Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach

Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance env...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Land use policy 2021-09, Vol.108, p.105568, Article 105568
Hauptverfasser: Mello, Kaline de, Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus, Borges-Matos, Clarice, Brites, Alice Dantas, Tavares, Paulo André, da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni, Matsumoto, Marcelo, Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro, Joly, Carlos Alfredo, Sparovek, Gerd, Metzger, Jean Paul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 105568
container_title Land use policy
container_volume 108
creator Mello, Kaline de
Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus
Borges-Matos, Clarice
Brites, Alice Dantas
Tavares, Paulo André
da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni
Matsumoto, Marcelo
Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro
Joly, Carlos Alfredo
Sparovek, Gerd
Metzger, Jean Paul
description Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss. •We developed a dynamic decision support tool for native vegetation compensation.•Our method allows balancing environmental and economic aspects in offset schemes.•Our method allows the inclusion of trading up for areas with high ecological value.•The method also includes the possibility of degraded pasturelands restoration.•It is possible to apply ecological equivalence for Legal Reserves compensation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2577532834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S026483772100291X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2577532834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-64a401487d7a8e9e2e63f91ef8da009f36021b45ffa29cad32ccbc4a76fc25d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwD5ZYp9hOYjvsSsWjUiU2sDauM04TpXFqJ5X4e1yCYMlqHrpzr-YghClZUEL5XbNodVeOAXrXLhhhNK7znMszNKNSpEku8uwczQjjWSJTIS7RVQgNIYQXlM3Qx7oboPJ6qLsKg3Gtq2qjWwyHsT7qFjoD2DqPu6g4Aj5CBUNsXYeN2_fQhe_hHi_xHoadK38NdN97p83uGl1Y3Qa4-alz9P70-LZ6STavz-vVcpMYJviQ8ExnhGZSlEJLKIABT21BwcpSE1LYlMfXtllurWaF0WXKjNmaTAtuDctLmc7R7eQbYw8jhEE1bvRdjFQsFyJPmUyzqJKTyngXggerel_vtf9UlKgTT9WoP57qxFNNPOPpw3QK8YtjDV4FU5_4lLUHM6jS1f-bfAEZUIY9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2577532834</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Mello, Kaline de ; Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus ; Borges-Matos, Clarice ; Brites, Alice Dantas ; Tavares, Paulo André ; da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni ; Matsumoto, Marcelo ; Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro ; Joly, Carlos Alfredo ; Sparovek, Gerd ; Metzger, Jean Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Mello, Kaline de ; Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus ; Borges-Matos, Clarice ; Brites, Alice Dantas ; Tavares, Paulo André ; da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni ; Matsumoto, Marcelo ; Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro ; Joly, Carlos Alfredo ; Sparovek, Gerd ; Metzger, Jean Paul</creatorcontrib><description>Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss. •We developed a dynamic decision support tool for native vegetation compensation.•Our method allows balancing environmental and economic aspects in offset schemes.•Our method allows the inclusion of trading up for areas with high ecological value.•The method also includes the possibility of degraded pasturelands restoration.•It is possible to apply ecological equivalence for Legal Reserves compensation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-8377</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5754</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Availability ; Balancing ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity loss ; Biodiversity offset ; Brazilian Forest Act ; Case studies ; Compensation ; Conservation policy ; CRA ; Decision making ; Equivalence ; Land ; Land use ; Landowners ; Methodological approaches ; Natural vegetation ; Negotiations ; Property law ; Rural areas ; Trading up ; Vegetation</subject><ispartof>Land use policy, 2021-09, Vol.108, p.105568, Article 105568</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Sep 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-64a401487d7a8e9e2e63f91ef8da009f36021b45ffa29cad32ccbc4a76fc25d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-64a401487d7a8e9e2e63f91ef8da009f36021b45ffa29cad32ccbc4a76fc25d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772100291X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27843,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mello, Kaline de</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borges-Matos, Clarice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brites, Alice Dantas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tavares, Paulo André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Marcelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joly, Carlos Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparovek, Gerd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Jean Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach</title><title>Land use policy</title><description>Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss. •We developed a dynamic decision support tool for native vegetation compensation.•Our method allows balancing environmental and economic aspects in offset schemes.•Our method allows the inclusion of trading up for areas with high ecological value.•The method also includes the possibility of degraded pasturelands restoration.•It is possible to apply ecological equivalence for Legal Reserves compensation.</description><subject>Availability</subject><subject>Balancing</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity loss</subject><subject>Biodiversity offset</subject><subject>Brazilian Forest Act</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Compensation</subject><subject>Conservation policy</subject><subject>CRA</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Equivalence</subject><subject>Land</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Landowners</subject><subject>Methodological approaches</subject><subject>Natural vegetation</subject><subject>Negotiations</subject><subject>Property law</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Trading up</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><issn>0264-8377</issn><issn>1873-5754</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwD5ZYp9hOYjvsSsWjUiU2sDauM04TpXFqJ5X4e1yCYMlqHrpzr-YghClZUEL5XbNodVeOAXrXLhhhNK7znMszNKNSpEku8uwczQjjWSJTIS7RVQgNIYQXlM3Qx7oboPJ6qLsKg3Gtq2qjWwyHsT7qFjoD2DqPu6g4Aj5CBUNsXYeN2_fQhe_hHi_xHoadK38NdN97p83uGl1Y3Qa4-alz9P70-LZ6STavz-vVcpMYJviQ8ExnhGZSlEJLKIABT21BwcpSE1LYlMfXtllurWaF0WXKjNmaTAtuDctLmc7R7eQbYw8jhEE1bvRdjFQsFyJPmUyzqJKTyngXggerel_vtf9UlKgTT9WoP57qxFNNPOPpw3QK8YtjDV4FU5_4lLUHM6jS1f-bfAEZUIY9</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>Mello, Kaline de</creator><creator>Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus</creator><creator>Borges-Matos, Clarice</creator><creator>Brites, Alice Dantas</creator><creator>Tavares, Paulo André</creator><creator>da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni</creator><creator>Matsumoto, Marcelo</creator><creator>Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro</creator><creator>Joly, Carlos Alfredo</creator><creator>Sparovek, Gerd</creator><creator>Metzger, Jean Paul</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach</title><author>Mello, Kaline de ; Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus ; Borges-Matos, Clarice ; Brites, Alice Dantas ; Tavares, Paulo André ; da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni ; Matsumoto, Marcelo ; Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro ; Joly, Carlos Alfredo ; Sparovek, Gerd ; Metzger, Jean Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-64a401487d7a8e9e2e63f91ef8da009f36021b45ffa29cad32ccbc4a76fc25d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Availability</topic><topic>Balancing</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity loss</topic><topic>Biodiversity offset</topic><topic>Brazilian Forest Act</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Compensation</topic><topic>Conservation policy</topic><topic>CRA</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Equivalence</topic><topic>Land</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Landowners</topic><topic>Methodological approaches</topic><topic>Natural vegetation</topic><topic>Negotiations</topic><topic>Property law</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Trading up</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mello, Kaline de</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borges-Matos, Clarice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brites, Alice Dantas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tavares, Paulo André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Marcelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joly, Carlos Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparovek, Gerd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Jean Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Land use policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mello, Kaline de</au><au>Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus</au><au>Borges-Matos, Clarice</au><au>Brites, Alice Dantas</au><au>Tavares, Paulo André</au><au>da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni</au><au>Matsumoto, Marcelo</au><au>Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro</au><au>Joly, Carlos Alfredo</au><au>Sparovek, Gerd</au><au>Metzger, Jean Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach</atitle><jtitle>Land use policy</jtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>108</volume><spage>105568</spage><pages>105568-</pages><artnum>105568</artnum><issn>0264-8377</issn><eissn>1873-5754</eissn><abstract>Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss. •We developed a dynamic decision support tool for native vegetation compensation.•Our method allows balancing environmental and economic aspects in offset schemes.•Our method allows the inclusion of trading up for areas with high ecological value.•The method also includes the possibility of degraded pasturelands restoration.•It is possible to apply ecological equivalence for Legal Reserves compensation.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0264-8377
ispartof Land use policy, 2021-09, Vol.108, p.105568, Article 105568
issn 0264-8377
1873-5754
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2577532834
source PAIS Index; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Availability
Balancing
Biodiversity
Biodiversity loss
Biodiversity offset
Brazilian Forest Act
Case studies
Compensation
Conservation policy
CRA
Decision making
Equivalence
Land
Land use
Landowners
Methodological approaches
Natural vegetation
Negotiations
Property law
Rural areas
Trading up
Vegetation
title Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T09%3A39%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Integrating%20ecological%20equivalence%20for%20native%20vegetation%20compensation:%20A%20methodological%20approach&rft.jtitle=Land%20use%20policy&rft.au=Mello,%20Kaline%20de&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=108&rft.spage=105568&rft.pages=105568-&rft.artnum=105568&rft.issn=0264-8377&rft.eissn=1873-5754&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105568&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2577532834%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2577532834&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S026483772100291X&rfr_iscdi=true