Abstract
Conservation Banking in California is a long-established offset program. Banks are hybrid instruments that hover between market autonomy and regulatory oversight. Challenges that may affect outcomes of the program include aligning regulation with the scales and objectives of the hybrid market and conservation and interaction with other compensation instruments. I use an analytical framework combining social-ecological fit (does the regulation fit the spatial, functional, and temporal scales of the market or conservation?) and instrument interaction (are compensation instruments redundant, synergetic, etc.?) to analyze the institutional framework of the conservation banking program. Results show that the program fails to reflect the hybrid market or species conservation objectives, creating a social-ecological mismatch. The institutional framework disincentivizes banking, while its contribution in conserving species cannot be measured. Competing and redundant instruments can lead to weaker compensation. The program needs equal standards that reflect conservation objectives for all compensation instruments. Findings on fit can be useful for other banking programs, and considerations on instrument interaction could improve offsets anywhere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect a federally listed species, […]” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)).
References
Barral, S. 2019. Metrics and Public Accountability, the Case of Species Credits in the USA. Journal of Rural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jrurstud.2019.10.022
Barral, S. 2020. Conservation, Finance, Bureaucrats: Managing Time and Space in the Production of Environmental Intangibles. Journal of Cultural Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2020.1846593.
Bbop. 2012. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (Bbop), Washington, D.C., Iv, 22.
Bendor, T.K., and J.A. Riggsbee. 2011. A Survey of Entrepreneurial Risk in U.S. Wetland and Stream Compensatory Mitigation Markets. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Envsci.2010.12.011.
Bengtsson, M. 2016. How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. Nursingplus Open 2: 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Npls.2016.01.001.
Berkes, F. 2017. Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning. Sustainability 9: 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232
Bezombes, L., S. Gaucherand, C. Kerbiriou, M.-E. Reinert, and T. Spiegelberger. 2017. Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs Between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? Environmental Management 60: 216–230 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1007/S00267-017-0877-5
Blackstock, K.L., P. Novo, A. Byg, R. Creaney, A. Juarez Bourke, J.L. Maxwell, S.J. Tindale, and K.A. Waylen. 2021. Policy Instruments for Environmental Public Goods: Interdependencies and Hybridity. Land Use Policy 107: 104709. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Landusepol.2020.104709.
Boisvert, V. 2015. Conservation Banking Mechanisms and the Economization of Nature: An Institutional Analysis. Ecosystem Services 15: 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecoser.2015.02.004.
Bonnie, R. 1999. Endangered Species Mitigation Banking: Promoting Recovery Through Habitat Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act. Science of the Total Environment 240: 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00315-0.
Brinkmann, S. 2018. The Interview. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 576–599. Melbourne: Sage.
Bull, J.W., E.J. Milner-Gulland, P.F.E. Addison, W.N.S. Arlidge, J. Baker, T.M. Brooks, M.J. Burgass, A. Hinsley, et al. 2020. Net Positive Outcomes for Nature. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4: 4–7 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1038/S41559-019-1022-Z
Bull, J.W., K.B. Suttle, A. Gordon, N.J. Singh, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2013. Biodiversity Offsets in Theory and Practice. Oryx 47: 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172x.
Bunn, D., M. Lubell, and C.K. Johnson. 2013. Reforms Could Boost Conservation Banking by Landowners. California Agriculture 67: 86–95. https://doi.org/10.3733/Ca.V067n02p86.
Bunn, D.A., P.B. Moyle, and C.K. Johnson. 2014. Maximizing the Ecological Contribution of Conservation Banks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38: 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/Wsb.398.
Burgin, S. 2008. Biobanking: An Environmental Scientist’s View of the Role of Biodiversity Banking Offsets in Conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10531-008-9319-2.
Calvet, C., C. Napoléone, and J.-M. Salles. 2015. The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics. Sustainability 7: 7357–7378. https://doi.org/10.3390/Su7067357.
Carreras Gamarra, M.J., and T.P. Toombs. 2017. Thirty Years of Species Conservation Banking in the U.S.: Comparing Policy to Practice. Biological Conservation 214: 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Biocon.2017.07.021.
Cash, D.W., W.N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/Es-01759-110208.
CBD. 2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity.
CDFW. 2014. Considerations for Banks in HCP/NCCP Areas.
CDFW. 2018. Regional Conservation Investment Strategies Program Guidelines. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Sacramento.
CDFW. 2019a. Bank Site Selection Considerations.
CDFW. 2019b. Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CDFW. 2019c. Draft MCA Guidelines and Template for Public Review. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Sacramento.
CDFW. 2021a. Instructions for Bank Sponsors.
CDFW. 2021b. Regional Conservation Investment Strategies Program. https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/regional-conservation. Accessed 4 Oct 2021
CDFW, and FWS. 2015. Planning Agreement Template (HCP/NCCP).
Chiapello, E., and A. Engels. 2021. The Fabrication of Environmental Intangibles as a Questionable Response to Environmental Problems. Journal of Cultural Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2021.1927149.
Cline, S. 2013. Conservation Banking Overview and Suggested Areas for Future Analysis
CNRA, CDFW, et al. 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Mitigation and Conservation Banking and In-Lieu Fee Programs in California.
CNRA, CDFW, USACE, FWS. 2021. Mitigation Banking Enabling Instrument.
Corbera, E., and K. Brown. 2008. Building Institutions to Trade Ecosystem Services: Marketing Forest Carbon in Mexico. World Development 36: 1956–1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Worlddev.2007.09.010.
Damiens, F.L., A. Backstrom, and A. Gordon. 2021. Governing for “No Net Loss” of Biodiversity over the Long Term: Challenges and Pathways Forward. One Earth 4: 60–74 (English). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Oneear.2020.12.012
Damiens, F.L.P., L. Porter, and A. Gordon. 2020. The Politics of Biodiversity Offsetting Across Time and Institutional Scales. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41893-020-00636-9.
Darbi, M., and C. Tausch. 2014. Loss-Gain Calculations in German Impact Mitigation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265243988. Accessed 24 Aug 2017
Davis, K.P., J. Heinrichs, E. Fleishman, P. Iranah, D.E. Bennett, J. Berger, and L. Pejchar. 2021. Strengths and Shortcomings of Habitat Exchange Programs for Species Conservation. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/Conl.12846.
DOI. 2013. A Premliminary Analysis of the Conservation Banking Program and Results From a Survey Of USFWS Staff. Office of Policy Analysis.
Doka, S.E., C.K. Minns, B.G. Valere, S.J. Cooke, R.J. Portiss, T.F. Sciscione, and A. Rose. 2022. An Ecological Accounting System for Integrated Aquatic Planning and Habitat Banking with Case Study on the Toronto Waterfront, Ontario, Canada. Environmental Management (eng). https://doi.org/10.1007/S00267-021-01531-5.
Ekstrom, J.A., and O. Young. 2009. Evaluating Functional Fit Between a Set of Institutions and an Ecosystem. Ecology and Society 14.
Epa, U. 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Under CWA Section 404 (Final Rule).
Epstein, G., J. Pittman, S.M. Alexander, S. Berdej, T. Dyck, U. Kreitmair, K.J. Rathwell, S. Villamayor-Tomas, et al. 2015. Institutional Fit and the Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Cosust.2015.03.005.
Ermgassen, S.O.S.E., J. Zu, R.A. Baker, N. Griffiths, M.J. Struebig. Strange, and J.W. Bull. 2019. The Ecological Outcomes of Biodiversity Offsets Under “No Net Loss” Policies: A Global Review. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/Conl.12664.
Ermgassen, S.O., M. Zu, C.M. Corlet. Maron, A. Walker, J.S. Gordon, N. Simmonds, M. Robertson. Strange, and J.W. Bull. 2020. The Hidden Biodiversity Risks of Increasing Flexibility in Biodiversity Offset Trades. Biological Conservation 252: 108861. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Biocon.2020.108861.
Ermgassen, S.O.S.E., S. Zu, K. Marsh, E. Ryland, R. Marsh. Church, and J.W. Bull. 2021. Exploring the Ecological Outcomes of Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain Using Evidence From Early-Adopter Jurisdictions in England. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/Conl.12820.
Fleischer, D., and J. Fox. 2009. The Pitfalls and Challenges. In Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems, ed. N. Carroll, J. Fox, and R. Bayon, 43–49. London: Earthscan.
Folke, C., Lowell Pritchard, Jr., Fikret Berkes, Johan Colding, and Uno Svedin. 2007. The Problem of Fit Between Ecosystems and Institutions: Ten Years Later.
Fox, J., and A. Nino-Murcia. 2005. Status of Species Conservation Banking in the United States. Conservation Biology 19: 996–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1523-1739.2005.00231.X.
FWS. 2014. Agreement for the Sale of Conservation Credits.
FWS. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy. US FWS.
Galik, C.S., T.K. Bendor, J. Demeester, and D. Wolfe. 2017. Improving Habitat Exchange Planning Through Theory, Application, and Lessons from Other Fields. Environmental Science & Policy 73: 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Envsci.2017.04.003.
Gelcich, S., C. Vargas, M.J. Carreras, J.C. Castilla, and C.J. Donlan. 2016. Achieving Biodiversity Benefits with Offsets: Research Gaps, Challenges, and Needs. Ambio 46: 184–189 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-016-0810-9
Ghosh, R., and S. Wolf. 2021. Hybrid Governance and Performances of Environmental Accounting. Journal of Environmental Management 284: 111995 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jenvman.2021.111995
Gorissen, M.M.J., C.M. Van Der Heide, and J.H. Schaminée. 2020. Habitat Banking and Its Challenges in a Densely Populated Country: The Case of the Netherlands. Sustainability 12: 3756. https://doi.org/10.3390/Su12093756.
Gough, D., J. Thomas, and S. Oliver. 2012. Clarifying Differences Between Review Designs and Methods. Systematic Reviews 1: 28 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
Grimm, M. 2020. Conserving Biodiversity Through Offsets? Findings from an Empirical Study on Conservation Banking. Journal for Nature Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jnc.2020.125871.
Grimm, M. 2021. Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking. Land 10: 565 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.3390/Land10060565
Guerrero, A.M., I. Sporne, R. Mckenna, and K.A. Wilson. 2021. Evaluating Institutional Fit for the Conservation of Threatened Species. Conservation Biology: THe Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (eng). https://doi.org/10.1111/Cobi.13713.
Guerrero, A.M., and K.A. Wilson. 2017. Using a Social-Ecological Framework to Inform the Implementation of Conservation Plans. Conservation Biology: The Journal of The Society for Conservation Biology 31: 290–301 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1111/Cobi.12832
Helfferich, C. 2014. Leitfaden- Und Experteninterviews. In Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung, ed. N. Baur and J. Blasius, 559–574. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Higashida, K., K. Tanaka, and S. Managi. 2019. The Efficiency of Conservation Banking Schemes with Inter-regionally Tradable Credits and the Role of Mediators. Economic Analysis and Policy 62: 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Eap.2019.02.002.
Hrabanski, M. 2015. The Biodiversity Offsets as Market-Based Instruments in Global Governance: Origins, Success and Controversies. Ecosystem Services 15: 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecoser.2014.12.010.
IPBES. 2019. Chapter 6. Options for Decision Makers (En).
Koh, N.S., T. Hahn, and W.J. Boonstra. 2019. How Much of a Market is Involved in a Biodiversity Offset? A Typology of Biodiversity Offset Policies. Journal of Environmental Management 232: 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jenvman.2018.11.080.
Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.
Maestre-Andrés, S., E. Corbera, M. Robertson, and R. Lave. 2020. Habitat Banking at a Standstill: The Case of Spain. Environmental Science & Policy 109: 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Envsci.2020.03.019.
Mann, C., and J.D. Absher. 2014. Adjusting Policy to Institutional, Cultural and Biophysical Context Conditions: The Case of Conservation Banking in California. Land Use Policy 36: 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Landusepol.2013.08.007.
Maron, M., S. Brownlie, J.W. Bull, M.C. Evans, A. Von Hase, F. Quétier, J.E.M. Watson, and A. Gordon. 2018. The Many Meanings of No Net Loss in Environmental Policy. Nature Sustainability 1: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41893-017-0007-7.
Maron, M., C.D. Ives, H. Kujala, J.W. Bull, F.J.F. Maseyk, S. Bekessy, A. Gordon, J.E. Watson, et al. 2016. Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting. BioScience 66: 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/Biosci/Biw038.
Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
Mckenney, B.A., and J.M. Kiesecker. 2010. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environmental Management 45: 165–176 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1007/S00267-009-9396-3
Paavola, J., A. Gouldson, and T. Kluvánková-Oravská. 2009. Interplay of Actors, Scales, Frameworks and Regimes in the Governance of Biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/Eet.505.
Partelow, S. 2018. A Review of the Social-Ecological Systems Framework: Applications, Methods, Modifications, and Challenges. Ecology and Society 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436.
Peräkylä, A., and J. Ruusuvuori. 2018. Analyzing Talk and Text. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 669–691. Los Angeles: Sage.
Poudel, J. 2017. Economic Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in the United States. Dissertation. Auburn: Auburn University.
Poudel, J., and R. Pokharel. 2021. Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California. Sustainability 13: 12441. https://doi.org/10.3390/Su132212441.
Poudel, J., D. Zhang, and B. Simon. 2018. Estimating the Demand and Supply of Conservation Banking Markets in the United States. Land Use Policy 79: 320–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Landusepol.2018.08.032.
Poudel, J., D. Zhang, and B. Simon. 2019. Habitat Conservation Banking Trends in the United States. Biodiversity and Conservation 28: 1629–1646. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10531-019-01747-2.
Rea, C.M. 2017. Theorizing Command-and-Commodify Regulation: The Case of Species Conservation Banking in the United States. Theory and Society 46: 21–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11186-017-9283-5.
Ribits. 2021. Regulatory in Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System. https://Ribits.Ops.Usace.Army.Mil/Ords/F?P=107:2:::. Accessed 15 June 2021
Robertson, M.M. 2004. The Neoliberalization of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Mitigation Banking and Problems in Environmental Governance. Geoforum 35: 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Geoforum.2003.06.002.
Robertson, M. 2008. The Entrepreneurial Wetland Banking Experience in Chicago and Minnesota. National Wetlands Newsletter 30.
Roulston, K., and M. Choi. 2018. Chapter 15: Qualitative Interviews. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, ed. U. Flick. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ruhl, J.B., A. Glen, and D. Hartman. 2005. Practical Guide to Habitat Conservation Banking Law and Policy. Natural Resources & Environment 20.
Salheiser, A. 2014. Natürliche Daten: Dokumente. In Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung, ed. N. Baur and J. Blasius, 813–828. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Santos, R., C. Schröter-Schlaack, P. Antunes, I. Ring, and P. Clemente. 2015. Reviewing the Role of Habitat Banking and Tradable Development Rights in the Conservation Policy Mix. Environmental Conservation 42: 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000089.
Simmonds, J.S., A. Hase, F. Quétier, S. Brownlie, M. Maron, H.P. Possingham, M. Souquet, S.O.S.E. Zu Ermgassen, et al. 2022. Aligning Ecological Compensation Policies with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to Achieve Real Net Gain in Biodiversity. Conservation Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/Csp2.12634.
Simmonds, J.S., L.J. Sonter, J.E. Watson, L. Bennun, H.M. Costa, G. Dutson, S. Edwards, H. Grantham, et al. 2020. Moving from Biodiversity Offsets to a Target-Based Approach for Ecological Compensation. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/Conl.12695.
Sonter, L.J., M. Barnes, J.W. Matthews, and M. Maron. 2019. Quantifying Habitat Losses and Gains Made by U.S. Species Conservation Banks to Improve Compensation Policies and Avoid Perverse Outcomes. Conservation Letters 105:E12629. https://doi.org/10.1111/Conl.12629
Sonter, L.J., A. Gordon, C. Archibald, J.S. Simmonds, M. Ward, J.P. Metzger, J.R. Rhodes, and M. Maron. 2020b. Offsetting Impacts of Development on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Ambio 49: 892–902 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-019-01245-3
Sonter, L.J., J.S. Simmonds, J.E.M. Watson, J.P.G. Jones, J.M. Kiesecker, H.M. Costa, L. Bennun, S. Edwards, et al. 2020a. Local Conditions and Policy Design Determine Whether Ecological Compensation can Achieve No Net Loss Goals. Nature Communications 11: 2072 (Eng). https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-020-15861-1
Sovacool, B.K., J. Axsen, and S. Sorrell. 2018. Promoting Novelty, Rigor, and Style in Energy Social Science: Towards Codes of Practice for Appropriate Methods and Research Design. Energy Research & Social Science 45: 12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Erss.2018.07.007.
Theis, S., and M. Poesch. 2022. Current Capacity, Bottlenecks, and Future Projections for Offsetting Habitat Loss Using Mitigation and Conservation Banking in the United States. Journal for Nature Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jnc.2022.126159.
Vaissière, A.-C., and H. Levrel. 2015. Biodiversity Offset Markets: What Are They Really? An Empirical Approach to Wetland Mitigation Banking. Ecological Economics 110: 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2015.01.002.
Vaissière, A.-C., H. Levrel, and S. Pioch. 2017. Wetland Mitigation Banking: Negotiations with Stakeholders in a Zone of Ecological-Economic Viability. Land Use Policy 69: 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Landusepol.2017.09.049.
Vaissière, A.-C., F. Quétier, A. Bierry, C. Vannier, F. Baptist, and S. Lavorel. 2021. Modeling Alternative Approaches to the Biodiversity Offsetting of Urban Expansion in the Grenoble Area (France): What is the Role of Spatial Scales in ‘No Net Loss’ of Wetland Area and Function? Sustainability 13: 5951. https://doi.org/10.3390/Su13115951.
Vatn, A., and P. Vedeld. 2012. Fit, Interplay, and Scale: A Diagnosis. Ecology and Society 17.
Van Teeffelen, A.J., P. Opdam, F. Wätzold, F. Hartig, K. Johst, M. Drechsler, C.C. Vos, S. Wissel, et al. 2014. Ecological and Economic Conditions and Associated Institutional Challenges for Conservation Banking in Dynamic Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 130: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Landurbplan.2014.06.004.
Vatn, A. 2015. Markets in Environmental Governance from Theory to Practice. Ecological Economics 117: 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2014.07.017.
Vatn, A. 2018. Environmental Governance—From Public to Private? Ecological Economics 148: 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2018.01.010.
Watson, J.E., J.S. Simmonds, D. Narain, M. Ward, M. Maron, and S.L. Maxwell. 2021. Talk is Cheap: Nations Must Act Now to Achieve Long-Term Ambitions for Biodiversity. One Earth 4: 897–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Oneear.2021.06.012.
Wende, W. 2018. Biodiversity Offsets: European Perspectives on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Cham: Springer.
Werdiningtyas, R., Y. Wei, and A.W. Western. 2020. Understanding Policy Instruments as Rules of Interaction in Social-Ecological System Frameworks. Geography and Sustainability 1: 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Geosus.2020.11.004.
White, T.B., J.W. Bull, T.P. Toombs, and A.T. Knight. 2021. Uncovering Opportunities for Effective Species Conservation Banking Requires Navigating Technical and Practical Complexities. Conservation Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/Csp2.431.
Wissel, S., and F. Wätzold. 2010. A Conceptual Analysis of the Application of Tradable Permits to Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology: the Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 24: 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1523-1739.2009.01444.X.
Young, O.R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge: The Mit Press.
Yu, S., B. Cui, C. Xie, Y. Man, and J. Fu. 2022. Bibliometric Review of Biodiversity Offsetting During 1992–2019. Chinese Geographical Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11769-022-1265-5.
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank my advisors Johann Köppel and Morgan Robertson for their valuable feedback and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Grimm, M. Regulation, the hybrid market, and species conservation: The case of conservation banking in California. Ambio 52, 769–785 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01803-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01803-2