Biodiversity offsets perform poorly for both people and nature, but better approaches are available

<h2>Summary</h2> Sustainability requires that we restore biodiversity and wider ecosystem services, yet developments such as new housing inevitably cause environmental impacts. Accordingly, developers are increasingly required to resource offset projects, delivering biodiversity or wider environmental net gains. However, analyses of offsets in England show that the large majority are conducted within development sites rather than targeted toward better opportunities for net gains elsewhere. Here, we compare current and alternative approaches to offsetting considering the biodiversity gains, ecosystem service co-benefits, and economic costs they generate. The results confirm that the current practice performs relatively poorly across all criteria. Analysis shows that by incorporating ecological and economic information into the targeting of offsets, they can provide a significant contribution to addressing the challenge of biodiversity loss or deliver substantial ecosystem service co-benefits to disadvantaged communities. The analytical methods and results presented here could support a substantial improvement in the operation and outcomes of biodiversity offsetting globally.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
One Earth
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.10.002
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Environmental Conservation and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.68

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Biodiversity offsets perform poorly for both people and nature, but better approaches are available

Emma Wright, Ben Groom, Brett Day, Sophus zu Ermgassen et al.
8 citations
One Earth
Environmental Conservation and Management
5.68
article

Biodiversity offsets perform poorly for both people and nature, but better approaches are available

Emma Wright, Ben Groom, Brett Day, Sophus zu Ermgassen, Diana Tingley, Felix Eigenbrod, Carlo Fezzi, Joseph W. Bull, Ben Balmford, Michela Faccioli, Nathan Owen, Mattia Mancini, Ethan T. Addicott, E.J. Milner‐Gulland, Amy Binner, Ian J. Bateman, Rebecca Collins
article en
8 citations

Abstract

<h2>Summary</h2> Sustainability requires that we restore biodiversity and wider ecosystem services, yet developments such as new housing inevitably cause environmental impacts. Accordingly, developers are increasingly required to resource offset projects, delivering biodiversity or wider environmental net gains. However, analyses of offsets in England show that the large majority are conducted within development sites rather than targeted toward better opportunities for net gains elsewhere. Here, we compare current and alternative approaches to offsetting considering the biodiversity gains, ecosystem service co-benefits, and economic costs they generate. The results confirm that the current practice performs relatively poorly across all criteria. Analysis shows that by incorporating ecological and economic information into the targeting of offsets, they can provide a significant contribution to addressing the challenge of biodiversity loss or deliver substantial ecosystem service co-benefits to disadvantaged communities. The analytical methods and results presented here could support a substantial improvement in the operation and outcomes of biodiversity offsetting globally.

One EarthVol. 7(12)
University of Trento (IT), University of Exeter (GB), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté (FR), University of Southampton (GB)
Sight Research UK, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Environmental Conservation and Management
5.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.