Search

Atmospheric nitrogen pollution has severe impacts on biodiversity, but approaches to value them are limited. This paper develops a spatially explicit methodology to value the benefits from improvements in biodiversity resulting from current policy initiatives to reduce nitrogen emissions. Using the UK as a case study, we quantify nitrogen impacts on plant diversity in four habitats: heathland, acid grassland, dunes and bogs, at fine spatial resolution. Focusing on non-use values for biodiversity we apply value-transfer based on household's willingness to pay to avoid changes in plant species richness, and calculate the benefit of projected emission declines of 37% for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and 6% for ammonia (NH 3 ) over the scenario period 2007–2020. The annualised benefit resulting from these pollutant declines is £32.7 m (£4.4 m to £109.7 m, 95% Confidence Interval), with the greatest benefit accruing from heathland and acid grassland due to their large area. We also calculate damage costs per unit of NO 2 and NH 3 emitted, to quantify some of the environmental impacts of air pollution for use alongside damage costs for human health in policy appraisal. The benefit is £103 (£33 to £237) per tonne of NO 2 saved, and £414 (£139 to £1022) per tonne of NH 3 saved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insects provide key ecosystem services for our sustainable future, which rely upon effective conservation policies to protect insect biodiversity. To date, however, we still do not know how effective current conservation policies are for protecting insect biodiversity, opening up the possibility that policies are unfit-for-purpose. Given the considerable debate and public awareness on the potential global decline of insect species, it is important to understand whether or not current policies can protect insect biodiversity. Here, we used IUCN listing of species status and developed a quantitative framework to analyse the potential effectiveness and coverage of current conservation policies pertaining to insect biodiversity in the UK and Ireland. We contrasted this against coverage for a well-known group – mammals – as a benchmark, to find that while the vast majority of the UK mammalian species in the European IUCN red list are directly protected by current policies, insects remain largely unprotected. Moreover, for those insect species that are explicitly protected by current policies, there is a taxonomic bias whereby the majority (>50%) of insect species are Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies), while a minority are Coleopterans (beetles), and none are Hymenopterans (bees, ants, wasps). Similar trends were observed in the UK priority biodiversity lists. Based on our data, we conclude that current biodiversity policies in the UK and Ireland have significant gaps in their protection of insect biodiversity and, there is a taxonomic bias that may skew some conservation efforts toward butterflies and moths. We anticipate that our findings are likely to occur worldwide, highlighting the need for more directive policies to manage and protect insect biodiversity for the sustainability of ecosystem services. • UK policies show biases toward Lepidoptera over other large insect orders. • Policy protection of mammals shows greater uniformity between orders than insects. • Policies in Ireland lack protection for any insect species. • UK priority lists do not prioritise all insects assessed as at risk of extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]