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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
cf. Darbi (2010b).
- 2.
cf. Darbi (2014).
- 3.
cf. Darbi (2015).
- 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.
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
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
Altorfer H (2004) Zusammenfassende Thesen. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich
Ammann H (2004) Freiwilligkeit, Gemeinnützigkeit und Sozialstaat. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich
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
Badelt C (2004) Freiwilligkeit aus Sicht der Ökonomie. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich
Batson CD (2014) The altruism question. Toward a social-psychological answer. Psychology Press, New York
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
Benn SI (1982) Community as a social ideal, vol 1. Edward Arnold, London, p 1
Benn SI, Weinstein WL (1971) Being free to act, and being a free man. Mind 80(318):194–211
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
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
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
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
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
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
Draser (2013) Freiwillig nur unter Zwang. Nachhaltig verpflichtet – aber wodurch. factor y. Magazin für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften
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
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
Kolk A (2000) Economics of environmental management. Financial Times-Prentice Hall, Harlow
Lazarsfeld PF (1937) Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Am Political Sci Rev 99(3):435–452
Nadai E (2004) Der Lohn der Tugend. Zur Rationalisierung von Freiwilligenarbeit. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich
Olk C (2004) Freiwilligkeit aus Sicht der Soziologie. In: Ammann H (ed) Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Seismo, Zürich
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
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
Segerson K (1999) Mandatory versus voluntary approaches to food safety. Agribusiness 15(1):53–70
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
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
ten Kate K (2005) Biodiversity offsets: good for business and biodiversity? Available at: https://www.cbd.int/financial/offsets/g-offsetsbusiness.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25594-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25593-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25594-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)