Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Systematic nature positive markets

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Systematic nature positive markets

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Systematic nature positive markets. / Bush, Alex; Simpson, Katherine Hannah; Hanley, Nick.
In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 38, No. 3, e14216, 01.06.2024.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Bush, A, Simpson, KH & Hanley, N 2024, 'Systematic nature positive markets', Conservation Biology, vol. 38, no. 3, e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14216

APA

Bush, A., Simpson, K. H., & Hanley, N. (2024). Systematic nature positive markets. Conservation Biology, 38(3), Article e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14216

Vancouver

Bush A, Simpson KH, Hanley N. Systematic nature positive markets. Conservation Biology. 2024 Jun 1;38(3):e14216. Epub 2024 Feb 5. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14216

Author

Bush, Alex ; Simpson, Katherine Hannah ; Hanley, Nick. / Systematic nature positive markets. In: Conservation Biology. 2024 ; Vol. 38, No. 3.

Bibtex

@article{f692ebdaee5d4d359b83395ad5dcd7b0,
title = "Systematic nature positive markets",
abstract = "Environmental markets are a rapidly emerging tool to mobilize private funding to incentivize landholders to undertake more sustainable land management. How units of biodiversity in these markets are measured and subsequently traded creates key challenges ecologically and economically because it determines whether environmental markets can deliver net gains in biodiversity and efficiently lower the costs of conservation. We developed and tested a metric for such markets based on the well‐established principle of irreplaceability from systematic conservation planning. Irreplaceability as a metric avoids the limitations of like‐for‐like trading and allows one to capture the multidimensional nature of ecosystems (e.g., habitats, species, ecosystem functioning) and simultaneously achieve cost‐effective, land‐manager‐led investments in conservation. Using an integrated ecological modeling approach, we tested whether using irreplaceability as a metric is more ecologically and economically beneficial than the simpler biodiversity offset metrics typically used in net gain and no‐net‐loss policies. Using irreplaceability ensured no net loss, or even net gain, of biodiversity depending on the targets chosen. Other metrics did not provide the same assurances and, depending on the flexibility with which biodiversity targets can be achieved, and how they overlap with development pressure, were less efficient. Irreplaceability reduced the costs of offsetting to developers and the costs of ecological restoration to society. Integrating economic data and systematic conservation planning approaches would therefore assure land managers they were being fairly rewarded for the opportunity costs of conservation and transparently incentivize the most ecologically and economically efficient investments in nature recovery.",
keywords = "biodiversity net gain, ganancia neta de biodiversidad, irremplazable, irreplaceability, mercado de compensaci{\'o}n, offset market, prioritization, priorizaci{\'o}n",
author = "Alex Bush and Simpson, {Katherine Hannah} and Nick Hanley",
year = "2024",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cobi.14216",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Blackwell-Wiley",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic nature positive markets

AU - Bush, Alex

AU - Simpson, Katherine Hannah

AU - Hanley, Nick

PY - 2024/6/1

Y1 - 2024/6/1

N2 - Environmental markets are a rapidly emerging tool to mobilize private funding to incentivize landholders to undertake more sustainable land management. How units of biodiversity in these markets are measured and subsequently traded creates key challenges ecologically and economically because it determines whether environmental markets can deliver net gains in biodiversity and efficiently lower the costs of conservation. We developed and tested a metric for such markets based on the well‐established principle of irreplaceability from systematic conservation planning. Irreplaceability as a metric avoids the limitations of like‐for‐like trading and allows one to capture the multidimensional nature of ecosystems (e.g., habitats, species, ecosystem functioning) and simultaneously achieve cost‐effective, land‐manager‐led investments in conservation. Using an integrated ecological modeling approach, we tested whether using irreplaceability as a metric is more ecologically and economically beneficial than the simpler biodiversity offset metrics typically used in net gain and no‐net‐loss policies. Using irreplaceability ensured no net loss, or even net gain, of biodiversity depending on the targets chosen. Other metrics did not provide the same assurances and, depending on the flexibility with which biodiversity targets can be achieved, and how they overlap with development pressure, were less efficient. Irreplaceability reduced the costs of offsetting to developers and the costs of ecological restoration to society. Integrating economic data and systematic conservation planning approaches would therefore assure land managers they were being fairly rewarded for the opportunity costs of conservation and transparently incentivize the most ecologically and economically efficient investments in nature recovery.

AB - Environmental markets are a rapidly emerging tool to mobilize private funding to incentivize landholders to undertake more sustainable land management. How units of biodiversity in these markets are measured and subsequently traded creates key challenges ecologically and economically because it determines whether environmental markets can deliver net gains in biodiversity and efficiently lower the costs of conservation. We developed and tested a metric for such markets based on the well‐established principle of irreplaceability from systematic conservation planning. Irreplaceability as a metric avoids the limitations of like‐for‐like trading and allows one to capture the multidimensional nature of ecosystems (e.g., habitats, species, ecosystem functioning) and simultaneously achieve cost‐effective, land‐manager‐led investments in conservation. Using an integrated ecological modeling approach, we tested whether using irreplaceability as a metric is more ecologically and economically beneficial than the simpler biodiversity offset metrics typically used in net gain and no‐net‐loss policies. Using irreplaceability ensured no net loss, or even net gain, of biodiversity depending on the targets chosen. Other metrics did not provide the same assurances and, depending on the flexibility with which biodiversity targets can be achieved, and how they overlap with development pressure, were less efficient. Irreplaceability reduced the costs of offsetting to developers and the costs of ecological restoration to society. Integrating economic data and systematic conservation planning approaches would therefore assure land managers they were being fairly rewarded for the opportunity costs of conservation and transparently incentivize the most ecologically and economically efficient investments in nature recovery.

KW - biodiversity net gain

KW - ganancia neta de biodiversidad

KW - irremplazable

KW - irreplaceability

KW - mercado de compensación

KW - offset market

KW - prioritization

KW - priorización

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.14216

DO - 10.1111/cobi.14216

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 3

M1 - e14216

ER -