Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: British HerpetologySociety
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QH75, QL, QH541
Increasing development of natural habitats frequently causes conflict with the conservation of protected species. Consequently, interventions that attempt to mitigate the impact of development are becoming increasingly commonplace. We used four approaches to assess the effectiveness of development mitigation on a species subject to widespread development pressures in Europe – the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Firstly, a systematic evidence review revealed eleven published studies of great crested newt populations at development sites. None provided conclusive evidence that the mitigation carried out was effective in maintaining populations. Secondly, less than half of 406 mitigation licence project files examined contained reports of results. Of those that did, only 16 provided post-development population assessments. These included one extinct population, and 10 ‘small’ populations. Thirdly, standardised population assessments were carried out at 18 sites in England, at least six years after the initial mitigation was completed. Although newt populations persisted at most of these sites, there was evidence of an overall decline, with extinctions occurring at four sites. Fourthly, although the annual cost of mitigation for great crested newts in England is estimated at between £20-43 million, information on the status of populations and habitats makes it difficult to assess whether this is cost-effective for either conservation or development. The quality and quantity of available data make it difficult to assign reasons for population changes at mitigation sites, but the study highlighted four general issues concerning mitigation practice: (1) presence of non-viable populations pre-mitigation; (2) inadequate mitigation interventions and site management; (3) cumulative impacts of further developments; and (4) emergence of new threats post-mitigation. Nevertheless, it is possible that some mitigation activities may have unforeseen and undocumented benefits, such as providing green spaces and biodiversity enhancement in urban areas.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bekessy S.A., Wintle, B.A., Lindenmayer, D.B. et al. (2010). The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conservation Leetrs 3 , 151-158.
    • Bormpoudakis, D., Foster, J., Gent, T., Griffiths, R.A., et al. (2015). Developing models to estimate the occurrence in the English countryside of Great Crested Newts, a protected species under the Habitats Directive [Defra Project Code WC1108]. Available from: . Accessed: 1 May 2016.
    • Brown, M.A., Clarkson, B.D., Barton, B.J. & Joshi, C. (2013). Ecological compensation: an evaluation of regulatory compliance in New Zealand. Impact Assessment and Appraisal 31, 34-44.
    • Bull, J.W., Sutle, K.B., Gordon, A., Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2013). Biodiversity osfets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369-380.
    • Centre for Evidence Based Conservation (2010). Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.0. Environmental Evidence: . Accessed: 10 December 2010.
    • Edgar, P.W., Grifiths, R.A. & Foster, J.P. (2005). Evaluation of translocation as a tool for mitigating development threats to great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) in England, 1990- 2001. Biological Conservation 122, 45-52.
    • English Nature (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.
    • Gardner, A.S. & Howarth, B. (2009). Urbanisation in the United Arab Emirates: the challenges for ecological mitigation in a rapidly developing country. BioRisk 3, 27-38.
    • Gent, A.H. & Gibson, S.D. (2003). Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Commiete.
    • Germano, J.M., Field, K.J., Griffiths, R.A., Clulow, S., et al. (2015). Mitigation-driven translocations: are we moving wildlife in the right direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, 100-105.
    • Glista, D.J., DeVault, T.L. & DeWoody, J.A. (2009). A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 1-7.
    • Grifiths, R.A. (1985). A simple funnel trap for studying newt populations and an evaluation of trap behaviour in smooth and palmate newts, Triturus vulgaris and T. helveticus. Herpetological Journal 1, 5-10.
    • Griffiths, R.A. (2004). Mismatches between conservation science and practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 564-565.
    • Grifiths, R.A., Foster, J., Wilkinson, J.W. & Sewell, D. (2015). Science, statistics and surveys: a herpetological perspective. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 1413-1417.
    • Grifiths, R.A., Raper, S.J. & Brady, L.D. (1996). Evaluation of a standard method for surveying common frogs Rana temporaria and newts Triturus cristatus, T. helveticus and T. vulgaris. JNCC Report no. 259. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Commiete.
    • Heydon, M.J., Wilson, C.J. & Tew, T. (2011). Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and regulation in England. Wildlife Research 37, 731-748.
    • Hill, D. & Arnold, R. (2012). Building the evidence base for ecological impact assessment and mitigation. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 6-9.
    • Hill, T., Kulz, E., Munoz, B. & Dorney, J.R. (2013). Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success. Environmental Management 51, 1077-1091.
    • IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp.
    • Kyek, M, Maletzky, A. & Achleitner, S. (2007). Large scale translocation and habitat compensation of amphibian and reptile populations in the course of the redevelopment of a waste disposal site. Zeitschrift für Feldherpetologie 14, 175-190.
    • Lewis, B. (2012). An evaluation of mitigation actions for great crested newts at development sites. PhD Thesis, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, UK.
    • Lewis, B. (2009). Eefctiveness of mitigation actions for great crested newts, Triturus cristatus. CEE protocol 09-003 (SR64). Available from: . Accessed: 12 January 2016.
    • Lewis, B, Grifiths, R.A. & Barrios, Y. (2007). Field assessment of great crested newt Triturus cristatus mitigation projects in England. Natural England Research Report No. 001. Peterborough: Natural England.
    • Lewis, B., Grifiths, R.A., Wilkinson, J.W. & Arnell, A. (2014). Examining the fate of local great crested newt populations following licensed developments. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aafirs. Report WM031.
    • Maron, M., Hobbs, R.J., Moilanen, A. et al., (2012). Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity osfet policies. Biological Conservation 155, 141-148.
    • Mathews, J.W. & Endress, A.G. (2008). Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 41, 130-141.
    • Messmer, T.A. (2000). The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 45, 97- 102.
    • Natural England. (2011). European Protected Species mitigation licensing performance statistics for 2010-11. Available from: . Accessed: 10 June 2014.
    • Platenberg, R.J. & Grifiths R.A. (1999). Translocation of slowworms (Anguis fragilis) as a mitigation strategy: a case study from south-east England. Biological Conservation 90, 125-132.
    • Schmidt, B.R. (2003). Count data, detection probabilities, and the demography, dynamics, distribution, and decline of amphibians. Comptes Rendus Biologies 326, S119-S124.
    • Sewell, D., Beebee, T.J.C. & Grifiths, R.A. (2010). Optimising biodiversity assessments by volunteers: the application of occupancy modelling to large-scale amphibian surveys. Biological Conservation 143, 2102-2110.
    • Stone, E.L., Jones, G. & Harris, S. (2013). Mitigating the eefct of development on bats in England with derogation licensing. Conservation Biology 27, 1324-1334.
    • Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. & Knight, T.M. (2004). Response to Grifiths: Mismatches between conservation science and practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 565- 566.
    • Viera, A.J., Garret, J.M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa Statistic. 363.
    • Woodroef, R., Thirgood, S. & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). People and Wildlife. Conflict or Coexistence. Conservation Biology 9. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Family Medicine 37, 360-
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article