Losses to life and property from unplanned fires (wildfires) are forecast to increase because of population growth in peri-urban areas and climate change. In response, there have been moves to increase fuel reduction—clearing, prescribed burning, biomass removal and grazing—to afford greater protection to peri-urban communities in fire-prone regions. But how effective are these measures? Severe wildfires in southern Australia in 2009 presented a rare opportunity to address this question empirically. We predicted that modifying several fuels could theoretically reduce house loss by 76%–97%, which would translate to considerably fewer wildfire-related deaths. However, maximum levels of fuel reduction are unlikely to be feasible at every house for logistical and environmental reasons. Significant fuel variables in a logistic regression model we selected to predict house loss were (in order of decreasing effect): (1) the cover of trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses was predominantly remnant or planted, (3) the upwind distance from houses to groups of trees or shrubs, (4) the upwind distance from houses to public forested land (irrespective of whether it was managed for nature conservation or logging), (5) the upwind distance from houses to prescribed burning within 5 years, and (6) the number of buildings or structures within 40 m of houses. All fuel treatments were more effective if undertaken closer to houses. For example, 15% fewer houses were destroyed if prescribed burning occurred at the observed minimum distance from houses (0.5 km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5 km). Our results imply that a shift in emphasis away from broad-scale fuel-reduction to intensive fuel treatments close to property will more effectively mitigate impacts from wildfires on peri-urban communities.

Measuring the status and trends of biodiversity is critical for making informed decisions about the conservation, management or restoration of species, habitats and ecosystems. Defining the reference state against which status and change are measured is essential. Typically, reference states describe historical conditions, yet historical conditions are challenging to quantify, may be difficult to falsify, and may no longer be an attainable target in a contemporary ecosystem. We have constructed a conceptual framework to help inform thinking and discussion around the philosophical underpinnings of reference states and guide their application. We characterize currently recognized historical reference states and describe them as Pre‐Human, Indigenous Cultural, Pre‐Intensification and Hybrid‐Historical. We extend the conceptual framework to include contemporary reference states as an alternative theoretical perspective. The contemporary reference state framework is a major conceptual shift that focuses on current ecological patterns and identifies areas with higher biodiversity values relative to other locations within the same ecosystem, regardless of the disturbance history. We acknowledge that past processes play an essential role in driving contemporary patterns of diversity. The specific context for which we design the contemporary conceptual frame is underpinned by an overarching goal—to maximize biodiversity conservation and restoration outcomes in existing ecosystems. The contemporary reference state framework can account for the inherent differences in the diversity of biodiversity values (e.g. native species richness, habitat complexity) across spatial scales, communities and ecosystems. In contrast to historical reference states, contemporary references states are measurable and falsifiable. This ‘road map of reference states’ offers perspective needed to define and assess the status and trends in biodiversity and habitats. We demonstrate the contemporary reference state concept with an example from south‐eastern Australia. Our framework provides a tractable way for policy‐makers and practitioners to navigate biodiversity assessments to maximize conservation and restoration outcomes in contemporary ecosystems.

Offsetting is a policy instrument intended to provide flexibility for development. We developed a simple calculator to predict when no net loss is feasible using biodiversity offsetting. Assuming offset ratios ≤10:1 are indicative of operational feasibility and employing a discount rate of 3%, we predicted that no net loss is feasible where biodiversity can be restored within 55 years, which restricts the impacts on biodiversity that can be offset using restoration. Alternatively, no net loss is feasible by avoiding loss to biodiversity that is declining under the counterfactual at an annual rate ≥6%. However, this is considerably higher than typical background rates of biodiversity loss so restricts where avoided-loss offsets are feasible. No net loss is theoretically feasible in the broadest range of circumstances if biodiversity gains are provided in advance of development. However, these gains are procured by restoration or avoided loss, so constraints presented by these approaches also apply. We concluded that no net loss is feasible in a limited range of development scenarios unless offset ratios greater than 10:1 are more widely tolerated.