Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity.

There is an urgent need to improve the evaluation of conservation interventions. This requires specifying an objective and a frame of reference from which to measure performance. Reference frames can be baselines (i.e., known biodiversity at a fixed point in history) or counterfactuals (i.e., a scenario that would have occurred without the intervention). Biodiversity offsets are interventions with the objective of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL). We used biodiversity offsets to analyze the effects of the choice of reference frame on whether interventions met stated objectives. We developed 2 models to investigate the implications of setting different frames of reference in regions subject to various biodiversity trends and anthropogenic impacts. First, a general analytic model evaluated offsets against a range of baseline and counterfactual specifications. Second, a simulation model then replicated these results with a complex real world case study: native grassland offsets in Melbourne, Australia. Both models showed that achieving NNL depended upon the interaction between reference frame and background biodiversity trends. With a baseline, offsets were less likely to achieve NNL where biodiversity was decreasing than where biodiversity was stable or increasing. With a no-development counterfactual, however, NNL was achievable only where biodiversity was declining. Otherwise, preventing development was better for biodiversity. Uncertainty about compliance was a stronger determinant of success than uncertainty in underlying biodiversity trends. When only development and offset locations were considered, offsets sometimes resulted in NNL, but not across an entire region. Choice of reference frame determined feasibility and effort required to attain objectives when designing and evaluating biodiversity offset schemes. We argue the choice is thus of fundamental importance for conservation policy. Our results shed light on situations in which biodiversity offsets may be an inappropriate policy instrument.

Functional motion of the medial column joints of the foot during propulsion.

Motion in the ankle, subtalar, midtarsal, and first metatarsophalangeal joints has been well documented. However, motion in the first metatarsocuneiform, the first cuneonavicular, and the first interphalangeal joint has not been addressed. Motion in these joints has not been documented because many believe that little motion occurs at these joints, and because of the difficulty in assessing motion at these joints. Using two-dimensional motion analysis, the authors present sagittal plane ranges of motion occurring in the first metatarsophalangeal joint, the first metatarsocuneiform joint, the medial cuneonavicular joint, and the first interphalangeal joint during the propulsive period of gait. This pilot study indicates that sagittal plane motion between the navicular and calcaneus and between the first metatarsal and first cuneiform are very mild and inconsistent. However, plantarflexion motion between the first cuneiform and the navicular is significant and comprises most of the plantarflexion motion of the first ray during propulsion. Motion in the first interphalangeal joint is slight during the first 80% of the propulsive period but shows slight-to-moderate dorsiflexion during the last 20% of the propulsive period of gait.