Enhancing ecological connectivity through biodiversity offsets to mitigate impacts on habitats of large mammals in tropical forest environments

References

• Angelieri CC, Adams-Hosking C, Ferraz KMPMB, Souza MP, McAlpine CA, Rebelo H. 2016. Using species distribution models to predict potential landscape restoration effects on Puma conservation. PLoS One. 11(1):e0145232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athayde S, Fonseca A, Araújo SMVG, Gallardo ALCF, Moretto EM, Sánchez LE. 2022. Viewpoint: the far-reaching dangers of rolling back environmental licensing and impact assessment legislation in Brazil. Env Impact Ass Rev. 94:106742. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azevedo FC, Lemos FG, Almeida LB, Campos CB, Beisiegel BM, Paula RC, Crawshaw Junior PG, Ferraz KMPMB, Oliveira TG. 2013. Avaliação do risco de extinção da Onça-parda Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) no Brasil. [Extinction risk assessment of the Puma concolor. Biodiversidade Brasileira. 3(1):107–121. Linnaeus, 1771) in Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• [BBOP] Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2012 Standard on biodiversity offsets. Bus Biodivers Offsets Program.
   Google Scholar
• BenDor TK, Woodruff S. 2014. Moving targets and biodiversity offsets for endangered species habitat: is lesser prairie chicken habitat a stock or low? Sustainability. 6(3):1250–1259. doi:10.3390/su6031250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergès L, Avon C, Bezombes LC, Duflot C, Foltête JCR, Gaucherand S, Girardet X, Spiegelberger T, Spiegelberger T. 2020. Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. J Environ Manage. 256:109950. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidaud C, Schreckenberg K, Jones JP. 2018. The local costs of biodiversity offsets: comparing standards, policy and practice. Land Use Policy. 77:43–50. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borioni R, Gallardo ALCF, Sánchez LE. 2017. Advancing scoping practice in environmental impact assessment: an examination of the Brazilian federal system. Imp Ass Project App. 35(3):200–213. doi:10.1080/14615517.2016.1271535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaves RB, Durigan G, Brancalion PHS, Aronson J. 2015. On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil). Restor Ecol. 23(6):754–759. doi:10.1111/rec.12267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CITES]. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• [COPAM]. Conselho Estadual de Política Ambiental de Minas Gerais. 2010. In: Deliberação Normativa n° 147, 30 de abril de 2010. Minas Gerais.
   Google Scholar
• Costanzo BP, Sánchez LE. 2019. Innovation in impact assessment theory and practice: how is it captured in the literature? Environ Impact Ass Rev. 79:106289. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalloz MF, Crouzeille R, Almeida-Gomes M, Papi B, Prevedello JA. 2017. Incorporating landscape ecology metrics into environmental impact assessment in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 15(3):216–220. doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalponte J, Courtenay O. 2008. Pseudalopex vetulus. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/Red List of Threatened Species. [ accesed 2021 june]. http://www.iucnredlist.org
   Google Scholar
• De Paula RC, Rodrigues FHG, Queirolo D, Jorge RPS, Lemos FG, Rodrigues LA. 2013. Avaliação do estado de conservação do Lobo-guará Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger, 1815) no Brasil. [Evaluation of the Conservation of the Maned Wolf] Biodiversidade Brasileira. 3(1):146–159.
   Google Scholar
• Dean W. 1994. A Ferro e Fogo: a história e a devastação da Mata Atlântica. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
   Google Scholar
• Dias AMS, Fonseca A, Paglia AP. 2017. Biodiversity monitoring in the environmental impact assessment of mining projects: a (persistent) waste of time and money? Perspect Ecol Conserv. 15(3):206–208. doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias AMS, Fonseca A, Paglia AP. 2019. Technical quality of fauna monitoring programs in the environmental impact assessments of large mining projects in southeastern Brazil. Sci Total Environ. 650:216–223. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dibo APA, Noble BF, Sánchez LE. 2018. Perspectives on driving changes in project-based cumulative effects assessment for biodiversity: lessons from the Canadian experience. Environ Manage. 62(5):929–941. doi:10.1007/s00267-018-1086-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte CD, Dibo AP, Sánchez LE. 2017a. What does the academic research say about impact assessment and environmental licensing in Brazil. Ambiente & Sociedade. 20(1):261–290. doi:10.1590/1809-4422ASOC20150268R1V2012017.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte CD, Dibo AP, Siqeuira-Gay J, Sánchez LE. 2017b. Practitioners’ perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact assessment system: results from a survey. Impact Asses Proj Appraisal. 35(4):293–309. doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1322813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes GW. 2016. The megadiverse rupestrian grassland. In: Fernandes, G. (eds)., Ecology and conservation of mountaintop grasslands in Brazil. Cham: Springer; p. 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ferraz SF, Ferraz KM, Cassiano CC, Brancalion PHS, Luz DT, Azevedo TN, Tambosi LR, Metzger JP. 2014. How good are tropical forest patches for ecosystem services provisioning? Landsc Ecol. 29(2):187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-9988-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons P, Macintosh A, Louise A, Kiichiro C. 2018. Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Global Chang Biol. 24(2):643–654. doi:10.1111/gcb.13977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorissen MMJ, van der Heide M, Schaminée JHJ. 2020. Habitat banking and Its challenges in a densely populated country: the case of the Netherlands. Sustainability. 12(9):3756. doi:10.3390/su12093756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Liao TJ. 2019. An integrating approach of cellular automata and ecological network to predict the impact of land use change on connectivity. Ecol Indic. 98:149–157. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [ICMBio]. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. 2018. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção: volume II – mamíferos 1. Brasília (DF): Ministério de Meio Ambiente.
   Google Scholar
• Igondova E, Pavlickova K, Majzlan O. 2016. The ecological impact assessment of a proposed road development (the Slovak approach). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 59:43–54. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2015. O Brasil e a lista vermelha de ecossistemas. [Brazil and the red list of ecosystems]. acessed 2021 jun 23. https://iucnrle.org/blog/red-list-of-ecosystems-in-brazil-a-lista-vermelha-de-ecossistemas-no-brasil/
   Google Scholar
• [IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2021. The IUCN red list of threatened species. accessed 2021 jun 23. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
   Google Scholar
• Jorge MLP, Galetti M, Ribeiro MC, Ferraz KMPMB. 2013. Mammal defaunation as surrogate of trophic cascades in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol Conserv. 163:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.04.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kågström M. 2016. Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: how consultants guide quality in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Ass Rev. 60:169–175. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koblitz RV, Pereira Júnior SJ, Ajuz RDA, Grelle CEV. 2011. Ecologia de paisagens e licenciamento ambiental. Nat Conserv. 9(2):244–248. doi:10.4322/natcon.2011.033.
   Google Scholar
• Kujala H, Whitehead AL, Wintle BA. 2015. Identifying conservation priorities and assessing impacts and trade‐offs of potential future development in the lower hunter Valley in New South Wales. Melbourne (Victoria): The University of Melbourne; p. 100.
   Google Scholar
• Landim SNT, Sánchez LE. 2012. The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time? Impact Ass Proj Apprais. 30(3):217–228. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.746828.
   Google Scholar
• Legg CJ, Nagy L. 2006. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J Environ Manage. 78(2):194–199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemos FG, Azevedo FC, Beisiegel BM. 2013. Avaliação do risco de extinção da Raposa-do-campo Lycalopex vetulus (Lund, 1842) no Brasil. [Extinction risk assessment of the Lycalopex vetulus (Lund, 1842) in Brazil. Biodiversidade Brasileira. 3(1):160–171.
   Google Scholar
• Loro M, Ortega E, Arce RM, Geneletti D. 2015. Ecological connectivity analysis to reduce the barrier effect of roads. An innovative graph-theory approach to define wildlife corridors with multiple paths and without bottlenecks. Landsc Urban Plan. 139:149–162. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maestre-Andrés S, Corbera E, Robertson M, Lave R. 2020. Habitat banking at a standstill: the case of Spain. Environ Sci Policy. 109:54–63. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magioli M, de Barros KMPM, Setz EZF, Percequillo AR, Rondon MVDSS, Kuhnen VV, Silva Canhoto MC, Santos KEA, Kanda CZ, Lima Fregonezi G, et al. 2016. Connectivity maintain mammal assemblages functional diversity within agricultural and fragmented landscapes. Eur J Wildl Res. 62(4):431–446. doi:10.1007/s10344-016-1017-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maron M, Gordon A, Mackey BG, Possingham HP, Watson JE. 2015. Conservation: stop misuse of biodiversity offsets. Nat News. 523(7561):401. doi:10.1038/523401a.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall E, Valavi R, O’Connor L, Cadenhead N, Southwell D, Wintle BA, Kujala H. 2020. Quantifying the impact of vegetation‐based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction. Conserv Biol. 35(2):567–577. doi:10.1111/cobi.13600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martensen AC, Pimentel RG, Metzger JP. 2008. Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. 141(9):2184–2192. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JE. 2016. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nat News. 536(7615):143. doi:10.1038/536143a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moilanen A, Kujala H, Mikkonen N, Isaac N. 2020. A practical method for evaluating spatial biodiversity offset scenarios based on spatial conservation prioritisation outputs. Methods Ecol Evol. 11(7):794–803. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.13381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 403(6772):853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemésio A, Silveira FA. 2010. Forest fragments with larger core areas better sustain diverse orchid bee faunas (Hymenoptera: apidae: euglossina). Neotrop Entomol. 39(4):555–561. doi:10.1590/S1519-566X2010000400014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira TG. 1994. Neotropical Cats: ecology and Conservation. São Luís: EDUFMA.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira TG, Almeida LB, Campos CB. 2013b. Avaliação do risco de extinção da Jaguatirica Leopardus pardalis (Linnaeus, 1758) no Brasil. [Jaguatiricas’s Extinction Risk Assessment] Biodiversidade Brasileira. 3(1):66–75.
   Google Scholar
• Pardini R, Bueno ADA, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP, Fenton B. 2010. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PloS One. 5(10):e13666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer M, Lefebvre V, Peres, C. 2017. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature. 551:187–191. doi:10.1038/nature24457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajvanshi A, Brownlie S, Slootweg R, Arora R. 2011. Maximising benefits for biodiversity: the potential of enhancement strategies in impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 29(3):181–193. doi:10.3152/146155111X12959673796245.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues FHG 2002. Biologia e conservação do lobo-guará na Estação Ecológica de Águas Emendadas, DF. [ dissertação] [Maned wolf biology and conservation at Águas Emendadas Ecological Station] [dissertation]. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. 105p.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues RR, Gandolfi S, Nave AG, Aronson J, Barreto TE, Vidal Y, Brancalion PHS. 2011. Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. For Ecol and Manag. 261(10):1605–1613. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.005.
   Google Scholar
• Salviano IR, Gardon FR, Santos RF. 2021. Ecological corridors and landscape planning: a model to select priority areas for connectivity maintenance. Landscape Ecol. 36(8):1–18. doi:10.1007/s10980-021-01305-8.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez LE, Franks DM. 2022. An evolving agenda for environmental, health and safety management in mining. In: Yakovleva N, Nickless E, editors. Routledge handbook on extractive industries and sustainable development. ch. 7.17 London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003001317
   Google Scholar
• Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L. 2007. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape Urban Plan. 83(2–3):91–103. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saura S, Rubio L. 2010. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography. 33(3):523–537. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silveira L 1999. Ecologia e conservação dos mamíferos carnívoros do Parque Nacional das Emas, Goiás. Dissertação [tese de mestrado]. [Ecology and conservation of carnivorous mammals in the Emas National Park, Goiás] [ master’s thesis]. Universidade Federal de Goiás. 125p.
   Google Scholar
• Sonter LJ, Ali SH, Watson J 2018. Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation Science. Proceedings Royal Society B, 285: 20181926. 10.1098/rspb.2018.1926
   Google Scholar
• Souza BA, Sánchez LE. 2018. Biodiversity offsets in limestone quarries: investigation of practices in Brazil. Resour Policy. 57:213–223. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza BA, Rosa JC, Siqueira-Gay J, Sánchez LE. 2021. Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets. Land Use Policy. 105:105393. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soyumert A. 2020. Camera-trapping two felid species: monitoring Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations in mixed temperate forest ecosystems. Mammal Study. 45(1):41–48. doi:10.3106/ms2019-0046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM. 2015. Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Enviro Impact Assess Rev. 55:21–34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarabon S, Bergès L, Dutoit T, Isselin-Nondedeu F. 2019. Maximising habitat connectivity in the mitigation hierarchy. A case study on three terrestrial mammals in an urban environment. J Environ Manage. 243:340–349. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira FZ, Coelho IP, Lauxen M, Esperandio IB, Hartz SM, Kindel A. 2016. The need to improve and integrate science and environmental licensing to mitigate wild life mortality on roads in Brazil. Trop Conserv Sci. 9(1):34–42. doi:10.1177/194008291600900104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [WBG] World Bank Group. 2016. Biodiversity offsets: a user guide. World Bank’s program for forests. World Bank, Washington (DC). [accessed 2021 jul 14]. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25758
   Google Scholar
• Zu Ermgassen SOSE, Baker J, Griffiths RA, Strange N, Struebig MJ, Bull J. 2019a. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv Lett. 12(6):e12664. doi:10.1111/conl.12664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwiener VP, Padial AA, Marques MCM, Faleiro FV, Loyola R, Peterson AT, Di Minin E. 2017. Planning for conservation and restoration under climate and land use change in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Divers Distrib. 23(8):955–966. doi:10.1111/ddi.12588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar