The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Economic Foundations and Rationales for the BO Approach
NNL Goals | Types of Equivalence | Types of Offsetting | Possible Metrics Used for Assessing Losses and Gains | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Maintaining human well-being | Equivalence in utility | Forms of capital: losses in natural capital can be offset by gains in another capital (e.g., manufactured capital) | Benefits of development projects versus values of biodiversity losses assessed through cost-benefits analysis |
2 | Maintaining the level of ecosystem services that are beneficial to human well-being | Equivalence in ecosystem services | Offsetting aimed at maintaining the production of damaged ecosystem services by providing equivalent gains in ecosystem services | Ecological indicators of ecosystem services by category (regulation, support, provision, cultural) (e.g., presence of species providing specific ecosystem services) |
3 | Maintaining ecological functions | Functional equivalence | Losses of ecological functions are offset by gains in the same ecological functions (e.g., habitat for species) | Functional indicators (e.g., habitat area, density of vegetation) |
4 | Maintaining species and habitats | Individual-based equivalence | Offsetting aims to replace the same species populations or communities and habitats lost | Biological indicators (e.g., presence/absence, species diversity) |
3. Economic and Ecological Analysis of the BO mechanisms Performance
3.1. The Direct Offsets Approach
3.2. The BO Banking Mechanism
3.3. Offsetting Funds
4. Main Structural Limitations for the BO Approach in Meeting the Biodiversity Conservation Objectives
4.1. Ecological Limitations
- Limitations in integrating ecological knowledge through BO practices
- Limits to substitutability
4.2. Economic and Organizational Limitations
- The risk of economic objectives prevailing over ecological objectives
- The limited ability of economic design to meet ecological concerns
- Organizational limitations: institutional risks
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- Ribaudo, M.; Hansen, L.; Hellerstein, D.; Greene, C. The Use of Markets To Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship; US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
- Boisvert, V.; Méral, P.; Froger, G. Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services: Institutional Innovation or Renovation? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 1122–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quétier, F.; Regnery, B.; Levrel, H. No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenney, B.A.; Kiesecker, J.M. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McGillivray, D. Compensating Biodiversity Loss: The EU Commission’s Approach to Compensation under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. J. Environ. Law 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, T.A.; von Hase, A.; Brownlie, S.; Ekstrom, J.M.M.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Savy, C.E.; Stephens, R.T.T.; Treweek, J.; Ussher, G.T.; Ward, G.; et al. Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 1254–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Froger, G.; Ménard, S.; Méral, P. Towards a comparative and critical analysis of biodiversity banks. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masden, B.; Carroll, N.; Kandy, D.; Bennett, G. 2011 Update: State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide; Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hrabanski, M. The biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments in global governance: Origins, success and controversies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirard, R. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19–20, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vatn, A. Markets in environmental governance—From theory to practice. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 105, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muradian, R.; Arsel, M.; Pellegrini, L.; Adaman, F.; Aguilar, B.; Agarwal, B.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine de Blas, D.; Farley, J.; Froger, G.; et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, M. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: Wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 2004, 35, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bull, J.W.; Suttle, K.B.; Gordon, A.; Singh, N.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 2013, 47, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, B.; Marques, A.; Soares, A.M.V.D.M.; Pereira, H.M. Biodiversity offsets: From current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macintosh, A.; Waugh, L. Compensatory mitigation and screening rules in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014, 49, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgin, S. BioBanking: An environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. A Synthesis of the Approach. Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bräuer, I.; Müssner, R.; Marsden, K.; Oosterhuis, F.; Rayment, M.; Miller, C.; Dodoková, A. The Use of Market Incentives to Preserve Biodiversity; EcoLogic: Nelson, New Zealand, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- CBD; UNEP; BBOP. Biodiversity Offsets: A Tool for CBD Parties to Consider and a Briefing on the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP); BBOP: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, K.L.; Trezise, J.A.; Kraus, S.; Dripps, K.; Evans, M.C.; Gibbons, P.; Possingham, H.P.; Maron, M. The development of the Australian environmental offsets policy: From theory to practice. Environ. Conserv. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecological economics is a recent and still developing branch of economics that advocates transdisciplinarity and whose central theme is that ecological constraints and limits need to be taken into account in economic systems and models [91,92].
- In standard economics “capital” is broadly defined as a stock of goods capable of providing future utility through the production of further goods and services [37]. Capital refers to the three production factors classified in terms of manufactured capital, human capital and natural capital [93]. Natural capital represents the totality of nature (soils, water, plants, species, ecosystems) and can be defined as any stock of natural resources or environmental assets which provide a flow of useful goods or services now and in the future [37]. Manufactured capital refers to goods or services coming from human production (e.g., factories, roads, buildings etc.) and human capital covers knowledge and human skills [26].
- Neumayer, E. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, 2nd ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, G.; Dietz, S.; Neumayer, E. Introduction. In Handbook of Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Hartwick, J.M. Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. Am. Econ. Rev. 1977, 67, 972–974. [Google Scholar]
- Solow, R.M. Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1974, 41, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yew-Kwang, N. Welfare Economics. Introduction and Development of Basis Concepts; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Kanbur, R. Economie du développement et principe de compensation. Rev. Int. des Sci. Soc. 2003, 175, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, J. The Foundations of Welfare Economics. Econ. J. 1939, 49, 696–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaldor, N. Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Econ. J. 1939, 49, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieur, F. The environmental Kuznets curve in a world of irreversibility. Econ. Theory 2009, 40, 57–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Tengö, M.; Bennett, E.M. Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox: Why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 2010, 60, 576–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levrel, H.; Hay, J.; Bas, A.; Gastineau, P.; Pioch, S. Coût d’opportunité versus coût du maintien des potentialités écologiques: Deux indicateurs économiques pour mesurer les coûts de l’érosion de la biodiversité. Nat. Sci. Soc. 2012, 20, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; van der Perk, J.; Chiesura, A.; Marguliew, S. Ecological functions and socio-economic values of critical natural capital as a measure for ecological integrity and environmental health. In Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health. NATO-Science Series, IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences; Crabbe, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA; London, UK, 2000; pp. 191–214. [Google Scholar]
- Daly, H.E. Steady-State Economics, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 1992; first published in 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Figuières, C.; Guyomard, H.; Rotillon, G. Sustainable development: Between moral injunctions and natural constraints. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3608–3622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzman, J.; Ruhl, J.B. “No Net Loss”: Instrument Choice in Wetlands Protection. In Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience; Freeman, J., Kolstad, C.D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 323–350. [Google Scholar]
- Pearce, D. Do we really care about Biodiversity? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37, 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaissière, A.-C.; Levrel, H.; Hily, C.; le Guyaderc, D. Selecting ecological indicators to compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morandeau, D.; Meignien, P. Towards Indicators of Ecological Functions: Links between Biodiversity, Functions and Services; Evaluation and Integration of Sustainable Development Service, no. 51; General Commission for Sustainable Development: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, A.; Langford, W.T.; Todd, J.A.; White, M.D.; Mullerworth, D.W.; Bekessy, S.A. Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 1481–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briggs, B.D.J.; Hill, D.A.; Gillespie, R. Habitat banking—How it could work in the UK. J. Nat. Conserv. 2009, 17, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act; National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives; U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
- Coggan, A.; Buitelaar, E.; Whitten, S.; Bennett, J. Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why? Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scemama, P.; Levrel, H. L’émergence du marché de la compensation aux États-Unis: Changements institutionnels et impacts sur les modes d’organisation et les caractéristiques des transactions. Rev. Econ. Polit. 2014, 123, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers); EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. The Final Rule. In Federal Register; 73 Fed. Reg. 70; USACE: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Regnery, B.; Quétier, F.; Cozannet, N.; Gaucherand, S.; Laroche, A.; Burylo, M.; Couvet, D. Mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité: Comment améliorer les dossiers environnementaux et la gouvernance. Sci. Eaux Territ. 2013, 1–8. Available online: http://www.set-revue.fr/mesures-compensatoires-pour-la-biodiversite-comment-ameliorer-les-dossiers-environnementaux-et-la-go/texte (accessed on 5 June 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Calvet, C.; Levrel, H.; Napoléone, C.; Dutoit, T. La Réserve d’actifs naturels: Une nouvelle forme d’organisation pour la préservation de la biodiversité en France. In Restaurer la Nature Pour Atténuer les Impacts du Développement. Analyse des Mesures Compensatoires Pour la biodiversité; Levrel, H., Frascaria-Lacoste, N., Hay, J., Martin, G., Eds.; Editions Quae: Versailles, France, 2015; pp. 139–156. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Mateos, D.; Power, M.E.; Comín, F.A.; Yockteng, R. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10, e1001247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- White, W. The Advantages and Opportunities. In Conservation & Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems; Carroll, N., Fox, J., Bayon, R., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 33–43. [Google Scholar]
- Quétier, F.; Lavorel, S. Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2991–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J.; Nino-Murcia, A. Status of Species Conservation Banking in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 996–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, P.; Lant, C. Research: The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No-Net-Loss. Environ. Manag. 1999, 23, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, R.E.; Redmond, A.M.; Zedler, J.B. Count It by Acre or Function—Mitigation Adds Up to Net Loss of Wetlands; National Wetlands Newsletter Environmental Law Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, A.; Bull, J.W.; Wilcox, C.; Maron, M. Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, S.; Brower, A.L.; Stephens, R.T.T.; Lee, W.G. Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maron, M.; Hobbs, R.J.; Moilanen, A.; Matthews, J.W.; Christie, K.; Gardner, T.A.; Keith, D.A.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; McAlpine, C.A. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbons, P.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2007, 8, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaissière, A.-C.; Levrel, H. Biodiversity offset markets: What are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 110, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boisvert, V. Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavins, R. Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience (and Related Research)? In Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience; Freeman, J., Kolstad, C., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 19–47. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, N.; Fox, J.; Bayon, R. Conservation & Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems; Carroll, N., Fox, J., Bayon, R., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Conway, M.; Rayment, M.; White, A.; Berman, M. Exploring Potential Demand for and Supply of Habitat Banking in the EU and Appropriate Design Elements for a Habitat Banking Scheme; ICF GHK: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zafonte, M.; Hampton, S. Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scodari, P.; Shabman, L. Review and Analysis of in-Lieu Fee Mitigation in the CWA Section 404 Permit Program; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- BenDor, T.; Riggsbee, J.A. Regulatory and ecological risk under federal requirements for compensatory wetland and stream mitigation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkinson, J. In-lieu fee mitigation: Coming into compliance with the new Compensatory Mitigation Rule. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 17, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morandeau, D.; Vilaysack, D. Compensating for Damage to Biodiversity: An International Benchmarking Study; Evaluation and Integration of Sustainable Development Service; General Commission for Sustainable Development: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Thuiller, W. Patterns and uncertainties of species’ range shifts under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 2020–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estes, J.A.; Terborgh, J.; Brashares, J.S.; Power, M.E.; Berger, J.; Bond, W.J.; Carpenter, S.R.; Essington, T.E.; Holt, R.D.; Jackson, J.B.C.; et al. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 2011, 333, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gontier, M.; Balfors, B.; Mörtberg, U. Biodiversity in environmental assessment-current practice and tools for prediction. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2006, 26, 268–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curran, M.; Hellweg, S.; Beck, J. Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 617–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scheffer, M.; Carpenter, S.; Foley, J.A.; Folke, C.; Walker, B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 2001, 413, 591–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pärtel, M.; Szava-Kovats, R.; Zobel, M. Dark diversity: Shedding light on absent species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ricklefs, R.E. Community diversity: Relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 1987, 235, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thuiller, W.; Araújo, M.B.; Pearson, R.G.; Whittaker, R.J.; Brotons, L.; Lavorel, S. Biodiversity conservation: Uncertainty in predictions of extinction risk. Nature 2004, 430, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuussaari, M.; Bommarco, R.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Helm, A.; Krauss, J.; Lindborg, R.; Ockinger, E.; Pärtel, M.; Pino, J.; Rodà, F.; et al. Extinction debt: A challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Norgaard, R.B. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1219–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. The value of wetlands: Importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey Benayas, J.M.; Newton, A.C.; Diaz, A.; Bullock, J.M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science 2009, 325, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palmer, M.A.; Filoso, S. Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 2009, 325, 575–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spash, C.L. Terrible Economics, Ecosystems and Banking. Environ. Values 2011, 20, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, D.I. Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 21, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, J. Austrian economics and the limits of markets. Camb. J. Econ. 2012, 36, 1073–1090. [Google Scholar]
- Van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Opdam, P.; Wätzold, F.; Johst, K.; Drechsler, M.; Vos, C.C.; Wissel, S.; Quétier, F. Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgaard, R.B. The case for methodological pluralism. Ecol. Econ. 1989, 1, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spash, C.L. New foundations for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 77, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; Daly, H.E. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conserv. Biol. 1992, 6, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Calvet, C.; Napoléone, C.; Salles, J.-M. The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7357-7378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067357
Calvet C, Napoléone C, Salles J-M. The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics. Sustainability. 2015; 7(6):7357-7378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067357
Chicago/Turabian StyleCalvet, Coralie, Claude Napoléone, and Jean-Michel Salles. 2015. "The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics" Sustainability 7, no. 6: 7357-7378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067357