The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature

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 H. L. Thomas, Rosie Trevelyan and Andrew Balmford
Additional contact information
Richard B. Bradbury: RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, The Lodge
Stuart H. M. Butchart: 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
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

Nature Sustainability, 2021, vol. 4, issue 7, 602-608

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00692-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natsus:v:4:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1038_s41893-021-00692-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/natsustain/

DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00692-9

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Sustainability is currently edited by Monica Contestabile

More articles in Nature Sustainability from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().