Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 121–129

Combining Landscape-Level Conservation Planning and Biodiversity Offset Programs: A Case Study



Habitat loss is major factor in the endangerment and extinction of species around the world. One promising strategy to balance continued habitat loss and biodiversity conservation is that of biodiversity offsets. However, a major concern with offset programs is their consistency with landscape-level conservation goals. While merging offset polices and landscape-level conservation planning is thought to provide advantages over a traditional disconnected approach, few such landscape-level conservation-offset plans have been designed and implemented, so the effectiveness of such a strategy remains uncertain. In this study, we quantitatively assess the conservation impact of combining landscape-level conservation planning and biodiversity offset programs by comparing regions of San Diego County, USA with the combined approach to regions with only an offset program. This comparison is generally very difficult due to a variety of complicating factors. We overcome these complications and quantify the benefits to rare and threatened species of implementing a combined approach by assessing the amount of each species’ predicted distribution, and the number of documented locations, conserved in comparison to the same metric for areas with an offset policy alone. We found that adoption of the combined approach has increased conservation for many rare species, often 5–10 times more than in the comparison area, and that conservation has been focused in the areas most important for these species. The level of conservation achieved reduces uncertainty that these species will persist in the region into the future. This San Diego County example demonstrates the potential benefits of combining landscape-level conservation planning and biodiversity offset programs.


Biodiversity Biodiversity offsets Conservation planning Conservation policy Covered species Endangered species Habitat conservation plans Mitigation 


  1. Alagona PS, Pincetl S (2008) The Coachella Valley multiple species habitat conservation plan: a decade of delays. Environmental Management 41:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audubon (1997) Report of the National Audubon Society task force on habitat conservation plans. National Audubon Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Boykin KG et al (2007) Predicted animal habitat distributions and species richness, Chap. 3. In: Prior-Magee JS et al (eds) Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID, pp 679–750Google Scholar
  4. Burgin S (2008) BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:807–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conservation Biology Institute (2004) Las Californias binational conservation initiative: a vision for habitat conservation in the border region of California and Baja California. Conservation Biology Institute, San Diego, CA, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. County of San Diego (1997) Multiple species conservation program: county if San Diego subarea plan. County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, 156 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. County of San Diego (2009) Guidelines for determining significance, 3rd revision. County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, 61 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997) Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harding EK, Crone EE, Elderd BD, Hoekstra J, McKerrow AJ, Perrine JD, Rissler LJ, Stanley AG, Walters EL, NCEAS HCP Working Group (2001) The scientific foundations of habitat conservation plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hood LC (1998) Frayed safety nets: conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Kareiva P et al (1999) Using science in habitat conservation plans. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, McKenney B (2009) Development by design: blending landscape level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. doi:10.1890/090005
  13. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKenney B, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management 45:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison ML (2000) Facilitating development of multiple-species conservation reserves and habitat conservation plans: a synthesis of recommendations. Environmental Management 26:S3–S6Google Scholar
  16. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton DA (2009) Biodiversity offsets: Two New Zealand case studies and an assessment framework. Environmental Management 43:698–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Penrod K, Cabañero C, Beier P, Luke C, Spencer W, Rubin E (2006) South coast missing linkages project: a linkage design for the Peninsular-Borrego connection. South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahn M, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies habitat conservation plans: where’s the science? BioScience 56:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schipper J et al (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shilling F (1997) Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species? Science 276:1662–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. South Coast Wildlands (2008) South coast missing linkages: a wildland network for the south coast ecoregion. South Coast Wildlands, Fair Oaks, CA 67 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R (2004) Biodiversity offsets: views, experience, and the business case. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and Insight Investment, London, UK 95 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomas CW (2001) Habitat conservation planning: certainly empowered, somewhat deliberative, questionably democratic. Politics and Society 29:105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009) Number of approved HCPs in the United States. http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp. Accessed 5 June 2009
  27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1996) Habitat conservation planning handbook. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilhere GF (2002) Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology 16:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilhere GF (2009) Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans. Environmental Management 44:1089–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.County of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations