People who lived in bigger cities were less concerned about the size of a compensation site, but they felt strongly that it should replace lost natural value as opposed to just recreation opportunities. Those who were worried about green space disappearing in their neighbourhood were more likely to want compensation for the loss of nature rather than the loss of recreation opportunities. So were those who had been negatively affected by development in the past.
SIZE MATTERS MOST: it has both the highest absolute value and the highest relative value, closely followed by “compensation for both nature and recreation value”
Nearly five times the value of changing the type of compensation from “nature only” to “recreation only”
Four times the value of changing the location from an existing green space to a brownfield site
Twice the value of increasing proximity from 900m to 300m
The same relative value as changing the type of compensation from “nature only” to “both values”
Doubling the size of the compensation site provides approximately…
Creating new value on brownfield land versus improving an existing green space
Compensation for nature value versus just nature
Compensation 300m from development site versus 900m
Compensation for both nature and recreation value versus just nature
Compensation site twice as big as the development site versus the same site
Holding all else equal, how does changing a single attribute influence whether people choose a compensation alternative? (Increased likelihood)
The choice experiment
The scenario
Imagine the decision has been made to construct a new apartment building near to where you live. This will result in the loss of green space, and affect both the benefits that nature provides and opportunities for outdoor recreation. It has also been decided that the developer should pay for environmental compensation. What kind of compensation would you like to see, assuming all costs are broadly the same and would be borne by the developer? Respondents were asked to rate the importance of four different design variables, and the researchers measured the absolute value of each variable, and its relative value to each of the others.
Imagine the decision has been made to construct a new apartment building near to where you live. This will result in the loss of green space, and affect both the benefits that nature provides and opportunities for outdoor recreation. It has also been decided that the developer should pay for environmental compensation. What kind of compensation would you like to see, assuming all costs are broadly the same and would be borne by the developer? Respondents were asked to rate the importance of four different design variables, and the researchers measured the absolute value of each variable, and its relative value to each of the others.
When compensating for recreation, should we leave natural landscapes as untouched as possible, or actively manage them, adding features such as benches, lighting and easily accessible walking paths?
Let nature be
Equally
important
Improve it
Humans
Plants and animals
When compensating for nature, what’s most important: the benefits nature provides to humans, or the habitats it provides for plants and animals?
People prefer to spend time in managed, accessible nature rather than virgin wilderness.
What kind of nature do people enjoy?
Where would they prefer to spend an hour tomorrow?
Hiking trail
in a forest
Urban
park
Pristine
forest
Urban
square
Should we compensate when green space is removed for the following uses?
Biking and
walking paths
Schools and
hospitals
Roads and
railroads
Oil spills
Industrial
development
There is broad acceptance of offsetting as a concept, but reservations about its effectiveness. Some groups were more in favour than others: women, parents, younger people, dog owners, medium-to-higher income groups, those educated above high-school level.
Should developers be required to compensate for environmental loss?
Yes
No
Nearly half of all respondents were concerned that green space was being lost, but the level of concern varied. There was a strong correlation with the size of an urban area: the bigger the city a respondent lived in, the more worried they were. Concern was also higher among respondents who were younger, or female, and those with higher levels of education.
Who cares that nature is disappearing?
If environmental compensation — or offsetting — is to work, the public must accept it as a valid way of balancing the negative effects of urban development on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is rarely possible to recreate what is lost in exactly the same form, or on the same site, so there will inevitably be trade-offs in the way that offsets are designed. But where exactly should we compromise? The MuniComp research project assessed support for the concept of environmental compensation among a sample of 1,000 citizens in southern Sweden, and used a choice experiment to measure how these respondents valued trade-offs.
Compensating for lost green space
What trade-offs are acceptable?
Hiking trail
in a forest
Urban
park
Pristine
forest
Urban
square
The choice experiment
The scenario
Imagine the decision has been made to construct a new apartment building near to where you live. This will result in the loss of green space, and affect both the benefits that nature provides and opportunities for outdoor recreation. It has also been decided that the developer should pay for environmental compensation. What kind of compensation would you like to see, assuming all costs are broadly the same and would be borne by the developer? Respondents were asked to rate the importance of four different design variables, and the researchers measured the absolute value of each variable, and its relative value to each of the others.
Who cares that nature is disappearing?
Nearly half of all respondents were concerned that green space was being lost, but the level of concern varied. There was a strong correlation with the size of an urban area: the bigger the city a respondent lived in, the more worried they were. Concern was also higher among respondents who were younger, or female, and those with higher levels of education.
Yes
No
Should developers be required to compensate for environmental loss?
There is broad acceptance of offsetting as a concept, but reservations about its effectiveness. Some groups were more in favour than others: women, parents, younger people, dog owners, medium-to-higher income groups, those educated above high-school level.
Biking and
walking paths
Schools and
hospitals
Roads and
railroads
Oil spills
Industrial
development
Should we compensate when green space is removed for the following uses?
What kind of nature do people enjoy?
Where would they prefer to spend an hour tomorrow?
Doubling the size of the compensation site provides approximately…
People prefer to spend time in managed, accessible nature rather than virgin wilderness.
When compensating for nature, what’s most important: the benefits nature provides to humans, or the habitats it provides for plants and animals?
Plants and animals
Humans
Let nature be
Equally
important
Improve it
When compensating for recreation, should we leave natural landscapes as untouched as possible, or actively manage them, adding features such as benches, lighting and easily accessible walking paths?
Holding all else equal, how does changing a single attribute influence whether people choose a compensation alternative? (Increased likelihood)
Creating new value on brownfield land versus improving an existing green space
Compensation for nature value versus just nature
Compensation 300m from development site versus 900m
Compensation for both nature and recreation value versus just nature
Compensation site twice as big as the development site versus the same site
People who lived in bigger cities were less concerned about the size of a compensation site, but they felt strongly that it should replace lost natural value as opposed to just recreation opportunities. Those who were worried about green space disappearing in their neighbourhood were more likely to want compensation for the loss of nature rather than the loss of recreation opportunities. So were those who had been negatively affected by development in the past.
SIZE MATTERS MOST: it has both the highest absolute value and the highest relative value, closely followed by “compensation for both nature and recreation value”
Nearly five times the value of changing the type of compensation from “nature only” to “recreation only”
Four times the value of changing the location from an existing green space to a brownfield site
Twice the value of increasing proximity from 900m to 300m
The same relative value as changing the type of compensation from “nature only” to “both values”
If environmental compensation — or offsetting — is to work, the public must accept it as a valid way of balancing the negative effects of urban development on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is rarely possible to recreate what is lost in exactly the same form, or on the same site, so there will inevitably be trade-offs in the way that offsets are designed. But where exactly should we compromise? The MuniComp research project assessed support for the concept of environmental compensation among a sample of 1,000 citizens in southern Sweden, and used a choice experiment to measure how these respondents valued trade-offs.
Compensating for lost green space
What trade-offs are acceptable?