improve habitat connectivity and species conservation.

Land developers can apply biodiversity offsetting in different ways, from a project-by-project approach to a pooled and proactive approach, this latter appearing to provide greater advantages both in terms of implementation and of the No Net Loss objective. Incorporating landscape connectivity into the mitigation hierarchy is commonly recommended, but the benefits of pooling and anticipating offsets have never really been demonstrated from modeling approaches. Here, we compare connectivity gains from two different offsetting scenarios, when interconnections at offset sites are taken and not taken into account. Assuming that gains can be increased by optimizing the location of offsets, we identified sites where biodiversity offsetting generates the greatest ecological gains in habitat connectivity. The method was applied to a study case in the suburbs of Lyon (Southern France) using several representative species and the landscape functional connectivity model Graphab. Pooling biodiversity offsets led to additional gains in overall habitat connectivity of +103% on average, which we show can be further improved (+8%) by using a patch addition process available in Graphab to plan spatially and ecologically coherent offsetting areas. Pooling and anticipating biodiversity offsets in this way can help preserve the biodiversity and the functionality of natural environments at the territorial scale.

[1]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Planning impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting using software for spatial conservation prioritisation , 2013, Wildlife Research.

[2]  Maria Jose Carreras Gamarra,et al.  Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  A multi-species approach for assessing the impact of land-cover changes on landscape connectivity , 2017, Landscape Ecology.

[4]  M. Fortin,et al.  EDITOR'S CHOICE: Stepping stones are crucial for species' long‐distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks , 2014 .

[5]  J. Kool,et al.  Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[6]  Begoña de la Fuente,et al.  Connectivity as the Amount of Reachable Habitat: Conservation Priorities and the Roles of Habitat Patches in Landscape Networks , 2017 .

[7]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  Seeking convergence on the key concepts in ‘no net loss’ policy , 2016 .

[8]  Paul Beier,et al.  Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity , 2012 .

[10]  T. Dutoit,et al.  Maximizing habitat connectivity in the mitigation hierarchy. A case study on three terrestrial mammals in an urban environment. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  Lawrence N. Hudson,et al.  Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide , 2016, Nature Communications.

[12]  Harold Levrel,et al.  Should We Be Wary of Mitigation Banking? Evidence Regarding the Risks Associated with this Wetland Offset Arrangement in Florida , 2017 .

[13]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools: A case study on mining impacts in Australia , 2015 .

[14]  J. Long,et al.  Conservation planning with spatially explicit models: a case for horseshoe bats in complex mountain landscapes , 2017, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  V. Selonen,et al.  Habitat and nest use during natal dispersal of the urban red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) , 2018 .

[16]  J. Veech,et al.  Examining the occurrence of mammal species in natural areas within a rapidly urbanizing region of Texas, USA , 2017 .

[17]  Thierry Dutoit,et al.  Integrating a landscape connectivity approach into mitigation hierarchy planning by anticipating urban dynamics , 2020, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[18]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Integrating regional-scale connectivity in habitat restoration: an application for amphibian conservation in eastern France , 2015 .

[19]  V. Selonen,et al.  Roads are no barrier for dispersing red squirrels in an urban environment , 2016 .

[20]  Gilles Vuidel,et al.  A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[21]  S. Pioch,et al.  Strategic landscape-scale planning to improve mitigation hierarchy implementation: An empirical case study in Mediterranean France , 2020 .

[22]  J. Kiesecker,et al.  Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks , 2010, Environmental management.

[23]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Locating wildlife crossings for multispecies connectivity across linear infrastructures , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[24]  K. Norris,et al.  Breeding success of Spotted Flycatchers Muscicapa striata in southern England – is woodland a good habitat for this species? , 2007 .

[25]  R. Julliard,et al.  Biodiversity offsetting: Certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[26]  M. Power,et al.  Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems , 2012, PLoS biology.

[27]  T. Brooks,et al.  Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation , 2013, Science.

[28]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank , 2010 .

[29]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. , 2011, Ecology.

[30]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[31]  J. Castilla,et al.  Achieving biodiversity benefits with offsets: Research gaps, challenges, and needs , 2017, Ambio.

[32]  Anders Larsson,et al.  Compensation in Swedish infrastructure projects and suggestions on policy improvements , 2015 .

[33]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies , 2012 .

[34]  Fabien Quétier,et al.  Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions , 2011 .

[35]  A. Etter,et al.  Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation , 2016 .

[36]  S. Pioch,et al.  The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[37]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Great Apes and Biodiversity Offset Projects in Africa: The Case for National Offset Strategies , 2014, PloS one.

[38]  Neville D. Crossman,et al.  Systematic landscape restoration in the rural–urban fringe: meeting conservation planning and policy goals , 2007, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[39]  C. Kerbiriou,et al.  A set of organized indicators to conciliate scientific knowledge, offset policies requirements and operational constraints in the context of biodiversity offsets , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[40]  A. M. Hersperger,et al.  Trading connectivity improvement for area loss in patch-based biodiversity reserve networks , 2012 .

[41]  A. Hirzel,et al.  Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory , 2008 .

[42]  Robert S Schick,et al.  Graph models of habitat mosaics. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[43]  Victoria J. Burton,et al.  Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment , 2016, Science.

[44]  Jean Christophe Foltête,et al.  How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs: A response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti , 2019, Land Use Policy.

[45]  V. Boisvert,et al.  Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis , 2015 .

[46]  William G. Lee,et al.  Why bartering biodiversity fails , 2009 .

[47]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Methods for allocation of habitat management, maintenance, restoration and offsetting, when conservation actions have uncertain consequences , 2012 .

[48]  C. Kerbiriou,et al.  Do biodiversity offsets achieve No Net Loss? An evaluation of offsets in a French department , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[49]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation , 2011 .

[50]  Amy Pocewicz,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Development by design : blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy , 2009 .

[51]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Are offsets effective? An evaluation of recent environmental offsets in Western Australia , 2017 .

[52]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity , 2014 .

[53]  K. McGarigal,et al.  The gradient concept of landscape structure [Chapter 12] , 2005 .

[54]  L. Fahrig.  Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se , 2017 .

[55]  Niels Strange,et al.  The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[56]  Corrado Battisti,et al.  More cool than tool: Equivoques, conceptual traps and weaknesses of ecological networks in environmental planning and conservation , 2017 .

[57]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  FORUM: Indirect leakage leads to a failure of avoided loss biodiversity offsetting , 2015, The Journal of applied ecology.

[58]  T. Dutoit,et al.  Environmental impact assessment of development projects improved by merging species distribution and habitat connectivity modelling. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[59]  Andreas Zetterberg,et al.  To model the landscape as a network : A practitioner’s perspective , 2013 .

[60]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A Composite Network Approach for Assessing Multi-Species Connectivity: An Application to Road Defragmentation Prioritisation , 2016, PloS one.

[61]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning , 2014 .

[62]  Andrew K. Skidmore,et al.  Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling , 2014 .

[63]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[64]  Jeffrey A. Cardille,et al.  Multipurpose habitat networks for short‐range and long‐range connectivity: a new method combining graph and circuit connectivity , 2016 .

[65]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[66]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting , 2016 .

[67]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[68]  K. Watts,et al.  Species mobility and landscape context determine the importance of local and landscape-level attributes. , 2017, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[69]  Harold Levrel,et al.  L’émergence du marché de la compensation des zones humides aux États-Unis : impacts sur les modes d’organisation et les caractéristiques des transactions , 2013 .

[70]  Laurent Bergès,et al.  Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[71]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes , 2014 .

[72]  D. Currie,et al.  At the landscape level, birds respond strongly to habitat amount but weakly to fragmentation , 2018 .

[73]  Danny A. P. Hooftman,et al.  Reductions in connectivity and habitat quality drive local extinctions in a plant diversity hotspot , 2016 .

[74]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[75]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000) , 2011 .

[76]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[77]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  Habitat quality is more important than matrix quality for bird communities in protected areas , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[78]  Amy Pocewicz,et al.  A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale , 2009 .