首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Biodiversity and ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: An evaluation of six Australian cases
Institution:1. Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419AT, Heerlen, the Netherlands;2. Systems Ecology & Resource Management, Biology Departlent, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue Franklin Roosevelt, 50, 1050 Brussels, Belgium;3. Biology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium;4. Centre for Environmental Science, Hasselt University (UHasselt), Martelarenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium;5. CEBioS, Capacities for Biodiversity & Sustainable Development, Operational Directorate Natural Environment, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Rue Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium;6. Hasselt University, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Research Group Zoology: Biodiversity and Toxicology, Agoralaan Gebouw D, B-3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium;7. Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlá?ská 2, CZ-611 37, Brno, Czech Republic;8. Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, Department of Biology, University of Leuven, Charles Debériotstraat 32, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium;9. Zoology Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, P.O.Box 17, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland
Abstract:Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) aims to provide a sound theoretical basis on which to plan for biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). With the multi-purpose and increasing use of SEA worldwide, it is timely to evaluate the effectiveness of SEA practice in integrating biodiversity and ES considerations. Here, we derive criteria from the International Best Practice Principles on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment to evaluate six Australian SEAs conducted for urban development plans. We use qualitative and quantitative content analysis to examine the endorsed SEA reports. We identify and analyse text references related to the evaluation criteria and use word counting of keywords to supplement and cross-check the validity of our findings. Four significant results emerge from our analysis. First, while goals to achieve no net loss (NNL) or net gain outcomes for biodiversity are mentioned in all case studies, their poor specification may limit their effectiveness. Second, there is limited integration of ES considerations into the SEA reports, limiting the potential advantages that such an approach could provide. Third, offsetting is the most documented type of mitigation measure, potentially signalling a lack of evidence in implementing early steps of the mitigation hierarchy, including avoidance. This could be explained by the low level of integration of biodiversity and ES considerations from the early stages in the planning process, where there is more flexibility to apply such steps. Fourth, biodiversity management systems and follow-up activities lack detailed information to judge whether they will be useful to demonstrate NNL outcomes. Based on these findings, we present recommendations for enhancing the integration of biodiversity and ES considerations in SEAs. Our approach provides a general framework that can be applied to evaluate SEAs elsewhere in the world from a biodiversity and ES conservation perspective.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号