Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKangas, Johanna
dc.contributor.authorKullberg, Peter
dc.contributor.authorPekkonen, Minna
dc.contributor.authorKotiaho, Janne S.
dc.contributor.authorOllikainen, Markku
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-01T11:33:18Z
dc.date.available2021-07-01T11:33:18Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationKangas, J., Kullberg, P., Pekkonen, M., Kotiaho, J. S., & Ollikainen, M. (2021). Precision, Applicability, and Economic Implications : A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes. <i>Environmental Management</i>, <i>68</i>(2), 170-183. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01488-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01488-5</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_97863249
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/76952
dc.description.abstractThe rates of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss are alarming and current conservation efforts are not sufficient to stop them. The need for new tools is urgent. One approach is biodiversity offsetting: a developer causing habitat degradation provides an improvement in biodiversity so that the lost ecological value is compensated for. Accurate and ecologically meaningful measurement of losses and estimation of gains are essential in reaching the no net loss goal or any other desired outcome of biodiversity offsetting. The chosen calculation method strongly influences biodiversity outcomes. We compare a multiplicative method, which is based on a habitat condition index developed for measuring the state of ecosystems in Finland to two alternative approaches for building a calculation method: an additive function and a simpler matrix tool. We examine the different logic of each method by comparing the resulting trade ratios and examine the costs of offsetting for developers, which allows us to compare the cost-effectiveness of different types of offsets. The results show that the outcomes of the calculation methods differ in many aspects. The matrix approach is not able to consider small changes in the ecological state. The additive method gives always higher biodiversity values compared to the multiplicative method. The multiplicative method tends to require larger trade ratios than the additive method when trade ratios are larger than one. Using scoring intervals instead of using continuous components may increase the difference between the methods. In addition, the calculation methods have differences in dealing with the issue of substitutability.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science+Business Media
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEnvironmental Management
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.subject.otherBiodiversity offsetting
dc.subject.otherNo net loss
dc.subject.otherTrade ratio
dc.subject.otherBiodiversity calculation method
dc.titlePrecision, Applicability, and Economic Implications : A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-202107014139
dc.contributor.laitosBio- ja ympäristötieteiden laitosfi
dc.contributor.laitosDepartment of Biological and Environmental Scienceen
dc.contributor.oppiaineEkologia ja evoluutiobiologiafi
dc.contributor.oppiaineEvoluutiotutkimus (huippuyksikkö)fi
dc.contributor.oppiaineResurssiviisausyhteisöfi
dc.contributor.oppiaineEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen
dc.contributor.oppiaineCentre of Excellence in Evolutionary Researchen
dc.contributor.oppiaineSchool of Resource Wisdomen
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.format.pagerange170-183
dc.relation.issn0364-152X
dc.relation.numberinseries2
dc.relation.volume68
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2021
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.subject.ysoluonnon monimuotoisuus
dc.subject.ysoekologinen kompensaatio
dc.subject.ysobiodiversiteetti
dc.subject.ysokustannustehokkuus
dc.subject.ysolaskentamallit
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5497
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p38324
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5496
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20596
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p18521
dc.rights.urlhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.relation.doi10.1007/s00267-021-01488-5
jyx.fundinginformationThis study was part of the work of Habitat Bank funded by the University of Helsinki and SITRA. PK, JK, and MO were also funded by KONE Foundation (EKOTEKO). Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

CC BY 4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as CC BY 4.0