Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects

Maestre‐Andrés, Sara; Calvet-Mir, Laura; Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. van den; Ring, Irene; Verburg, Peter H.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.003

Cited by 43 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The crop production and biodiversity indicators showed clear spatial trade-offs. Finally, under high land use pressure, better enforcement of protected areas may cause displacement of habitat loss to other areas, as has been demonstrated elsewhere (Andrés et al, 2012;Hayward et al, 2012;Renwick et al, 2015). Offsetting on farmland can additionally lead to displacement of production within or outside Europe, but was not accounted for in this study.…”

Section: Interpretation Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Results were markedly different in regions characterised by urban expansion, agricultural abandonment or more natural land cover. Covering the full extent of the EU-27 rather than focusing on specific cases or countries enabled the quantification of location-specific impacts on both ecosystem services and biodiversity, as well as the quantification of displacement effects, trade-offs between protection of different types of biodiversity, and between different ecosystem services (Andrés et al, 2012).…”

Section: Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

Schulp¹,

Teeffelen²,

Tucker

et al. 2016

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Interpretation Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

Schulp¹,

Teeffelen²,

Tucker

et al. 2016

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This uncertainty is reflected at a more global level. Despite the development of various accounting methods, the manners of measuring biodiversity issues and evaluating conservation programs are far from generally agreed upon (Failing and Gregory 2003;Jones 1996;Tregidga 2013;Miteva et al 2012;Maestre Andrés et al 2012). As a result, the performance of organizations with regard to biodiversity remains, to a large extent, unaccountable.…”

Section: The Techniques Of Neutralization Underlying Biodiversity Repmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is the case of many mining activities which can have serious impacts on biodiversity, such as degradation of indigenous vegetation, fragmentation of habitats, erosion and pollution of soils on which many species rely for their survival, contamination of aquatic ecosystems from waste materials, and so on (Kitula 2006;Wishart 2012). Second, programs for biodiversity protection have been widely criticized for their lack of follow-up, transparency, and tangible results (Maestre Andrés et al 2012;Miteva et al 2012). As summarized by Miteva et al (2012), ''credible evaluation of common conservation instruments continue to be rare' ' (p. 69).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the strategies organizations use to demonstrate their accountability for biodiversity and legitimize their impact in this area through the use of techniques of neutralization. Neutralization aims to manage stakeholder impressions on very socially sensitive issues. Based on the content analysis of 148 sustainability reports from mining organizations, the study sheds light on the successful use of rhetoric in reports on nonmeasurable and potentially unaccountable issues. Specifically, the study shows that mining organizations use four main techniques of neutralization when they explain their impact on biodiversity. When they address stakeholders, they defend their social legitimacy and environmental responsiveness using one of the four techniques: they claim of a net positive or neutral impact on biodiversity, they deny that they have a significant impact, they distance themselves from the impact of their actions, and they play down their responsibilities. The study contributes to the literature on corporate sustainability and accounting for stakeholders. It focuses on under-researched issues such as the management of biodiversity and the tactics used to rationalize negative impacts. The study also bridges the gap between theories about organizational legitimacy, impression management, and techniques of neutralization.

show abstract

“…Their weaknesses arise from (a) the elements that they omit and (b) the limits or lack of system behavior theories underpinning them. A key weakness is that, although both social and ecological elements may be included in the framework, we seldom find both social and ecological theory underpinning them (a possible exception is the application of the ESS framework to design schemes for payments for ecosystem services-although this raises fundamental objections about (a) the inadequacy of considering social relationships only through market exchanges and (b) about insufficient consideration of possible indirect effects and feedbacks (see, for example, McAfee and Shapiro 2010, Norgaard 2010, Maestre André et al 2012, Muradian and Rival 2012.…”

Section: Existing Social-ecological Systems Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Livelisystems: a conceptual framework integrating social, ecosystem, development, and evolutionary theory

Dorward¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Human activity poses multiple environmental challenges for ecosystems that have intrinsic value and also support that activity. Our ability to address these challenges is constrained by, among other things, weaknesses in cross-disciplinary understandings of interactive processes of change in social-ecological systems. This paper draws on complementary insights from social and biological sciences to propose a "livelisystems" framework of multiscale, dynamic change across social and biological systems. This describes how material, informational, and relational assets, asset services, and asset pathways interact in systems with embedded and emergent properties undergoing a variety of structural transformations. Related characteristics of "higher" (notably human) livelisystems and change processes are identified as the greater relative importance of (a) informational, relational, and extrinsic (as opposed to material and intrinsic) assets, (b) teleological (as opposed to natural) selection, and (c) innovational (as opposed to mutational) change. The framework provides valuable insights into social and environmental challenges posed by global and local change, globalization, poverty, modernization, and growth in the anthropocene. Its potential for improving interdisciplinary and multiscale understanding is discussed, notably by examination of human adaptation to biodiversity and ecosystem service change following the spread of Lantana camera in the Western Ghats, India.

show abstract

Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects

Cited by 43 publications

References 58 publications

A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management

Livelisystems: a conceptual framework integrating social, ecosystem, development, and evolutionary theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About