A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental impact assessment process (EIA) in Western Australia

Middle, Garry; Middle, Isaac

doi:10.3152/146155110x12838715793165

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia, most offset policies prescribe that the majority of an offset should be direct; that is, there must be a tangible on‐the‐ground intervention aimed at improving the environment of the affected species (Middle & Middle ). However, other compensatory measures may be used (i.e., indirect offsets) when it can be demonstrated that they will provide greater environmental benefit than a direct offset (Government of Western Australia ; Australian Government ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other compensatory measures may be used (i.e., indirect offsets) when it can be demonstrated that they will provide greater environmental benefit than a direct offset (Government of Western Australia ; Australian Government ). Indirect offsets relate to activities that aim to improve future management of the affected species (Middle & Middle ). For example, the EPBC Act Offset Policy permits indirect offsets where there is scientific uncertainty regarding the best approach for a direct offset and research to improve understanding of the relevant ecosystem to guide that future management is preferable to a direct offset.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia

Rogers

Burton

2017

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the social acceptability of biodiversity offsets is important to the design of offset policy. We used a discrete choice experiment to quantify preferences of Australians for a migratory shorebird offset in the context of an oil and gas development project. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1371 respondents on their preferences for current and prospective offset-policy characteristics via an online questionnaire to inform policy design of the social dimensions related to offset acceptability. The majority of respondents accepted offsetting as a means to allow economic development; the option to reject development (and an offset) was selected in 13% of possible offset scenarios. Substituting protection of a species affected by the development with protection of a more endangered species was a desirable policy characteristic, as was having the offset implemented by a third party or the government rather than the company responsible for the development. Direct offset activities (e.g., improving degraded habitat) were preferred over indirect activities (e.g., a research program), and respondents were strongly against locating the offset at a site other than where the impact occurred. Positive and negative characteristics of offsets could be traded off by changing the number of birds protected by the offset. Our results show that Australians are likely to support increased flexibility in biodiversity-offset policies, particularly when undesirable policy characteristics are compensated for.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia

Rogers

Burton

2017

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shabman and Scodari, 2005;BBOP, 2009;Middle and Middle, 2010) including the notion of 'going beyond full compensation or no net less offsets to achieve net gain' (Rajvanshi et al, 2011, p183) which aligns well with the net sustainability benefits goal of sustainability assessment discussed previously. Here we focus solely on understanding offsets within the context of trade-offs.…”

Section: 6mentioning

confidence: 67%

Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

Morrison‐Saunders

Pope

2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the defining characteristics of sustainability assessment as a form of impact assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few sustainability assessments have achieved this goal though, and none have considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the sustainability assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of sustainability assessment is vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of tradeoffs within sustainability assessment is essential to improving practice.

show abstract

“…Australia's coastline is adapted to the human populations, by the construction of ports and city waterfronts (Dovey 2005;Gurran, Blakely, and Squires 2007). Resource extraction is one of Australia's prime economic activities, therefore ports are built and extended to allow these valuable minerals to be extracted and shipped abroad (Kenchington, Stocker, and Wood 2012;Middle and Middle 2010;Kay, Blewett, and Huston 2012).…”

Section: Australian Coastal and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building with Nature in Marine Infrastructure: Toward an Innovative Project Arrangement in the Melbourne Channel Deepening Project

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, there is an increasing pressure on coastal and marine ecosystems. The development of marine infrastructure is causing additional ecological impacts on these systems. To reduce ecological impacts innovative approaches of marine infrastructure development are being developed. These approaches, such as Building with Nature, aim to integrate ecological and social dynamics in the creation of coastal and marine infrastructure. This integration has implications for the development and management of these projects. To understand opportunities for Building with Nature approaches, this article analyzes the development of the Melbourne Channel Deepening project in Australia that developed from a conventional, state-led project toward a Building with Nature arrangement. This article shows that a Building with Nature project arrangement differs not just substantially in its ecological focus and primacy from a conventional project arrangement, but also in its leading discourse, its actor coalition, its power and resources applied, and the rules of the game through which the project is designed and implemented. We conclude that developing a Building with Nature project requires a specific arrangement that allows for an early involvement of both ecological and social dynamics.

show abstract

A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental impact assessment process (EIA) in Western Australia

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia

Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

Building with Nature in Marine Infrastructure: Toward an Innovative Project Arrangement in the Melbourne Channel Deepening Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About