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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The data that support the findings of this study are available in the supplementary information. Source data are provided with this paper.
No code was used during the preparation of this paper.
Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).
Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28 (2009).
Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).
Zhang, X., Estoque, R. C., Xie, H., Murayama, Y. & Ranagalage, M. Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 14, e0210707 (2019).
Díaz, S. et al. (eds) Summary for Policymakers. In Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondizio, E. S. et al.) (IPBES Secretariat, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579
Mandle, L. et al. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y (2020).
Norgaard, R. B. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1219–1227 (2010).
Blomqvist, L. & Simpson, R. D. in Effective Conservation Science: Data not Dogma (eds Kareiva, P. et al.) Ch. 3 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).
Balmford, A. et al. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953 (2002).
Bateman, I. J. & Mace, G. M. The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision-making. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0552-3 (2020).
Rey Benayas, J. M., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325, 1121–1124 (2009).
Bullock, J. M. et al. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 541–549 (2011).
Shimamoto, C. Y., Padial, A. A., da Rosa, C. M. & Marques, M. C. M. Restoration of ecosystem services in tropical forests: a global meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13, e0208523 (2018).
The Rewards of Investing in Sustainable Land Management Interim Report (ELD Initiative, 2013); www.eld-initiative.org
The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (eds Montanarella, L. et al.) (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).
Neugarten, R. A. et al. Tools for Measuring, Modelling and Valuing Ecosystem Services: Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, Natural World Heritage Sites, and Protected Areas (IUCN, 2018).
Nelson, E. et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11 (2009).
Ruckleshaus, M. et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115, 11–21 (2015).
Peh, K. S.-H. et al. TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 51–57 (2013).
Nordhaus, W. D. Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1518–1523 (2017).
Goldstein, E. S. & Polasky, S. Economics and the Environment (Wiley, 2017).
Environmental Land Management Policy Discussion Document (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2020).
Pagiola, S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65, 712–724 (2008).
Hinojosa, C. Case Study: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica (DCED, 2017); https://www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/DCED-GGWG-Case-study-PES.pdf
Conservation Reserve Program (USDA Farm Service Agency, 2020); https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index
Balmford, A. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 161–175 (2011).
Jones, L. et al. Developing Estimates for the Valuation of Air Pollution Removal in Ecosystem Accounts Final Report (Office of National Statistics, 2017).
Gopalakrishnan, V., Ziv, G., Hirabayashi, S. & Bakshi, B. R. Nature-based solutions can compete with technology for mitigating air emissions across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 13228–13237 (2019).
Tol, R. S. J. Targets for global climate policy: an overview. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 37, 911–928 (2013).
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. & Botzen, W. J. W. Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: a critical survey. Ecol. Econ. 114, 33–46 (2015).
Hughes, F. M. R. et al. The challenges of integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in the UK. Ecol. Soc. 21, 10 (2016).
Mace, G. M. The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 35, 54–67 (2019).
Green Book (HM Treasury, 2003).
Lebegue, D. Revision du taux d’actualisation des investissem- net publics Report (Commisariat Generale de Plan, 2005).
Howard, G. Discounting for personal and social payments: patience for others, impatience for ourselves. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 66, 583–597 (2013).
Drupp, M. A., Freeman, M. C., Groom, B. & Nesje, F. Discounting disentangled. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 10, 109–134 (2018).
Posner, S. M., McKenzie, E. & Ricketts, T. H. Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1760–1765 (2016).
Field, R. et al. Ecosystem Service Assessment of the Implementation of a Community Conserved Area in the Lower Tana Delta (RSPB, 2018).
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K. & Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653 (2009).
World Bank Country and Lending Groups (World Bank, 2020); https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
XE Current & Historical Rate Tables (XE.com Inc., 2020); https://www.xe.com/currencytables/?from=USD&date=2017-12-31
IMF Implied PPP Conversion Rate (International Monetary Fund, 2020); https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPEX@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
Central Intelligence Agency World FactBook (CIA, 2020); https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html
UN Data: GDP at Current Prices (United Nations Statistics Division, 2020); http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=SNAAMA&f=grID%3a101%3bcurrID%3aUSD%3bpcFlag%3a1
Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the nature recovery debt. Nat. Commun. 8, 14163 (2017).
Ferraro, P. J. et al. Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7420–7425 (2015).
Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994).
Turner, R. K. Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37, 253–269 (2007).
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA, 2010).
Stern, N. & Stern, N. H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
ten Brink P., et al. Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits Provided by the Natura 2000 Network Final Report to the European Commission (IEEP, 2011).
SAS Enterprise Guide v7.1 (SAS Institute, 2012).
We thank B. Balmford, K. Bolt and J. Vause for advice. A.B. was supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Merit award. K.S.-H.P. was supported by an AXA Research Fund (grant no. RG64520) while at the University of Cambridge.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Sarah Klain and Louise Willemen for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–4.
Supplementary Data 1
Main dataset for paper.
Supplementary Data 2
Source data for Supplementary Figs. 1–3.
Source Data Fig. 1
Statistical source data for Fig. 1
Source Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data for Fig. 2
Source Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data for Fig. 3
Source Data Fig. 4
Statistical source data for Fig. 4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bradbury, R.B., Butchart, S.H.M., Fisher, B. et al. The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature. Nat Sustain 4, 602–608 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00692-9
This article is cited by
Does a trade-off exist between economic and environmental impacts of forest carbon payment programs?
Sustainability Science (2022)
Temporal patterns in sediment, carbon, and nutrient burial in ponds associated with changing agricultural tillage
Ecosystem Services: Delivering Decision-Making for Salt Marshes
Estuaries and Coasts (2021)