Planning impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting using software for spatial conservation prioritisation
Atte Moilanen
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
Department of Biosciences, PO Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: atte.moilanen@helsinki.fi
Wildlife Research 40(2) 153-162 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12083
Submitted: 26 April 2012 Accepted: 24 September 2012 Published: 16 October 2012
Abstract
Context: Impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting are measures that can be used for alleviating environmental impacts of economic development projects. Offsetting is frequently implemented via habitat restoration. Biodiversity offsets should be designed in a cost-effective manner.
Aims: To investigate how spatial conservation prioritisation methods, most commonly used for reserve network design, could be used for informing impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting.
Methods: Zonation is a publicly available framework and software for grid-based, large-scale, high-resolution spatial conservation prioritisation. Zonation produces a hierarchical, balanced, and complementarity-based priority ranking through the landscape, identifying areas of both highest and lowest conservation value in one analysis. It is shown how these capabilities can be utilised in the context of impact avoidance and offsetting.
Key results: Impact avoidance can be implemented by focusing environmentally harmful activity into low-priority areas of the spatial priority ranking. Offsets can be implemented via a more complicated analysis setup. First, identify development areas unavailable for conservation, which leads to a decrease in the quality of conservation value achievable in the landscape. Second, develop compensation layers that describe the difference made by allocation of extra conservation action. Running a spatial prioritisation, integrating information about where species are (representation), what areas and features are damaged (reduced condition and negative connectivity effects), and the difference made by remedial action, allows identification of areas where extra conservation effort maximally compensates for damage. Factors such as connectivity and costs can be included in this analysis. Impact avoidance and offsetting can also be combined in the procedure.
Conclusions: Spatial conservation-prioritisation methods can inform both impact avoidance and offsetting design.
Implications: Decision support tools that are commonly associated with reserve selection can be used for planning of impact avoidance and offsetting, conditional on the availability of high-quality data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g. species, habitat type, ecosystem services).
Additional keywords: habitat restoration, mitigation, reserve selection, systematic conservation planning.
References
Arponen, A., Lehtomäki, J., Leppänen, J., Tomppo, E., and Moilanen, A. (2012). Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conservation Biology 26, 294–304.| Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bekessy, S. A., Wintle, B. A., Lindenmayer, D. B., McCarthy, M. A., Colyvan, M., Burgman, M. A., and Possingham, H. P. (2010). The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conservation Letters 3, 151–158.
| The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) (2009). ‘Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP: an Overview.’ (BBOP: Washington DC.)
Cabeza, M., and Moilanen, A. (2006). Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biological Conservation 132, 336–342.
| Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cuperus, R., Bakermans, M., De Haes, H. A. U., and Canters, K. J. (2001). Ecological compensation in Dutch highway planning. Environmental Management 27, 75–89.
| Ecological compensation in Dutch highway planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7ltFCntw%3D%3D&md5=6372cf62bc17b0577070c612cd663fb7CAS |
Dunford, R. W., Ginn, T. C., and Desvousges, W. H. (2004). The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics 48, 49–70.
| The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Figge, F., and Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics 48, 173–187.
| Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gibbons, P., and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management & Restoration 8, 26–31.
| Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harper, D. J., and Quigley, J. T. (2005). No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 36, 343–355.
| No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2MrhvVCksw%3D%3D&md5=c128e4cc57cd3ae58e85d87d4b9a5eefCAS |
Kiesecker, J. M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., Nibbelink, N., McKenney, B., Dahlke, J., Holloran, M., and Stroud, D. (2009). A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining scale. Bioscience 59, 77–84.
| A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kiesecker, J. M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., and McKenney, B. (2010). Development by design: blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 261–266.
| Development by design: blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leathwick, J. R., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., and Hastie, T. (2008). Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conservation Letters 1, 91–102.
| Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lehtomäki, J., Tomppo, E., Kuokkanen, P., Hanski, I., and Moilanen, A. (2009). Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 2439–2449.
| Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Madsen, B., Carroll, N., and Moore Brands, K. (2010). State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide. Available at http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf [verified 23 April 2012].
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.
| Systematic conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXjsFyjsLg%3D&md5=f3a30b4e93d16fd9364dac29a67fde87CAS |
Margules, C. R., and Sarkar, S. (2007). ‘Systematic Conservation Planning.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Maron, M., Dunn, P. K., McAlpine, C. A., and Apan, A. (2010). Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red-tailed black-cockatoo. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 348–355.
| Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red-tailed black-cockatoo.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McKenney, B. A., and Kiesecker, J. M. (2010). Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management 45, 165–176.
| Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A. (2007). Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134, 571–579.
| Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., and Arponen, A. (2011a). Administrative regions in conservation: balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning. Biological Conservation 144, 1719–1725.
| Administrative regions in conservation: balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., and Arponen, A. (2011b). Setting conservation targets under budgetary constraints. Biological Conservation 144, 650–653.
| Setting conservation targets under budgetary constraints.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., and Wintle, B. A. (2007). The Boundary quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conservation Biology 21, 355–364.
| The Boundary quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Franco, A., Early, R. I., Fox, R., Wintle, B., and Thomas, C. D. (2005). Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 272, 1885–1891.
| Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Wintle, B. A., Elith, J., and Burgman, M. (2006). Uncertainty analysis for regional scale reserve selection. Conservation Biology 20, 1688–1697.
| Uncertainty analysis for regional scale reserve selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A., and Possingham, H. P. (Eds) (2009a). ‘Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)
Moilanen, A., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Ben-Haim, Y., and Ferrier, S. (2009b). How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restoration Ecology 17, 470–478.
| How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Kujala, H., and Leathwick, J. (2009c). The zonation framework and software for conservation prioritization. In ‘Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools’. (Eds A. Moilanen, K. Wilson and H. Possingham.) pp. 196–210. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Moilanen, A., Arponen, A., Stokland, J., and Cabeza, M. (2009d). Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities? Biological Conservation 142, 575–585.
| Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Anderson, B., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D., Gillings, S., Armsworth, P., Gaston, K., and Thomas, C. (2011a). Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecological Applications 21, 1419–1426.
| Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Leathwick, J.R., and Quinn, J. M. (2011b). Spatial prioritization of conservation management. Conservation letters 4, 383–393.
| Spatial prioritization of conservation management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Meller, L., Leppänen, J., Pouzols, F. M., Arponen, A., and Kujala, H. (2012). ‘Zonation v3.1: Spatial Conservation Planning Framework and Software. User manual.’ Available at www.helsinki.fi/bioscience/consplan [verified 23 April 2012].
Norton, D. A. (2009). Biodiversity offsets: two New Zealand case studies and an assessment framework. Environmental Management 43, 698–706.
| Biodiversity offsets: two New Zealand case studies and an assessment framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Palmer, M. A., and Filoso, S. (2009). Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325, 575–576.
| Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXptFOjsbg%3D&md5=b2306e996f40310c4a511324e287a765CAS |
Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M., and Wilson, K. A. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, 583–592.
| Conservation planning in a changing world.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quigley, J. T., and Harper, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management 37, 351–366.
| Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rayfield, B., Moilanen, A., and Fortin, M.-J. (2009). Incorporating consumer-resource spatial interactions in reserve design. Ecological Modelling 220, 725–733.
| Incorporating consumer-resource spatial interactions in reserve design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stokstad, E. (2008). Environmental regulation: new rules on saving wetlands push the limits of the science. Science 320, 162–163.
| Environmental regulation: new rules on saving wetlands push the limits of the science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXltVCmtbY%3D&md5=2dde5908148d1c6326f7bab844dd5158CAS |
Suding, K. N. (2011). Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 42, 465–487.
| Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures and opportunities ahead.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., and Bayon, R. (2004). ‘Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and the Business Case.’ (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.)
Thomson, J. R., Moilanen, A., McNally, R., and Vesk, P. (2009). Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. Ecological Applications 19, 817–828.
| Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MvjsFGlug%3D%3D&md5=0c217ac69a2c6b147fa172064a873c4bCAS |
Walker, S., Brower, A. L., Stephens, R. T. T., and Lee, W. G. (2009). Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conservation Letters 2, 149–157.
| Why bartering biodiversity fails.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wintle, B. A., Elith, J., and Potts, J. (2005). Fauna habitat modelling and mapping; a review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast of NSW. Austral Ecology 30, 719–738.
| Fauna habitat modelling and mapping; a review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast of NSW.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
