Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape Equivalency Analysis: Methodology for Estimating Spatially Explicit Biodiversity Credits

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a biodiversity credit system for trading endangered species habitat designed to minimize and reverse the negative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, the leading cause of species endangerment in the United States. Given the increasing demand for land, approaches that explicitly balance economic goals against conservation goals are required. The Endangered Species Act balances these conflicts based on the cost to replace habitat. Conservation banking is a means to manage this balance, and we argue for its use to mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation. Mitigating the effects of land development on biodiversity requires decisions that recognize regional ecological effects resulting from local economic decisions. We propose Landscape Equivalency Analysis (LEA), a landscape-scale approach similar to HEA, as an accounting system to calculate conservation banking credits so that habitat trades do not exacerbate regional ecological effects of local decisions. Credits purchased by public agencies or NGOs for purposes other than mitigating a take create a net investment in natural capital leading to habitat defragmentation. Credits calculated by LEA use metapopulation genetic theory to estimate sustainability criteria against which all trades are judged. The approach is rooted in well-accepted ecological, evolutionary, and economic theory, which helps compensate for the degree of uncertainty regarding the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on endangered species. LEA requires application of greater scientific rigor than typically applied to endangered species management on private lands but provides an objective, conceptually sound basis for achieving the often conflicting goals of economic efficiency and long-term ecological sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Akcakaya H. R., J. L. Atwood. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California Gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11:422–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A., J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow. 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beissinger S. R. 2002. Population viability analysis: past, present, and future. in S. R. Beissinger, D. R. McCullough (eds.), Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, Pages 5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouzat J. L. 2001. The importance of control populations for the identification and management of genetic diversity. Genetica 110:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzat J. L., H. H. Cheng, H. A. Lewin, R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, K. N. Paige. 1998. Genetic evaluation of a demographic bottleneck in the greater prairie chicken. Conservation Biology 12:836–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breininger D. R., M. A. Burgmen, B. M. Stith. 1999. Influence of habitat quality, catastrophes, and population size on extinction risk of the Florida scrub-jay. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:810–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Jr. G. M., J. F. Shogren. 1998. Economics of the Endangered Species Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltman D. W., J. G. Pilkington, J. M. Pemberton. 2003. Fine-scale genetic structure in a free-living ungulate population. Molecular Ecology 12:733–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox J., R. T. Engstrom. 2001. Influence of the spatial pattern of conserved lands on the persistence of a large population of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Biological Conservation 100:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow T. R. 2002. Putting multiple use and sustained yield into a landscape context. In: J. Liu, W. W. Taylor (eds.), Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Pages 349–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Czech B., P. R. Krausman, P. K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily G. C., K. Ellison. 2003. The new economy of nature: the quest to make conservation profitable. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 260 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski D. M., R. D. Holt. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deGroot R. S., J. van der Perk, A. Chiesura, S. Marguliew. 2000. Ecological functions and socio-economic values of critical natural capital as a measure of ecological integrity and environmental health. In: P. Crabbe, A. Holland, L. Ryszkowski, L. Westra (eds.), Implementing ecological integrity: restoring regional and global environmental and human health. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Pages 191–214

    Google Scholar 

  • deGroot R. S., M. A. Wilson, R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecological Economics 41:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson S. F., R. K. Chesser, J. L. Hoogland, D. W. Sugg, D. W. Foltz. 1997. Do black-tailed prairie dogs minimize inbreeding? Evolution 51:970–978

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler M., C. Wissel. 1998. Trade-offs between local and regional scale management of metapopulations. Biological Conservation 83:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer L. E., D. D. Murphy, P. R. Ehrlich. 1995. Property-rights case law and the challenge to the Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 9:725–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudash M. R., C. B. Fenster. 2000. Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in fragmented populations. In: A. G. Young, G. M. Clarke (eds). Genetics, demography, and viability of fragmented populations. Cambridge University Press, New York. pp 35–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning Jr. J. B. 2002. Landscape ecology in highly managed regions: the benefits of collaboration between management and researchers. In: J. Liu, W. W. Taylor (eds). Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp 334–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L., G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8:50–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 318pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Flather C. H., M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. American Naturalist 159:40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel O. H. 1974. Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility. Genetics 78:53–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R. 1995. Inbreeding and extinction—a threshold effect. Conservation Biology 9:792–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R., D. M. Gilligan, D. Morris, D. A. Briscoe. 2001. Inbreeding and extinction: effects of purging. Conservation Genetics 2:279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale M. L., P. W. W. Lurz, M. D. F. Shirley, S. Rushton, R. M. Fuller, K. Wolff. 2001. Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of Red Squirrel populations. Science 293:2246–2248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall L. S., P. R. Krausman, M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I., O. E. Gaggiotti. 2004. Metapopulation biology: past, present, and future. In: I. Hanski, O. E. Gaggiotti (eds). Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp 3–22

  • Harding E. K., E. E. Crone, B. D. Elderd, J. M. Hoekstra, A. J. McKerrow, J. D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L. J. Rissler, A. G. Stanley, E. L. Walters, NCEAS Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group. 2001. The scientific foundations of Habitat Conservation Plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15:488–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S., A. Hastings. 1996. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of metapopulation structure. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:180–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick P. W. 2001. Conservation genetics: where are we now? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:629–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins K., M. Lynch. 2001. Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:2928–2933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homes E. E., B. X. Semmens. 2004. Viability analysis for endangered metapopulations: a diffusion approximation approach. In: I. Hanski, O.E. Gaggiotti (eds.) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp 565–597

  • Huxel G. R., A. Hastings. 1999. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and restoration. Restoration Ecology 7:309–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C. A., K. A. Pease. 1997. Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemporary Economic Policy 15:111–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr J. R., D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy E. T., R. Costa, W. M. Smathers Jr. 1996. New directions for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat conservation: economic incentives. Journal of Forestry 94:22–26

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. 1997. Comparing ecosystem services and values. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, Maryland

  • Lacy R. C. 2000. Structure of the VORTEX simulation model for population viability analysis. Ecological Bulletins 48:191–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy R. C., D. B. Lindenmayer. 1995. A simulation study of the impacts of population subdivision on the mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus Ogilby (Phalangeridae: Marsupialia), in south-eastern Australia. II. Loss of genetic variance within and between subpopulations. Biological Conservation 73:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberson R. H., B. R. Noon, C. Voss. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species—the effects of patch size and spacing on the viability of the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 8:185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesica P., F. W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation? Conservation Biology 9:753–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letcher B. H., J. A. Priddy, J. R. Walters, L. B. Crowder. 1998. An individual-based, spatially-explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis. Biological Conservation 86:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D. B., R. C. Lacy. 2002. Small mammals, habitat patches and PVA models: a field test of model predictive ability. Biological Conservation 103:247–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J., J. B. Dunning Jr., H. R. Pulliam. 1995. Potential effects of a forest management plan on Bachman’s sparrows (Aimophila aestivalis): linking a spatially explicit model with GIS. Conservation Biology 9:62–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, G. W. Luck. 2003. Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J. B., D. S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D., C. J. Walters 2002. Fitting population viability analysis into adaptive management. In: S. R. Beissinger, D. R. McCullogh (eds). Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. pp 511–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Luikart G., W. B. Sherwin B. M. Steele F. W. Allendorf. 1998. Usefulness of molecular markers for detecting population bottlenecks via monitoring genetic change. Molecular Ecology 7:963–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacNally R., A. F. Bennett, G. Horrocks. 2000. Forecasting the impacts of habitat fragmentation. Evaluation of species-specific predictions of the impact of habitat fragmentation on birds in the box-ironbark forests of central Victoria Australia. Biological Conservation 95:7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matocoq M. D., F. X. Villablanca. 2001. Low genetic diversity in an endangered species: recent or historical pattern? Biological Conservation 98:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta M. J., J. J. Opaluch, T. A. Grigalunas. 1994. Natural resource damage assessment: the role of resource restoration. Natural Resources Journal 34:153–175

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S., R. Hobbs. 1999. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13:1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mech S. G., J. G. Hallet. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Conservation Biology 15:467–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meffe G. K. 1996. Conserving genetic diversity in natural systems. In: R. C. Szaro, D. W. Johnston (eds). Biodiversity on managed landscapes: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York. pp 41–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills L. S., F. W. Allendorf. 1996. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conservation Biology 10:1509–1518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery C. A., G. M. Brown Jr., D. M. Adams. 1994. The marginal cost of species preservation: the northern spotted owl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz C. 1999. Conservation units and translocations: strategies for conserving evolutionary processes. Hereditas 130:217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz C. 2002. Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Systematic Biology 51:238–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mortitz C. 1994. Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: a critical review. Molecular Ecology 3:401–411

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999. Habitat equivalency analysis: an overview. Policy and technical paper series, No. 95-1. Technical paper 99-1. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Damage Assessment Center. Silver Springs, Maryland

  • NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Science and the endangered species act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 271 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 322 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Neel M. C., M. P. Cummings. 2003. Genetic consequences of ecological reserve design guidelines: an empirical investigation. Conservation Genetics 4:427–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nei M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 70:3321–3323

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R. F., M. A. O’Connell D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 263 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson T. G., D. D. Murphy, R. D. Thornton. 1993. The habitat transaction method: a proposal for creating tradable credits in endangered species habitat. In: W. E. Hudson (eds). Building economic incentives into the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. pp 27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn T., T. Tomasi. 2002. Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre, Louisiana, USA. Environmental Management 29:691–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petit R. J., A. E. Mousadik, O. Pons. 1998. Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conservation Biology 12:844–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed D. H., R. Frankham. 2001. How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variance? a meta-analysis. Evolution 55:1095–1103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus M., C. Hartway, P. Kareiva. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conservation Biology 11:1298–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saccheri I., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, I. Hanski. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shabman, L. A., and P. Scodari. 2004. Past, present, and future of wetlands credit sales. Discussion paper 04–48, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

  • Shabman L. A., P. Scodari, D. King 1996. Wetland mitigation banking markets. In: L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, D. A. Salvesen (eds). Mitigation banking: theory and practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp 109–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren J. F., J. Tschirhart, T. Anderson, A.W. Ando, S. R. Beissinger, D. Brookshire, G. M. Brown Jr., D. Coursey, R. Innes, S. M. Meyer, S. Polasky. 1999. Why economics matters for endangered species protection. Conservation Biology 13:1257–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood K. S., J. Beyea, M. L. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • South A. 1999. Dispersal in spatially explicit population models. Conservation Biology 13:1039–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 296 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Storz J. F. 1999. Genetic consequences of mammalian social structure. Journal of Mammalogy 80:553–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange E., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, J. Lipton. 2002. Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental Management 29:290–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sugg D. W., R. K. Chesser, F. S. Dobson, J. L. Hoogland. 1996. Population genetics meets behavioral ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:338–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C. D., I. Hanski. 1997. Butterfly metapopulations. In: I. Hanski, M. E. Gilpin (eds). Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp 359–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietenberg, T. 2004. The tradable permits approach to protecting the commons: what have we learned? Working paper written for National Research Council’s Institutions for Managing the Commons Project. www.colby.edu/personal/thtieten/TT.NRC4.pdf

  • Turner M. G., G. J. Arthaud, R. T. Engstrom, S. J. Hejl, J. G. Liu, S. Loeb, K. McKelvey. 1995. Usefulness of spatially explicit population-models in land management. Ecological Applications 5:12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended through the 100th Congress. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

  • USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Method for determining the number of available credits for California red-legged frog conservation banks. United States Department of the Interior. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. September 4, 2001

  • USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation banks. United States Department of the Interior. Memorandum to Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 and Manager, California Nevada Operations. May 2, 2003

  • Walters C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey, 374 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock M. C. 2004. Selection and drift in metapopulations. In: I. Hanski O. E. Gaggiotti (eds). Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp 153–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand T., K. A. Moloney, J. Naves, F. Knauer. 1999. Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. American Naturalist 154:605–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox B. A., D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S. 1940. Breeding structure of populations in relation to speciation. American Naturalist 74:232–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a USEPA Science to Achieve Results Fellowship. We would like to thank those who helped review earlier versions of the manuscript: J. Bence, J. Blanchong, S. Friedman, R. Shorey, E. Laurent, K. Millenbah, A. Morzillo, L. J. Roberts, E. White, and M. Wilberg. We would also like to thank Matthew Hickey from Greater Cincinnati LISC for discussion regarding economic planning and urban sprawl and two anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan , 48824

    Douglas J. Bruggeman & Michael L. Jones

  2. Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824

    Douglas J. Bruggeman & Michael L. Jones

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824

    Frank Lupi

  4. Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824

    Kim T. Scribner

Authors
  1. Douglas J. Bruggeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Lupi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kim T. Scribner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas J. Bruggeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruggeman, D.J., Jones, M.L., Lupi, F. et al. Landscape Equivalency Analysis: Methodology for Estimating Spatially Explicit Biodiversity Credits. Environmental Management 36, 518–534 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0239-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0239-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation