实地评估之间的差异如何影响生物多样性抵消结果

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Peter Contos, Emma Gorrod, Karen Caves, Ian Oliver, Josh W. Dorrough
{"title":"实地评估之间的差异如何影响生物多样性抵消结果","authors":"Peter Contos,&nbsp;Emma Gorrod,&nbsp;Karen Caves,&nbsp;Ian Oliver,&nbsp;Josh W. Dorrough","doi":"10.1111/csp2.70096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biodiversity offsetting aims to balance biodiversity loss at development sites with gains at offset sites. Measurement of loss and gain relies on transparent and repeatable estimates of biodiversity values. However, these estimates are often derived from field assessments by people who differ in their interpretation and measurement of biodiversity, either randomly or systematically. Variation among people during field assessments may therefore impact offset outcomes and contribute to uncertainty around the effectiveness of biodiversity offset schemes. Here, we describe variation in loss, gain, and offset outcomes using concurrent assessments by five assessors on eight sites using a multi-metric biodiversity valuation method from New South Wales, Australia. We found variation among assessors was high for field estimates but substantially decreased for current biodiversity valuations. However, variation increased for the prediction of future biodiversity gains, in the calculation of the required offset area, and contributed an average of 19% variation in development credits (biodiversity loss) and 34% variation in offset credits (biodiversity gain). Evidence of systematic bias among observers for some attributes added further uncertainty to offset outcomes. Our study reveals the need for improved assessor training and field methods to improve assessment consistency, transparency, and reduce offset outcome variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70096","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Peter Contos,&nbsp;Emma Gorrod,&nbsp;Karen Caves,&nbsp;Ian Oliver,&nbsp;Josh W. Dorrough\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/csp2.70096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biodiversity offsetting aims to balance biodiversity loss at development sites with gains at offset sites. Measurement of loss and gain relies on transparent and repeatable estimates of biodiversity values. However, these estimates are often derived from field assessments by people who differ in their interpretation and measurement of biodiversity, either randomly or systematically. Variation among people during field assessments may therefore impact offset outcomes and contribute to uncertainty around the effectiveness of biodiversity offset schemes. Here, we describe variation in loss, gain, and offset outcomes using concurrent assessments by five assessors on eight sites using a multi-metric biodiversity valuation method from New South Wales, Australia. We found variation among assessors was high for field estimates but substantially decreased for current biodiversity valuations. However, variation increased for the prediction of future biodiversity gains, in the calculation of the required offset area, and contributed an average of 19% variation in development credits (biodiversity loss) and 34% variation in offset credits (biodiversity gain). Evidence of systematic bias among observers for some attributes added further uncertainty to offset outcomes. Our study reveals the need for improved assessor training and field methods to improve assessment consistency, transparency, and reduce offset outcome variability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70096\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70096\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70096","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物多样性补偿旨在平衡开发地点的生物多样性损失与补偿地点的生物多样性收益。损益的测量依赖于对生物多样性价值的透明和可重复的估计。然而,这些估计值往往是由不同的人进行的实地评估得出的,这些人对生物多样性的解释和测量存在差异,要么是随机的,要么是系统的。因此,实地评估期间人们之间的差异可能会影响抵消结果,并导致生物多样性抵消计划有效性的不确定性。本文采用澳大利亚新南威尔士州的一种多指标生物多样性评估方法,通过对8个地点的5位评估人员进行并行评估,描述了损失、收益和抵消结果的变化。我们发现评估者之间的差异在实地评估中很高,但在当前的生物多样性评估中显著降低。然而,在计算所需抵消面积时,预测未来生物多样性增益的变化增加了,并平均贡献了19%的发展信用(生物多样性损失)和34%的抵消信用(生物多样性增益)变化。观察者对某些属性存在系统性偏差的证据进一步增加了不确定性,抵消了结果。我们的研究表明,需要改进评估员培训和现场方法,以提高评估的一致性、透明度和减少抵消结果的可变性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

Biodiversity offsetting aims to balance biodiversity loss at development sites with gains at offset sites. Measurement of loss and gain relies on transparent and repeatable estimates of biodiversity values. However, these estimates are often derived from field assessments by people who differ in their interpretation and measurement of biodiversity, either randomly or systematically. Variation among people during field assessments may therefore impact offset outcomes and contribute to uncertainty around the effectiveness of biodiversity offset schemes. Here, we describe variation in loss, gain, and offset outcomes using concurrent assessments by five assessors on eight sites using a multi-metric biodiversity valuation method from New South Wales, Australia. We found variation among assessors was high for field estimates but substantially decreased for current biodiversity valuations. However, variation increased for the prediction of future biodiversity gains, in the calculation of the required offset area, and contributed an average of 19% variation in development credits (biodiversity loss) and 34% variation in offset credits (biodiversity gain). Evidence of systematic bias among observers for some attributes added further uncertainty to offset outcomes. Our study reveals the need for improved assessor training and field methods to improve assessment consistency, transparency, and reduce offset outcome variability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信