• search hit 3 of 265
Back to Result List

Flexibility trade‐offs in conservation offsets

  • Conservation offsets promise cost‐effective conservation of biodiversity, especially under economic and environmental change, because they represent a more flexible approach to biodiversity conservation, allowing for the economic development of ecologically valuable land provided that this development is offset by restoration of previously developed areas. The level of flexibility is determined by the trading rules. Lax rules allow for more flexibility, which promises cost savings, but will likely lead to unintended loss of biodiversity. I analyzed the trade‐off between economic costs and ecological benefits (biodiversity conservation) in biodiversity offsetting with an ecological‐economic model that considered the three main types of offset flexibility: spatial, temporal, and ecosystem type. I sought to examine the influence of ecological and economic conditions on offset flexibility trade‐offs. Large variation in the conservation costs and small costs of habitat restoration strongly increased trading activity and reduced theConservation offsets promise cost‐effective conservation of biodiversity, especially under economic and environmental change, because they represent a more flexible approach to biodiversity conservation, allowing for the economic development of ecologically valuable land provided that this development is offset by restoration of previously developed areas. The level of flexibility is determined by the trading rules. Lax rules allow for more flexibility, which promises cost savings, but will likely lead to unintended loss of biodiversity. I analyzed the trade‐off between economic costs and ecological benefits (biodiversity conservation) in biodiversity offsetting with an ecological‐economic model that considered the three main types of offset flexibility: spatial, temporal, and ecosystem type. I sought to examine the influence of ecological and economic conditions on offset flexibility trade‐offs. Large variation in the conservation costs and small costs of habitat restoration strongly increased trading activity and reduced the ecological benefit. The ecological benefit was most sensitive to spatial flexibility when a short range of ecological interaction was considered. At a large interaction range, spatial flexibility delivered large cost savings without overly reducing the ecological benefit. Risks and time lags associated with habitat restoration favored an offsetting scheme in which credits are awarded with the initiation of restoration projects rather than their successful completion—given appropriate offsetting multipliers were chosen. Altogether, under scarce resources, the level of flexibility in an offsetting scheme should be chosen by carefully balancing ecological benefits and economic costs.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author: Martin Drechsler
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14144
ISSN:0888-8892
ISSN:1523-1739
Title of the source (English):Conservation Biology
Document Type:Scientific journal article peer-reviewed
Language:English
Year of publication:2024
Tag:compensaciones por conservación; compromiso; conservation offsets; cost‐effectiveness; dinámica; dynamic; ecological‐economic model; espacial; flexibilidad; flexibility; modelo ecológico‐económico; spatial; trade‐off
Volume/Year:38
Issue number:1
Article number:e14144
Way of publication:Open Access
Faculty/Chair:Fakultät 2 Umwelt und Naturwissenschaften / FG Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Umweltökonomie
Einverstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.