Counterintuitive proposals for trans-boundary ecological compensation under "No Net Loss" biodiversity policy
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Counterintuitive proposals for trans-boundary ecological compensation under "No Net Loss" biodiversity policy. / Bull, Joseph William; Abatayo, Anna Lou; Strange, Niels.
In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 142, 2017, p. 185–193.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Counterintuitive proposals for trans-boundary ecological compensation under "No Net Loss" biodiversity policy
AU - Bull, Joseph William
AU - Abatayo, Anna Lou
AU - Strange, Niels
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - ‘No net loss’ (NNL) policies involve quantifying biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, and implementing commensurate conservation gains to balance losses. Local stakeholders are often affected by NNL biodiversity trades. But to what extent are NNL principles intuitive to stakeholders when they are not experts? We surveyed 691 students with limited or no knowledge of NNL policy across three countries, eliciting perceptions of what constitutes sufficient ecological compensation for forest habitat losses from infrastructure development.NNL policies assume that biodiversity compensation should be: close to development impacts; greater than losses; smaller, given a background trend of biodiversity decline; and, smaller when gains have co-benefits for biodiversity. However, survey participant proposals violated all four principles. Participants proposed substantial forest compensation abroad, did not always require commensurate compensation within their own country, and required more forest creation if background trends were for habitat decline or if forest creation had fauna co-benefits.Our findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, international biodiversity trades could deserve consideration. The findings also support proposals to incorporate social considerations into compensation ratios for NNL. Wherever the rationale underlying NNL is discovered to be counterintuitive insofar as relevant stakeholders are concerned, careful communication of policy intentions is required.
AB - ‘No net loss’ (NNL) policies involve quantifying biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, and implementing commensurate conservation gains to balance losses. Local stakeholders are often affected by NNL biodiversity trades. But to what extent are NNL principles intuitive to stakeholders when they are not experts? We surveyed 691 students with limited or no knowledge of NNL policy across three countries, eliciting perceptions of what constitutes sufficient ecological compensation for forest habitat losses from infrastructure development.NNL policies assume that biodiversity compensation should be: close to development impacts; greater than losses; smaller, given a background trend of biodiversity decline; and, smaller when gains have co-benefits for biodiversity. However, survey participant proposals violated all four principles. Participants proposed substantial forest compensation abroad, did not always require commensurate compensation within their own country, and required more forest creation if background trends were for habitat decline or if forest creation had fauna co-benefits.Our findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, international biodiversity trades could deserve consideration. The findings also support proposals to incorporate social considerations into compensation ratios for NNL. Wherever the rationale underlying NNL is discovered to be counterintuitive insofar as relevant stakeholders are concerned, careful communication of policy intentions is required.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.010
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.010
M3 - Journal article
VL - 142
SP - 185
EP - 193
JO - Ecological Economics
JF - Ecological Economics
SN - 0921-8009
ER -
ID: 180761778