The inclusion of biodiversity in impact assessment for urban development: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion

Charlotte Bigard (), Sylvain Pioch () and John Thompson ()
Additional contact information
Charlotte Bigard: CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [Occitanie] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole
Sylvain Pioch: CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [Occitanie] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier
John Thompson: CEFE - Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - EPHE - École Pratique des Hautes Études - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - IRD [Occitanie] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Natural habitat loss and fragmentation, as a result of development projects, are major causes of biodiversity erosion. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most commonly used site-specific planning tool that takes into account the effects of development projects on biodiversity by integrating potential impacts into the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, and offset measures. However, the extent to which EIA fully address the identification of impacts and conservation stakes associated with biodiversity loss has been criticized in recent work. In this paper we examine the extent to which biodiversity criteria have been integrated into 42 EIA from 2006 to 2016 for small development projects in the Montpellier Metropolitan territory in southern France. This study system allowed us to question how EIA integrates biodiversity impacts on a scale relevant to land-use planning. We examine how biodiversity inclusion has changed over time in relation to new policy for EIA and how the mitigation hierarchy is implemented in practice and in comparison with national guidelines. We demonstrate that the inclusion of biodiversity features into EIA has increased significantly in relation to policy change. Several weaknesses nevertheless persist, including the continued absence of substitution solution assessment, a correct analysis of cumulative impacts, the evaluation of impacts on common species, the inclusion of an ecological network scale, and the lack of monitoring and evaluation measures. We also show that measures for mitigation hierarchy are primarily associated with the reduction of impacts rather than their avoidance, and avoidance and offset measures are often misleadingly proposed in EIA. There is in fact marked semantic confusion between avoidance, reduction and offset measures that may impair stakeholders' understanding. All in all, reconsideration of stakeholders routine practices associated with a more strategic approach towards impact anticipation and avoidance at a land-use planning scale is now necessary for the mitigation hierarchy to become a clear and practical hierarchy for "no net loss" objectives based on conservation priorities.

Keywords: environmental impact assessment; mitigation hierarchy; conservation science; land use planning; no net loss (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02448719v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published in Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 200, pp.35-45. ⟨10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-02448719v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02448719

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().