A pragmatic framework for local operationalisation of national-level biodiversity impact mitigation commitments

Bibliographic Data

ID12666271
AuthorsThomas B Atkins (0009-0007-6805-3415, Newcastle University, corresponding author), Natalie Duffus (0000-0001-7126-4909, University of Oxford), Amber Butler (0000-0002-8328-7734, University of Oxford), Hannah C Nicholas (0009-0009-9360-3268, University of Oxford), Sophus zu Ermgassen (0000-0001-6044-3389, University of Oxford), Sophus O S E zu Ermgassen, Prue Addison (0000-0002-4195-9723, Berkshire Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust), E J Milner-Gulland (0000-0003-0324-2710, University of Oxford)
Year2025
Volume174
Pages104288-104288
Publication date2025-11-27
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnvironmental Science & Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1462-9011 • E-ISSN: 1873-6416
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104288
OpenAlexW4416751462
LanguageEN
References cited26

Countries around the world are attempting to navigate complex trade-offs between biodiversity and other land use objectives such as infrastructure expansion, with many adopting “net outcomes” policies that aim to ensure economic development leaves biodiversity better off than before. The implementation of net outcomes policies often occurs on a project-by-project basis, which can lead to implementation missing opportunities for integrated thinking that delivers across multiple objectives. Here, we present a new practical framework for delivering a biodiversity mitigation strategy that achieves multiple societal objectives whilst being applicable at the scale of an individual project. We apply the framework to the case study of a major development in Oxfordshire subject to Biodiversity Net Gain legislation. We first calculate the requirement for off-site biodiversity offsetting, given the realistic limits in scope of on-site biodiversity impact mitigation. Three offsetting strategies are co-created with local stakeholders, which all meet the required biodiversity gains, but differ with regards to social equity and the bundle of ecosystem services delivered. Making these contrasting project characteristics transparent and comparable empowers local stakeholders to choose the offset strategy that meets their local preferences across these often-competing priorities, whilst helping contribute to overarching strategic development goals. • We examine how national biodiversity mitigation policy can be implemented locally. • We introduce a new practical framework for the above using BNG as a case study. • Three example mitigation strategies differ in their additional non-BNG benefits. • Delivery of socioeconomic outcomes depends on the location of biodiversity offsets. • A participatory approach ensures decision-making considers local priorities

Biodiversity · Ecosystem services · Equity (law · Land use · Measurement of biodiversity · Scale (ratio · Scope (computer science · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Environmental Conservation and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access