Cargando…

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 scen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bull, J W, Gordon, A, Law, E A, Suttle, K B, Milner-Gulland, E J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4241037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24945031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243
_version_ 1782345811943751680
author Bull, J W
Gordon, A
Law, E A
Suttle, K B
Milner-Gulland, E J
author_facet Bull, J W
Gordon, A
Law, E A
Suttle, K B
Milner-Gulland, E J
author_sort Bull, J W
collection PubMed
description 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
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4241037
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BlackWell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42410372014-12-08 Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity Bull, J W Gordon, A Law, E A Suttle, K B Milner-Gulland, E J Conserv Biol Contributed Papers 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 BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2014-06 2014-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4241037/ /pubmed/24945031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Contributed Papers
Bull, J W
Gordon, A
Law, E A
Suttle, K B
Milner-Gulland, E J
Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title_full Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title_fullStr Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title_full_unstemmed Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title_short Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
title_sort importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity
topic Contributed Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4241037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24945031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243
work_keys_str_mv AT bulljw importanceofbaselinespecificationinevaluatingconservationinterventionsandachievingnonetlossofbiodiversity
AT gordona importanceofbaselinespecificationinevaluatingconservationinterventionsandachievingnonetlossofbiodiversity
AT lawea importanceofbaselinespecificationinevaluatingconservationinterventionsandachievingnonetlossofbiodiversity
AT suttlekb importanceofbaselinespecificationinevaluatingconservationinterventionsandachievingnonetlossofbiodiversity
AT milnergullandej importanceofbaselinespecificationinevaluatingconservationinterventionsandachievingnonetlossofbiodiversity