IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p202-d1029043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level

Author

Listed:
  • Annaêl Barnes

    (CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR SELMET, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR AMAP, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, F-34090 Montpellier, France)

  • Alexandre Ickowicz

    (CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR SELMET, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, F-34090 Montpellier, France)

  • Jean-Daniel Cesaro

    (CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR SELMET, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, F-34090 Montpellier, France)

  • Paulo Salgado

    (CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR SELMET, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, F-34090 Montpellier, France)

  • Véronique Rayot

    (Orano Mining, 125 Av. de Paris, 92320 Châtillon, France)

  • Sholpan Koldasbekova

    (KATCO JV LLP, Sauran Street 48, Astana 020000, Kazakhstan)

  • Simon Taugourdeau

    (CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
    UMR SELMET, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, F-34090 Montpellier, France)

Abstract

Biodiversity offsets aim to compensate the negative residual impacts of development projects on biodiversity, including ecosystem functions, uses by people and cultural values. Conceptually, ecosystem services (ES) should be considered, but in practice this integration rarely occurs. Their consideration would improve the societal impact of biodiversity offsets. However, the prioritisation of ES in a given area is still limited. We developed a framework for this purpose, applied in rangelands landscapes in Kazakhstan, in the context of uranium mining. We assumed that different landscapes provide different ES, and that stakeholders perceive ES according to their category (e.g., elders and herders) and gender. We performed qualitative, semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders. Using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, we identified 300 ES in 31 classes across 8 landscape units. We produced a systemic representation of the provision of ES across the landscapes. We showed a significant link between ES and landscape units, but not between ES and stakeholder categories or gender. Stakeholders mostly identified ES according to the location of their villages. Therefore, we suggest that the biodiversity offsets should target ES provided by the landscape unit where mining activities occur and would be most interesting in the landscapes common to all villages. By performing a systemic representation, potential impacts of some offset strategies can be predicted. The framework was therefore effective in determining a bundle of ES at a landscape scale, and in prioritising them for future biodiversity offset plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Annaêl Barnes & Alexandre Ickowicz & Jean-Daniel Cesaro & Paulo Salgado & Véronique Rayot & Sholpan Koldasbekova & Simon Taugourdeau, 2023. "Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:202-:d:1029043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/202/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/202/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Richter, Franziska & Jan, Pierrick & El Benni, Nadja & Lüscher, Andreas & Buchmann, Nina & Klaus, Valentin H., 2021. "A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    6. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    7. Cifuentes-Espinosa, Jaime Andrés & Feintrenie, Laurène & Gutiérrez-Montes, Isabel & Sibelet, Nicole, 2021. "Ecosystem services and gender in rural areas of Nicaragua: Different perceptions about the landscape," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Sinare, Hanna & Gordon, Line J. & Enfors Kautsky, Elin, 2016. "Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes – A case study from Burkina Faso," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 141-152.
    9. van der Meulen, E.S. & Braat, L.C. & Brils, J.M., 2016. "Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 1-5.
    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. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    3. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Borrello, M. & Cecchini, L. & Vecchio, R. & Caracciolo, F. & Cembalo, L. & Torquati, B., 2022. "Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    6. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    8. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Merida, Vincent Elijiah & Cook, David & Ögmundarson, Ólafur & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices of meat and dairy production: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Shen, Jiashu & Li, Shuangcheng & Liang, Ze & Liu, Laibao & Li, Delong & Wu, Shuyao, 2020. "Exploring the heterogeneity and nonlinearity of trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services bundles in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    12. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Cole, Scott & Moksnes, Per-Olav & Söderqvist, Tore & Wikström, Sofia A. & Sundblad, Göran & Hasselström, Linus & Bergström, Ulf & Kraufvelin, Patrik & Bergström, Lena, 2021. "Environmental compensation for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A flexible framework that addresses human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. Lucie Kubalíková, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services of Geodiversity: A Case Study from Stránská skála (Brno, Czech Republic)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    17. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Ndayizeye, Gaëlle & Imani, Gerard & Nkengurutse, Jacques & Irampagarikiye, Rosette & Ndihokubwayo, Noël & Niyongabo, Ferdinand & Cuni-Sanchez, Aida, 2020. "Ecosystem services from mountain forests: Local communities’ views in Kibira National Park, Burundi," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    20. Hongjuan Zhang & Juan Feng & Zhicheng Zhang & Kang Liu & Xin Gao & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Regional Spatial Management Based on Supply–Demand Risk of Ecosystem Services—A Case Study of the Fenghe River Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-25, June.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:202-:d:1029043. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.