IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v101y2021ics0264837720324996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calculation of biodiversity level between different land-uses to improve conservation outcomes of biodiversity offsetting

Author

Listed:
  • Millon, Lara
  • Barré, Kévin
  • Julliard, Romain
  • Compère, Pierre
  • Kerbiriou, Christian

Abstract

The goal of the mitigation hierarchy is to counteract the losses of biodiversity due to development projects by avoiding, reducing and as a last resort, by offsetting these losses. However, the implementation of offset measures is currently very unsatisfactory from a biodiversity perspective, and many development projects do not incorporate them. Here, we proposed a method for comparing biodiversity level between different land-uses to propose a set of alternative offset measures offering the same biodiversity outcomes. Biodiversity level (including both bird and bat communities) was calculated from the variation in biodiversity from each land-uses (fallow, grass strip, bush, grass strip with bushes, hedgerow) compared to crops (control). In order to account for local specificities of environmental assessment studies, we modulated the calculation of the biodiversity level following three examples of scenarios that differed according to the weights assigned to different species. For each scenario, hedgerow was always the land-use that generated the greatest biodiversity level, and was found to be the best alternative in terms of effect size. The advantage of this method and its weighting system is that the opinions of local stakeholders and specificities of species, such as their sensibility level to the development project or their conservation status, can be taken into account, resulting in the results being better appropriated. Thus, offset measures could be implemented more efficiently thanks to multi-taxonomic calculations and weighing possibilities, improving biodiversity outcomes. This method can also be used to compare the residual loss of biodiversity and biodiversity gains from implemented offset measures, using the same biodiversity metric.

Suggested Citation

  • Millon, Lara & Barré, Kévin & Julliard, Romain & Compère, Pierre & Kerbiriou, Christian, 2021. "Calculation of biodiversity level between different land-uses to improve conservation outcomes of biodiversity offsetting," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720324996
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720324996
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105161?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jian Yang & Michael Haigh & David Leatham, 2001. "Agricultural liberalization policy and commodity price volatility: a GARCH application," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(9), pages 593-598.
    2. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Corrigendum: Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 675-675.
    3. Staid, Andrea & Guikema, Seth D., 2013. "Statistical analysis of installed wind capacity in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 378-385.
    4. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    5. Herve Ott, 2014. "Volatility in Cereal Prices: Intra- Versus Inter-annual Volatility," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 557-578, September.
    6. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    2. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    3. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    7. Christian Sponagel & Andre Raichle & Martin Maier & Susanne Zhuber-Okrog & Ulrike Greifenhagen-Kauffmann & Elisabeth Angenendt & Enno Bahrs, 2021. "Expert-Based Maps as a Regional Planning Tool Supporting Nature Conservation and Production-Integrated Compensation—A German Case Study on Biodiversity Offsets," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    11. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    13. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Huber, Robert & Zabel, Astrid & Schleiffer, Mirjam & Vroege, Willemijn & Brändle, Julia M. & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    15. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.
    16. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Alcon, Francisco & de-Miguel, María Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Assessment of real and perceived cost-effectiveness to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Prasenjit Banerjee & Rupayan Pal & Ada Wossink & James Asher, 2021. "Heterogeneity in Farmers’ Social Preferences and the Design of Green Payment Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 201-226, February.
    20. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720324996. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.