IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02448719.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The inclusion of biodiversity in impact assessment for urban development: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Bigard

    (CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [France-Sud] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole)

  • Sylvain Pioch

    (CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [France-Sud] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • John D Thompson

    (CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [France-Sud] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract

Natural habitat loss and fragmentation, as a result of development projects, are major causes of biodiversity erosion. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most commonly used site-specific planning tool that takes into account the effects of development projects on biodiversity by integrating potential impacts into the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, and offset measures. However, the extent to which EIA fully address the identification of impacts and conservation stakes associated with biodiversity loss has been criticized in recent work. In this paper we examine the extent to which biodiversity criteria have been integrated into 42 EIA from 2006 to 2016 for small development projects in the Montpellier Metropolitan territory in southern France. This study system allowed us to question how EIA integrates biodiversity impacts on a scale relevant to land-use planning. We examine how biodiversity inclusion has changed over time in relation to new policy for EIA and how the mitigation hierarchy is implemented in practice and in comparison with national guidelines. We demonstrate that the inclusion of biodiversity features into EIA has increased significantly in relation to policy change. Several weaknesses nevertheless persist, including the continued absence of substitution solution assessment, a correct analysis of cumulative impacts, the evaluation of impacts on common species, the inclusion of an ecological network scale, and the lack of monitoring and evaluation measures. We also show that measures for mitigation hierarchy are primarily associated with the reduction of impacts rather than their avoidance, and avoidance and offset measures are often misleadingly proposed in EIA. There is in fact marked semantic confusion between avoidance, reduction and offset measures that may impair stakeholders' understanding. All in all, reconsideration of stakeholders routine practices associated with a more strategic approach towards impact anticipation and avoidance at a land-use planning scale is now necessary for the mitigation hierarchy to become a clear and practical hierarchy for "no net loss" objectives based on conservation priorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Bigard & Sylvain Pioch & John D Thompson, 2017. "The inclusion of biodiversity in impact assessment for urban development: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion," Post-Print hal-02448719, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02448719
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02448719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02448719/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Byron & Joanna Treweek & William Sheate & Stewart Thompson, 2000. "Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 71-97.
    2. Harold Levrel & Nathalie Frascaria & Julien Hay, 2015. "Restaurer la nature pour atténuer les impacts du développement: analyse des mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité," Post-Print hal-02156945, HAL.
    3. David Moreno-Mateos & Mary E Power & Francisco A Comín & Roxana Yockteng, 2012. "Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. S. Thompson & J. R. Treweek & D. J. Thurling, 1997. "The Ecological Component of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of British Environmental Statements," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 157-172.
    5. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoléone & Jean-Michel Salles, 2015. "The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Léa Tardieu & Sébastien Roussel & John Thompson & Dorothée Labarraque & Jean-Michel Salles, 2015. "Combining direct and indirect impacts to assess ecosystem service loss due to infrastructure construction," Post-Print hal-01945826, HAL.
    7. David Moreno Mateos & Mary E Power & Francisco A Comín & Roxana Yockteng, 2012. "Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems," Working Papers id:4755, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charlotte Bigard & Baptiste Regnery & Sylvain Pioch & John Thompson, 2018. "From theory to implementation in the mitigation hierarchy: avoid or legitimise the loss of biodiversity? [De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légit," Post-Print hal-02448898, HAL.

    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. Jacob, Céline & Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte & Bas, Adeline & Calvet, Coralie, 2016. "Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 92-102.
    2. Edward B. Barbier, 2016. "The Protective Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in a Wealth Accounting Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 37-58, May.
    3. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    4. Jin Huang & Hao Yang & Wei He & Yu Li, 2022. "Ecological Service Value Tradeoffs: An Ecological Water Replenishment Model for the Jilin Momoge National Nature Reserve, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Yaxian Zhang & Jiangwen Fan & Suizi Wang, 2020. "Assessment of Ecological Carrying Capacity and Ecological Security in China’s Typical Eco-Engineering Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Juan Carlos Carrasco Baquero & Verónica Lucía Caballero Serrano & Fernando Romero Cañizares & Daisy Carolina Carrasco López & David Alejandro León Gualán & Rufino Vieira Lanero & Fernando Cobo-Gradín, 2023. "Water Quality Determination Using Soil and Vegetation Communities in the Wetlands of the Andes of Ecuador," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Paula Meli & Karen D Holl & José María Rey Benayas & Holly P Jones & Peter C Jones & Daniel Montoya & David Moreno Mateos, 2017. "A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Paula Meli & José María Rey Benayas & Patricia Balvanera & Miguel Martínez Ramos, 2014. "Restoration Enhances Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Supply, but Results Are Context-Dependent: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    11. Delanie M. Spangler & Anna Christina Tyler & Carmody K. McCalley, 2021. "Effects of Grazer Exclusion on Carbon Cycling in Created Freshwater Wetlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Swades Pal & Satyajit Paul, 2021. "Stability consistency and trend mapping of seasonally inundated wetlands in Moribund deltaic part of India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 12925-12953, September.
    13. Jiaqi Han & Dongyan Wang & Shuwen Zhang, 2022. "Momoge Internationally Important Wetland: Ecosystem Integrity Remote Assessment and Spatial Pattern Optimization Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Reiss, Kelly Chinners & Hernandez, Erica & Brown, Mark T., 2014. "Application of the landscape development intensity (LDI) index in wetland mitigation banking," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 83-89.
    15. Alex C Valach & Kuno Kasak & Kyle S Hemes & Tyler L Anthony & Iryna Dronova & Sophie Taddeo & Whendee L Silver & Daphne Szutu & Joseph Verfaillie & Dennis D Baldocchi, 2021. "Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Jonas Nordström & Cecilia Hammarlund, 2021. "You Win Some, You Lose Some: Compensating the Loss of Green Space in Cities Considering Heterogeneous Population Characteristics," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Van Dover, C.L. & Aronson, J. & Pendleton, L. & Smith, S. & Arnaud-Haond, S. & Moreno-Mateos, D. & Barbier, E. & Billett, D. & Bowers, K. & Danovaro, R. & Edwards, A. & Kellert, S. & Morato, T. & Poll, 2014. "Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 98-106.
    18. Michael C. Hassett & Alan D. Steinman, 2022. "Wetland Restoration through Excavation: Sediment Removal Results in Dramatic Water Quality Improvement," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Jenneke M. Visser & Scott M. Duke-Sylvester, 2017. "LaVegMod v2: Modeling Coastal Vegetation Dynamics in Response to Proposed Coastal Restoration and Protection Projects in Louisiana, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    20. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Fabien Quétier & Adeline Bierry & Clémence Vannier & Florence Baptist & Sandra Lavorel, 2021. "Modeling Alternative Approaches to the Biodiversity Offsetting of Urban Expansion in the Grenoble Area (France): What Is the Role of Spatial Scales in ‘No Net Loss’ of Wetland Area and Function?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, May.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02448719. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.