Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States
Open Access
- 29 May 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Sustainability
- Vol. 14 (11), 6652
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116652
Abstract
Conservation and mitigation banks allow their proponents to buy credits to offset the negative residual impacts of their development projects with the goal of no net loss (NNL) in the ecosystem function and habitat area. However, little is known about the extent to which these bank transactions achieve NNL. We synthesized and reviewed 12,756 transactions in the United States which were related to meeting area and ecological equivalence (n = 4331) between the approved negative impact and offset. While most of these transactions provided an offset that was equal to or greater than the impacted area, approximately one quarter of the transactions, especially those targeting wetlands, did not meet ecological equivalence between the impact and offset. This missing ecological equivalence was often due to the significantly increasing use of preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation over creating new ecosystems through establishment and re-establishment. Stream transactions seldom added new ecosystem area through creation but mainly used rehabilitation in order to add offset benefits, in many cases leading to a net loss of area. Our results suggest that best practice guidance on habitat creation as well as the incentivization of habitat creation must increase in the future to avoid net loss through bank transactions and to meet the ever-accelerating global changes in land use and the increased pressure of climate change.Funding Information
- Mitacs (RES0027784, RES0021639)
This publication has 63 references indexed in Scilit:
- Transboundary Wildlife Conservation in A Changing Climate: Adaptation of the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and Its Daughter Instruments to Climate ChangeDiversity, 2012
- Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutionsBiological Conservation, 2011
- Quantitative methods for defining percentage area targets for habitat types in conservation planningBiological Conservation, 2010
- Using Macrophytes in Urban Stream Rehabilitation: A Cautionary TaleRestoration Ecology, 2009
- Why bartering biodiversity failsConservation Letters, 2009
- Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation TechniquesNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 2008
- BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservationBiodiversity and Conservation, 2008
- Loss of Fish Habitat as a Consequence of Inappropriately Constructed Stream CrossingsFisheries, 2005
- Assessing the substitutability of mitigation wetlands for natural sites: estimating restoration lag costs of wetland mitigationEcological Economics, 2004
- Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basinsEcological Engineering, 2001