Exploring trade-offs between development and conservation outcomes in Northern Cambodia
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 71, S. 431-444
ISSN: 0264-8377
36 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 71, S. 431-444
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 101, S. 202-218
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 52, S. 103-119
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Marine policy, Band 62, S. 169-177
ISSN: 0308-597X
In: Marine policy, Band 45, S. 163-170
ISSN: 0308-597X
In: Marine policy: the international journal of ocean affairs, Band 45, S. 163-170
ISSN: 0308-597X
Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade‐offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial‐temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no‐worse‐off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity‐related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well‐being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project‐affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well‐being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that this level of well‐being should be maintained throughout the project life cycle. Employing this principle could help ensure people are no worse off as a result of interventions to achieve biodiversity NNL.
BASE
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 64, S. S125-S134
Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade‐offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial‐temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no‐worse‐off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity‐related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well‐being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project‐affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well‐being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that ...
BASE
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 52, S. 392-409
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 49, S. 273-286
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 43, S. 186-196
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 151, S. 1-12
World Affairs Online
In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Band 44, S. 201-228
SSRN
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 14, Heft 6, S. 709-718
ISSN: 1462-9011