Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMancini, M
dc.contributor.authorCollins, R
dc.contributor.authorAddicott, E
dc.contributor.authorBalmford, B
dc.contributor.authorBinner, A
dc.contributor.authorBull, J
dc.contributor.authorDay, B
dc.contributor.authorEigenbrod, F
dc.contributor.authorzu Ermgassen, S
dc.contributor.authorFaccioli, M
dc.contributor.authorFezzi, C
dc.contributor.authorGroom, B
dc.contributor.authorMilner-Gulland, EJ
dc.contributor.authorOwen, N
dc.contributor.authorTingley, D
dc.contributor.authorWright, E
dc.contributor.authorBateman, I
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-18T12:43:01Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.date.updated2024-09-18T11:53:11Z
dc.description.abstractA basic requirement for global sustainability is to halt the ongoing decline in biodiversity and wider ecosystem services, yet infrastructure developments such as new housing inevitably cause environmental impacts. To counteract this, developers are increasingly required to resource projects which offset those impacts, delivering biodiversity or wider environmental net gains1 . However, analysis of offsets in England to date show that the large majority are conducted within development sites rather than being targeted towards far better opportunities for net gain of either biodiversity or ecosystem services elsewhere2 . Here we compare current and alternative approaches to offsetting considering the biodiversity gains, ecosystem service co-benefits and economic costs they generate. Our results confirm that while current practice is better than nothing, it performs relatively poorly across all criteria. Analysis shows that by incorporating ecological and economic information into the targeting of offsets they can provide a significant contribution to addressing the challenge of biodiversity loss or deliver substantial ecosystem service co-benefits to disadvantaged communities. The analytical methods and results presented here could support a substantial improvement in the operation and outcomes of biodiversity offsetting globally.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Council (NERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEsmée Fairbairn Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationAwaiting citation and DOIen_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/W004976/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberBB/Y008723/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberBB/V011588/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/137484
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-4102-5250 (Balmford, Benjamin)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherCell Pressen_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder temporary indefinite embargo pending publication by Cell Press. 12 month embargo to be applied on publication en_GB
dc.rights© 2024. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dc.titleBiodiversity offsets must address the trade-offs between people and nature: Case study and general principlesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-09-18T12:43:01Z
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2590-3322
dc.identifier.journalOne Earthen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-09-18
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-09-18
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-09-18T11:53:13Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2024. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2024. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/