Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 241, January 2020, 108250
Biological Conservation

What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108250Get rights and content

Abstract

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly employed as an approach to compensate for unavoidable development impacts. Reliance on overly simplistic metrics in assessing the impacts of development, and assigning offset requirements, generally results in offsets which fail to conserve the key ecological values they seek to protect. We conducted a cross-disciplinary quantitative review, based on 255 peer-reviewed publications from three fields of research; offsetting (n = 43), conservation planning (n = 54) and ecology (n = 158), to explore which metrics are commonly used in offsetting compared to the conservation and ecology literature. We recorded the use of biodiversity metrics from 24 categories which captured broad habitat patterns (e.g. habitat area and condition) as well as specific biological and ecological mechanisms (e.g. diversity, population density or landscape connectivity). Our review found that offset studies and programs rely heavily on habitat attributes and area-based metrics, with >70% of the offset literature having used these metrics. Habitat attributes and area-based metrics were less frequently reported in the conservation planning (56 and 59%, respectively) and ecological literature (49 and 15%). Ecological research had a higher frequency of metrics reflecting the biological and ecological processes relevant to biodiversity, such as species’ population densities and species-specific connectivity. Our results also indicate a notable disconnect in how biodiversity is measured when offsets are planned compared to when their outcomes are evaluated. This demonstrates the need to re-evaluate the way offset policies and programs value, describe and measure biodiversity, so that critical biodiversity values and important ecological processes are appropriately captured, and no net loss is achieved.

Introduction

Biodiversity offsets are becoming increasingly popular as a regulation and conservation tool aimed at reducing the impact of developments on biodiversity (BBOP, 2012). Around the world over 45 offset programs have been established and as many as 108 public policies now incorporate no net loss of biodiversity principles, which is often the key objective of biodiversity offsets (Madsen et al., 2011; Bull and Strange, 2018). Biodiversity offsets are highly critiqued, largely because it is unclear how effective offsetting policies are in practice (Bull et al., 2013), and whether no net loss is achievable using current frameworks (Bezombes et al., 2019). Achieving no net loss through offsetting requires implementing conservation actions that aim to match the environmental losses caused by development with biodiversity gains (Bull et al., 2016; Birkeland and Knight-lenihan, 2016). Quantification of biodiversity values may happen at several stages in the impact assessment and offsetting process, as well as during monitoring of proposed actions and outcomes (Geneletti, 2002). One of the major challenges in the implementation of offsets is how to quantify the trading of biodiversity losses due to development for appropriate gains delivered through an offset action (Bull et al., 2013; Ives and Bekessy, 2015).

Methods and metrics used to evaluate biodiversity have important impacts on conservation strategies and resource allocation (Davies and Cadotte, 2011). However, measuring biodiversity is notoriously difficult in all fields of ecological research and generally cannot be summarised using a single-metric approach (Williams and Araújo, 2002; Liu et al., 2018). ‘Biodiversity’ is used as a catch-all term which encompasses any of the multiple levels of biological complexity (Ferrier, 2002). To simplify the task of measuring biodiversity, ecologists generally measure a small subset of it to act as surrogates for other features not explicitly assessed, usually based on habitat attributes (Davies and Cadotte, 2011; BBOP, 2012). Commonly used offsetting metrics tend to focus on a measure of habitat condition which is calculated and weighted across several habitat features. This is combined with the area impacted and a ratio or multiplier value which may increase offset requirements so as to deliver equitable or greater biodiversity gains (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2014). The final value used for the trade is generally a summed habitat condition score which determines the amount of area of a particular quality or condition that is required to offset the losses expected through development (Gibbons et al., 2018). For example, in Australia the ‘habitat hectare’ has been developed specifically for use in offsetting and incorporates seven habitat features and three landscape metrics into a weighted habitat score which is combined with site area to compute a quality-adjusted area of habitat (Parkes et al., 2003; The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land W and P, 2017a,2017b). Similarly, in the United States, wetland mitigation ratios are based on the type of wetland affected and the size of the impact (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2014). In this approach, the habitat type and area of impact determine how extensively a developer must offset their environmental impacts. This can influence both the size of the offset required and the type of offset activity implemented (May et al., 2016a; Bull and Strange, 2018).

The assumption in using metrics based on habitat attributes or vegetation types in offsetting programs is that by protecting or restoring these features, there will be both a direct benefit to habitat and a corresponding, but indirect benefit to plant and animal species (Cristescu et al., 2013). This, however, will not always be the case (Bedward et al., 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that metrics based on habitat attributes and vegetation type tend to be overly simplistic and do not fully capture individual species’ ecological needs (Cristescu et al., 2013; Kujala et al., 2015a; Hanford et al., 2016). These metrics assign low scores to ecologically important sites which may occur in a degraded condition or in small patches (Hobbs, 2016; Maseyk et al., 2016). Moreover, smaller or more degraded sites are often considered of lesser conservation value (Wintle et al., 2019), and therefore may not be prioritised for offsetting since they are presumed to deliver fewer gains. Resulting offset sites can therefore deliver markedly different biodiversity values from those lost (Price et al., 2019), with the risk of trading away critical habitat, such as large old-growth trees, which may support rare or threatened species (Maron et al., 2012; Le Roux et al., 2015, 2016; Wintle et al., 2019). Consequently, we must understand the ramifications of using metrics which are uncoupled from the biodiversity values they are intending to capture (Cristescu et al., 2013), and identify transparent and fungible methods for assessing biodiversity impacts and offsetting requirements.

Despite increased efforts to incorporate ecological processes into metrics that support offsets, such as through the use of landscape measures (Gibbons et al., 2016; The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land W and P, 2017a, 2017b), most currently used offsetting metrics largely fail to capture landscape level impacts on populations and species (Bekessy et al., 2010; Crouzeilles et al., 2015). The inclusion of species biology or population processes (e.g. dispersal, Allee effects) adds an additional layer of complexity to biodiversity assessment (Ferrier and Drielsma, 2010) and offset calculations. When the objective of offsetting is to ensure the persistence of particular species in a region, offset metrics should incorporate measures of variables that directly mediate population persistence (Cristescu et al., 2013; Drielsma et al., 2016), such as species-specific dispersal measures, or estimates of the carrying capacity, expected survival and fecundity of species in a habitat patch. Testing current biodiversity offsetting metrics and identifying realistic alternatives is not yet fully addressed in research on offsets (ten Kate et al., 2004; Maron et al., 2016).

Here, we reviewed the offsetting, conservation planning and ecology literature to identify the most common metrics being used in offsetting compared to those used for measuring or assessing biodiversity in the broader fields of conservation planning and ecological research. Understanding how biodiversity is treated in other conservation and environmental management activities may provide valuable insights into current offset metrics, where they fall short and how they could potentially be improved. The purpose of this review is therefore to highlight potential gaps in current offset metrics and identify where future research could contribute to testing alternatives.

Section snippets

Review design

We used a cross-disciplinary review approach which followed a step-wise search and assessment procedure (Fig. A.1: Pickering and Byrne, 2014). The purpose of this design was to capture the most commonly used measures across multiple disciplines. We used Scopus to collect publications from three fields; offsetting, conservation planning and ecology (See Appendix A for detailed definitions of each category). The intention of this review was to examine and characterise how these different fields

Extent of the literature reviewed

Across 255 publications we identified 24 metric sub-categories (Table 1). Of the 255 papers reviewed, 158 came from the ecology literature, 54 from conservation planning and 43 from offsetting. The number of publications in all three fields increased from 1999 to April 2017, and followed the same trends, with a spike in publications between 2012 and 2017 (Fig. A.2). The literature in all three fields was widely distributed around the world. However, as expected, developed regions tended to be

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that the definition of biodiversity remains notably narrower in commonly-used offsetting metrics compared with metrics used in the broader fields of conservation and ecology (Fig. 2), which is concerning given how widely offsets are now applied (Gordon et al., 2011; Bull and Strange, 2018). The primary implication of our research is that current offset metrics are likely to be limited in their capacity to capture all the biodiversity values that are generally of interest

Conclusion

Despite the increasing use of biodiversity offsets worldwide there remains little quantitative evidence to support that they deliver their claimed benefits. Achieving no net loss of biodiversity depends strongly on how biodiversity is defined and measured. We found that within the offsetting literature the definition of biodiversity remains much narrower, in terms of the complexity and breadth of biodiversity features measured, than in the closely related fields of ecology and conservation

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub and a Melbourne University Research Scholarship. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that improved this work.

References (70)

  • C. Jacob et al.

    The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems : a case study in France

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2016)
  • H. Kujala et al.

    Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools : a case study on mining impacts in Australia

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2015)
  • D.S. Le Roux et al.

    Effects of entrance size, tree size and landscape context on nest box occupancy: considerations for management and biodiversity offsets

    For. Ecol. Manage.

    (2016)
  • D.S. Le Roux et al.

    Single large or several small? Applying biogeographic principles to tree-level conservation and biodiversity offsets

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2015)
  • M. Maron et al.

    Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • F.J.F. Maseyk et al.

    A disaggregated biodiversity offset accounting model to improve estimation of ecological equivalency and no net loss

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2016)
  • I. Oliver et al.

    What do site condition multi-metrics tell us about species biodiversity?

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2014)
  • M.P. Perring et al.

    Forest Ecology and Management Soil-vegetation type, stem density and species richness influence biomass of restored woodland in south-western Australia

    For. Ecol. Manage.

    (2015)
  • I. Peterson et al.

    A quantitative framework for evaluating the impact of biodiversity offset policies

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2018)
  • S. Thorn et al.

    Effectiveness of biodiversity offsets: an assessment of a controversial offset in Perth, Western Australia

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2018)
  • N.G. Yoccoz et al.

    Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2001)
  • G.B. Ainsworth et al.

    The culture of bird conservation: Australian stakeholder values regarding iconic, flagship and rare birds

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2018)
  • M. Andrello et al.

    Extending networks of protected areas to optimize connectivity and population growth rate

    Ecography

    (2014)
  • BBOP

    Standard on Biodiversity Offsets

    (2012)
  • S.A. Bekessy et al.

    The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2010)
  • J. Birkeland et al.

    Biodiversity offsetting and net positive design

    J. Urban Des.

    (2016)
  • J.W. Bull et al.

    The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial

    Oryx

    (2015)
  • J.W. Bull et al.

    Seeking convergence on the key concepts in “no net loss” policy

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2016)
  • J.W. Bull et al.

    The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies

    Nat. Sustain.

    (2018)
  • J.W. Bull et al.

    Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice

    Oryx

    (2013)
  • L. Carver et al.

    How economic contexts shape calculations of yield in biodiversity offsetting

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2017)
  • R.H. Cristescu et al.

    Is restoring flora the same as restoring fauna? Lessons learned from koalas and mining rehabilitation

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • R. Crouzeilles et al.

    Incorporating habitat availability into systematic planning for restoration: a species-specific approach for Atlantic Forest mammals

    Divers. Distrib.

    (2015)
  • T.J. Davies et al.

    Chapter 3 Quantifying Biodiversity: Does It Matter What We Measure? Pages 43–60, Biodiversity Hotspots

    (2011)
  • J. Dorrough et al.

    Expert predictions of changes in vegetation condition reveal perceived risks in biodiversity offsetting

    PLoS One

    (2019)
  • Cited by (47)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text