IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natsus/v4y2021i7d10.1038_s41893-021-00692-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature

Author

Listed:
  • Richard B. Bradbury

    (RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, The Lodge
    The David Attenborough Building)

  • Stuart H. M. Butchart

    (The David Attenborough Building
    BirdLife International, The David Attenborough Building)

  • Brendan Fisher

    (University of Vermont)

  • Francine M. R. Hughes

    (Anglia Ruskin University)

  • Lisa Ingwall-King

    (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC))

  • Michael A. MacDonald

    (RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB Cymru)

  • Jennifer C. Merriman

    (WSP)

  • Kelvin S.-H. Peh

    (The David Attenborough Building
    University of Southampton)

  • Anne-Sophie Pellier

    (BirdLife International, The David Attenborough Building)

  • David H. L. Thomas

    (The Cambridge Conservation Initiative, The David Attenborough Building)

  • Rosie Trevelyan

    (Tropical Biology Association, The David Attenborough Building)

  • Andrew Balmford

    (The David Attenborough Building)

Abstract

Nature provides many benefits for people, yet there are few data on how changes at individual sites impact the net value of ecosystem service provision. A 2002 review found only five analyses comparing the net economic benefits of conserving nature versus pursuing an alternative, more intensive human use. Here we revisit this crucial comparison, synthesizing recent data from 62 sites worldwide. In 24 cases with economic estimates of services, conservation or restoration benefits (for example, greenhouse gas regulation, flood protection) tend to outweigh those private benefits (for example, profits from agriculture or logging) driving change to the alternative state. Net benefits rise rapidly with increasing social cost of carbon. Qualitative data from all 62 sites suggest that monetization of additional services would further increase the difference. Although conservation and restoration did not universally provide greater net value than the alternative state, across a large, geographically and contextually diverse sample, our findings indicate that at current levels of habitat conversion, conserving and restoring sites typically benefits human prosperity.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard B. Bradbury & Stuart H. M. Butchart & Brendan Fisher & Francine M. R. Hughes & Lisa Ingwall-King & Michael A. MacDonald & Jennifer C. Merriman & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Anne-Sophie Pellier & David , 2021. "The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 602-608, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natsus:v:4:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1038_s41893-021-00692-9
    DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00692-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00692-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41893-021-00692-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van de Water, Antoinette & Henley, Michelle & Bates, Lucy & Slotow, Rob, 2022. "The value of elephants: A pluralist approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. del Río-Mena, Trinidad & Willemen, Louise & Vrieling, Anton & Nelson, Andy, 2023. "How remote sensing choices influence ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation results of ecological restoration interventions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Peacock, R. & Bently, M. & Rees, P. & Blignaut, J.N., 2023. "The benefits of ecological restoration exceed its cost in South Africa: An evidence-based approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Su, Dan & Cao, Yu & Wang, Jiayi & Fang, Xiaoqian & Wu, Qing, 2023. "Toward constructing an eco-account of cultivated land by quantifying the resources flow and eco-asset transfer in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Philip J. Platts & Marije Schaafsma & R. Kerry Turner & Neil D. Burgess & Brendan Fisher & Boniface P. Mbilinyi & Pantaleo K. T. Munishi & Taylor H. Ricketts & Ruth D. Swetnam & Antje Ahrends & Biniam, 2023. "Inequitable Gains and Losses from Conservation in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(3), pages 381-405, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natsus:v:4:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1038_s41893-021-00692-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.