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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Land use policy 2021-09, Vol.108, p.105568, Article 105568 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |