Skip to main content

Development of a Typology of Biodiversity Offsets

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biodiversity Offsets Between Regulation and Voluntary Commitment
  • 397 Accesses

Abstract

A typology of biodiversity offsets was developed using four consecutive steps: (1) The starting point was an impressionistic classification of types (“intuitive types”) that was refined in several steps throughout the research process and over time. (2) Building on the theoretical analysis of the concept of voluntariness, attributes, or criteria were extracted from the literature that provided the theoretical frame of reference to analyze the degree or intensity of voluntariness of the types presented in this work. These criteria were grouped and rearranged into different categories (with distinctive functions), notably threshold criteria, descriptive criteria, performance criteria, and quality criteria. Thus, through a process of elimination two core criteria were identified: influence and initiators, and motivation and ultimate goal. (3) These core criteria, and the respective value categories assigned to them, were used to construct the underlying attribute space, i.e., a 3 × 7 matrix. (4) Finally, the impressionistic types that have been developed over time (building on the author’s own observation and experience) and the constructed attribute space (building on criteria derived from the literature) were integrated to obtain a more refined typology of seven types.

Furthermore, a screening of biodiversity offset cases was carried out to empirically underpin these types. This generated an exploratory list of 90 biodiversity offset cases worldwide. A number of these were rejected, e.g., due to poor information quality or project failure/abandonment. The remaining 72 cases were analyzed and assigned to the seven types.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    cf. Darbi (2010b).

  2. 2.

    cf. Darbi (2014).

  3. 3.

    cf. Darbi (2015).

  4. 4.

    It should be noted, however, that neither do regulatory biodiversity offsets exclude business (in fact all offsets target harmful activities by business, industry, and public developers), nor is the “business case” exempt from all kind of government involvement (see Fig. 5.3 with regard to the core business case and extended business case for biodiversity offsets).

  5. 5.

    In game theory this could be modelled as a Nash equilibrium, i.e., “the optimal outcome of a game is one where no player has an incentive to deviate from his or her chosen strategy after considering an opponent’s choice. Overall, an individual can receive no incremental benefit from changing actions, assuming other players remain constant in their strategies” (source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp).

References

  • Alberini A, Segerson K (2002) Assessing voluntary programs to improve environmental quality. Environ Resour Econ 22(1):157–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht J, Schumacher J, Wende W (2014) The German impact-mitigation regulation—a model for the EU’s no-net-loss strategy and biodiversity offsets? Environ Policy Law 44(3):317–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Altorfer H (2004) Zusammenfassende Thesen. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammann H (2004) Freiwilligkeit, Gemeinnützigkeit und Sozialstaat. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora S, Cason TN (1995) An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: participation in EPA’s 33/50 program. J Environ Econ Manag 28:271–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badelt C (2004) Freiwilligkeit aus Sicht der Ökonomie. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD (2014) The altruism question. Toward a social-psychological answer. Psychology Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • BBOP Secretariat (2010) Biodiversity offsets: a tool for CBD parties to consider and a briefing on the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Draft, unpublished

    Google Scholar 

  • Benn SI (1982) Community as a social ideal, vol 1. Edward Arnold, London, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Benn SI, Weinstein WL (1971) Being free to act, and being a free man. Mind 80(318):194–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop J, Kapila S, Hicks F, Mitchell P (2006) Building biodiversity business: report of a scoping study. Available at: http://www.globalnature.org/bausteine.net/f/6644/Building_Biodiversity_Business_-_Draft_Report_%28Oct_2006%29.pdf?fd=2

  • Boothe B (2004) Freiwilligkeit aus Sicht der Psychologie. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell JA, Henson SJ (1997) Interaction of private and public food quality control systems in global markets. In: Proceedings of the European Association of agricultural economists conference on globalization of the food industry: policy implications, pp 217–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranach (2008) Freiwilligkeit, Altruismus oder Egoismus? Zur Sozialpsychologie der individuellen und gesellschaftlichen Bedeutung der Freiwilligkeit. In: Ammann H et al (eds) Freiwilligkeit—Ursprünge, Erscheinungsformen, Perspektiven. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbi M (2010a) Biodiversity offsets—a tool for environmental management and biodiversity conservation. In: Sanchez Bengoa D, Powell D (eds) TOP biodiversity 2010. Intercollege-Larnaca, Cyprus. Conference proceedings. Intercollege-Larnaca, Larnaca, S. 289–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbi M (2010b) Voluntary Biodiversity Offsets: Freiwillige Kompensationsmaßnahmen für Eingriffe in die Biodiversität – eine neue Perspektive für den Erhalt und die Wiederherstellung der biologischen Vielfalt weltweit und in Deutschland? In: Feit U, Korn H (Bearb) Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt IX – Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt. BfN, Bonn, S. 199–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbi M (2014) Early draft on a typology of biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsets blog. Available at: http://www.biodiversityoffsets.net/typology-of-biodiversity-offsets/

  • Darbi M (2015) What is the business case for biodiversity offsets? In: “SQ-raising the sustainability quotient” (Bombay chamber of commerce and industry), IV(1): 3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Draser (2013) Freiwillig nur unter Zwang. Nachhaltig verpflichtet – aber wodurch. factor y. Magazin für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften

    Google Scholar 

  • Escorcio Bezerra LG (2007) Biodiversity offsets in national (Brazil) and regional (EU) mandatory arrangements: towards an international regime? Available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/library/new/Dissertation%20Biodiversity%20Offsets%20LGB%20IUCN%20BBOP.doc

  • Gutmann T (2000) Freiwilligkeit als Rechtsbegriff. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard K (2007) Voluntary biodiversity offsets: improving the environmental management toolbox. Available at: http://www.cortex.org/d-Cortex-%20Biodiversity%20Offsets_01Dec07.pdf

  • ING Group and Corporate Responsibility, Pieter Kroon (2001) Guidelines for multinational enterprises. Roundtable on Global Instruments for Corporate Responsibility, Paris, 19 Jun 2001. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/1898195.ppt

  • Kluge S (1999) Empirisch begründete Typenbildung. Zur Konstruktion von Typen und Typologien in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Leske + Budrich Verlag, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk A (2000) Economics of environmental management. Financial Times-Prentice Hall, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld PF (1937) Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Am Political Sci Rev 99(3):435–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadai E (2004) Der Lohn der Tugend. Zur Rationalisierung von Freiwilligenarbeit. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Olk C (2004) Freiwilligkeit aus Sicht der Soziologie. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J, Gouldson A, Kluvánková-Oravská T (2009) Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environ Policy Gov 19(3):148–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priller E (2008) Zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement im europäischen Vergleich. In: Ammann H, Hasse R, Jakobs M, Riemer-Kafka G (eds) Freiwilligkeit – Ursprünge, Erscheinungsformen, Perspektiven. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerson K (1999) Mandatory versus voluntary approaches to food safety. Agribusiness 15(1):53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerson K, Li Dawson N (2001) Environmental voluntary agreements: participation and free riding. In: Orts EW, Deketelaere K (eds) Environmental contracts. Comparative approaches to regulatory innovation in the United States and Europe. Kluwer Law International, Boston, pp 369–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegenthaler H (2008) Zur Reichweite gemeinnützigen Handelns – Von der Gruppensolidarität zum Universitalitätsprinzip. In: Ammann H, Hasse R, Jakobs M, Riemer-Kafka G (eds) Freiwilligkeit – Ursprünge, Erscheinungsformen, Perspektiven. Seismo, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Kate K (2005) Biodiversity offsets: good for business and biodiversity? Available at: https://www.cbd.int/financial/offsets/g-offsetsbusiness.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Darbi, M. (2020). Development of a Typology of Biodiversity Offsets. In: Biodiversity Offsets Between Regulation and Voluntary Commitment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25594-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics