IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6075-d564030.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Analysis of a Novel Method for Ecological Compensation—A Study of the Translocation of Dead Wood

Author

Listed:
  • Ola Lindroos

    (Department of Forest Biomaterials and Technology, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Malin Söderlind

    (Norra Skog, Box 4076, SE-90403 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Joel Jensen

    (Department of Forest Biomaterials and Technology, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Joakim Hjältén

    (Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden)

Abstract

Translocation of dead wood is a novel method for ecological compensation and restoration that could, potentially, provide a new important tool for biodiversity conservation. With this method, substrates that normally have long delivery times are instantly created in a compensation area, and ideally many of the associated dead wood dwelling organisms are translocated together with the substrates. However, to a large extent, there is a lack of knowledge about the cost efficiency of different methods of ecological compensation. Therefore, the costs for different parts of a translocation process and its dependency on some influencing factors were studied. The observed cost was 465 SEK per translocated log for the actual compensation measure, with an additional 349 SEK/log for work to enable evaluation of the translocation’s ecological results. Based on time studies, models were developed to predict required work time and costs for different transportation distances and load sizes. Those models indicated that short extraction and insertion distances for logs should be prioritized over road transportation distances to minimize costs. They also highlighted a trade-off between costs and time until a given ecological value is reached in the compensation area. The methodology used can contribute to more cost-efficient operations and, by doing so, increase the use of ecological compensation and the benefits from a given input.

Suggested Citation

  • Ola Lindroos & Malin Söderlind & Joel Jensen & Joakim Hjältén, 2021. "Cost Analysis of a Novel Method for Ecological Compensation—A Study of the Translocation of Dead Wood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6075-:d:564030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6075/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6075/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bidaud, Cécile & Schreckenberg, Kate & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "The local costs of biodiversity offsets: Comparing standards, policy and practice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 43-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li Ma & Danbo Pang & Jie Gao & Wenbin Wang & Ruoxiu Sun, 2023. "Ecological Asset Assessment and Ecological Compensation Standards for Desert Nature Reserves: Evidence from Three Different Climate Zones in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Eshetu Yirdaw & Markku Kanninen & Adrian Monge, 2023. "Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 0. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    4. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 2020. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 359-375, June.
    5. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Kotilainen, Juha M. & Raitanen, Elina & Kattainen, Matti & Pekkonen, Minna & Kuusela, Saija & Kullberg, Peter & Kangas, Johanna A.M. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 776-784.
    6. 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).
    7. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2024. "Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 22473-22498, September.
    8. Jing, Zhaorui & Wang, Jinman & Tang, Qian & Liu, Biao & Niu, Hebin, 2021. "Evolution of land use in coal-based cities based on the ecological niche theory: A case study in Shuozhou City, China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6075-:d:564030. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.