Integrity
Standardized integrity scale for a biodiversity unit
Last updated
Standardized integrity scale for a biodiversity unit
Last updated
Full integrity is defined as all ecological niches, available to, and occupied by native species.
The key to this unit's interoperability lies in the fact that standardizing Time, Value, and Area, allows methodologies and metrics to converge in their Integrity measurements from the perspective of an ecosystem itself.
0 signifies a completely degraded ecosystem. For example, nuclear waste sites, ocean dead zones, wildfires that burn hot enough to sterilize soil.
1 signifies a fully available ecosystem. For example, national parks, game parks, UNESCO World Heritage sites, primary Amazon forest, etc.
Every competing metric and methodology, certifiers, and disclosures can interoperate here. Metrics and methodologies can be local (i.e. desert, ocean) while normalizing for global tracking. In cross-market studies, experts have confirmed that conservation, eradication, pollination, restoration, and corporate impacts from all ecosystems can all report outcomes with this scale.
Academic definitions of ecosystem "integrity" and "health", are bundled under a universal term for market adoption. Although it is acknowledged there are important differences which can be elucidated in different methodologies.
Methodologies, as approved by certifiers or scientists, have a standardized way to measure Integrity effects.
Projects can get partial crediting, or demerits for partial effects.
In most methodologies, it is simplest to assume Integrity is constant throughout a one-month unit period. The integrity for the one-month crediting period is taken as the average over this time. Changes in integrity are reflected over the full monitoring period of the project, subdivided into one-month crediting intervals.
Functionally, Integrity is always measuring change. Because biodiversity actions either move Integrity up (restoration), down (impact), or show no change (conservation).
While partial integrity scores may not offer additional crediting benefit, a full spectrum of data gives projects more validity in their claims to represent an intact ecosystem, and factors into qualitative assessments performed by IEP in their final evaluations.
