Conference Agenda

We study the relationship between household income and the biodiversity footprints of household consumption in the United States between 1996 and 2017. Combining data from household expenditure surveys with environmentally-extended multiregional input-output accounting methods, we derive consumption-based (i) land-use and (ii) species loss footprints as proxies for households’ biodiversity impacts. We construct Environmental Engel Curves (EECs) that depict the relationship between household income and biodiversity footprints. We find that EECs have been shifting downwards until the beginning of the 2010s, accompanied by a decline in average biodiversity footprints, but have stagnated since then. EECs are concave, suggesting that biodiversity loss is akin to a necessary good and that there may be a “biodiversity-equality trade-off” such that progressive income redistribution could increase the aggregate biodiversity loss. We estimate that, in 2011, full redistribution to achieve perfect income equality would have raised aggregate land-use by 1.87 %. We find that the trade-off is diminishing in magnitude over time.

The implementation of biodiversity protection initiatives such as the Natura 2000 network requires a trade-off between the ecosystem services generated and the costs and restrictions encountered by local populations and authorities. Using a doubly robust estimator, we conduct a causal economic evaluation of the impact of these protected areas in the Spanish region of ``Castilla y León". Through the prism of nature-based tourism, we show that individuals positively value the areas inside the Natura 2000 network. Therefore, the implementation of such an initiative leads to the creation of value in the growing nature-based market. These results have important implications for tourism stakeholders, public policies, and managers of Natura 2000 protected areas.

With global biodiversity loss accelerating, illegal actions and behaviours pose a sig-nificant threat to conservation efforts. Effective conservation strategies are hindered by the lack of a comprehensive understanding of how biodiversity is valued in a legal con-text. This study focuses on European countries—Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain—where specific monetary values have been assigned to fauna species within legal frameworks to aid law enforcement. Despite these efforts to clarify the legal valuation of species, limitations persist, including unclear valuation processes and outdated monetary values. We construct a unique dataset combining species-specific monetary values with relevant biological data. Analysing the dataset using a mixed-effects regression model, we uncover implicit decision criteria within legal frameworks. Descriptive results reveal insights into species prioritization and valuation, underscoring the existence of taxonomic biases. Additionally, the study highlights the influence of biological criteria such as generation lengths, and underscores the critical role of global protection status in influencing monetary valuation. Thus, this research improves our understanding of regulatory preferences regarding biodiversity conserva- tion and provides essential decision criteria for determining sanctions for biodiversity crimes. By unravelling the complexities of monetary valuations, the study offers poli-cymakers insights to enhance conservation policies and reevaluate the use of monetary values at the species level.

The biodiversity components of ESG ratings are analysed to understand whether and how this disclosure mechanism can affect investment decisions, improve outcomes for biodiversity and nature or lead to better management of nature based risks. We analyse the relationship between stock returns and firms’ biodiversity ratings and how biodiversity ratings are related to firm characteristics. We conclude that biodiversity ratings are largely uncorrelated to firm characteristics other than via firm size, and do not predict stock returns. Analysis of operating performance sheds light on why: return on asset and profit margins are not affected by biodiversity ratings. Systematic risk, idiosyncratic risk and firm valuation are also not influenced by overall biodiversity performance, except that biodiversity exposure increases firm systematic risk. The effect is heterogeneous across industries though: biodiversity ratings predict negative returns in metals and mining but positive returns in utilities. Further, institutional investors and sell-side analysts are shown to ignore biodiversity ratings in their decision-making. A suite of tests suggests that biodiversity as measured in ESG ratings does not appear to provide useful additional information for financial decision makers. It is difficult to see how, on its own at least, the measurement and disclosure of biodiversity via ESG ratings currently helps achieve any target related to biodiversity and nature recovery or improves the management of nature-based risks.