Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Towards a multidimensional biodiversity index for national application

Abstract

The lack of urgent action to reverse biodiversity loss is partly due to the complex nature of biodiversity as a feature of our planet. Subsequently, policymakers receive an often-confusing variety of narratives on why biodiversity matters, which makes it difficult to link biodiversity loss and risks to the attainment of sustainable development. Making this link clearer calls for a multidimensional perspective on biodiversity to reassess what we value, facilitate mainstreaming and support national decision-making. We propose a co-produced Multidimensional Biodiversity Index to connect biodiversity science to the political agenda that accounts for the diversity of values underpinning nature–human relationships.

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: Conceptualization of biodiversity health.
Fig. 2: Proposed core MBI and nested structure.
Fig. 3: Roadmap to operationalize an MBI on biodiversity health.

References

  1. 1.

    Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Measuring Progress: Towards Achieving the Environmental Dimension of the SDGs (UNEP, 2019).

  3. 3.

    Blicharska, M. et al. Biodiversity’s contributions to sustainable development. Nat. Sustain 2, 1083–1093 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    The Global Risks Report 2020 (World Economic Forum, 2020).

  5. 5.

    Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).

  7. 7.

    Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  9. 9.

    UNEP Frontiers 2016 Report: Emerging Issues of Environment Concern (UNEP, 2016).

  10. 10.

    Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2020).

  11. 11.

    Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Global Biodiversity Outlook Vol. 25 (Secretariat of the CBD, 2014).

  13. 13.

    Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2, e140 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted living planet index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLoS ONE 12, e0169156 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier—Human Development and the Anthropocene (UNDP, 2020).

  18. 18.

    Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2020—Charting Pathways out of Multidimensional Poverty (UNDP & OPHI, 2020).

  19. 19.

    Becker, F. G. et al. Global Slavery Index 2018 (Walk Free Foundation, 2018).

  20. 20.

    2020 ITUC Global Rights Index: The World’s Worst Countries for Workers (ITUC, 2020).

  21. 21.

    Corruption Perceptions Index 2020 (Transparency International, 2020).

  22. 22.

    Soto-Navarro, C. A. et al. Building a Multidimensional Biodiversity Index—A Scorecard for Biodiversity Health (UNEP-WCMC, 2020); https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/building-a-multidimensional-biodiversity-index

  23. 23.

    Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P. & Durand, M. Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance (OECD, 2018).

  24. 24.

    Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. The GDP paradox. J. Econ. Psychol. 30, 117–135 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    UNDP Strategic Plan, 2018-2021 (UNDP, 2017).

  26. 26.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Costanza, R. et al. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House, 2017).

  29. 29.

    Mazzucato, M. The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (Penguin, 2019).

  30. 30.

    Perrings, C. et al. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: saving natural capital without losing interest. Conserv. Biol. 20, 263–264 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Primmer, E. & Paavola, J. Insurance value of ecosystems: an introduction. Ecol. Econ. 184, 107001 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Jørgensen, S. L., Termansen, M. & Pascual, U. Natural insurance as condition for market insurance: climate change adaptation in agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106489 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2010).

  34. 34.

    Hansen, M. H., Li, H. & Svarverud, R. Ecological civilization: interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 195–203 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gruetzmacher, K. et al. The Berlin principles on one health—bridging global health and conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 764, 142919 (2021).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  37. 37.

    2019—Global Report on Food Crises: Joint Analysis for Better Decisions (Food Security Information Network, 2019).

  38. 38.

    CBD/WG2020/2/4 29 Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its Second Meeting (CBD, 2020).

  39. 39.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chan, K. M. A. et al. Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K. & Pascual, U. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, A1–A7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992).

  44. 44.

    Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain 1, 448–451 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. & Torrisi, G. On the methodological framework of composite indices: a review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Soc. Indic. Res. 141, 61–94 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators—Methodology and User Guide (OECD, 2008).

  49. 49.

    Kumar, P. (ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (Earthscan, 2010).

  50. 50.

    Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, 41 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    The Global Goals for Sustainable Development (Global Goals); http://www.globalgoals.org/resources

  52. 52.

    Zenghelis, D. et al. Valuing Wealth, Building Prosperity: Wealth Economy Project First Year Report to LetterOne (Bennett Institute for Public Policy, 2020).

  53. 53.

    Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wendling, Z. A. et al. 2020 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 2020).

  55. 55.

    Borucke, M. et al. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol. Indic. 24, 518–533 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sachs, J. et al. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19: Sustainable Development Report 2020 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

  57. 57.

    Usubiago-Liano, A. & Ekins, P. Developing a Novel Index of Strong Environmental Sustainability: Preliminary Results (Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, 2019).

  58. 58.

    Acosta, L. A. et al. Green Growth Index 2020—Measuring Performance in Achieving SDG Targets Technical Report No. 16 (GGGI, 2020).

  59. 59.

    Agrobiodiversity Index Report 2019: Risk and Resilience (Biodiversity International, 2019).

  60. 60.

    Angulo, R., Díaz, Y. & Pardo, R. The Colombian multidimensional poverty index: measuring poverty in a public policy context. Soc. Indic. Res. 127, 1–38 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Watts, K. et al. Ecological time lags and the journey towards conservation success. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 304–311 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to dedicate this work to the fond memory of our colleague Georgina Mace, who provided essential intellectual input for this work and who continues to be a great inspiration for all of us on fighting the biodiversity loss crisis. We thank the Luc Hoffmann Institute for supporting this project from its inception and the MAVA Foundation for its financial support. This work has benefited from discussions at a variety of international meetings linked to the CBD post-2020 process, and with conservation scientists, policymakers and practitioner colleagues around the world. We are grateful to J. Vause and we thank all organizations who nurtured this dialogue by participating in workshops organized in Cambridge, Zurich and Davos in 2019 and 2020 funded by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, the National Geographic Society, the Nature Map consortium (funded by the Norwegian government) and the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.A.S.-N. developed the original idea with conceptual inputs from all authors, but especially from M.H. and S.L.L.H. C.A.S.-N. and N.D.B. led the writing of the manuscript with input on drafts from all authors. C.A.S.-N. generated all figures and all authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. A. Soto-Navarro.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Malgorzata Blicharska, Zuzana Harmáčková and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) 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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soto-Navarro, C.A., Harfoot, M., Hill, S.L.L. et al. Towards a multidimensional biodiversity index for national application. Nat Sustain (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00753-z

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing