The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making

Abstract

The concept of ‘natural capital’ is gaining traction internationally as recognition grows of the central role of the natural environment in sustaining economic and social well-being. It is therefore encouraging to see the first signs of a ‘natural capital approach’ to decision making being accepted within government policy processes and the private sector. However, there are multiple different understandings of this ‘approach’, many of which misuse or omit key features of its foundations in natural science and economics. To address this, we present a framework for natural capital analysis and decision making that links ecological and economic perspectives.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Natural capital framework.
Fig. 2: Estimated benefit-to-cost ratios for potential large-scale investments in built and natural assets in the United Kingdom.

References

  1. 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. 2.

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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. 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. 6.

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

  8. 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. 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. 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. 11.

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

  13. 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. 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. 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. 16.

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

  17. 17.

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

  18. 18.

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

  20. 20.

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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. 22.

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

  23. 23.

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

  24. 24.

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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. 28.

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

  29. 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. 30.

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

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. 32.

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

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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. 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. 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. 36.

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

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

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

  39. 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. 40.

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

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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. 43.

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. 45.

    Rosling, H. Factfulness (Flammarion, 2019).

  46. 46.

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

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

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

  48. 48.

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

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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. 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. 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. 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. 55.

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

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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. 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. 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. 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. 60.

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

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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. 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. 63.

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 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. 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. 66.

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

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

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

  68. 68.

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

  69. 69.

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for comments from participants at the ‘Workshop on discounting and the social cost of carbon’, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 13 May 2019 and the Rockefeller Foundation Economic Council on Planetary Health Workshop ‘Natural Capital: Policy and Practical Applications for Planetary Health’, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 2 May 2019 and the UK Natural Capital Committee and its Secretariat in Defra. The opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and not of any public or private sector body with which they are associated. I.J.B. acknowledges support from the NERC SWEEP programme (Project code: NE/P011217/1) and the Turing-HSBC-ONS Economic Data Science Awards 2018, and G.M.M. acknowledges the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) programme supported by the Wellcome Trust’s ‘Our Planet, Our Health’ programme (grant no. 205200/Z/16/Z).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors are equally responsible for the ideas within, and writing of, this paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ian J. Bateman or Georgina M. Mace.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M. The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making. Nat Sustain (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0552-3

Download citation