IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3756-d354348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Habitat Banking and Its Challenges in a Densely Populated Country: The Case of The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Mechtilde M. J. Gorissen

    (Institute for Water and Wetland Research (IWWR), Radboud University Nijmegen, Heijendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • C. Martijn van der Heide

    (Wageningen Economic Research, Prinses Beatrixlaan 582–528, 2595 BM The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Johannes H.J. Schaminée

    (Institute for Water and Wetland Research (IWWR), Radboud University Nijmegen, Heijendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Department Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Due to a growing population, urbanization, industrialization and agriculture, the quality of nature and biodiversity globally has decreased enormously. This also applies to The Netherlands. Habitat banking is a market-based instrument for nature conservation and sustainable development to counteract this decrease. We analyze under which conditions habitat banking can indeed offer possibilities and opportunities for improving biodiversity, nature conservation and sustainable development in The Netherlands. For this, we first identify the shortcomings of mandatory nature compensation in The Netherlands and link them to current innovations in Dutch nature policy. In addition, we investigate three necessary instruments for a successful habitat banking system: (1) a system for nature valuation, (2) a method for creating ecological opportunity maps, and (3) the institutional setting in which habitat banking can be operationalized. We conclude that habitat banking contributes to solving the problems for nature and biodiversity and to sustainable development in The Netherlands, provided that this is primarily addressed (i) in the domain of voluntary nature compensation, (ii) in bottom-up pilots for integrated area development (in this article shortly referred to as area pilots) where the widest possible range of owners and users of these areas is involved, (iii) in a context of participatory decision-making and (iv) learning and experiment en route to social-ecological systems (SESs). To actually realize the added value of habitat banking for The Netherlands, further scientific research is required to collect and analyze empirical data from relevant stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Mechtilde M. J. Gorissen & C. Martijn van der Heide & Johannes H.J. Schaminée, 2020. "Habitat Banking and Its Challenges in a Densely Populated Country: The Case of The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-36, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3756-:d:354348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3756/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3756/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Simpson & Frans P de Vries & Paul Armsworth & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Designing markets for biodiversity offsets: lessons from tradable pollution permits," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-04, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    2. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    3. Riyan J.G. van den Born & B. Arts & J. Admiraal & A. Beringer & P. Knights & E. Molinario & K. Polajnar Horvat & C. Porras-Gomez & A. Smrekar & N. Soethe & J.L. Vivero-Pol & W. Ganzevoort & M. Bonaiut, 2018. "The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 841-856, May.
    4. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    5. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    6. Fred Bergmans, 2006. "Integrating People, Planet and Profit," Springer Books, in: Jan Jonker & Marco Witte (ed.), Management Models for Corporate Social Responsibility, chapter 14, pages 117-125, Springer.
    7. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Levrel, Harold, 2015. "Biodiversity offset markets: What are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 81-88.
    8. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    9. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    10. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    11. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    12. David U. Hooper & E. Carol Adair & Bradley J. Cardinale & Jarrett E. K. Byrnes & Bruce A. Hungate & Kristin L. Matulich & Andrew Gonzalez & J. Emmett Duffy & Lars Gamfeldt & Mary I. O’Connor, 2012. "A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 105-108, June.
    13. Kenter, Jasper O. & Reed, Mark S. & Fazey, Ioan, 2016. "The Deliberative Value Formation model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 194-207.
    14. Winthrop, Robert H., 2014. "The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 208-214.
    15. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    16. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marie Grimm, 2021. "Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    2. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    4. Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Berrouet, Lina & López, Connie & Ruiz, Aura & Upegui, Alba, 2016. "Lessons from the integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: Three case studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 297-308.
    5. Allain, Sandrine & Plumecocq, Gaël & Leenhardt, Delphine, 2017. "How Do Multi-criteria Assessments Address Landscape-level Problems? A Review of Studies and Practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 282-295.
    6. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. See, Sin Ching & Shaikh, Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad & Jaung, Wanggi & Carrasco, L. Roman, 2020. "Are relational values different in practice to instrumental values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    11. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.
    12. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    13. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    15. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    16. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    17. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Ainscough, Jacob & Wilson, Meriwether & Kenter, Jasper O., 2018. "Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 93-101.
    19. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    20. Farrell, Katharine N., 2011. "Framing the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Theoretical Discussion of the Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Articulating Values that Reflect the Economic Contributions of Ecological Phen," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114362, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3756-:d:354348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.