EcoTRADE : Investigating the suitability of tradable permits for biodiversity conservation in changing landscapes
Habitat restoration has been employed in the context of ecological compensation, to offset negative impacts on ecosystems as a result of development projects. Compensation measures are aimed at maintaining the size and quality of ecological networks. These measures are decided on a case-by-case basis, as a response to development. Traditionally, there is a preference to restore the same type of habitat near the location of impact. This practice ignores three main issues however: 1) the current spatial configuration of ecological networks may not be sufficient to maintain species at the long term, given ecosystem dynamics and climate change, 2) conservation budgets are perhaps more effectively spent on restoration of other, scarcer habitat types, and 3) restoration costs and potential differ per location, for which there is scope to achieve conservation targets more cost-efficiently. Furthermore, the current reactive nature of compensation practice does not stimulate a strategic approach to conservation that is flexible in response to ongoing changes.
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article in monograph or in proceedings biblioteca |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Society for Ecological Restoration
|
| Subjects: | biodiversity, habitats, natura 2000, nature compensation, rehabilitation, biodiversiteit, herstel, natuurcompensatie, |
| Online Access: | https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/ecotrade-investigating-the-suitability-of-tradable-permits-for-bi |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Habitat restoration has been employed in the context of ecological compensation, to offset negative impacts on ecosystems as a result of development projects. Compensation measures are aimed at maintaining the size and quality of ecological networks. These measures are decided on a case-by-case basis, as a response to development. Traditionally, there is a preference to restore the same type of habitat near the location of impact. This practice ignores three main issues however: 1) the current spatial configuration of ecological networks may not be sufficient to maintain species at the long term, given ecosystem dynamics and climate change, 2) conservation budgets are perhaps more effectively spent on restoration of other, scarcer habitat types, and 3) restoration costs and potential differ per location, for which there is scope to achieve conservation targets more cost-efficiently. Furthermore, the current reactive nature of compensation practice does not stimulate a strategic approach to conservation that is flexible in response to ongoing changes. |
|---|