To explore whether infrastructure sharing under collaborative idustry partnerships has the potential to reduce biodiversity impacts (a public benefit, i.e. those benefits flowing to people or communities) and provide cost savings to industry (a private benefit, i.e. those benefits flowing to individuals or companies directly involved in a transaction).
Type of Study:
Original research based on scenario modelling
Fully shared development of linear infrastructure reduced overall biodiversity impacts by 76% and reduced capital costs by 64% compared with the independent scenario.
Independent scenario, restricted-access scenario, shared scenario
A more nuanced conversation about the merits of avoiding rather than merely mitigating the impacts of infrastructure on biodiversity and other natural assets.
Spatial analysis in ArcGIS and Python; Maxent modelling to generate habitat-suitability maps. Other analysis in R.
Upper Spencer Gulf and associated regions of South Australia
Response variable :
Biodiversity impact under each scenario was defined as the proportional habitat loss per species summed across 182 biodiversity features of conservation concern found in the study region (175 species and 7 vegetation communities or wetlands listed under national environmental legislation). Capital costs were calculated as costs incurred by each mining company for infrastructure construction as the sum of construction costs, compensation payments for lost agricultural profitability (i.e., opportunity cost of agricultural profits), and the transaction costs arising from negotiations with the affected landholders for each linear infrastructure route.
Mainly arid ecosystems; include threatened ecosystems such as Eyre Peninsula Blue Gum (Eucalyptus petiolaris) Woodland.
approximately 900 × 1,200 km
Runge C. A., Tulloch A. I. T., Gordon A. & Rhodes J. R. (2017) Quantifying the conservation gains from shared access to linear infrastructure. Conservation Biology Online Early View