Skip to main content

Evidence shortfalls in the recommendations and guidance underpinning ecological mitigation for infrastructure developments

Hunter, Sara, zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E., Downey, Harriet, Griffiths, Richard A., Howe, Caroline (2021) Evidence shortfalls in the recommendations and guidance underpinning ecological mitigation for infrastructure developments. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, . ISSN 2688-8319. (KAR id:89087)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English


Download (1MB) Preview
[thumbnail of Hunter et al 202 Ecology Solutions & Evidence ACCEPTED.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English


Download (1MB) Preview
[thumbnail of Hunter et al 2021 ESE.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
Official URL
https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12089

Abstract

1. In the UK and European Union, legal protection of species from the impacts of infrastructure development depends upon a number of ecological mitigation and compensation (EMC) measures to moderate the conflict between development and conservation. However, the scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness has not yet been comprehensively assessed. 2. This study compiled the measures used in practice, identified and explored the guidance that informed them and, using the Conservation Evidence database, evaluated the empirical evidence for their effectiveness. 3. In a sample of 50 UK housing applications, we identified the recommendation of 446 measures in total, comprising 65 different mitigation measures relating to eight taxa. Although most (56%) measures were justified by citing published guidance, exploration of the literature underpinning this guidance revealed that empirical evaluations of EMC measure effectiveness accounted for less than 10% of referenced texts. Citation network analysis also identified circular referencing across bat, amphibian and reptile EMC guidance. Comparison with Conservation Evidence synopses showed that over half of measures recommended in ecological reports had not been empirically evaluated, with only 13 measures assessed as beneficial. 4. As such, most EMC measures recommended in practice are not evidence-based. The limited reference to empirical evidence in published guidance, as well as the circular referencing, suggests potential ‘evidence complacency’, in which evidence is not sought to inform recommendations. In addition, limited evidence availability indicates a thematic gap between conservation research and mitigation practice. More broadly, absence of evidence on the effectiveness of EMC measures calls into question the ability of current practice to compensate for the impact of development on protected species, thus highlighting the need to strengthen requirements for impact avoidance. Given the recent political drive to invest in infrastructure expansion, high-quality, context-specific evidence is urgently needed to inform decision-making in infrastructure development.

Item Type: Article
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Depositing User: Richard Griffiths
Date Deposited: 08 Jul 2021 11:11 UTC
Last Modified: 31 Jul 2021 21:49 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/89087 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E.: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6044-3389
Griffiths, Richard A.: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5533-1013
  • Depositors only (login required):