The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity
Open accessAbstract
There is an urgent need to improve the evaluation of conservation interventions. This requires specifying an objective and a frame of reference from which to measure performance. Reference frames can be baselines (i.e., known biodiversity at a fixed point in history) or counterfactuals (i.e., a scenario that would have occurred without the intervention). Biodiversity offsets are interventions with the objective of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL). We used biodiversity offsets to analyze the effects of the choice of reference frame on whether interventions met stated objectives. We developed 2 models to investigate the implications of setting different frames of reference in regions subject to various biodiversity trends and anthropogenic impacts. First, a general analytic model evaluated offsets against a range of baseline and counterfactual specifications. Second, a simulation model then replicated these results with a complex real world case study: native grassland offsets in Melbourne, Australia. Both models showed that achieving NNL depended upon the interaction between reference frame and background biodiversity trends. With a baseline, offsets were less likely to achieve NNL where biodiversity was decreasing than where biodiversity was stable or increasing. With a no‐development counterfactual, however, NNL was achievable only where biodiversity was declining. Otherwise, preventing development was better for biodiversity. Uncertainty about compliance was a stronger determinant of success than uncertainty in underlying biodiversity trends. When only development and offset locations were considered, offsets sometimes resulted in NNL, but not across an entire region. Choice of reference frame determined feasibility and effort required to attain objectives when designing and evaluating biodiversity offset schemes. We argue the choice is thus of fundamental importance for conservation policy. Our results shed light on situations in which biodiversity offsets may be an inappropriate policy instrument Importancia de la Especificación de Línea de Base en la Evaluación de Intervenciones de Conservación y la Obtención de Ninguna Pérdida Neta de la Biodiversidad
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions
Quétier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.002 · Cited by 337
Moilanen, A., Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Ben‐Haim, Y., & Ferrier, S. (2009) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1526-100x.2008.00382.x · Cited by 264
Cited by
Restoration, Reintroduction, and Rewilding in a Changing World
Corlett, R. T. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.017 · Cited by 420
Mihoub, J.-B., Henle, K., Titeux, N., Brotons, L., Brummitt, N. A., & Schmeller, D. S. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep41591 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- BULL, J. W., GORDON, A., LAW, E. A., SUTTLE, K. B., & MILNER‐GULLAND, E. J.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-13
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 799-809
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1875792031
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 50.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12243
- The paper
- BULL, J. W., GORDON, A., LAW, E. A., SUTTLE, K. B., & MILNER‐GULLAND, E. J. (2014). Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.