Planning impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting using software for spatial conservation prioritisation

Abstract Context. Impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting are measures that can be used for alleviating environmental impacts of economic development projects. Offsetting is frequently implemented via habitat restoration. Biodiversity offsets should be designed in a cost-effective manner. Aims. To investigate how spatial conservation prioritisation methods, most commonly used for reserve network design, could be used for informing impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting. Methods. Zonation is a publicly available framework and software for grid-based, large-scale, high-resolution spatial conservation prioritisation. Zonation produces a hierarchical, balanced, and complementarity-based priority ranking through the landscape, identifying areas of both highest and lowest conservation value in one analysis. It is shown how these capabilities can be utilised in the context of impact avoidance and offsetting. Key results. Impact avoidance can be implemented by focusing environmentally harmful activity into low-priority areas of the spatial priority ranking. Offsets can be implemented via a more complicated analysis setup. First, identify development areas unavailable for conservation, which leads to a decrease in the quality of conservation value achievable in the landscape. Second, develop compensation layers that describe the difference made by allocation of extra conservation action. Running a spatial prioritisation, integrating information about where species are (representation), what areas and features are damaged (reduced condition and negative connectivity effects), and the difference made by remedial action, allows identification of areas where extra conservation effort maximally compensates for damage. Factors such as connectivity and costs can be included in this analysis. Impact avoidance and offsetting can also be combined in the procedure. Conclusions. Spatial conservation-prioritisation methods can inform both impact avoidance and offsetting design. Implications. Decision support tools that are commonly associated with reserve selection can be used for planning of impact avoidance and offsetting, conditional on the availability of high-quality data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g. species, habitat type, ecosystem services).

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

[2]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters , 2008 .

[3]  Jane Elith,et al.  Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: A review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW , 2005 .

[4]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities? , 2009 .

[5]  Nathaniel Carroll,et al.  State of biodiversity markets: offset and compensation programs worldwide , 2010 .

[6]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Replacement cost: A practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning , 2006 .

[7]  Margaret A. Palmer,et al.  Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets , 2009, Science.

[8]  K. Suding.  Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead , 2011 .

[9]  Yakov Ben-Haim,et al.  How Much Compensation is Enough? A Framework for Incorporating Uncertainty and Time Discounting When Calculating Offset Ratios for Impacted Habitat , 2009 .

[10]  Aldina M. A. Franco,et al.  Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments , 2004 .

[12]  R. Cuperus,et al.  Ecological Compensation in Dutch Highway Planning , 2001, Environmental management.

[13]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Spatial prioritization of conservation management , 2011 .

[14]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

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

[16]  Kerry ten Kate,et al.  Biodiversity offsets : views, experience, and the business case , 2004 .

[17]  Lehtomäki Joona,et al.  ZONATION Framework and Software for Conservation Prioritization , 2013 .

[18]  H. Possingham,et al.  Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools , 2009 .

[19]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Conservation planning in a changing world. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  Erik Stokstad,et al.  New Rules on Saving Wetlands Push the Limits of the Science , 2008, Science.

[21]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Administrative regions in conservation: Balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning , 2011 .

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

[23]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design , 2009 .

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

[25]  Jason T Quigley,et al.  Effectiveness of Fish Habitat Compensation in Canada in Achieving No Net Loss , 2006, Environmental management.

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

[27]  E. Tomppo,et al.  Effects of Connectivity and Spatial Resolution of Analyses on Conservation Prioritization across Large Extents , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[28]  Jane Elith,et al.  Uncertainty Analysis for Regional‐Scale Reserve Selection , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[29]  D J Harper,et al.  No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: A Review and Analysis of Habitat Compensation in Canada , 2005, Environmental management.

[30]  K. Gaston,et al.  Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[31]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Setting conservation targets under budgetary constraints , 2011 .

[32]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .

[33]  T. Hahn,et al.  Sustainable Value Added - Measuring Corporate Contributions to Sustainability Beyond Eco-Efficiency , 2004 .

[34]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation , 2009 .

[35]  Chris Hare,et al.  Policy Development , 2007, Information Security Management Handbook, 6th ed..

[36]  A. Bennett,et al.  Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[37]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? , 2007 .

[38]  A. Apan,et al.  Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red‐tailed black‐cockatoo , 2010 .

[39]  David A Norton,et al.  Biodiversity Offsets: Two New Zealand Case Studies and an Assessment Framework , 2009, Environmental management.

[40]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  The Boundary‐Quality Penalty: a Quantitative Method for Approximating Species Responses to Fragmentation in Reserve Selection , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.