Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation
Abstract Habitat exchange programs, a form of biodiversity offsetting, aim to compensate for negative impacts in one area by conservation in another. A newer subset of habitat exchange programs includes programs that have three distinct characteristics: they allow for temporary (as opposed to only p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Conservation Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12846 |
| _version_ | 1818017614702575616 |
|---|---|
| author | Kristin P. Davis Julie Heinrichs Erica Fleishman Pricila Iranah Drew E. Bennett Joel Berger Liba Pejchar |
| author_facet | Kristin P. Davis Julie Heinrichs Erica Fleishman Pricila Iranah Drew E. Bennett Joel Berger Liba Pejchar |
| author_sort | Kristin P. Davis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Habitat exchange programs, a form of biodiversity offsetting, aim to compensate for negative impacts in one area by conservation in another. A newer subset of habitat exchange programs includes programs that have three distinct characteristics: they allow for temporary (as opposed to only permanent) credits; they are centralized and overseen by nonregulatory, independent administrators; and they exist in the absence of mandatory mitigation policy. As a result, these programs may be relatively flexible and practical in areas where environmental regulation is unpalatable politically. We synthesized gray and peer‐reviewed literature to evaluate these programs’ strengths and shortcomings. On the basis of our synthesis, we suggest that temporary conservation credits in habitat exchanges could encourage participation of landowners in conservation and enable programs to respond to environmental change. However, temporary credits can lead to trade‐offs between flexibility and uncertainty. Moreover, there is little evidence that these habitat exchange programs have benefited target species, and many challenges associated with offsetting programs persist. Newer forms of habitat exchange programs may have potential to achieve no net loss or net gains of biodiversity to a greater extent than other forms of offsetting, but this potential has not yet been realized. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T07:29:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-826b99615202479489812c336a15c067 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1755-263X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T07:29:14Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Conservation Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-826b99615202479489812c336a15c0672022-12-22T02:05:55ZengWileyConservation Letters1755-263X2022-03-01152n/an/a10.1111/conl.12846Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservationKristin P. Davis0Julie Heinrichs1Erica Fleishman2Pricila Iranah3Drew E. Bennett4Joel Berger5Liba Pejchar6Graduate Degree Program in Ecology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USANatural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USADepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USADepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USAHaub School of Environment and Natural Resources University of Wyoming Laramie Wyoming USADepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USADepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USAAbstract Habitat exchange programs, a form of biodiversity offsetting, aim to compensate for negative impacts in one area by conservation in another. A newer subset of habitat exchange programs includes programs that have three distinct characteristics: they allow for temporary (as opposed to only permanent) credits; they are centralized and overseen by nonregulatory, independent administrators; and they exist in the absence of mandatory mitigation policy. As a result, these programs may be relatively flexible and practical in areas where environmental regulation is unpalatable politically. We synthesized gray and peer‐reviewed literature to evaluate these programs’ strengths and shortcomings. On the basis of our synthesis, we suggest that temporary conservation credits in habitat exchanges could encourage participation of landowners in conservation and enable programs to respond to environmental change. However, temporary credits can lead to trade‐offs between flexibility and uncertainty. Moreover, there is little evidence that these habitat exchange programs have benefited target species, and many challenges associated with offsetting programs persist. Newer forms of habitat exchange programs may have potential to achieve no net loss or net gains of biodiversity to a greater extent than other forms of offsetting, but this potential has not yet been realized.https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12846biodiversity offsetsconservation creditsecological monitoringhabitat credit systemsmitigationthreatened and endangered species |
| spellingShingle | Kristin P. Davis Julie Heinrichs Erica Fleishman Pricila Iranah Drew E. Bennett Joel Berger Liba Pejchar Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation Conservation Letters biodiversity offsets conservation credits ecological monitoring habitat credit systems mitigation threatened and endangered species |
| title | Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| title_full | Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| title_fullStr | Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| title_short | Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| title_sort | strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation |
| topic | biodiversity offsets conservation credits ecological monitoring habitat credit systems mitigation threatened and endangered species |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12846 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kristinpdavis strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT julieheinrichs strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT ericafleishman strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT pricilairanah strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT drewebennett strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT joelberger strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation AT libapejchar strengthsandshortcomingsofhabitatexchangeprogramsforspeciesconservation |