IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v108y2021ics026483772100291x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mello, Kaline de
  • Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus
  • Borges-Matos, Clarice
  • Brites, Alice Dantas
  • Tavares, Paulo André
  • da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni
  • Matsumoto, Marcelo
  • Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro
  • Joly, Carlos Alfredo
  • Sparovek, Gerd
  • Metzger, Jean Paul

Abstract

Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss.

Suggested Citation

  • Mello, Kaline de & Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus & Borges-Matos, Clarice & Brites, Alice Dantas & Tavares, Paulo André & da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni & Matsumoto, Marcelo & Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro & Joly, , 2021. "Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100291x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772100291X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie Chavent & Vanessa Kuentz-Simonet & Amaury Labenne & Jérôme Saracco, 2018. "ClustGeo: an R package for hierarchical clustering with spatial constraints," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1799-1822, December.
    2. Brenda Brito, 2017. "Potential trajectories of the upcoming forest trading mechanism in Pará State, Brazilian Amazon," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Souza, Barbara Almeida & Sánchez, Luis Enrique, 2018. "Biodiversity offsets in limestone quarries: Investigation of practices in Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 213-223.
    4. Martine Maron & Susie Brownlie & Joseph W. Bull & Megan C. Evans & Amrei von Hase & Fabien Quétier & James E. M. Watson & Ascelin Gordon, 2018. "The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 19-27, January.
    5. Laura J. Sonter & Jeremy S. Simmonds & James E. M. Watson & Julia P. G. Jones & Joseph M. Kiesecker & Hugo M. Costa & Leon Bennun & Stephen Edwards & Hedley S. Grantham & Victoria F. Griffiths & Kenda, 2020. "Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Galina Viktorovna Morozova & Irina Dmitrievna Porfireva, 2021. "Features of Information Coverage of Regional Environmental Policy on the Instance of the Republic of Tatarstan," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(2), pages 210-218, April.
    3. Hélène Barbé & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste, 2021. "Integrating Ecology into Land Planning and Development: Between Disillusionment and Hope, Questioning the Relevance and Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Katie Devenish & Sébastien Desbureaux & Simon Willcock & Julia P. G. Jones, 2022. "On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 498-508, June.
    5. Amintas Brandão Jr. & Lisa Rausch & América Paz Durán & Ciniro Costa Jr. & Seth A. Spawn & Holly K. Gibbs, 2020. "Estimating the Potential for Conservation and Farming in the Amazon and Cerrado under Four Policy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Marie Grimm, 2021. "Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    8. Facundo Sigal & Jorge Camusso & Ana Inés Navarro, 2022. "Argentine regions based on dynamic criteria," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4600, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    9. Isabel L. Jones & Joseph W. Bull, 2020. "Major dams and the challenge of achieving “No Net Loss” of biodiversity in the tropics," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 435-443, March.
    10. Brito, Brenda, 2020. "The pioneer market for forest law compliance in Paragominas, Eastern Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Meifang Chen & Yongwan Chun & Daniel A. Griffith, 2023. "Delineating Housing Submarkets Using Space–Time House Sales Data: Spatially Constrained Data-Driven Approaches," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Hissa, Leticia de Barros Viana & Aguiar, Ana Paula Dutra & Camargo, Rafael Rodrigues & Lima, Leticia Santos de & Gollnow, Florian & Lakes, Tobia, 2019. "Regrowing forests contribution to law compliance and carbon storage in private properties of the Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Addison, Prue & Arlidge, William & Baker, Julia & Booth, Hollie & Brooks, Thomas & Bull, Joseph & Burgass, Michael & Ekstrom, Jonathan & Ermgassen, Sophus zu, 2020. "Four Steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework," SocArXiv gjps6, Center for Open Science.
    14. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    15. Barral, Stéphanie & Guillet, Fanny, 2023. "Preserving peri-urban land through biodiversity offsets: Between market transactions and planning regulations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    16. Thomas B. White & Leonardo R. Viana & Geneviève Campbell & Claire Elverum & Leon A. Bennun, 2021. "Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3502-3516, December.
    17. Houdet, Joël & Ding, Helen & Quétier, Fabien & Addison, Prue & Deshmukh, Pravir, 2020. "Adapting double-entry bookkeeping to renewable natural capital: An application to corporate net biodiversity impact accounting and disclosure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Pablo Aníbal Quintana, 2021. "Métodos de clustering espacialmente restringidos: Un análisis al agrupamiento por nivel de estudio en la provincia de Mendoza," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4510, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    20. Yu, Shuling & Cui, Baoshan & Xie, Chengjie & Ma, Xu & Man, Ying & Yan, Jiaguo & Fu, Jing, 2021. "A quantitative approach for offsetting the coastal reclamation impacts on multiple ecosystem services in the Yellow River Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100291x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.