IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v60y2017i2d10.1007_s00267-017-0877-5.html

Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Bezombes

    (Université Grenoble Alpes
    EDF R&D, Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique et Environnement)

  • Stéphanie Gaucherand

    (Université Grenoble Alpes)

  • Christian Kerbiriou

    (Center d’Ecologie et de Sciences de la Conservation, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR7204)

  • Marie-Eve Reinert

    (European Institute for Energy Research)

  • Thomas Spiegelberger

    (Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

In many countries, biodiversity compensation is required to counterbalance negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity by carrying out ecological measures, called offset when the goal is to reach “no net loss” of biodiversity. One main issue is to ensure that offset gains are equivalent to impact-related losses. Ecological equivalence is assessed with ecological equivalence assessment methods taking into account a range of key considerations that we summarized as ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty. When equivalence assessment methods take into account all considerations, we call them “comprehensive”. Equivalence assessment methods should also aim to be science-based and operational, which is challenging. Many equivalence assessment methods have been developed worldwide but none is fully satisfying. In the present study, we examine 13 equivalence assessment methods in order to identify (i) their general structure and (ii) the synergies and trade-offs between equivalence assessment methods characteristics related to operationality, scientific-basis and comprehensiveness (called “challenges” in his paper). We evaluate each equivalence assessment methods on the basis of 12 criteria describing the level of achievement of each challenge. We observe that all equivalence assessment methods share a general structure, with possible improvements in the choice of target biodiversity, the indicators used, the integration of landscape context and the multipliers reflecting time lags and uncertainties. We show that no equivalence assessment methods combines all challenges perfectly. There are trade-offs between and within the challenges: operationality tends to be favored while scientific basis are integrated heterogeneously in equivalence assessment methods development. One way of improving the challenges combination would be the use of offset dedicated data-bases providing scientific feedbacks on previous offset measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Bezombes & Stéphanie Gaucherand & Christian Kerbiriou & Marie-Eve Reinert & Thomas Spiegelberger, 2017. "Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 216-230, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:60:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-017-0877-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:envman:v:60:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-017-0877-5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.