Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting T

metrics and methods
Maria Jose Carreras Gamarraa,∗, James Philip Lassoiea, Jeffrey Mildera,b
a
Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
b
Rainforest Alliance, 233 Broadway, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10279, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biodiversity offset strategies are based on the explicit calculation of both losses and gains necessary to establish
Biodiversity accounting ecological equivalence between impact and offset areas. Given the importance of quantifying biodiversity values,
Biodiversity metric various accounting methods and metrics are continuously being developed and tested for this purpose.
Biodiversity offset Considering the wide array of alternatives, selecting an appropriate one for a specific project can be not only
No net loss
challenging, but also crucial; accounting methods can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of an off-
Ecological equivalency
setting strategy, and if not well-suited to the context and values being offset, a no net loss outcome might not be
delivered. To date there has been no systematic review or comparative classification of the available biodiversity
accounting alternatives that aim at facilitating metric selection, and no tools that guide decision-makers
throughout such a complex process. We fill this gap by developing a set of analyses to support (i) identifying the
spectrum of available alternatives, (ii) understanding the characteristics of each and, ultimately (iii) making the
most sensible and sound decision about which one to implement. The metric menu, scoring matrix, and decision
tree developed can be used by biodiversity offsetting practitioners to help select an existing metric, and thus
achieve successful outcomes that advance the goal of no net loss of biodiversity.

1. Introduction biodiversity values, in a context where there is a meaningful no net loss

Biodiversity offsets are defined as “measurable conservation out-
comes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant
residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project develop-
ment” (International Finance Corporation, 2012, p.2; BBOP, 2012a; ten
Kate et al., 2014). These are based on the explicit calculation of losses
and gains at the impact and offset sites, looking to establish ecological
equivalence between both areas to achieve the goal of no net loss in
biodiversity, when compared to a specific reference scenario (Gardner
et al., 2013; Maron et al., 2018). As extensively discussed in scientific
literature, the need to account for biodiversity values is one of the as-
pects that distinguishes offsets from other types of compensation pro-
grams (e.g., Quétier and Lavorel, 2011; Bull et al., 2014; Quétier et al.,
2014; Gonçalves et al., 2015). However, this distinction is not always
respected in practice.
Calculating the biodiversity gains required to achieve no net loss is
inherently critical to the design and monitoring of the effectiveness of
biodiversity offsets; as well as establishing a transparent reference
scenario, either fixed or dynamic, against which to assess the goal of no
net loss (Maron et al., 2018). Given the importance of quantifying
objective, a wide array of equivalence accounting methods and in-
dicators, known as metrics or currencies (BBOP, 2012b; Bull et al.,
2013) have been developed for this purpose (Bezombes et al., 2017).
Some intended for broad application, and others oriented to particular
contexts or objectives (Bull et al., 2014). Under some circumstances, it
is possible to use direct measures of biodiversity at the species or po-
pulation level (e.g., number of individuals of a particular species).
However, in other instances, because of the multi-scale and multi-level
characteristics of biodiversity, currencies based on surrogate measures
capable of accounting for multiple biodiversity components simulta-
neously may be more pertinent and more feasible (Business and Bio-
diversity Offsets Program [BBOP] 2012a).
Some of these indirect currencies use area as a proxy for habitat
losses and gains, as in the case of many U.S. species conservation banks,
which aim to compensate losses from project development on an acre-
by-acre basis (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005; Carreras and Toombs,
2017). Others use aggregated currencies, usually based on a combina-
tion of area and a measure of either habitat functionality (e.g., the
Canadian Fish Habitat Framework, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2002)
or habitat quality (e.g., the Habitat Hectares metric of the Australian

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: carreras.mj@gmail.com (M.J. Carreras Gamarra), lassoie@cornell.edu (J.P. Lassoie), jmilder@ra.org (J. Milder).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.008
Received 11 September 2017; Received in revised form 12 April 2018; Accepted 4 May 2018
Available online 11 May 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.
State of Victoria, Parkes et al., 2003). More elaborated currencies, al-
though not as widespread, include ecosystem services as biodiversity
targets (e.g., a South African policy considers ecosystem services,
Brownlie and Botha, 2009; Jacob et al., 2016), or even include in-
dicators that quantify additional aspects of biodiversity value (e.g., a
pilot U.K. policy considers habitat ‘distinctiveness’, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2011).
With interest in biodiversity offsets increasing worldwide, new ac-
counting methods that respond to particular ecological, political, and
socioeconomic contexts are continuously being developed (ten Kate
et al., 2011; BBOP, 2012c). New scientific studies are also appearing,
assessing these methods in terms of both their scientific robustness and
applicability, identifying consistent challenges, and shedding light on
potential ways to strengthen them (e.g., Bull et al., 2014; Bezombes
et al., 2017). As the pressure over the need for more robust accounting
methods and metrics keeps building, new approaches are inevitably
being developed, and offset practices seem to be moving away from a
streamline approach that promotes certainty, efficiency, and predict-
ability.
As practitioners look for uniformed and shared methods among the
increasing pool of existing options, it is important to recognize that the
selection of biodiversity metrics, and the accounting methods in which
they are embedded, can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of
an offsetting strategy (BBOP, 2012a; Bull et al., 2014; Bezombes et al.,
2017). Selection of alternatives that are not well-suited to the local
context and biodiversity values being offset may result in a project that
fails to deliver a no net loss outcome, even if it appears on paper to do
so. For this reason, understanding the differences between alternative
biodiversity accounting methods and metrics, recognizing the im-
plications of their use, and choosing the most appropriate ones given
the context of a particular offsetting application is both crucial and
challenging.
To date, there has been no systematic review or comparative clas-
sification of the available biodiversity accounting alternatives ac-
cording to their suitability overall or for specific contexts. Here we fill
this gap by (1) taking stock of the different accounting methods and
metrics that are available to quantify impact losses and offset gains; (2)
deeply examining the assumptions and contextual frameworks under
which these were developed; and (3) classifying alternatives, their
suitability, and implications for use according to a set of criteria de-
veloped through consultation with scientific and practitioner stake-
holders. The results of this analysis can support practitioners to sys-
tematically review and select the most appropriate accounting metric,
and apply the corresponding accounting method, when designing and
implementing offsets, streamlining offset measures and promoting ef-
ficiency among these practices.
2. Methods
The methodological framework included the development of semi-
structured interviews with stakeholders working with biodiversity off-
sets and a systematic review of current metrics, and accounting
methods in which these are embedded, for measuring biodiversity va-
lues. The analysis involved the identification and assessment of current
alternatives considering, among other factors, the results of the inter-
views conducted. The scope of the assessment includes methods and
metrics developed for terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. Those spe-
cifically designed for aquatic ecosystems, both marine and continental,
were not part of the study, as the metric comparative assessment was
based on standards that have been developed focusing on terrestrial
habitats.
2.1. Identification of stakeholder-defined criteria for selecting accounting
methods and metrics
Qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the design
37
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
Table 1
Interviewees, geographic focus of work experience, and their professional af-
filiations.
Affilitation Designers Implementers Researchers
NGO 1 (Latin 1 (Latin America, North
America) America, Africa, Asia)
Academia 1 (Latin 1 (Europe)
America)
Government 1 (Latin
America)
Private company 1 (Latin America) 1 (Global)
Collaborative 1 (Global)
platform
(‘designers’), implementation (‘implementers’), and research (‘re-
searchers’) of biodiversity offsets at the international level (i.e., biodi-
versity offset expert panel) were conducted. The objective was to de-
termine which characteristics these stakeholders consider to be most
relevant when selecting a method and metric for accounting biodi-
versity values under different contexts. Eight interviewees from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), government and academic in-
stitutions, international organizations, and private companies involved
in biodiversity offsets across different regions were contacted in order
to obtain results that reflect the different perspectives on the topic, both
geographically and thematically (Table 1).
Interviews followed an open structure of themed conversational
questions, following Mason (2002) approach for generating qualitative
data; research questions used to guide the conversations, and their
corresponding sub-categories, are presented in the Supporting In-
formation. We analyzed responses to identify areas of consensus re-
garding desirable attributes of biodiversity offset accounting methods
and metrics. We did this by coding the responses into common themes
for their examination in terms of the presence and amount of specific
counts, using the basics of the content analysis technique (Mayring,
2000). The identified attributes were then used as criteria against which
to evaluate and characterize existing metrics and corresponding ac-
counting methods.
2.2. Review and characterization of biodiversity offset metrics and methods
We used the Systematic Review (SR) process to identify and char-
acterize current metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, for
measuring biodiversity when designing offset strategies (Cook et al.,
1997; Mulrow, 1994; Tranfield et al., 2003). This approach is suitable
for evaluating and summarizing extensive literature and, in contrast to
classical qualitative review methods, it comprises an explicit and sys-
tematic process effective for counteracting biases for the development
of accurate conclusions. The SR was conducted in a three-stage process
following the guidelines proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003).
2.2.1. Stage 1: planning the review
This first stage involved the identification of the review questions.
These were collaboratively developed between the authors and biodi-
versity offset experts and practitioners involved during the interview
process (i.e., the biodiversity offset expert panel).
• Q1: What are the different available metrics, and corresponding
accounting methods, for measuring biodiversity values in the con-
text of offsetting strategies and what are their characteristics?
• Q2: What are the best existing metrics, and corresponding ac-
counting methods, for measuring biodiversity values according to
standards of biodiversity accounting best practice and the stake-
holder-defined criteria previously identified?
• Q3: For what type(s) of biodiversity offset project(s) is each methods
and metric most suitable?
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.
2.2.2. Stage 2: conducting the review
The second stage of the SR process involved conducting the review
to identify the different existing metrics, and corresponding accounting
methods, for measuring biodiversity values and answering the three
review questions indicated above. It started with the identification of
keywords and search terms, built from the literature and discussions
with the review panel. The following keywords were included: biodi-
versity offset*, compensatory mitigation, habitat offset*, environmental
offset*, conservation bank*, habitat bank*, offset metric*, offset
method*, offset gains*, offset benefits*, offset currency*; the asterisks
indicate that articles containing derivations of the main words were
also included.
The information search was then conducted, using academic jour-
nals, unpublished studies, policies, and technical reports. This stage
concluded with the identification of the set of existing metrics, subject
of this study, as well as with data matrices directly linked to the second
and third review questions.
2.2.3. Stage 3: reporting and dissemination
Data collected during the review was used to develop one specific
product to report results relative to each review question:
• Question 1: Details of metrics and corresponding accounting
methods for measuring biodiversity offsets (Product 1)
• Question 2: Matrix characterizing suitability of biodiversity offset
metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, related to best
practices and stakeholder-defined criteria (Product 2)
• Question 3 Decision tree for determining the ‘best fit’ metric
(Product 3)
Early and throughout their development, these products were
shared with each of the expert panel members and adjusted according
to their suggestions in terms of form and format, aiming at maximizing
their value and probability of use in practice. Final products, validated
by the expert panel, were integrated in a structured decision making
tool suitable to guide stakeholders through the design, implementation,
and evaluation processes of biodiversity offsets.
For developing Product 2, the metrics and corresponding ac-
counting methods selected during stage 2 were scored against two sets
of standards for measuring biodiversity values: indicator desirable
properties (Munn, 1988; Noss, 1990), and attributes of suitable forms of
metrics (BBOP, 2012d):
• Indicator desirable properties (Munn, 1988; Noss, 1990):
1. Geographic applicability
2. Sensitivity
3. Capability of providing continuous assessment over a wide range
of stresses
4. Cost and time effectiveness and practicality
5. Ability to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic-in-
duced cycles or trends
6. Relevancy to ecologically significant phenomena
• Attributes of suitable forms of metrics (BBOP, 2012d):
1. Capture type, amount, and condition or quality of the biodi-
versity that is being lost or gained
2. Quantify the losses and gains at the species, communities, habi-
tats, and ecosystem levels within project's context
3. Enable the calculation of residual losses and gains of use and
cultural values of biodiversity
4. Explicit understanding of the relationship between changes in the
metric's value and changes in the value of the biodiversity target,
providing evidence to support it
5. Include context-dependent information about conservation
status, vulnerability, or irreplaceability of the biodiversity com-
ponent(s)
6. Assumptions and rationale of the metric are clearly documented
38
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
Each metric, and corresponding accounting method, was evaluated
against the six criteria that comprise each standard. A numerical score
was assigned each time, indicating how well the alternative fits with the
criterion being assessed. A 1–5 scale was used, where 1 suggests that it
cannot be characterized at all by the corresponding criterion, and 5 that
the criterion fully describes the metric and method being assessed. The
scores obtained were added and the sum divided by the maximum
possible score (60). A total score (TS1) was obtained.
Each metric, and corresponding accounting method, was then
evaluated against each of the stakeholder-defined criteria identified. As
these criteria respond to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, a 0–1 score was used.
Alternatives that can described by the corresponding criterion were
scored with a ‘1’, and those that cannot be characterized at all by the
criterion being assessed were given a ‘0’. The values assigned per al-
ternative were added and a total score (TS2) was obtained. Because of
the importance of considering stakeholders' perspectives in the eva-
luation process, the TS2 score acted as a weighting factor, and was
multiplied by TS1 to obtain a final score (FS; Equation (1)).
12 6
⎛ ∑ subcriteriai ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
FS = (TS1) ∗ (TS2) = ⎜ i = 1 ⎟ ∗ ∑ subcriteriaj
60 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ j=1 ⎠ (1)
Where FS is the final score, TS1 the total score that characterizes the
correspondence of metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, to
the two sets of standards considered, TS2 the total score that char-
acterizes the correspondence of metrics, and corresponding accounting
methods, to the stakeholder-defined criteria, i the score obtained per
sub-criterion of the standards considered, and j the score obtained per
stakeholder-defined criterion.
By using existing recognized standards as factors against which to
assess and score each alternative, the results obtained are aligned to the
scientific general consensus regarding what are desirable offset metric
attributes. Likewise, by including stakeholder desirable criteria for
offset metrics as a weighting factor, the perspective of practitioners
implementing these methods and metrics is incorporated into the
equation. Other scoring methods for offset metrics available in the lit-
erature, such as that of Bezombes et al. (2017) do not necessarily
comply with this characteristic.
3. Results
3.1. Stakeholder-defined criteria for selecting metrics and methods
Stakeholders highlighted a range of attributes that they considered
essential for effective accounting of biodiversity values. There was
consensus about the following six criteria:
• Information broader than the species level: According to Noss
(1990), biodiversity can be classified into four different levels of
organization: landscape, ecosystem, species, and genetic. Stake-
holders agreed that offset metrics should target the landscape,
ecosystem, and/or habitat levels of biodiversity.
• Focus on quantitative values: Stakeholders suggested that indicators
should require quantitative analyses to facilitate comparison of data
obtained across different areas and monitored by different evalua-
tors.
• Benchmark areas: A benchmark area presents the average char-
acteristics of a mature and undisturbed patch of the same vegetation
type as the one being assessed (Parkes et al., 2003). Stakeholders
indicated the importance of a benchmark comparison site in un-
derstanding the numerical values obtained when using biodiversity
offset metrics. This attribute would be in line with what Maron et al.
(2018) refer to as a fixed reference scenario against which to mea-
sure a no net loss goal that responds to specific impacts, based on a
relatively narrow scope.
• Practical and cost effective: Stakeholders highlighted the need for
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.
metrics and accounting methods to be cost-effective and time-effi-
cient, in addition to being scientifically rigorous, to the extent
possible. Complex metrics that are resource-intensive and require
highly trained specialists to ensure consistent results may lack
practical value in most contexts.
• Context dependent: Indicators used to assess project impacts and
offset gains in a forest should not be the same as those used to
calculate such measures in a desert. Although the accounting
method or framework could be equivalent, the specific indicators
contained within should be context dependent.
• ‘Special values’: Stakeholders highlighted the importance of metrics
accounting for special features in the impact and offset areas. These
include the presence of sensitive species, high conservation values
within the habitat or ecosystem being assessed, relevant ecosystem
services, and significant concentrations of migratory species, cul-
tural values, and others.
3.2. Details of metrics and methods for measuring offsets
We developed a far-reaching inventory of existing metrics and
corresponding accounting methods by consolidating the information
provided in recent metric reviews, including: Quétier and Lavorel 2011
(France), Bull et al., 2014 (UK and Sweden), and Virah-Sawmy et al.,
2014 (Australia and Singapore). To these, we added additional metrics,
developed for different geographical locations and for specific con-
trasting offset regulatory frameworks and/or policies, based on reviews
done by McKenney and Kiesecker (2010), Bezombes et al. (2017),
Gelcich et al. (2017), among others. The objective was to include ad-
ditional metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, that involve
the use of significantly different approaches, parameters, and/or in-
dicators that respond to particular contexts.
From the initial inventory, we excluded metrics that did not include
any specific calculation for measuring biodiversity values (e.g., Natura,
2000), that focused specifically on both marine and continental aquatic
ecosystems (e.g., the Canadian Fish Habitat Framework), and/or re-
presented slight variations of metrics already included. This filtering
process resulted in a set of 11 metrics and corresponding accounting
methods, covering those specifically designed for North American,
Australian, European, and African regions, as well as others without a
defined geographic context for application. For each of the 11 metrics,
and corresponding accounting methods, in the final set we summarized
the scope and key attributes (Table 2). The metric menu with detailed
results of each metric's structure and corresponding accounting method
is presented in Table S1, of the Supporting Information.
As elaborated in Tables 2 and S1 of the Supporting Information,
most of the metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, were de-
veloped for different contexts, and accordingly focus on different sets of
biodiversity targets, utilize different indicators, and incorporate dif-
ferent accounting methodologies. Most of them target biodiversity at
the ecological community or ecosystem level of organization (as de-
fined by Noss, 1990 and The Nature Conservancy [TNC] 2003, re-
spectively), and correspond to compound metrics (aggregation of pre-
defined indicators). All of these indicators target at least the composi-
tion attribute of biodiversity (as defined by Noss, 1990), while a few
also address structure; only four of the considered metrics address all
three of Noss's attributes of biodiversity, including function. Finally,
only three of the assessed metrics, and corresponding accounting
methods, include a comparison with a pristine state of the target habitat
type (i.e., benchmark area) when valuating losses and gains, and three
others include measurements of the landscape context (Tables 2 and S1
of the Supporting Information).
3.3. Suitability of metrics and methods related to best practices and
stakeholder-defined criteria
Table 3 presents a summary of the final scores obtained per metric,
39
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
and corresponding accounting method, after assessing each one of them
against globally recognized standards and stakeholder-defined criteria
(Equation (1)). The scoring matrix with detailed results is presented in
Table S2 of the Supporting Information.
Results show that the Biodiversity Significance Index (BSI) is the
most suitable metric for measuring impact losses and offset gains ac-
cording to the benchmarks considered, followed by the Habitat
Hectares (HH) approach.
3.4. Decision tree for determining the ‘best fit’ metric
Based on the attributes of each metric, and the contextual char-
acteristics of specific projects, we developed a decision tree for practi-
tioners to help identify the most suitable metric for particular scenarios
(Fig. 1). The decision tree differentiates metrics according to the tar-
geted biodiversity attributes, their ability to account for the presence of
species of concern, the amount of resources needed for their use, their
ability to account for uncertainties and risks, and their different in-
formational requirements.
Units of Global Distribution (UGD), Habitat Units (HU), and
Conservation Significance Index (CSI) are suitable for projects that aim
to offset impacts on specific species, where the latter serves better under
circumstances with a significant amount of sensitive species. Where
time and expertise is available for the development of specific in-
dicators, HU might be preferred over UGD. The rest of analyzed metrics
are suitable for projects that aim to offset impacts at the habitat or
ecosystem/biotope level. In cases where there is no ecological quanti-
tative data available, Habitat Hectares (HH) and Biodiversity
Significance Index (BSI) should not be considered. With qualitative
data, and an ecosystem quality classification system in place, Offset
ratios (OR) and the Metric for Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots in England
(BOE) might be a good fit. Otherwise, the Uniform Mitigation
Assessment Method (UMAM, only for wetlands), Biotope Valuation
(BV), Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) and Module Assessment
Method (MAM) would be more suitable. The amount of time and re-
sources available, needed to account for uncertainties and develop
landscape context assessments, would determine which of these to use.
The decision tree needs to be used taking into consideration the
particular institutional and regulatory context in which the offset ap-
proach will be designed and implemented. In those circumstances
where offsets are mandated by law, the ‘best fit’ metric for a particular
context according to the decision tree might not be suitable considering
the specific regulatory requirements in place. Likewise, in contexts
where there are no regulatory provisions in place to enable offsets, and/
or to enforce certain characteristics of offset approaches, and when the
identified ‘best fit’ metric has been developed for places where there
are, this particular metric, and corresponding accounting method,
might be difficult or even impossible to implement. Together with the
regulatory context, the resources committed to biodiversity conserva-
tion in the area, and overall conservation issues at the landscape level,
play an important role that guide, and may affect, the metric selection
process (Regnery et al., 2013; Bezombes et al., 2017), and should ac-
company the application of the decision tree.
4. Discussion
Here we elaborate the implications and potential applications of the
menu, scoring matrix, and decision tree for guiding the selection of
biodiversity metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, to calcu-
late impact losses and offset gains.
Both the Biodiversity Significance Index (BSI) and Habitat Hectares
(HH) metrics, characterized as the most suitable approaches for mea-
suring impact losses and offset gains, are based on an ‘area x quality’
formula; however, in the first case, the ‘quality’ of the environment is
determined by its condition, biodiversity significance, conservation
significance, land use change, and landscape context, while in the
 M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.

Table 2
Key attributes of the 11 biodiversity offset metrics, and corresponding accounting methods, analyzed. The column on “developed by” indicates the organization, institution or researchers responsible of developing the
corresponding metric, as well as the geographic location for which it was developed (if any). The column on “level of organization” characterizes the scale of the metric, as defined by Noss (1990) and TNC (2003). The
column on “indicators” highlight the amount of indicators that comprise each metric and the biodiversity attributes these measure, as defined by Noss (1990): composition (C), structure (S) and/or function (F). The “B”
column indicates if the use of the metric requires the identification of a benchmark area, and the “LC” column if it includes any measure that characterizes the corresponding landscape context. See Supporting
information, Table S1, for further details on each metric.
Metric Developed by and geographic context Level of organization of offsetting target Indicators Bb LCc

Several/single Attributes of biodiversity (Noss,

1990)a

Noss 1990 TNC 2003 C S F

Habitat - Hectares (HH) Department of Natural Resources and Environment - State of Victoria, Community - ecosystem Ecological communities Several X X X Y Y
Australia
Units of Global Distribution (UD) Rio Tinto (mining company); no specific geographic scope Population - species Species Single X – – N N
Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Department of Environmental Protection - Florida, USA Community - ecosystem Ecological communities Several X X X N Y
(UMAM)

40
Biodiversity Significance Index4 (BSI) New South Wales Department of Natural Resources – State of New Community - ecosystem Ecological communities Several X X X Y Y
South Wales, Australia
Conservation Significance Index (CSI) Virah-Sawmy, Ebeling, and Taplin; no specific geographic scope Population - species Species Several X – – N N
Metric for Biodiversity offsetting pilots in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – England Community - ecosystem Ecological community Several X X X N N
England (BOE)
Module Assessment Method (MAM) Federal Office for the Environment – Switzerland Community - ecosystem Ecological community Several X X – N N
Biotope Valuation (BV) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Community - ecosystem Ecological community Several X X – N N
Safety – Germany; Germany
Habitat Units (HU) Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Agency, USA Population - species Species Varies Y N
Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation – State of Community - ecosystem Ecological communities Several X X – N N
South Australia, Australia
Offset Ratios (OR) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning – Community - ecosystem Ecological communities Single X – – N N
Province of the Western Cape, South Africa

d
Indicator within the Biodiversity Benefits Index (BBI).
a
Attributes of biodiversity measured: C = composition; S= Structure; F = function.
b
B = benchmark.
c
LC = landscape context.
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al. Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43

Table 3 condition of the conservation target; and (4) the inclusion of context
Total final scores for each biodiversity offset metric considered. dependent information about the importance of the biodiversity com-
Metricsa Sub-score for Sub-score for Score for stakeholder- Final ponent(s) assessed. Additionally, the BSI meets three of the six criteria
Standard 1b Standard 2c defined criteria score for effective metrics and accounting methods identified by stake-
(max. 30) (max. 30) (max. 6) holders: habitat target, benchmark area, and ‘special values’.
Units of Global Distribution (UGD) obtained the lowest final score.
BSI 20 22 3 2.10
HH 19 19 3 1.90
This metric fulfills only one of the six stakeholder-defined criteria: use
CSI 16 18 3 1.70 of quantitative values. It also has a poor ability to differentiate between
BV 14 14 3 1.40 natural and anthropogenic-induced cycles or trends, does not change
SEB 15 11 3 1.30 with stresses that do not directly affect the species or its habitat, among
BOE 17 17 2 1.13
other weaknesses. UGD and other metrics with similar low scores, such
UMAM 15 18 2 1.10
OR 11 11 3 1.10 as Habitat Units (HU) and the Module Assessment Method (MAM),
MAM 14 13 2 0.90 might still be useful under specific project contexts, despite their poor
HU 17 9 2 0.87 correspondence with the rating criteria. For example, HU could be a
UGD 15 19 1 0.57
valuable alternative in situations involving impacts to wetlands, where
a the ability of this specific habitat to support a given species is of special
Metrics. HH= Habitat Hectares; UGD= Units of Global Distribution;
UMAM= Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method; BSI= Biodiversity concern. Likewise, the MAM could be appropriate in circumstances
Significance Index; CSI= Conservation Significance Index; BOE = Metric for where the ecological functions of wetlands and/or other surface water
Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots in England; MAM = Module Assessment Method; systems will be negatively affected by a project and therefore need to be
BV= Biotope Valuation; HU= Habitat Units; SEB= Significant Environmental quantified. The selection of the final metric, and corresponding ac-
Benefit; OR= Offset Ratios. counting method, should depend on the characteristics of the biodi-
b
Standard 1. Indicator desirable properties (Munn, 1988; Noss, 1990). versity interests and the specific objectives of the corresponding pro-
c
Standard 2. Attributes of suitable forms of metrics (BBOP, 2012c). ject.
Finally, it should be noted that all of the metrics scored substantially
second case, only by its condition and the landscape context. below the maximum possible score of 6 (the highest-rated metric scored
The BSI is a metric based on the HH approach, modified according 2.1). None of the metrics enable the calculation of residual losses and
to current and proposed land uses. It can be used at different spatial gains of the cultural values associated with biodiversity (one of the
scales to evaluate vegetation and landscape condition. The relatively criteria included in the “suitable metrics” framework; BBOP, 2012d).
high score obtained can be explained by (1) the metric's capacity of Likewise, only a few have the ability to differentiate between natural
assessing a wide range of stresses; (2) its relevancy to ecologically and anthropogenic-induced cycles or trends (criterion included in the
significant phenomena; (3) ability to capture type, amount, and “desirable properties of indicators” framework; Munn, 1988 and Noss,

Fig. 1. Decision tree for choosing the ‘best fit’ metric option. The decision nodes, shown as squares, represent a point where a choice must be made regarding the
offset objectives and design, and the branches extending from each node represent one of the possible alternatives available at that point. The event nodes, shown as
circles, represent a point where a course of action is defined based on the project context and background, and no decision making is required. Finally, the terminal
nodes (end points of the decision tree) represent the most appropriate (or ‘best fit’) biodiversity offset metric according to the combination of decisions and events
selected.

41
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.
1990). Only a few of the metrics include indicators that are specific to
the target being assessed, take into account only objective numerical
values, and consider benchmark areas (stakeholder-defined’ criteria;
see Supporting Information for detailed results, Table S2).
As extensively discussed in scientific literature, existing metrics and
accounting methods are not fully satisfactory (Gordon et al., 2015;
Bezombes et al., 2017). These results shed light on how and where
metrics and accounting methods fall short when assessed against best
practices for accounting biodiversity values, regardless of their in-
dividual strengths and potential suitability for measuring offset gains
and impact losses under specific contexts. The advantages and weak-
nesses of each alternative, identified in this analysis, point out to those
metric components or characteristics that need to strengthened, as well
as to those gaps where additional features or elements need to be in-
corporated. This effort for improving equivalence assessments would
inevitably require calling for increased funding, and the need for a
greater focus on pooling resources from diverse sources to deliver ap-
proaches that can satisfactorily adhere to the high standards of no net
loss requirements.
5. Conclusion
Driven by various policy mechanisms, private sector action, and
conservation-oriented initiatives, biodiversity offsetting is becoming
increasingly common across a range of settings. As use of this approach
grows, a slate of scientifically credible and practical biodiversity me-
trics and accounting methods that can be applied in biodiversity off-
setting projects in different contexts becomes more crucial. Here we
have developed a set of analyses and tools to support decision-makers
in (i) identifying the spectrum of available biodiversity offsetting ac-
counting methods and metrics; (ii) understanding the characteristics,
strengths, and weaknesses of each and, ultimately; and (iii) making the
most sensible and sound decision about which accounting approach to
use. Biodiversity offsetting practitioners can use the metric menu,
scoring matrix, and decision tree to help select the ‘best fit’ metric, and
apply the corresponding accounting method, according to the context
where they are working. This will ensure effective design and im-
plementation of offsetting approaches, and help move towards
achieving no net loss or net gain outcomes for biodiversity. In this
context, and to ultimately advance this goal, it becomes paramount to
acknowledge that available metrics and methods still need to be im-
proved, expanding on their strengths and addressing their weakness.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank several anonymous reviewers from Cornell
University's Department of Natural Resources for their technical input
and helpful discussions on the topic of biodiversity offsets that stimu-
lated the writing of this manuscript. We also appreciate comments and
suggestions by two anonymous external reviewers of the originally
submitted manuscript. Lastly, we thank the stakeholders who took part
in the research and contributed with their time and knowledge.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.008.
References
Bezombes, L., Gaucherand, S., Kerbiriou, C., Reinert, M.E., Spiegelberger, T., 2017.
Ecological equivalence assessment methods: what trade-offs between operationality,
scientific basis and comprehensiveness? Environ. Manag. 60 (2), 216–230. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5.
Brownlie, S., Botha, M., 2009. Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or
‘no net loss’? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 27 (3), 227–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3152/146155109X465968.
42
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
Bull, J.W., Suttle, K.B., Gordon, A., Singh, N.J., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2013. Biodiversity
offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47 (3), 369–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S003060531200172X.
Bull, J.W., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Suttle, K.B., Singh, N.J., 2014. Comparing biodiversity
offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan. Biol. Conserv. 178, 2–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.006.
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012a. Resource Paper: No Net
Loss and Loss-gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offset. BBOP, Washington, D.C.
http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3103.pdf (accessed November
2016).
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012b. Biodiversity Offset Design
Handbook Updated. BBOP, Washington, DC. https://www.forest-trends.org/
publications/biodiversity-offset-design-handbook/(accessed March 2018).
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012c. Standard on Biodiversity
Offsets: a Tool to Assess Adherence to the BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offset
Design and Implementation. BBOP, Washington, D.C. http://www.forest-trends.org/
documents/files/doc_3078.pdf (accessed November 2016).
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012d. Guidance Notes to the
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. BBOP, Washington, D.C. http://www.forest-trends.
org/documents/files/doc_3099.pdf (accessed November 2016).
Carreras, M., Toombs, T., 2017. Thirty years of species conservation banking in the U.S.:
comparing policy to practice. Biol. Conserv. 214, 6–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2017.07.021.
Cook, D., Mulrow, C., Haynes, R., 1997. Syst. Rev. Synthesis Best Evid. Clin. Decis. Ann.
Intern. Med 126, 376–380.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2011. Technical Paper:
Proposed Metric for the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot in England. London, UK. https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69531/
pb13745-bio-technical-paper.pdf (accessed November 2016).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002. Practitioners Guide to Compensation. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/270280.pdf (accessed
November 2016).
Fox, J., Nino-Murcia, A., 2005. Status of U.S. Conservation banking. Conserv. Biol. 19 (4),
996–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00231.x.
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., ten Kate, K., 2013. Biodiversity
offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conser. Biol. 27 (6), 1254–1264.
Gonçalves, B., Marques, A., Velho Da Maia Soares, A., Pereira, M., 2015. Biodiversity
offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
14, 61–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.008.
Gordon, A., Bull, J.W., Wilcox, C., Maron, M., 2015. Perverse incentives risk undermining
biodiversity offset policies. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 532–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1365-2664.12398.
International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2012. IFC performance standards on environ-
mental and social sustainability. Perform. Stand. 6 Biodivers. Conservation Sustain.
Manag. Living Nat. Resour. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/
c8f524004a73daeca09afdf998895a12/IFC_Performance_Standards.pdf?MOD=
AJPERES (accessed November 2016).
Jacob, C., Vaissiere, A.C., Bas, A., Calvet, C., 2016. Investigating the inclusion of eco-
system services in biodiversity offsetting. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 92–102. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.010.
Maron, M., Brownlie, S., Bull, J.W., Evans, M.C., von Hase, A., Quétier, F., Watson, J.E.M.,
Gordon, A., 2018. The many meanings of No Net Loss in environmental policy. Nat.
Sustain. 1, 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative Researching. Sage Publications, London.
Mayring, P., 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 1 (2).
McKenney, B.A., Kiesecker, J.M., 2010. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a
review of offset frameworks. Environ. Manage 45 (1), 165–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s00267-009-9396-3.
Mulrow, C., 1994. Systematic reviews—rationale for systematic reviews. Brit. Med. 309
(6954), 597–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597.
Munn, R., 1988. The design of integrated monitoring systems to provide early indications
of environmental/ecological changes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 11, 203–217.
Noss, R., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv.
Biol. 4, 355–364.
Parkes, D., Newell, G., Cheal, D., 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the
‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 4, S29–S38. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x.
Quétier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset
schemes: key issues and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2991–2999. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.002.
Quétier, F., Regnery, B., Levrel, H., 2014. No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A
critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 120–131
0.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.009.
Regnery, B., Kerbiriou, C., Julliard, R., Vandevelde, J.C., Le Viol, I., Burylo, M., Couvet,
D., 2013. Sustain common species and ecosystem functions through biodiversity
offsets: response to Pilgrim et al. Conserv. Lett. 27 (6), 1335–1343. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/conl.12027.
ten Kate, K., Pilgrim, J., Edwards, S., Hughes, J., Brooks, T., Mackey, B., Gibbons, P.,
Manuel, J., Quétier, F., McKenney, B., Mehra, S., Watson, J., Bos, G. & Asante-Owusu
R. 2014. Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Gland, Switzerland. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1695-4.
ten Kate, K., von Hase, A., Boucher, J., Cassin, J. & Victurine, R. 2011. Oportunidades
para los Fondos Ambientales en Esquemas de Compensación y Offset. Proyecto de
Capacitación de RedLAC para Fondos Ambientales. Rio de Janeiro. http://toolkit.
conservationfinance.org/sites/default/files/documents/redlac-capacity-building/5-
M.J. Carreras Gamarra et al.
oportunidades-para-los-fondos-ambientales-en-esquemas-de-compensacion-y-offset.
pdf (accessed November 2016).
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2003. The Five-s Framework for Site Conservation: a
Practitioner's Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation
Success. Vol. I. third ed. https://rmportal.net/library/content/nric/922.pdf/at.../file
(accessed November 2016).
43
Journal of Environmental Management 220 (2018) 36–43
Tranfiled, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evi-
dence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit. J.
Manage 14, 207–222.
Virah-Sawmy, M., Ebeling, J., Taplin, R., 2014. Mining and biodiversity offsets: a trans-
parent and science-based approach to measure “no-net-loss”. Environ. Manage 143,
61–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.027.