Search

The built environment, even at its "greenest," inevitably entails changing ecosystem structure and function. Multiple sustainable development tools and approaches are available to reduce environmental harm from built development. However, the reality that society exists within fully integrated socioecological systems, wholly interdependent on supporting ecosystems, is not yet adequately represented in regulation or supporting tools. Regenerative development seeks to address this interdependence in part by improving the health of supporting socioecological systems through the development process. We demonstrate the relevance of a series of approaches—Local Nature‐Related Planning Policy (LNRPP), Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), the Environmental Benefits from Nature Tool (EBN Tool), Nature Assessment Tool for Urban and Rural Environments (NATURE Tool), and Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services+ (RAWES+)—for their ability to meet their stated aims and objectives and how these relate to wider regenerative themes. A comparative analysis of the five approaches is done by applying them to a practical case study site, resulting in policy‐ and practice‐relevant learning and recommendations. The research reveals current gaps in methodology, which can lead to adverse outcomes for sustainability. This is particularly clear for the spatial and temporal scales across which each approach operates. In addition, this research discusses the inherent limitations of taking a reductionist approach to examining complex systems. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:248–262. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points: Multiple sustainable development approaches are available to reduce environmental harm from built development; however, the reality that society exists within fully integrated socioecological systems, wholly interdependent on supporting ecosystems, is not yet adequately represented.Regenerative development addresses this interdependence by improving the health of supporting socioecological systems, and we demonstrate the relevance of a series of approaches for their ability to meet their stated aims and objectives and how these relate to wider regenerative themes.A comparative analysis of the five approaches is done through their application to a practical case study site, resulting in policy‐ and practice‐relevant learning and recommendations.The research reveals current gaps in methodology, which can lead to adverse outcomes for sustainability, which is particularly clear for the spatial and temporal scales across which each approach operates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Built development changes the nature of land and its ecosystems, with diverse ramifications for human well‐being and the resilience of the socioecological system. Robust and replicable approaches are required to assess ecosystem services generated by sites both predevelopment and for evaluation of postdevelopment options, to assess change and to support a paradigm shift from a "do less harm" to a "regenerative" approach. The Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES) approach provides an internationally recognized methodology for systemic assessment of the ecosystem services generated by a site, taking account of all ecosystem services and service categories across multiple spatial scales. The RAWES assessments of constituent ecosystem services can be combined into Ecosystem Service Index scores. This article outlines innovations in RAWES methods to assess changes in ecosystem services likely to result from differing development scenarios in the context of a case study site in eastern England. These adaptations of the RAWES approach include revised methods for the analysis of ecosystem service beneficiaries across multiple spatial scales, the establishment of a common baseline against which to compare likely ecosystem service outcomes under a range of development scenarios, and a standardized method for accounting for supporting services through their contributions to other more directly exploited services. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:189–200. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points: Built development changes the nature of ecosystem service production and utilization both on a site and at wider geographical scales.Robust and replicable approaches are required to assess ecosystem services generated by sites both predevelopment and for evaluation of postdevelopment options.The internationally recognized RAWES methodology was adapted to assess changes in ecosystem services likely to result from differing development scenarios in the context of a case study site in eastern England.Adaptions include revised methods for the analysis of ecosystem service beneficiaries across multiple scales, the establishment of a common baseline against which to compare ecosystem service outcomes under a range of scenarios, and a standardized method for accounting for supporting services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity targets are a key tool, used at a global and national policy level, to align biodiversity goals, promote conservation action, and recover nature. Yet most biodiversity targets are not met. In England, the government has committed to legally‐binding targets to halt and recover the decline in species abundance by 2030 and 2042. We present evidence from recent population trends of 670 terrestrial animal species (for which abundance time series are available) as a species abundance indicator, together with a synthesis of case studies on species recovery, to assess the degree to which these targets are achievable. The case studies demonstrate that recovery is possible through a range of approaches. The indicator demonstrates that theoretically targets can be achieved by addressing severe declines in a relatively small number of species, as well as creating smaller benefits for many species through landscape‐scale interventions. The fact that multiple pathways exist to achieve the species abundance targets in England presents choices but also raises the possibility that targets might be reached with perverse consequences. We demonstrate that evidence on achievability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining what is required to deliver conservation outcomes and restore biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]