IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12726-d681282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Ecology into Land Planning and Development: Between Disillusionment and Hope, Questioning the Relevance and Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy

Author

Listed:
  • Hélène Barbé

    (Ecologie Systématique Evolution, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France)

  • Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste

    (Ecologie Systématique Evolution, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France)

Abstract

Scientific research on the mitigation hierarchy has steadily increased over the past few years at the international level. While some seek to improve the application of this public action instrument, others point out its shortcomings and risks. This opinion paper—which focuses on the French context—does not provide an exhaustive overview of existing research but instead targets specific issues considered to be a “priority”. We mainly investigate the relevance and implementation of the mitigation hierarchy, especially from an ecological point of view. Part of this paper thus questions the very principle of biodiversity offsetting (BO)—the last resort of the mitigation hierarchy that brings together numerous controversies—and the adequacy of the mitigation hierarchy with the objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. The general idea underlying this paper is to show how the mitigation hierarchy has been built and based on what values (mainly economic and legal, which leads us to conclude about the lack of ecology in the policy itself). In doing so, we provide a few perspectives as to what should be done to (better) integrate ecology into land use planning and development.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12726-:d:681282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12726/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12726/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Fabien Quétier & Coralie Calvet & Julie Lombard Latune, 2020. "Quelles implications possibles du monde agricole dans la compensation écologique ? Vers des approches territoriales," Post-Print hal-03085223, HAL.
    2. Olivier Godard, 1997. "Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle," Post-Print halshs-00624027, HAL.
    3. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, Ka, 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    4. Samia Sediri & Michel Trommetter & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste & Juan Fernandez-Manjarrés, 2020. "Transformability as a Wicked Problem: A Cautionary Tale?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Harold Levrel & Antoine Missemer, 2019. "La mise en économie de la nature, contrepoints historiques et contemporains," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(1), pages 97-122.
    6. Géraldine Froger & Gaël Plumecocq, 2018. "Faire entrer l’environnement dans l’économie. Temps, incertitudes et irréversibilités," Revue française de socio-Economie, La découverte, vol. 0(2), pages 39-58.
    7. Samia Sediri & Michel Trommetter & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste & Juan Fernández-Manjarrés, 2020. "Transformability as a Wicked Problem: A Cautionary Tale?," Post-Print hal-02907306, HAL.
    8. 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.
    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. Bonoua Faye & Guoming Du & Ru Zhang, 2022. "Efficiency Analysis of Land Use and the Degree of Coupling Link between Population Growth and Global Built-Up Area in the Subregion of West Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Mikael Karlsson, 2022. "Biodiversity Offsetting: Ethical Views within Environmental Organisations in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-11, September.

    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. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    3. T. B. White & S. O. Petrovan & L. A. Bennun & T. Butterworth & A. P. Christie & H. Downey & S. B. Hunter & B. R. Jobson & S. O. S. E. zu Ermgassen & W. J. Sutherland, 2023. "Principles for using evidence to improve biodiversity impact mitigation by business," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4719-4733, November.
    4. Fassina, Caroline & Jarvis, Diane & Tavares, Silvia & Coggan, Anthea, 2022. "Valuation of ecosystem services through offsets: Why are coastal ecosystems more valuable in Australia than in Brazil?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. John, Beatrice & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2019. "Toward Sustainable Urban Metabolisms. From System Understanding to System Transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 402-414.
    8. Ainscough, Jacob & Wilson, Meriwether & Kenter, Jasper O., 2018. "Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 93-101.
    9. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Gyan Charitha de Silva & Eugenie Christine Regan & Edward Henry Beattie Pollard & Prue Frances Elizabeth Addison, 2019. "The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1481-1495, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    13. Olivier Godard & Yann Laurans, 2004. "Evaluating environmental issue- Valuation as co-ordination in a pluralistic world," Working Papers hal-00242936, HAL.
    14. Olivier Godard, 1998. "Concertation et incitations efficaces, deux objectifs incompatibles ? Une analyse à partir du dispositif de gestion des déchets d'emballages ménagers en France," Post-Print halshs-00618321, HAL.
    15. Olivier Godard, 1998. "On markets and the conditions of a profitable use of economic instruments for environmental policy in countries in transition to market," Post-Print halshs-00624095, HAL.
    16. Jacob Ainscough & Jasper O. Kenter & Elaine Azzopardi & A. Meriwether W. Wilson, 2024. "Participant perceptions of different forms of deliberative monetary valuation: Comparing democratic monetary valuation and deliberative democratic monetary valuation in the context of regional marine ," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 189-215, April.
    17. van Hardeveld, H.A. & Driessen, P.P.J. & de Jong, H. & Nefs, M. & Schot, P.P. & Wassen, M.J., 2018. "How valuing cultural ecosystem services can advance participatory resource management: The case of the Dutch peatlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 113-125.
    18. Hoelting, Kristin R. & Morse, Joshua W. & Gould, Rachelle K. & Martinez, Doreen E. & Hauptfeld, Rina S. & Cravens, Amanda E. & Breslow, Sara J. & Bair, Lucas S. & Schuster, Rudy M. & Gavin, Michael C., 2024. "Opportunities for improved consideration of cultural benefits in environmental decision-Making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.

    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:22:p:12726-:d:681282. 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.