Quantifying the impact of vegetation-based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.     

Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems

The commonly expressed goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss of specific biological features affected by development. However, strict equivalency requirements may complicate trading of offset credits, increase costs due to restricted offset placement options, and force offset activities to focus on features that may not represent regional conservation priorities. Using the oil sands industry of Alberta, Canada, as a case study, we evaluated the economic and ecological performance of alternative offset systems targeting either ecologically equivalent areas (vegetation types) or regional conservation priorities (caribou and the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion). Exchanging dissimilar biodiversity elements requires assessment via a generalized metric; we used an empirically derived index of biodiversity intactness to link offsets with losses incurred by development. We considered 2 offset activities: land protection, with costs estimated as the net present value of profits of petroleum and timber resources to be paid as compensation to resource tenure holders, and restoration of anthropogenic footprint, with costs estimated from existing restoration projects. We used the spatial optimization tool MARXAN to develop hypothetical offset networks that met either the equivalent‐vegetation or conservation‐priority targets. Networks that required offsetting equivalent vegetation cost 2–17 times more than priority‐focused networks. This finding calls into question the prudence of equivalency‐based systems, particularly in relatively undeveloped jurisdictions, where conservation focuses on limiting and directing future losses. Priority‐focused offsets may offer benefits to industry and environmental stakeholders by allowing for lower‐cost conservation of valued ecological features and may invite discussion on what land‐use trade‐offs are acceptable when trading biodiversity via offsets. Resultados Económicos y Ecológicos de Sistemas de Compensación de Biodiversidad Flexible Habib et al.     

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia

Understanding the social acceptability of biodiversity offsets is important to the design of offset policy. We used a discrete choice experiment to quantify preferences of Australians for a migratory shorebird offset in the context of an oil and gas development project. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1371 respondents on their preferences for current and prospective offset‐policy characteristics via an online questionnaire to inform policy design of the social dimensions related to offset acceptability. The majority of respondents accepted offsetting as a means to allow economic development; the option to reject development (and an offset) was selected in 13% of possible offset scenarios. Substituting protection of a species affected by the development with protection of a more endangered species was a desirable policy characteristic, as was having the offset implemented by a third party or the government rather than the company responsible for the development. Direct offset activities (e.g., improving degraded habitat) were preferred over indirect activities (e.g., a research program), and respondents were strongly against locating the offset at a site other than where the impact occurred. Positive and negative characteristics of offsets could be traded off by changing the number of birds protected by the offset. Our results show that Australians are likely to support increased flexibility in biodiversity‐offset policies, particularly when undesirable policy characteristics are compensated for.     

Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity

There is an urgent need to improve the evaluation of conservation interventions. This requires specifying an objective and a frame of reference from which to measure performance. Reference frames can be baselines (i.e., known biodiversity at a fixed point in history) or counterfactuals (i.e., a scenario that would have occurred without the intervention). Biodiversity offsets are interventions with the objective of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL). We used biodiversity offsets to analyze the effects of the choice of reference frame on whether interventions met stated objectives. We developed 2 models to investigate the implications of setting different frames of reference in regions subject to various biodiversity trends and anthropogenic impacts. First, a general analytic model evaluated offsets against a range of baseline and counterfactual specifications. Second, a simulation model then replicated these results with a complex real world case study: native grassland offsets in Melbourne, Australia. Both models showed that achieving NNL depended upon the interaction between reference frame and background biodiversity trends. With a baseline, offsets were less likely to achieve NNL where biodiversity was decreasing than where biodiversity was stable or increasing. With a no‐development counterfactual, however, NNL was achievable only where biodiversity was declining. Otherwise, preventing development was better for biodiversity. Uncertainty about compliance was a stronger determinant of success than uncertainty in underlying biodiversity trends. When only development and offset locations were considered, offsets sometimes resulted in NNL, but not across an entire region. Choice of reference frame determined feasibility and effort required to attain objectives when designing and evaluating biodiversity offset schemes. We argue the choice is thus of fundamental importance for conservation policy. Our results shed light on situations in which biodiversity offsets may be an inappropriate policy instrument Importancia de la Especificación de Línea de Base en la Evaluación de Intervenciones de Conservación y la Obtención de Ninguna Pérdida Neta de la Biodiversidad     

Compliance with and ecosystem function of biodiversity offsets in North American and European freshwaters

Land-use change via human development is a major driver of biodiversity loss. To reduce these impacts, billions of dollars are spent on biodiversity offsets. However, studies evaluating offset project effectiveness that examine components such as the overall compliance and function of projects remain rare. We reviewed 577 offsetting projects in freshwater ecosystems that included the metrics project size, type of aquatic system (e.g., wetland and creek), offsetting measure (e.g., enhancement, restoration, and creation), and an assessment of the projects’ compliance and functional success. Project information was obtained from scientific and government databases and gray literature. Despite considerable investment in offsetting projects, crucial problems persisted. Although compliance and function were related to each other, a high level of compliance did not guarantee a high degree of function. However, large projects relative to area had better function than small projects. Function improved when projects targeted productivity or specific ecosystem features and when multiple complementary management targets were in place. Restorative measures were more likely to achieve targets than creating entirely new ecosystems. Altogether the relationships we found highlight specific ecological processes that may help improve offsetting outcomes.     

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.     

Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss

Businesses, governments, and financial institutions are increasingly adopting a policy of no net loss of biodiversity for development activities. The goal of no net loss is intended to help relieve tension between conservation and development by enabling economic gains to be achieved without concomitant biodiversity losses. biodiversity offsets represent a necessary component of a much broader mitigation strategy for achieving no net loss following prior application of avoidance, minimization, and remediation measures. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate use of biodiversity offsets. We examined what no net loss means as a desirable conservation outcome and reviewed the conditions that determine whether, and under what circumstances, biodiversity offsets can help achieve such a goal. We propose a conceptual framework to substitute the often ad hoc approaches evident in many biodiversity offset initiatives. The relevance of biodiversity offsets to no net loss rests on 2 fundamental premises. First, offsets are rarely adequate for achieving no net loss of biodiversity alone. Second, some development effects may be too difficult or risky, or even impossible, to offset. To help to deliver no net loss through biodiversity offsets, biodiversity gains must be comparable to losses, be in addition to conservation gains that may have occurred in absence of the offset, and be lasting and protected from risk of failure. Adherence to these conditions requires consideration of the wider landscape context of development and offset activities, timing of offset delivery, measurement of biodiversity, accounting procedures and rule sets used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains and guide offset design, and approaches to managing risk. Adoption of this framework will strengthen the potential for offsets to provide an ecologically defensible mechanism that can help reconcile conservation and development. Balances de Biodiversidad y el Reto de No Obtener Pérdida Neta     

Evaluating the potential of biodiversity offsets to achieve net gain

Evaluating the outcomes and tracking the trajectory of biodiversity offsets is essential to demonstrating their effectiveness as a mechanism to conciliate development and conservation. We reviewed the literature to determine the principles that should underpin biodiversity offset planning and the criteria for offset evaluation at the project level. According to the literature, the core principles of equivalence, additionality, and permanence are used as criteria to evaluate conservation outcomes of offsets. We applied the criteria to evaluate offsets of a large iron ore mining project in the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. We examined equivalence in terms of the amount of area per biodiversity value affected and fauna and flora similarity, additionality in terms of landscape connectivity, and permanence in terms of guarantees to ensure protection and restoration offsets lasting outcomes. We found an offset ratio (amount of affected area:offset area) of 1:1.8 for forests and 1:2 for grasslands. Ecological equivalence (i.e., similarity between affected and offset areas) was found for forested areas, but not for ferruginous rupestrian grasslands or for fauna. Landscape metrics showed that connectivity improved relative to the preproject situation as a result of locating restoration offsets in the largest and best-connected forest patch. Permanence of offsets was addressed by establishing covenants and management measures, but financial guarantees to cover maintenance costs after mine closure were lacking. Offsets should be equivalent in type and size, provide conservation outcomes that would not be obtained without them (additionality), and be lasting (permanence). To monitor and evaluate offsets, it is necessary to determine how well these 3 principles are applied in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of offsets. Achieving measurable conservation outcomes from offsets is a long-term endeavor that requires sustained management support, and is information intensive. Thus, offsets require ongoing monitoring and evaluation as well as adaptive management.     

The potential for biodiversity offsetting to fund effective invasive species control

Compensating for biodiversity losses in 1 location by conserving or restoring biodiversity elsewhere (i.e., biodiversity offsetting) is being used increasingly to compensate for biodiversity losses resulting from development. We considered whether a form of biodiversity offsetting, enhancement offsetting (i.e., enhancing the quality of degraded natural habitats through intensive ecological management), can realistically secure additional funding to control biological invaders at a scale and duration that results in enhanced biodiversity outcomes. We suggest that biodiversity offsetting has the potential to enhance biodiversity values through funding of invasive species control, but it needs to meet 7 key conditions: be technically possible to reduce invasive species to levels that enhance native biodiversity; be affordable; be sufficiently large to compensate for the impact; be adaptable to accommodate new strategic and tactical developments while not compromising biodiversity outcomes; acknowledge uncertainties associated with managing pests; be based on an explicit risk assessment that identifies the cost of not achieving target outcomes; and include financial mechanisms to provide for in‐perpetuity funding. The challenge then for conservation practitioners, advocates, and policy makers is to develop frameworks that allow for durable and effective partnerships with developers to realize the full potential of enhancement offsets, which will require a shift away from traditional preservation‐focused approaches to biodiversity management. El Potencial de la Compensación de la Biodiversidad para Financiar Controles Efectivos de Especies Invasoras     

An economic evaluation framework for land-use-based conservation policy instruments in a changing climate

Climate change is a key threat to biodiversity. To conserve species under climate change, ecologists and conservation scientists suggest 2 main conservation strategies regarding land use: supporting species’ range shifts to enable it to follow its climatic requirements by creating migration pathways, such as corridors and stepping stones, and conserving climate refugia (i.e., existing habitat areas that are somewhat buffered from climate change). The policy instruments that could be used to implement these conservation strategies have yet to be evaluated comprehensively from an economic perspective. The economic analyses of environmental policy instruments are often based on ecological effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria. We adapted these general criteria to evaluate policy instruments for species’ conservation under climate change and applied them to a conceptual analysis of land purchases, offsets, and conservation payments. Depending on whether the strategy supporting species’ range shifts or conserving climate refugia is selected, the evaluation of the policy instruments differed substantially. For example, to ensure ecological effectiveness, habitat persistence over time was especially important for climate refugia and was best achieved by a land-purchase policy instrument. In contrast, for the strategy supporting range shifts to be ecologically effective, a high degree of flexibility in the location of conserved sites was required to ensure that new habitat sites can be created in the species’ new range. Offset programs were best suited for that because the location of conservation sites can be chosen comparatively freely and may also be adapted over time.     

Cost shifting and other perverse incentives in biodiversity offsetting in India

Biodiversity offsetting aims to compensate for development‐induced biodiversity loss through commensurate conservation gains and is gaining traction among governments and businesses. However, cost shifting (i.e., diversion of offset funds to other conservation programs) and other perverse incentives can undermine the effectiveness of biodiversity offsetting. Additionality—the requirement that biodiversity offsets result in conservation outcomes that would not have been achieved otherwise—is fundamental to biodiversity offsetting. Cost shifting and violation of additionality can go hand in hand. India's national offsetting program is a case in point. Recent legislation allows the diversion of offset funds to meet the country's preexisting commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). With such diversions, no additional conservation takes place and development impacts remain uncompensated. Temporary additionality cannot be conceded in light of paucity of funds for preexisting commitments unless there is open acknowledgement that fulfillment of such commitments is contingent on offset funds. Two other examples of perverse incentives related to offsetting in India are the touting of inherently neutral offsetting outcomes as conservation gains, a tactic that breeds false complacency and results in reduced incentive for additional conservation efforts, and the clearing of native vegetation for commercial plantations in the name of compensatory afforestation, a practice that leads to biodiversity decline. The risks accompanying cost shifting and other perverse incentives, if not preempted and addressed, will result in net loss of forest cover in India. We recommend accurate baselines, transparent accounting, and open reporting of offset outcomes to ensure biodiversity offsetting achieves adequate and additional compensation for impacts of development.     

No net loss for people and biodiversity

Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade-offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial-temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no-worse-off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity-related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well-being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project-affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well-being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that this level of well-being should be maintained throughout the project life cycle. Employing this principle could help ensure people are no worse off as a result of interventions to achieve biodiversity NNL.     

Alternatives to biodiversity offsets for mitigating the effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems

Globally, offset schemes have emerged in many statutory frameworks relating to development activities, with the aim of balancing biodiversity conservation and development. Although the theory and use of biodiversity offsets in terrestrial environments is broadly documented, little attention has been paid to offsets in stream ecosystems. Here we examine the application of offset schemes to stream ecosystems and explore whether they suffer similar shortcomings to those of offset schemes focused on terrestrial biodiversity. To challenge the applicability of offsets further, we discuss typical trajectories of urban expansion and their cascading physical, chemical and biological impacts on stream ecosystems. We argue that the highly connected nature of stream ecosystems and urban drainage networks can transfer impacts of urbanization across wide areas, complicating the notion of like‐for‐like exchange and the prospect of effectively mitigating biodiversity loss. Instead, we identify in‐catchment options for stormwater control, which can avoid or minimize the impacts of development on downstream ecosystems, while presenting additional public and private benefits. We describe the underlying principles of these alternatives, some of the challenges associated with their uptake, and policy initiatives being trialed to facilitate adoption. In conclusion, we argue that stronger policies to avoid and minimize the impacts of urbanization provide better prospects for protecting downstream ecosystems, and can additionally, stimulate economic opportunities and improve urban liveability.     

Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems

When evaluating the impact of a biodiversity conservation intervention, a counterfactual is typically needed. Counterfactuals are possible alternative system trajectories in the absence of an intervention. Comparing observed outcomes against the chosen counterfactual allows the impact (change attributable to the intervention) to be determined. Because counterfactuals by definition never occur, they must be estimated. Sometimes, there may be many plausible counterfactuals, including various drivers of biodiversity change and defined on a range of spatial or temporal scales. Here, we posit that, by definition, conservation interventions always take place in social-ecological systems (SES) (i.e., ecological systems integrated with human actors). Evaluating the impact of an intervention in an SES, therefore, means taking into account the counterfactuals assumed by different human actors. Use of different counterfactuals by different actors will give rise to perceived differences in the impacts of interventions, which may lead to disagreement about its success or the effectiveness of the underlying approach. Despite that there are biophysical biodiversity trends, it is often true that no single counterfactual is definitively the right one for conservation assessment, so multiple evaluations of intervention efficacy could be considered justifiable. Therefore, we propose calculating the sum of perceived differences, which captures the range of impact estimates associated with different actors in a given SES. The sum of perceived differences gives some indication of how closely actors in an SES agree on the impacts of an intervention. We applied the concept of perceived differences to a set of global, national, and regional case studies (e.g., global realization of Aichi Target 11 for marine protected areas, effect of biodiversity offsetting on vegetation condition in Australia, and influence of conservation measures on an endangered ungulate in Central Asia). We explored approaches for minimizing the sum, including a combination of negotiation and structured decision making, careful alignment of expectations on scope and measurement, and explicit recognition of any intractable differences between stakeholders.     

Quantifying biases in marine-protected-area placement relative to abatable threats

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a critical defense against biodiversity loss in the world's oceans, but to realize near-term conservation benefits, they must be established where major threats to biodiversity occur and can be mitigated. We quantified the degree to which MPA establishment has targeted stoppable threats (i.e., threats that can be abated through effectively managed MPAs alone) by combining spatially explicit marine biodiversity threat data in 2008 and 2013 and information on the location and potential of MPAs to halt threats. We calculated an impact metric to determine whether countries are protecting proportionally more high- or low-threat ecoregions and compared observed values with random protected-area allocation. We found that protection covered <2% of ecoregions in national waters with high levels of abatable threat in 2013, which is ∼59% less protection in high-threat areas than if MPAs had been placed randomly. Relatively low-threat ecoregions had 6.3 times more strict protection (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories I–II) than high-threat ecoregions. Thirty-one ecoregions had high levels of stoppable threat but very low protection, which presents opportunities for MPAs to yield more significant near-term conservation benefits. The extent of the global MPA estate has increased, but the establishment of MPAs where they can reduce threats that are driving biodiversity loss is now urgently needed.     

Offsets and Conservation of the Species of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives

Biodiversity offsets are intended to achieve no net loss of biodiversity due to economic and human development. A variety of biodiversity components are addressed by offset policies. It is required that loss of protected species due to development be offset under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives in Europe. We call this type of offset a species‐equality offset because the offset pertains to the same species affected by the development project. Whether species equality can be achieved by offset design is unknown. We addressed this gap by reviewing derogation files (i.e., specific files that describe mitigation measures to ensure no net loss under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) from 85 development projects in France (2009–2010). We collected information on type of effect (reversible vs. irreversible) and characteristics of affected and offset sites (i.e., types of species, total area). We analyzed how the type of effect and the affected‐site characteristics influenced the occurrence of offset measures. The proportion of species targeted by offset measures (i.e., offset species) increased with the irreversibility of the effect of development and the conservation status of the species affected by development (i.e., affected species). Not all effects on endangered species (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List) were offset; on average, 82% of affected species would be offset. Twenty‐six percent of species of least concern were offset species. Thirty‐five percent of development projects considered all affected species in their offset measures. Species richness was much lower in offset sites than in developed sites even after offset proposals. For developed areas where species richness was relatively high before development, species richness at offset sites was 5–10 times lower. The species‐equality principle appears to have been applied only partially in offset policies, as in the EU directives. We suggest the application of this principle through offsets is highly important for the long‐term conservation of biodiversity in Europe. Compensaciones y Conservación de las Especies de las Directivas de Hábitats y Aves de la UE     

Near-term ecological forecasting for dynamic aeroconservation of migratory birds

Near-term ecological forecasting has the potential to mitigate negative impacts of human modifications on wildlife by directing efficient action through relevant and timely predictions. We used the U.S. avian migration system to highlight ecological forecasting applications for aeroconservation. We used millions of observations from 143 weather surveillance radars to construct and evaluate a migration forecasting system for nocturnal bird migration over the contiguous United States. We identified the number of nights of mitigation required to reduce the risk of aerial hazards to 50% of avian migrants passing a given area in spring and autumn based on dynamic forecasts of migration activity. We also investigated an alternative approach, that is, employing a fixed conservation strategy based on time windows that historically capture 50% of migratory passage. In practice, during both spring and autumn, dynamic forecasts required fewer action nights compared with fixed window selection at all locations (spring: mean of 7.3 more alert days; fall: mean of 12.8 more alert days). This pattern resulted in part from the pulsed nature of bird migration captured in the radar data, where the majority (54.3%) of birds move on 10% of a migration season's nights. Our results highlight the benefits of near-term ecological forecasting and the potential advantages of dynamic mitigation strategies over static ones, especially in the face of increasing risks to migrating birds from light pollution, wind energy infrastructure, and collisions with structures.     

Scale dependency of conservation outcomes in a forest-offsetting scheme

Offset schemes help avoid or revert habitat loss through protection of existing habitat (avoided deforestation), through the restoration of degraded areas (natural regrowth), or both. The spatial scale of an offset scheme may influence which of these 2 outcomes is favored and is an important aspect of the scheme's design. However, how spatial scale influences the trade-offs between the preservation of existing habitat and restoration of degraded areas is poorly understood. We used the largest forest offset scheme in the world, which is part of the Brazilian Forest Code, to explore how implementation at different spatial scales may affect the outcome in terms of the area of avoided deforestation and area of regrowth. We employed a numerical simulation of trade between buyers (i.e., those who need to offset past deforestation) and sellers (i.e., landowners with exceeding native vegetation) in the Brazilian Amazon to estimate potential avoided deforestation and regrowth at different spatial scales of implementation. Allowing offsets over large spatial scales led to an area of avoided deforestation 12 times greater than regrowth, whereas restricting offsets to small spatial scales led to an area of regrowth twice as large as avoided deforestation. The greatest total area (avoided deforestation and regrowth combined) was conserved when the spatial scale of the scheme was small, especially in locations that were highly deforested. To maximize conservation gains from avoided deforestation and regrowth, the design of the Brazilian forest-offset scheme should focus on restricting the spatial scale in which offsets occur. Such a strategy could help ensure conservation benefits are localized and promote the recovery of degraded areas in the most threatened forest landscapes.     

Projecting biodiversity benefits of conservation behavior-change programs

Biodiversity loss is driven by human behavior, but there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of behavior-change programs in delivering benefits to biodiversity. To demonstrate their value, the biodiversity benefits and cost-effectiveness of behavior changes that directly or indirectly affect biodiversity need to be quantified. We adapted a structured decision-making prioritization tool to determine the potential biodiversity benefits of behavior changes. As a case study, we examined two hypothetical behavior-change programs––wildlife gardening and cat containment––by asking experts to consider the behaviors associated with these programs that directly and indirectly affect biodiversity. We assessed benefits to southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) and superb fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) by eliciting from experts estimates of the probability of each species persisting in the landscape given a range of behavior-change scenarios in which uptake of the behaviors varied. We then compared these estimates to a business-as-usual scenario to determine the relative biodiversity benefit and cost-effectiveness of each scenario. Experts projected that the behavior-change programs would benefit biodiversity and that benefits would rise with increasing uptake of the target behaviors. Biodiversity benefits were also predicted to accrue through indirect behaviors, although experts disagreed about the magnitude of additional benefit provided. Scenarios that combined the two behavior-change programs were estimated to provide the greatest benefits to species and be most cost-effective. Our method could be used in other contexts and potentially at different scales and advances the use of prioritization tools to guide conservation behavior-change programs.