Skip to main content

Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity

Bull, J.W., Gordon, A., Law, E.A., Suttle, K.B., Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2014) Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 28 (3). pp. 799-809. ISSN 0888-8892. E-ISSN 1523-1739. (doi:10.1111/cobi.12243) (KAR id:81539)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English


Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Download (347kB) Preview
[img]
Preview
Official URL
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243

Abstract

There is an urgent need to improve the evaluation of conservation interventions. This requires specifying an objective and a frame of reference from which to measure performance. Reference frames can be baselines (i.e., known biodiversity at a fixed point in history) or counterfactuals (i.e., a scenario that would have occurred without the intervention). Biodiversity offsets are interventions with the objective of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL). We used biodiversity offsets to analyze the effects of the choice of reference frame on whether interventions met stated objectives. We developed 2 models to investigate the implications of setting different frames of reference in regions subject to various biodiversity trends and anthropogenic impacts. First, a general analytic model evaluated offsets against a range of baseline and counterfactual specifications. Second, a simulation model then replicated these results with a complex real world case study: native grassland offsets in Melbourne, Australia. Both models showed that achieving NNL depended upon the interaction between reference frame and background biodiversity trends. With a baseline, offsets were less likely to achieve NNL where biodiversity was decreasing than where biodiversity was stable or increasing. With a no‐development counterfactual, however, NNL was achievable only where biodiversity was declining. Otherwise, preventing development was better for biodiversity. Uncertainty about compliance was a stronger determinant of success than uncertainty in underlying biodiversity trends. When only development and offset locations were considered, offsets sometimes resulted in NNL, but not across an entire region. Choice of reference frame determined feasibility and effort required to attain objectives when designing and evaluating biodiversity offset schemes. We argue the choice is thus of fundamental importance for conservation policy. Our results shed light on situations in which biodiversity offsets may be an inappropriate policy instrument

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1111/cobi.12243
Uncontrolled keywords: biodiversity offsets; conservation planning; counterfactuals; environmental trends; frame of reference; simulation modeling
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation
Depositing User: Joseph Bull
Date Deposited: 05 Jun 2020 11:06 UTC
Last Modified: 08 Jun 2020 12:43 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/81539 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Bull, J.W.: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-8977
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year