Comparing the Ecological and Economic Outcomes of Traditional vs. Programmatic, Multi-Resource Based Mitigation Approaches
A study was undertaken to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of traditional mitigation verses progressive mitigation approaches which include multiple resource assessments. The authors' review of state programs shows the broad array of planning practices ranging from those that include little or no evaluation of landscape-level ecosystem services assessment, to those programs where landscape and social evaluation is a driving principle. The authors found that the best – and most practical – examples can and should form the basis for mitigation planning that targets the most socially, ecologically and economically beneficial mitigation locations. Characterizing the economic values which result from progressive mitigation approaches provides a mechanism to encourage policy makers, regulators, and transportation agencies to move towards implementing these approaches. Traditional mitigation programs can be expensive to implement, provide limited ecological outcomes, and often cause significant delays in infrastructure project implementation. Even when traditional programs are efficient and incorporated into programmatic agreements, as is the case in Florida, they usually fail to take advantage of the full array of economic and ecological outputs available to restoration projects. To implement progressive approaches, programmatic agreements must have the flexibility to take advantage of the most up-to-date information, and mitigation programs need to get credit for increased ecological and economic outputs from mitigation that restores multiple services. Projects in Maryland, Oregon and elsewhere in the country are working to create tools and mechanisms for mitigation-based ecosystem service crediting. Transportation agencies have demonstrated that they can make significant improvements in the delivery of new projects when programmatic agreements are developed. In this project, the authors document the significant increase in economic, social, and ecological outputs that can be gained if mitigation can be focused in areas in which these benefits are most efficiently generated. Where there appears to be fewer regulatory impediments to implementing progressive mitigation approaches, it is less clear that sufficient incentives exist for transportation agencies to support these progressive approaches.
-
- Summary URL:
-
Supplemental Notes:
- Abstract used with permission from the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, organized by the Center for Transportation and the Environment, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University.
-
Corporate Authors:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Center for Transportation and the Environment
Raleigh, NC United States 27695-8601 -
Authors:
- Kagan, James S
- Boyd, James W
- Wilkinson, Jessica B
- Howie, Shara
- Womble, Philip
- Potter, Joanne
-
Conference:
- 2011 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET 2011)
- Location: Seattle Washington, United States
- Date: 2011-8-21 to 2011-8-25
- Publication Date: 2012
Language
- English
Media Info
- Media Type: Digital/other
- Features: Figures; Maps; References; Tables;
- Pagination: pp 825-839
- Monograph Title: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET 2011)
Subject/Index Terms
- TRT Terms: Economic factors; Ecosystems; Environmental protection; Implementation; Planning; Regulation
- Subject Areas: Environment; Highways; Planning and Forecasting; I15: Environment; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning;
Filing Info
- Accession Number: 01561099
- Record Type: Publication
- Files: TRIS
- Created Date: Apr 24 2015 11:22AM