Stacking ecosystem services

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 186-193

  Robertson, Morgan ^a   BenDor, Todd K ^b   Lave, Rebecca ^c   Riggsbee, Adam ^d   Ruhl, J B ^e   Doyle, Martin ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d RiverBank Ecosystems Inc   (United States)

^e VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPENSATION; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; STACKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; INTEGRATED APPROACH; MARKET CONDITIONS; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 84903128608     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/110292     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. ALI (American Law Institute). 1993. Restatement of the law of property, as adopted and promulgated by the American Law Institute at Washington, DC. Washington, DC: ALI.
2. Bennett K. 2010. Additionality: the next step for ecosystem service markets. Duke Environ Law Pol Forum 20: 417-38.
3. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, and Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12: 1394-404.
4. Bianco N. 2009. Fact sheet: stacking payments for ecosystem services. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. www.wri.org/stories/2009/11/fact- sheet-stacking-payments-ecosystemservices. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
5. Boyd J and Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63: 616-26. (Pubitemid 46908771)
6. Cheng C-W, Gaebel DG, St Pierre JM, and Willow AJ. 2001. A resting place for the ducks: a multidisciplinary analysis of floodplain restoration of the Hennepin Levee District, Illinois (Master's thesis). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan School of Natural Resources. http://snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/ hennepin.htm. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
7. CMM (Conservation Marketplace of Minnesota). 2009. The Sauk River ecosystem services project business plan. www.stearnscountyswcd.net/pages/ ConservationMarketplaceofMinnesota. Viewed 9 Mar 2014.
8. Cooley D and Olander L. 2012. Stacking ecosystem services payments: risks and solutions. Environ Law Reporter 42: 10150-65.
9. Ecosystem Futures. 2010. Stacking credits and payments. http://ecosystemfutures.org/?p=5. Viewed 6 May 2013.
10. ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2005. National forum on synergies between water quality trading and wetland mitigation banking. Washington, DC: ELI.
11. ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2007. Mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat: estimating costs and identifying opportunities. Washington, DC: ELI.
12. Fox J. 2008. Getting two for one: opportunities and challenges in credit stacking. In: Carroll N, Fox J, and Bayon R (Eds). Conservation and biodiversity banking: a guide to setting up and running biodiversity credit trading systems. London, UK: Earthscan.
13. Fox J, Gardner R, and Maki T. 2011. Stacking opportunities and risks in environmental credit markets. Environ Law Rev 41: 10121-25.
14. GAO (US Government Accountability Office). 2005. Corps of Engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring. Report to the ranking Democratic member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: GAO.
15. Gillenwater M. 2011. What is additionality? Part 3: implications for stacking and unbundling. Silver Spring, MD: Greenhouse Gas Management Institute.
16. Horwood C. 2007. The new colour of money. Euromoney 38: 51-54.
17. Kane D. 2008. EBX is paid twice for wetlands work. Charlotte News and Observer. December 8. Charlotte, NC. www.newsobserver.com/2009/12/08/230607/ebx- is-paid-twice-for-wetlands.html. Viewed 9 Mar 2014.
18. Kenny A. 2010. Theory and practice collide in efforts to stack multiple ecosystem values on one piece of land. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page-id=7544. Viewed 2 May 2010.
19. Kremen C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8: 468-79. (Pubitemid 40641135)
20. Kremen C and Ostfeld RS. 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 3: 540-48. (Pubitemid 41752665)
21. Lant C, Ruhl JB, and Kraft SE. 2008. The tragedy of ecosystem services. BioScience 58: 969-74.
22. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
23. Mack JJ. 2006. Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition: an evaluation of the Landscape Development Index (LDI) with a Large Reference Wetland Dataset from Ohio. Environ Monit Assess 120: 221-41. (Pubitemid 44256276)
24. Mack JJ and Micacchion M. 2006. An ecological assessment of Ohio mitigation banks. Columbus, OH: Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group.
25. Madsen B, Carroll N, and Moore Brands K. 2010. State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
26. McElwaine A. 2005. Multiple credit types for a single project site. Paper presented at the National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking; 11-12 Jul 2005; Washington, DC.
27. Morris DF. 2009. Ecosystem service stacking: can money grow on trees? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
28. NCEEP (North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2009. Nutrient offset program. Raleigh, NC: NCEEP.
29. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. NSW DECC (New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change). 2008. BioBanking assessment methodology. New South Wales Government Gazette 87: 7101-53.
31. ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Water quality credit trading in Oregon: a case study report. Portland, OR: ODEQ. www.deq.state.or.us/wq/trading/docs/wqtradingcasestudy.pdf. Viewed 27 Feb 2014.
32. Palmer MA and Filoso S. 2009. Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325: 575-76.
33. Parametrix. 2010. An introduction to EcoMetrix: measuring change in ecosystem performance at a site scale. Portland, OR: Parametrix Inc.
34. Penner JE. 1996. The "Bundle of Rights" picture of property. UCLA Law Rev 43: 711-820.
35. Program Evaluation Division. 2009. Department of Environment and Natural Resources wetland mitigation credit determinations. Raleigh, NC: Program Evaluation Division, North Carolina General Assembly. Report No 2009-04.
36. Raudsepp-Herne C, Peterson GD, and Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing trade-offs in diverse landscapes. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 5242-47.
37. Robertson M and Hayden N. 2008. Evaluation of a market in wetland credits: entrepreneurial wetland banking in Chicago. Conserv Biol 22: 636-46. (Pubitemid 351813463)
38. Ruhl JB. 2008. Making nuisance ecological. Case West Reserve Law Rev 58: 753-85.
39. Simonit S and Perrings C. 2011. "Stacking" ecosystem services in the Panama Canal watershed. Presentation on 12 Sep 2011 for Campus do Mar, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain. http://tv.campusdomar.es/serial/index/id/38. Viewed 6 May 2013.
40. Stephenson K and Shabman L. 2011. Rhetoric and reality of water quality trading and the potential for market-like reform. J Am Water Resour As 47: 15-28.
41. Thompson BH. 2012. Ecofarming: a realistic vision for the future of agriculture. Irvine Law Rev 1: 1167-220.
42. US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. State and individual trading programs. Washington, DC: EPA. www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/ tradingmap.html. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
43. Vira B and Adams WM. 2009. Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv Lett 2: 158-62.
44. Welty C, Fraley L, Hanlon B, et al. 2005. Final report: using an "impervious permit" allowance system to reduce impervious surface coverage for environmental sustainability. Washington, DC: EPA. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display. abstractDetail/abstract/7148/report/F. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
45. White C, Costello C, Kendall BE, and Brown CJ. 2012. The value of coordinated management of interacting ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 15: 509-19.
46. Willamette Partnership. 2009. Ecosystem credit accounting (pilot general crediting protocol: Willamette Basin version 1.1). Portland, OR: Willamette Partnership. http://willamettepartnership.org/ General%20Crediting%20Protocol%201.1.pdf. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.
47. Willamette Partnership. 2010. Ecosystem credit accounting. Portland, OR: Willamette Partnership. http://willamettepart nership.org/ecosystem-credit- accounting. Viewed 5 Mar 2011.
48. Woodward RT. 2011. Double-dipping in environmental markets. J Environ Econ Manag 61: 153-69.
49. Zwick S. 2010. UN biodiversity boss says convergence with carbon markets could turn REDD+ into win-win for species. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page- id=7562&sec tion=home. Viewed 21 Oct 2013.