in

The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making

  • 1.

    Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7348–7355 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Abson, D. J. et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 103, 29–37 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Pan, Y. & Vira, B. Exploring natural capital using bibliometrics and social media data. Ecol. Soc. 24, 5 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    West, P. C. et al. Trading carbon for food: global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19645–19648 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Binner, A. & Day, B. How property markets determine welfare outcomes: an equilibrium sorting model analysis of local environmental interventions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 69, 733–761 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Goodstein, E. S. & Polasky, S. Economics and the Environment (Wiley, 2017).

  • 8.

    Bright, G., Connors, E. & Grice, J. Measuring natural capital: towards accounts for the UK and a basis for improved decision-making. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 35, 88–108 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J. & Oleson, K. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17, 317–353 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J. & Oleson, K. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth: further reflections. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18, 504–516 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Dasgupta, P. & Maler, K.-G. Net national product, wealth, and social well-being. Environ. Dev. Econ. 5, 69–93 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Dasgupta, P. Human Well-being and the Natural Environment (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).

  • 13.

    Fenichel, E. P., Abbott, J. K. & Do Yun, S. in Handbook of Environmental Economics Vol. 4 Handbooks in Economics (eds Dasgupta, P. et al.) 85–142 (Elsevier Science Bv, 2018).

  • 14.

    Do Yun, S., Hutniczak, B., Abbott, J. K. & Fenichel, E. P. Ecosystem-based management and the wealth of ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6539–6544 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Fenichel, E. P. et al. Measuring the value of groundwater and other forms of natural capital. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2382–2387 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Lange, G.-M., Wodon, Q. & Carey, K. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future (The World Bank, 2018).

  • 17.

    Inclusive Wealth Report (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018).

  • 18.

    Keenan, J. M. A climate intelligence arms race in financial markets. Science 365, 1240–1243 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    H.M. Government The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation (OGL Press, 2018).

  • 20.

    Mace, G. M. The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 35, 54–67 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Mace, G. M., Hails, R. S., Cryle, P., Harlow, J. & Clarke, S. J. Towards a risk register for natural capital. J. Appl. Econ. 52, 641–653 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    The State of Natural Capital: Restoring our Natural Assets (Natural Capital Committee, 2014).

  • 23.

    Brown, C. et al. Measuring Ecosystem Services: Guidance on Developing Ecosystem Service Indicators (UNEP-WCMC, 2014).

  • 24.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    van der Plas, F. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in naturally assembled communities. Biol. Rev. 94, 1220–1245 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Burns, J. K. & Di Minin, E. The ecosystem service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 43, 117–127 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    Pascual, U. et al. in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (ed. Kumar, P.) 183–256 (Routledge, 2010).

  • 29.

    Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Schröter, M. et al. National ecosystem assessments in Europe: a review. BioScience 66, 813–828 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. & Turner, K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 177–218 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Silvertown, J. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 641–648 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Kremen, C. & Ostfeld, R. S. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 540–548 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Folke, C. et al. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–581 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Nelson, E. et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. & Brown, T. C. A Primer on Non-market Valuation 2nd edn, Vol. 15 (Springer, 2017).

  • 37.

    Freeman III, A. M., Herriges, J. A. & Kling, C. L. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Routledge, 2014).

  • 38.

    Day, B. H. Natural Environment Valuation Online (NEVO) tool (Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute, University of Exeter Business School, 2019).

  • 39.

    Enabling a Natural Capital Approach (ENCA), Guidance for Policy and Decision Makers to Help Them Consider the Value of a Natural Capital Approach (H.M. Government, 2020).

  • 40.

    Hanley, N. & Perrings, C. The economic value of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11, 355–375 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002074 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Balmford, A. et al. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Rosling, H. Factfulness (Flammarion, 2019).

  • 46.

    Hartwick, J. M. Intergenerational equity and investing of rents from exhaustible resources. Am. Econ. Rev 67, 972–974 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Our Common Future – Brundtland Report (UN, 1987).

  • 48.

    Neumayer, E. Human development and sustainability. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 13, 561–579 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Cohen, F., Hepburn, C. J. & Teytelboym, A. Is natural capital really substitutable? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 425–448 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Fitter, A. H. Are ecosystem services replaceable by technology? Environ. Resour. Econ. 55, 513–524 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Ritchie, P. D. L. et al. Shifts in national land use and food production in Great Britain after a climate tipping point. Nat. Food 1, 76–83 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Suding, K. N. & Hobbs, R. J. Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a developing framework. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 271–279 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • 53.

    Moshiri, S. & Aliyev, K. Rebound effect of efficiency improvement in passenger cars on gasoline consumption in Canada. Ecol. Econ. 131, 330–341 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 54.

    Polasky, S., Lewis, D. J., Plantinga, A. J. & Nelson, E. Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6248–6253 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Choondassery, Y. Rights-based approach: the hub of sustainable development. Discourse Commun. Sustain. Educ. 8, 17–23 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Bullock, J. M., Aronson, J., Newton, A. C., Pywell, R. F. & Rey-Benayas, J. M. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 541–549 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5242–5247 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Gordon, L. J., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 211–219 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    Pascual, U. et al. Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: a blind spot for global sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 075001 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 60.

    Manning, P. et al. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 427–436 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    Allan, E. et al. Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol. Lett. 18, 834–843 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 62.

    Lamb, A. et al. The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 488–492 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 63.

    Lefcheck, J. S. et al. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6, 6936 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    Exploring the Potential of ENCORE as a Tool for Planetary Health: Characterising the Relationships Between Economic Sectors, Natural Systems and Human Health and Wellbeing (UNEP-WCMC, 2019).

  • 65.

    Nesshöver, C. et al. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 1215–1227 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Dakos, V. et al. Ecosystem tipping points in an evolving world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 355–362 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 67.

    Environmental Net Gain: Measurement, Delivery and Application (CIWEM, 2018).

  • 68.

    Eftec The Economic Case for Investment in Natural Capital in England, Final Report to the Natural Capital Committee (Defra, 2015).

  • 69.

    The State of Natural Capital: Protecting and Improving Natural Capital for Prosperity and Wellbeing (Natural Capital Committee, 2015).


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Innovations in environmental training for the mining industry

    Synergy effect of peroxidase enzymes and Fenton reactions greatly increase the anaerobic oxidation of soil organic matter