IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i11p6652-d827179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Theis

    (Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 433 South Academic Building, 11328-89 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2J7, Canada)

  • Mark S. Poesch

    (Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 433 South Academic Building, 11328-89 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2J7, Canada)

Abstract

Conservation and mitigation banks allow their proponents to buy credits to offset the negative residual impacts of their development projects with the goal of no net loss (NNL) in the ecosystem function and habitat area. However, little is known about the extent to which these bank transactions achieve NNL. We synthesized and reviewed 12,756 transactions in the United States which were related to meeting area and ecological equivalence (n = 4331) between the approved negative impact and offset. While most of these transactions provided an offset that was equal to or greater than the impacted area, approximately one quarter of the transactions, especially those targeting wetlands, did not meet ecological equivalence between the impact and offset. This missing ecological equivalence was often due to the significantly increasing use of preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation over creating new ecosystems through establishment and re-establishment. Stream transactions seldom added new ecosystem area through creation but mainly used rehabilitation in order to add offset benefits, in many cases leading to a net loss of area. Our results suggest that best practice guidance on habitat creation as well as the incentivization of habitat creation must increase in the future to avoid net loss through bank transactions and to meet the ever-accelerating global changes in land use and the increased pressure of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Theis & Mark S. Poesch, 2022. "Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6652-:d:827179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6652/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6652/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie Grimm, 2021. "Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    2. John Pattison & Peter C. Boxall & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "The Economic Benefits of Wetland Retention and Restoration in Manitoba," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 223-244, June.
    3. Gutrich, John J. & Hitzhusen, Fred J., 2004. "Assessing the substitutability of mitigation wetlands for natural sites: estimating restoration lag costs of wetland mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 409-424, April.
    4. Poudel, Jagdish & Zhang, Daowei & Simon, Benjamin, 2018. "Estimating the demand and supply of conservation banking markets in the United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 320-325.
    5. Boisvert, Valérie, 2015. "Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 134-142.
    6. Jagdish Poudel & Raju Pokharel, 2021. "Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Marie Grimm & Johann Köppel, 2019. "Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Levrel, Harold & Scemama, Pierre & Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte, 2017. "Should We Be Wary of Mitigation Banking? Evidence Regarding the Risks Associated with this Wetland Offset Arrangement in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 136-149.
    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. Gösta F. M. Baganz & Daniela Baganz, 2023. "Compensating for Loss of Nature and Landscape in a Growing City—Berlin Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.

    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. Jagdish Poudel & Raju Pokharel, 2021. "Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    2. 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).
    3. Eshetu Yirdaw & Markku Kanninen & Adrian Monge, 2023. "Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    8. Drechsler, Martin, 2021. "On the cost-effective temporal allocation of credits in conservation offsets when habitat restoration takes takes time and is uncertain," MPRA Paper 108209, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bradley Hiller & Judith Fisher, 2023. "A Multifunctional ‘Scape Approach for Sustainable Management of Intact Ecosystems—A Review of Tropical Peatlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Dmytro Kovalenko & Olga Afanasieva & Nani Zabuta & Tetiana Boiko & Rosen Rosenov Baltov, 2021. "Model of Assessing the Overdue Debts in a Commercial Bank Using Neuro-Fuzzy Technologies," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Mikael Karlsson, 2022. "Biodiversity Offsetting: Ethical Views within Environmental Organisations in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-11, September.
    12. Pattison-Williams, John K. & Pomeroy, John W. & Badiou, Pascal & Gabor, Shane, 2018. "Wetlands, Flood Control and Ecosystem Services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A Case Study in Saskatchewan, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 36-47.
    13. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Marie Grimm, 2021. "Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Eric Asare & Lloyd‐Smith Patrick & Belcher Kenneth, 2022. "Spatially explicit modeling of wetland conservation costs in Canadian agricultural landscapes," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 5-19, March.
    16. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Withey, Patrick & Wong, Linda, 2011. "Climate Change Impacts on Waterfowl Habitat in Western Canada," Working Papers 107094, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    17. Mallory, Mindy L. & Ando, Amy W., 2014. "Implementing efficient conservation portfolio design," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-18.
    18. James Macaskill & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith, 2022. "Six decades of environmental resource valuation in Canada: A synthesis of the literature," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 73-89, March.
    19. Marie Grimm & Johann Köppel, 2019. "Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Chengxiang Zhang & Li Wen & Yuyu Wang & Cunqi Liu & Yan Zhou & Guangchun Lei, 2020. "Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6652-:d:827179. 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.