Understanding the Performance of Biodiversity Offset Markets: Evidence from an Integrated Ecological-Economic Model

Simpson, Katherine; Vries, Frans P. de; Dallimer, Martin; Armsworth, Paul R.; Hanley, Nick

doi:10.3368/le.97.4.030420-0032r

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SDMs are already being used to value locations for supporting species within decision-making (e.g. via biodiversity credit schemes; Simpson et al 2021), but these correlative models are often driven by observational data collected when the species is most detectable and may not capture species-habitat associations outside of the peak survey period. If these other habitats are essential for population persistence, then the species may still be lost, despite data-driven efforts to conserve habitat with which it is associated (Runge et al 2014).…”

Section: Supporting Biodiversity-inclusive Landscape Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A family of process-based models to simulate landscape use by multiple taxa

Gardner,

Robinson,

Julian

et al. 2024

Landsc Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Land-use change is a key driver of biodiversity loss. Models that accurately predict how biodiversity might be affected by land-use changes are urgently needed, to help avoid further negative impacts and inform landscape-scale restoration projects. To be effective, such models must balance model realism with computational tractability and must represent the different habitat and connectivity requirements of multiple species. Objectives We explored the extent to which process-based modelling might fulfil this role, examining feasibility for different taxa and potential for informing real-world decision-making. Methods We developed a family of process-based models (*4pop) that simulate landscape use by birds, bats, reptiles and amphibians, derived from the well-established poll4pop model (designed to simulate bee populations). Given landcover data, the models predict spatially-explicit relative abundance by simulating optimal home-range foraging, reproduction, dispersal of offspring and mortality. The models were co-developed by researchers, conservation NGOs and volunteer surveyors, parameterised using literature data and expert opinion, and validated against observational datasets collected across Great Britain. Results The models were able to simulate habitat specialists, generalists, and species requiring access to multiple habitats for different types of resources (e.g. breeding vs foraging). We identified model refinements required for some taxa and considerations for modelling further species/groups. Conclusions We suggest process-based models that integrate multiple forms of knowledge can assist biodiversity-inclusive decision-making by predicting habitat use throughout the year, expanding the range of species that can be modelled, and enabling decision-makers to better account for landscape context and habitat configuration effects on population persistence.

show abstract

Section: Supporting Biodiversity-inclusive Landscape Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A family of process-based models to simulate landscape use by multiple taxa

Gardner,

Robinson,

Julian

et al. 2024

Landsc Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The structure of the biodiversity offset market was based on the model developed by Simpson et al (2021). A single agent controls each land parcel or site within a landscape.…”

Section: The Biodiversity Offset Marketmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within both regulated and voluntary nature markets, the choice of biodiversity metric plays a pivotal role in determining their ecological and economic performance (Simpson et al 2021). This metric establishes the units in which biodiversity is traded, determining how a regulator or offset bank measures the gains in biodiversity resulting from restoration actions undertaken by landowners, and balances those against the expected biodiversity lost due to development impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic nature positive markets

Bush,

Simpson,

Hanley

2024

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental markets are a rapidly emerging tool to mobilize private funding to support landholders to undertake more sustainable land management. One aim of such markets is to incentivize ecosystem restoration world‐wide. How we measure and subsequently trade units of biodiversity within these markets creates key challenges both ecologically and economically, since it determines whether environmental markets will be ecologically successful in delivering net gains in biodiversity, and economically efficient in lowering the costs of conservation. Our innovation in this paper is to develop and then test a new metric for such markets based on the well‐established principle of irreplaceability from Systematic Conservation Planning. Irreplaceability as a metric allows us to capture the multidimensional nature of ecosystems (e.g., habitats, species, ecosystem functioning) yet simultaneously achieve cost‐effective, land manager‐led investments in conservation. Using an integrated ecological modelling approach, we tested whether using irreplaceability as a metric is more ecologically and economically beneficial than the simpler biodiversity offset metrics typically used in net gain and no‐net‐loss policies. Taken together, our results demonstrate that irreplaceability can deliver no net loss of biodiversity, avoids the limitations of like‐for‐like trading, reduces costs of offsetting to developers and society, ensures land managers are fairly rewarded for the opportunity costs of conservation, and safeguards sites critical to achieving conservation goals. More generally, our study highlights the benefits of integrating economic data and approaches within Systematic Conservation planning as a means of incentivizing the most ecologically and economically efficient investments in nature recovery.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

“…The structure of the biodiversity offset market was based on the model developed by Simpson et al (2021). A single agent is controlling each land parcel, or site, who can decide to either develop their land for housing, generate biodiversity offset credits or remain in the current land use.…”

Section: The Biodiversity Offset Marketmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within regulated nature markets, the choice of biodiversity metric plays a pivotal role in their ecological and economic performance (11). This metric establishes the units of trade, determining how a regulator or offset bank measures the gains in biodiversity resulting from restoration actions undertaken by landowners, and balances those against the expected biodiversity lost due to development impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Nature Positive Markets

Буш

Simpson

Hanley

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of global commitments, and increasingly urgent warning of environmental instability, the demand for land to support economic production is still increasing. Isolated and disorganized actions will not be enough to avert ecosystem failures. As many developers are already required to compensate for their ecological impacts through restoration, many see markets trading biodiversity credits as a financial mechanism to counteract degradation and drive investment in conservation. The challenge stems from a desire to recognize the multidimensional nature of biodiversity that contributes to ecosystem integrity without making suitable offsets intractable to supply. Instead, most regulators have opted to streamline ecological assessment, and undermine ecological rigour, in favour of promoting offset supply and economic efficiency. As a result, all evidence suggests offset trading programs have so far failed to mitigate losses, let alone support "nature positive" outcomes. To overcome this disconnect, and support more effective and equitable biodiversity markets, we propose credits be defined by the irreplaceability of a site, a metric long-established in the domain of systematic conservation planning. Irreplaceability avoids the limitations of like-for-like trading, reduces costs of offsetting to developers and society, ensures farmers willing to sell are fairly rewarded for loss of earnings, and that sites critical to achieving conservation goals are safeguarded. We developed an ecological-economic model of a biodiversity offset market to demonstrate irreplaceability guarantees no net loss of biodiversity and is the most efficient metric for guiding investment toward the recovery of Nature.

show abstract

Understanding the Performance of Biodiversity Offset Markets: Evidence from an Integrated Ecological-Economic Model

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

A family of process-based models to simulate landscape use by multiple taxa

A family of process-based models to simulate landscape use by multiple taxa

Systematic nature positive markets

Systematic Nature Positive Markets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About