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

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

Mechtilde M. J. Gorissen 1,*, C. Martijn van der Heide 2 and Johannes H.J. Schaminée 1,3

1 Institute for Water and Wetland Research (IWWR), Radboud University Nijmegen, Heijendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands; [email protected] 2 Wageningen Economic Research, Prinses Beatrixlaan 582–528, 2595 BM The Hague, The Netherlands; [email protected] 3 Department Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +31-6-55164159

Received: 28 December 2019; Accepted: 1 May 2020; Published: 6 May 2020

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.

Keywords: nature compensation; habitat banking; voluntary compensation; socialization of nature; sustainable development; integral area development; socio-ecological learning; evolving human–nature relationships

1. Introduction In recent decades, the quality of nature worldwide has deteriorated sharply due to a growing population, urbanization, industrialization and agriculture [1–4]. The same applies to The Netherlands [5]. Between 1900 and 2000, biodiversity in this densely populated country declined by more than 60%. (Percentage is relative to the base year 1700 as used by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) for its biodiversity assessments (globally and European). For national biodiversity assessments, PBL uses the base year 1900 [5].) Despite many policy eﬀorts, there has not yet been a steady recovery. The spatial, water and environmental conditions for nature in The Netherlands are not yet suﬃcient to achieve the nature objectives agreed in Europe [1]. In addition, mandatory compensation to counterbalance the ecological

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756; doi:10.3390/su12093756 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 2 of 36 impacts of development projects on ecological networks in The Netherlands is not yet adequately effective [6]. Furthermore, as a consequence of relatively recent budget cuts in nature policy, the available resources (money and land) in The Netherlands are insufficient to achieve the European biodiversity targets [7]. (To illustrate: In the reference year 2010, about 45% of the species in The Netherlands covered by the EU Birds and Habitats Directives were subject to conditions sufficient for sustainable conservation. If nature policy were to remain unchanged, this percentage would decrease further [7].) On the contrary, more and more stakeholders, like citizens and businesses in The Netherlands recognize the importance of a sustainable society that manages their rich ecological, cultural and environmental heritage in a responsible manner [8–12]. This trend has also been identified internationally [13,14]. New stakeholders want to make a positive contribution to nature, biodiversity and to their environment, but they need a policy perspective that meets their interests [15]. This aligns well with the current policy innovation of the Dutch government aimed at socialization of nature [16]. Socialization of nature is defined as “a movement in which citizens, businesses and social organizations take more initiative and/or participate in, and/or are made jointly responsible for, the realization of public values in the field of nature” [17]. (The government agreements made in connection with current policy innovations in The Netherlands are expected to result in an improvement from 45% to 65% of the European nature objectives in 2027. This means a residual task of 35% for Dutch society in the coming years [7].) In this respect, habitat banking offers incentives to a broad range of nongovernmental stakeholders to participate in nature conservation and sustainable development. Habitat banking is a market-based instrument for nature conservation and sustainable development, based on the principle that biodiversity losses that accompany economic development can be compensated by creating equal biodiversity gains elsewhere. Stakeholders creating biodiversity gains can convert the biodiversity values created into biodiversity credits or nature credits and store them in a habitat bank from which the stakeholders causing a biodiversity loss can buy them. A central board for habitat banking ensures regulation, validation and verification throughout the process [18–20], as shown in Figure1. The supply of nature credits and the demand for these credits to compensate for the damage to biodiversity (biodiversity debits or nature debits) are traded on a habitat market. Credits can be produced in advance, without ex-ante links to the debits they compensate for, and can be stored over time [20]. This offsetting approach leads to nature conservation becoming a more integral part of society and can even go along with better ecological results in tandem with economic development [14,21]. Often, the goal of transactions on a habitat market is “ ... to achieve no net loss of biodiversity, and preferably a net gain, on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem function, and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity” [22] (p.6). As habitat banking is already practiced in other continents including the United States and Australia [19], Eftec et al. [19,20] examined the potential use of habitat banking in the EU as an economic instrument for biodiversity protection. In addition, the researchers extended the initial definition of no net loss (NNL) of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) [22] to include “ ... ecosystem services, including livelihood aspects” [19] (p.59). They argued that the potential for habitat banking is still limited, but there is some evidence of interest related to voluntary actions driven by social entrepreneurship (corporate social responsibility—CSR). With appropriate ecological and social criteria, a viable habitat banking market could be developed in the EU. Further action to develop habitat banking as a policy tool is therefore justified [19]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 3 of 36 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 37

Central Board for habitat banking for regulation, validation & verification

€

Demand for nature Habitat bank Supply of nature credits for mandatory for credits within and registration or voluntary and outside ecological compensation payment networks

Nature credits or biodiversity credits

Figure 1. EssenceEssence of of habitat habitat banking banking and and associated organizational structures [ 1515].

Often,Several the authors goal of discuss transactions the potentials on a habitat for habitat market banking, is “…to bothachieve at Europeanno net loss [19 of, 20biodiversity,,23,24] and andDutch preferably level [15 a,18 net,25 gain]. Numerous, on the ground studies with consider respect habitat to species banking composition, to be a more habitat effi structurecient tool and for ecosystemnature conservation function, thanand people’s current practiceuse and andcultural make values suggestions associated for its with design biodiversity” [18,23–26 ].[22 But] (p.6). there As is habitatalso criticism banking on is habitat already banking. practic Thised in concerns, other continents among otherincluding things, the the United technocratic States and approach, Australia the [1commodification9], Eftec et al. [of19 habitats,20] examined for exchange, the potential and the use notion of habitat of habitat banking banking in as the an EU inherent as an permission economic instrumentto burden and for destroybiodiversity the environment, protection. In which addition, is at oddsthe researchers with ethical extended and moral the principles.initial definition of no nOuret loss central (NNL) research of the question Business is in and which Biodiversity way habitat Offsets banking Programme offers possibilities (BBOP and) [22 opportunities] to include “for....ecosystem improvement services, of biodiversity, including nature livelihood conservation aspects” and [19] sustainable (p.59). They development. argued that Andthe potential additionally, for habitathow can banking habitat bankingis still limited, further but support there mandatory is some evidence and voluntary of interest nature related compensation, to voluntary so that actions they drivencontribute by more social adequately entrepreneurship to this improvement? (corporate Wesocial argue responsibility that habitat— bankingCSR). in With The Netherlands appropriate ecologicalhas not been and very social successful criteria, a in viable practice, habitat because banking it has market so far could focused be developed primarily onin the the EU. interests Further of actioneconomics to develop (profit) habitat and ecology banking (planet) as a policy, which tool results is therefore in social justified (people) [19 interests]. being pushed into the background.Several authors Habitat discuss banking, the potentials however, for enables habitat Dutchbanking, companies, both at European governments, [19,20 civil,23,24 society] and Dutchorganizations level [15 and,18, citizens25]. Numerous to contribute studies to the consider realization habitat of NNL banking [18 ]. to be a more efficient tool for natureThe conservation originality andthan value current of thispractice article and relate make to thesuggestions contributions for its to design the already [18,23 existing–26]. But literature there is alsoon habitat criticism banking on habitat in the banking. following This ways. concerns, It provides: among (i) other a review thing ofs, the the most technocratic recent developments approach, the in commodificationDutch nature policies of and habitats their links for exchange, with habitat and banking; the notion (ii) a combined of habitat view banking of issues as and an knowledge inherent permissionthat were previously to burden examined and destroy separately; the environment, (iii) a description which of a learning is at odds and with experimentation ethical and process moral principles.for voluntary nature compensation, including socio-ecological learning, necessary for implementing a habitatOur banking central research system; and questio (iv)n starting is in which points wayfor further habitat interdisciplinary banking offers research possibilities to obtain and opportunitiesempirical data for among improvement relevant stakeholders of biodiversity, and nature deepen conservation insights into habitatand sustainable banking indevelopment. practice. And Inadditionally this article,, how we first can describe habitat bankingthe methods further used support (Section mandatory2). Our results and voluntary are described nature in compensationSection3, Section, so4 that, Section they5 contribute, Section6, more Section adequately7, Section 8to. First,this improvement? we identify the We shortcomings argue that habitat of bankingmandatory in the nature Netherlands compensation has not and been link very them successful to current in innovations practice, because in policy it has development so far focused as a primarilyresult of transitions on the interests in Dutch of economics society (Section (profit)3 ).and Next, ecology also (planet) considering, which critical results remarks in social on (people) nature interestscompensation being andpushed habitat into banking the background. (Section4 ),Habitat we propose banking, a possible however, design enables of habitat Dutch bankingcompanies, in governments, civil society organizations and citizens to contribute to the realization of NNL [18]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 4 of 36

The Netherlands (Section5). We investigate three necessary instruments for a successful habitat banking system (Section6, Section7, Section8) and ﬁnally summarize relevant discussion points (Section9) and our conclusions (Section 10).

2. Methodological Approach We have explored the solutions habitat banking could offer to enhance nature compensation and sustainable development in The Netherlands. To this end, we conducted interdisciplinary literature research from both scientific and grey literature, occasionally supplemented by our own previously unpublished research. We validated the results of our study by triangulating our findings [27] by means of the following: (i) Dialogue with relevant stakeholders (individually as well as in focus groups) in the field of research, government strategy and policy (i.e., nature policy, rural development, economy and innovation, and spatial planning), and area development (in the years 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019). (ii) A not yet published, representative survey among citizens (n = 1043) and businesses (n = 357) in Limburg about, among other things, voluntary nature compensation, commissioned by the Dutch province of Limburg (2015) The current article places habitat banking in the broad context of, on the one hand, a technocratic-reductionist value assessment of nature and biodiversity based on the idea of objective truths about it, and, on the other hand, a holistic approach to nature and biodiversity in which socio-cultural and underlying human and moral values should play an equal role to achieve sustainable development, social sustainability and ultimately a sustainable human–nature relationship. By linking these two approaches, abuse of habitat banking can be prevented (see Sections5 and9). We have not yet published the results of this survey, because that broader context is crucial for this. (iii) A survey among policy staff of Dutch provinces involved in nature compensation (2015). (iv) Critical reviews and corrections of our texts by relevant researchers of the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2016, 2019) and Wageningen Economic Research (2016). A list of the stakeholders involved can be obtained from the first author. The nonmonetary nature valuation systems available for The Netherlands have been developed for a certain application area, for example for area development or mandatory nature compensation, and therefore not always directly suitable for habitat banking. In Section6 we investigate the following nature assessment systems for their usability for habitat banking in The Netherlands:

1. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency [28]. This nature valuation system is primarily developed for application in sustainable and integrated area development. For a critical reﬂection on this we refer to [29]. PBL further developed this nature valuation system for aquatic nature in 2014 [30]. 2. The valuation system proposed in the preliminary study on habitat banking [18]. This is primarily designed for voluntary compensation. 3. The Instrument for Nature Points of the National Green Fund & Van Groenendael [31,32], intended primarily for mandatory compensation and oﬀsetting. 4. Aggregated nature valuation system of the BEE (Biodiversity Ecosystems and Economy) Platform [33].

In order to give an indication about the usefulness of the nature valuation systems 1 to 4 in bottom-up area pilots for habitat banking, we assess them qualitatively from scientiﬁc as well as grey literature. For this purpose, we use the following assessment criteria, some of which have already been proposed in part by [31–33]: a. “Ecologically justiﬁed”, so that no net loss of biodiversity can be guaranteed on the basis of the calculated values of nature and biodiversity (credits and debits), without unnecessary economic or other social developments being blocked. b. “Workable”, meaning simple and payable. Working with nature valuation systems should therefore not be cost-increasing and preferably cheaper than current practice. One of the Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 5 of 36

questions underlying this assessment criterion is therefore to what extent working with a certain nature valuation system can be done independently of expert judgement. c. “Credible”: This is determined by features such as transparency, objectivity and unambiguity, with which the system’s societal support increases. Whether the criticism on habitat banking is justified, i.e., whether or not an ecologically sound and consistent approach is being taken, everyone should be able to judge for themselves on the basis of a nature valuation system that enables social control and adjustment. d. Broadly and generally “applicable”. A nature valuation system has added value if it can be applied not only in the calculation of nature value, but also for other areas of application, such as the monitoring and evaluation of nature’s values, tendering procedures and for comparison of alternatives in environmental impact assessments and cost-benefit Analysis (CBA). Furthermore, for the operationalization of habitat banking, it is important that a nature valuation system can be applied in all distinct area categories, both within and outside protected nature areas. The broader and more generally applicable the valuation systems used, the more likely it is that in the end a proliferation of different valuation systems can be prevented.

3. Nature Compensation and Habitat Banking in a Changing Society in The Netherlands In order to be able to identify the potential role of habitat banking for nature compensation and sustainable development in The Netherlands, it is ﬁrst necessary to understand the shortcomings in current nature compensation practices. In this section, we further explore the opportunities and possibilities of changing nature policy to habitat banking as a better alternative.

3.1. Shortcomings of Mandatory Compensation in The Netherlands Numerous studies [6,34] indicate that mandatory nature compensation in The Netherlands has major shortcomings. It (1) does not lead to the desired results for biodiversity, (2) leaves insufficient room for (socio) economic developments, (3) is expensive compared to what it yields, (4) is often not (or has difficulties in being) physically feasible, and (5) is complex and not transparent. As a result, social control is difficult and registration, control and enforcement by responsible authorities are not adequately carried out [35]. Kalisvaart and Van Groenendael [34] summarize the results of five studies into the functioning of nature compensation in the period 2003–2012 into the following key issues: (a) late compensation in relation to the time of the intervention, (b) the insufficient quality of compensation nature, (c) unclear allocation of responsibilities, (d) fragmentation of compensation nature, and (e) insufficient control due to lack of registration of the compensatory measures, so that after the implementation of the compensation, the allocation of responsibility for managing the new area(s) of nature is seldom completed. Significant shortcomings have also been identified with regard to the legal frameworks and regulations, in the sense that (i) the rules are too complex, so initiators do not know where they stand, (ii) the knowledge of rules concerning nature compensation among competent authorities and initiators is limited, (iii) the result is not transparent due to the accumulation of relevant protection regimes and compensation obligations, and (vi) the existing differences between provinces cause confusion. This is due to their own ability to regulate the compensation principle with regard to ecological networks such as Natura2000 and the Dutch Nature Network (the so-called Nature Network The Netherlands—NNN) and the protection of other areas of nature at provincial or regional level [36]. The decentralization of nature policy in 2013 may even have exacerbated the situation. Gorissen et al. [15] (p. 18) showed that provinces’ autonomous policy responsibility resulted in different choices with regard to the compensation principle (e.g., on the application of weighting factors for recovery time, quality and rarity of habitat types). Furthermore, provinces opted more often for financial compensation instead of compensation in kind. Some provinces also broadened their nature compensation policy to include social compensation policy or spatial quality policy, thus ensuring integrated area development and further quality gains than only those of biodiversity. In addition, Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 6 of 36 so-called perverse incentives have been identified that could undermine nature compensation policy. These include incentives for (i) acceleration of the decline of baseline biodiversity, (ii) the phasing out of conservation measures that are not being set off, (iii) the marginalization of volunteering for nature conservation, and (iv) provoking false public confidence in environmental outcomes as a result of marketing offset actions as benefits [37]. All in all, the complexity of mandatory nature compensation is increasing rather than decreasing.

3.2. Socialization of Nature: Changing Strategies that Fit in with Habitat Banking In past decades, the domain of nature policy and nature conservation has increasingly been dominated by the national government [38]. In this context biophysical experts with their scientifically founded technocratic positions, were considered ‘able to speak the truth to power’ [39]. At least some of the shortcomings of mandatory nature compensation can be attributed to this trend [40–43]. Policy innovation aimed at the socialization of nature should reduce the resulting distance between nature policy and society [17] and support a gradual evolution of a dynamic and mutual relationship between man and nature [44]. This policy vision arose from the recognition of the importance of a balanced relationship between people and nature [45–47], not only for nature and biodiversity itself, but also for human health and social well-being [16,48–52]. In this regard, the fundamental attitude of man towards nature is referred to as culturally reflexive stewardship, (defined as ‘stewardship in a subjectivist and culturally dependent sense of the term value’ [53]) [54], or green stewardship [55], and indirect reciprocity (in the sense of “I help you and somebody else helps me”). This mindset requires monitoring, not only partners in continuing interactions but also all individuals within the social network [56] (p.1291). To achieve the intended sustainable human–nature relationship, various interlocking top-down and bottom-up strategies or attitudes towards nature as shown in Figure2 must be deployed [ 57–59]. From the top-down perspective of the government [60], these can be referred to as (i) marketization (i.e., transfer of responsibilities towards nature to the market) and (ii) civic participation or transfer of governmental responsibilities to the energetic society [61] or civic society [17,59]. To date, the recent practice of policy debates on socialization of nature in The Netherlands is still often based on either marketization [9,62] or civic participation, without mutuallySustainability balancing 2020, 12, x FOR the PEER two approachesREVIEW [63,64]. 7 of 37 Government

Privatization and Empowerment of C n iv io liberatization citizens ic t a p iz a t r e ti k c r ip a a t M io n Social Socialization Active entrepreneurship citizenship

Market Society

Figure 2. Changing strategies of government, market and society [57–59] (reproduced with some modiﬁcationsFigure 2. Changing with permission strategies ofof M.government, van der Steen market [57]). and society [57–59] (reproduced with some modifications with permission of M. van der Steen [57]).

The new Environmental and Planning Act of the Netherlands, which enters into force in 2021, may offer more possibilities for private considerations and initiatives of companies, citizens and civil society organizations. However, the exact impact on nature conservation cannot yet be fully determined [65]. In view of the identified shortcomings of mandatory nature compensation, this strategy alone will not be sufficient in the coming years for the desired development of sustainable and resilient interactions between human societies and the natural environment. This means that sustainable development, characterized by a durable integration of economic activities (profit) with social (people) and environmental (planet) priorities [51,66–71], will not be achieved with only the current approach of mandatory compensation. On the other hand, increasing attention is being paid to the importance of nature outside protected nature areas [16,72]. In these areas in particular, voluntary compensation can have added value, not only for biodiversity, but also for society [15,23]. In order to help achieve nature conservation and economic developments, various parties in the Netherlands consider habitat banking as (i) a promising alternative to the current mandatory compensation, (ii) an instrument to enable voluntary compensation by companies and citizens by offering new action perspectives for improving nature and their environment and (iii) facilitating validated trade-offs between the interests of nature and the economic and social development needs of stakeholders, and all in all, (iv) a driving force for the envisaged social innovation, as shown in Figure 2 [15,18,20,34,73–75]. Further examples are the Platform for Biodiversity Ecosystems and Economy (Platform BEE) [76], the Dutch national committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN NL) [77], and the Dutch Natural Capital community [78]. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) argues that habitat banking can stimulate the connection between nature and the economy [79] (Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland. Natuur and economie verbinden [80]). Habitat banking combined with culturally reflexive stewardship and indirect reciprocity at local or regional level leads to the development of strong self-governing communities that organize their own natural capital, its management and sustainable use [58,81,82]. However, critical remarks are also made about habitat banking. We will address these in the next section.

The new Environmental and Planning Act of The Netherlands, which enters into force in 2021, may offer more possibilities for private considerations and initiatives of companies, citizens and civil society organizations. However, the exact impact on nature conservation cannot yet be fully determined [65]. In view of the identified shortcomings of mandatory nature compensation, this strategy alone will not be sufficient in the coming years for the desired development of sustainable and resilient interactions between human societies and the natural environment. This means that sustainable development, characterized by a durable integration of economic activities (profit) with social (people) and environmental (planet) priorities [51,66–71], will not be achieved with only the current approach of mandatory compensation. On the other hand, increasing attention is being paid to the importance of nature outside protected nature areas [16,72]. In these areas in particular, voluntary compensation can have added value, not only for biodiversity, but also for society [15,23]. In order to help achieve nature conservation and economic developments, various parties in The Netherlands consider habitat banking as (i) a promising alternative to the current mandatory compensation, (ii) an instrument to enable voluntary compensation by companies and citizens by offering new action perspectives for improving nature and their environment and (iii) facilitating validated trade-offs between the interests of nature and the economic and social development needs of stakeholders, and all in all, (iv) a driving force for the envisaged social innovation, as shown in Figure2[ 15,18,20,34,73–75]. Further examples are the Platform for Biodiversity Ecosystems and Economy (Platform BEE) [76], the Dutch national committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN NL) [77], and the Dutch Natural Capital community [78]. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) argues that habitat banking can stimulate the connection between nature and the economy [79] (Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland. Natuur and economie verbinden [80]). Habitat banking combined with culturally reflexive stewardship and indirect reciprocity at local or regional level leads to the development of strong self-governing communities that organize their own natural capital, its management and sustainable use [58,81,82]. However, critical remarks are also made about habitat banking. We will address these in the next section.

4. Critical Remarks on Nature Compensation and Habitat Banking Nature compensation and habitat banking are generally seen as ways to achieve equivalence between ecological losses and gains, and primarily as technical challenges [22,23,83]. This technocratic view and the associated growing confidence in a philosophy of social engineering towards nature [74] that characterize a reductionist-mechanistic or technocratic paradigm [84–86] have profound consequences: (i) the practice of nature compensation considers nature as isolated biodiversity units that can be easily defined, measured and exchanged across time and space; (ii) it redefines conservation as an exchange of credits, implying that the value of nonhuman nature can be determined by reductionistic value assessments and even by a financial price; (iii) it denies the locational specificity of biodiversity, ignores wider dimensions like the ‘sense of place’ for people and deepens nature–culture and nature–society gaps in the human–nature relationship; (iv) it links conservation with land development and economic growth, anticipating and circumventing conflicting positions. This all leads to the conclusion that the problem of biodiversity loss due to economic development is being depoliticized by presenting nature compensation as a technical issue [74,87] that only requires stricter application of the nature compensation rules and careful design of offsets and habitat banking initiatives. Regardless of whether this is a realistic option in a densely populated country like The Netherlands in the current time of decentralization [2], a more fundamental question is whether it is possible to assess, compare and equate the damaged nature in one place with the ecological result of its restoration elsewhere [23]. Environmental philosophers claim in a general sense that ecological restoration through technocracy does not work because nature cannot be made by man [47]. The economic logic underlying nature compensation and habitat banking is also criticized. In this regard, a number of authors identified the risk of further utilization and commodification of Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 8 of 36 nature [14,87–90]. Commodification of nature is defined as a process of transformation of nonhuman nature into an object of trade [59] (p. 20). Gómez-Baggethun et al. [91] analyzed an analogous process of commodification with respect to the concept of ecosystem services, identifying a slow movement over a period of three decades, from the original economic concept of the benefits of nature as use values in Classical economy towards their conceptualization in terms of exchange values in current neoclassical economy. The authors consider the linking of demanders and suppliers in real markets through the design and implementation of institutional structures as the final phase of a process of commodification. Habitat banking could become one of those institutions [59] (p. 22). Institutional structures are able to adapt human behavior and motivations [92,93]. For example, by creating economic incentives for nature conservation, market-based mechanisms can lead to an increase in individualism and competition in societies previously structured on the basis of community and indirect reciprocity values [56]. All in all, such calls reinforce extrinsic values associated with the pursuit of prestige, power, image and status, further suppressing human and moral values with regard to caring for others and the environment. This means that there are still many socio-ecological uncertainties on the possible side effects of transferring utilitarian market-based principles to nature conservation [91]. Nature compensation and habitat banking also involve a number of potential or perceived risks which may lead to under-utilization of the earlier stages of the mitigation hierarchy and the overruling of conceptual frameworks outlining guidelines and evaluation criteria [14,23] (p.9). This lowers the threshold for project approval and thus facilitates permanent land-use change with negative net effects on nature and biodiversity [23,87]. Destroying nature would thus become acceptable if the damage to nature could be repaired elsewhere [89]. Habitat banking as a “license to trash” [2,23,94] or a “license to destroy” [89] for project developers could easily and increasingly lead to compensation being implemented outside the geographical boundaries of development sites (off-site compensation), thus allowing developers to increase their net developable area [87]. Such a “license to operate” for developers, frequently referred to as “greenwashing” [90] or “un-green grabbing” (“un-green grabbing” is defined as the current neoliberal process of intensifying the exploitation of protected natural areas) [95], often leads to unsustainable results. Human societies depend on myriad functioning ecosystems in innumerable ways that are far from being fully understood [14]. The generally accepted intention of offsetting and nature compensation in Western society focusses solely on preventing net loss of biodiversity [22,23,83], while ignoring the importance of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (Biodiversity is necessary for the provision of ecosystem services, but more biodiversity will not necessarily deliver more ecosystem services. The provision of ecosystem services is influenced more by the ecological characteristics of the more general species than by the number of species [18].) for economic prosperity, sustainable development (Unsustainable use of ecosystems reduces their ability to deliver ecosystem services [96]. In The Netherlands this has been the case since about 1990. As a result, the supply of ecosystem services in The Netherlands can no longer meet all Dutch demand on this, which increases the dependence of the Dutch economy on natural capital abroad [97].) and human well-being [45,98–101]. Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services should therefore also be assessed and compensated [102]. Some authors therefore argue that multiple ecological, instrumental and noninstrumental values of social-ecological systems should all be taken into account in calculations [103]. However, the necessary broadening or integration of valuation systems that could facilitate this multidimensional value approach in nature compensation and habitat banking, is not or is hardly available yet [18,103]. Although many relevant studies have been conducted [79,101,102,104–106], generic indicators as a basis for workable valuation systems for economic and societal valuation of ecosystem services and functions are still missing. Furthermore, since what is not measurable is not compensated, nature compensation and habitat banking can lead to multiple losses and unsustainable results. These losses concern ecological, instrumental and noninstrumental values [88,103]. In line with these criticisms, researchers point out that economic logic disconnects nature conservation from its spatial, evolutionary, historical, social, and ethical context [88,89,101] and that Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 9 of 36 all in all moral responsibilities of man towards nature, biodiversity and a sustainable society get eroded [47,103,107–109]. To counteract this development, scientists point out that economic activity depends on and should therefore be embedded in self-organizing natural and social systems with awareness of limits to growth [107]. In this regard, social scientists argue that (i) the natural environment is socially and culturally constructed, meaning that problems in environmental and nature policy are always the result of such constructions [86,91,99,100,110,111] and (ii) therefore a serious focus on relational values in research and social-environmental decision-making is needed. Relational values underpin meaningful relationships and responsibilities between individuals and societies, and also include sought-after human–nature relationships [45,46,100,112–114]. The underlying paradigm of sociological research (i.e., a holistic or integrated paradigm [85,115]) is less technocratic and reductionistic and takes more accounts of nonlinear interactions, subjectivity and motivations of people [85,86,116–119]. Habitat banking, however, also offers opportunities and possibilities for solving the problems for nature and biodiversity and for sustainable development. Our design of habitat banking in the next section therefore takes into account the criticisms outlined above.

5. Design of Habitat Banking in The Netherlands

5.1. Habitat Banking in the Field of Nature Compensation A way to address both socio-ecological uncertainties and the multitude of values associated with social-ecological systems could be to combine top-down and bottom-up knowledge in participatory stakeholder processes (e.g., focus groups, deliberation workshops) in order to arrive at transparent and responsible “compromise solutions” [103,120,121]. As we have already seen, these “compromise solutions” on an ecological, economic and social basis are considered relevant to achieving sustainable development. The results of top-down introduced reductionist-technocratic economic and ecological value calculations can guide the intended participating stakeholder processes. They should not be considered as absolute truths, but should be linked to socio-cultural and relational values from a specific bottom-up perspective. Gorissen et al. [15] explain that the implementation of habitat banking to improve biodiversity, mandatory nature compensation and sustainable development in The Netherlands, requires a top-down process of an evolving governmental framework of instruments, (calculation) tools and protocols interacting with bottom-up integral area pilots, in which primarily market and society work together, as shown in Figure3. The interaction between the top-down and bottom-up perspective is considered a process of socio-ecological learning. As a first step in a process towards habitat banking, various parties argued in favor of experimenting with a system of voluntary compensation for the loss of biodiversity [18,19,74,75]. This is in order to minimize or limit the potential risks to nature and biodiversity, associated with the complexity of the legal, ecological, administrative and financial frameworks of mandatory nature compensation. In addition, as there are fewer legal restrictions in the domain of voluntary compensation, there are more opportunities to gain experience with habitat banking and the instruments and organization needed for this. Scientists in The Netherlands recommend starting with area pilots aimed at a broader application of habitat banking at a regional level. Private parties such as citizens and companies are willing to invest in nature, but so far, their interests have not been sufficiently exploited in practice [15,122]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 10 of 36 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 37

Government

Evolving Policy space governmental of provinces frameworks

Nature valuation system(s)

Ecological opportunity maps

Organizational structures

Market Socio- Society ecological learning from area pilots

FigureFigure 3. TopTop-down-down evolving evolving governmental governmental framework framework of requ of requiredired instruments instruments and andbottom bottom-up-up socio-ecologicalsocio-ecological learning learning from from area area pilots. pilots. The The policy policy space space of of Dutch Dutch provinces provinces is atis theat the hinge hinge point point [15]. 5.2. Top-Down[15]. Evolving Governmental Frameworks on Economic and Ecological Values

InAs order a first to start step a in habitat a process banking towards system habitat in The banking, Netherlands various that ultimatelyparties argued has added in favor value of forexperimenting both voluntary with anda system mandatory of voluntary nature compensation compensation, for the at least loss of the biodiversity following [ instruments18,19,74,75]. This and frameworksis in order to should minimize be in or place limit [15 the,18 ,potential31,34]: risks to nature and biodiversity, associated with the 1.complexitynationally of the recognized legal, ecological, nature valuation administrative systems toand validate financial (where frameworks we refer toof “validation”mandatory nature in this compensation.article, other In publications addition, as about there habitat are fewer banking legal refer restrictions to “certification”) in the the domain ecological of voluntary value of compensation,(a) new nature there and are nature more that opportunities is to be compensated, to gain experience as well (b) with the greening habitat banking of landscapes and the in instrumentsorder to and improve organization the quality needed of the for living this. Scientis environment;ts in the Netherlands recommend starting with 2.area pilotsecological aimed opportunity at a broader maps application that (a) of help habitat suppliers banking and at demanders a regional level. of biodiversity Private parties credits such to as citizensmake choicesand companies about where are willing to implement to invest which in nature, type but of compensation,so far, their interests and (b) have can facilitatenot been sufficientlycompanies exploited with theirin practice area-specific [15,122]. choices, based on the importance of public support in their local environment and the desire to achieve compensation preferably as locally as possible; and 5.2. Top-Down Evolving Governmental Frameworks on Economic and Ecological Values 3. a national organizational structure, including (a) a central board as shown in Figure1 for habitat Inbanking order to start legally a habitat arrange banking trade in system biodiversity in the credits,Netherlands create that tools ultimately and protocols, has added and supervise value for both the voluntary functioning and of mandatory habitat banking, nature andcompensation, (b) a habitat at bank least that the registers following biodiversity instruments credits, and frameworksareas for should which be credits in place are [15 registered,18,31,34]: and habitat responsibilities, providing insight into the potential supply and demand of biodiversity credits and financially monitoring the trade of 1. nationally recognized nature valuation systems to validate (where we refer to “validation” in biodiversity credits. this article, other publications about habitat banking refer to “certification”) the ecological value 5.3. Socio-Ecologicalof (a) new nature Learning and nature about Socio-Culturalthat is to be compensated, and Relational as Values well (b) in Bottom-Upthe greening Integral of landscapes Area Pilots in order to improve the quality of the living environment; 2. Provincesecological canopportunity play an important maps that role (a) inhelp testing suppliers potential and naturedemanders valuation of biodiversity systems,ecological credits to opportunitymake choices maps and about habitat where banking to implement organizations. which type They of have compensation, the expertise and to facilitate(b) can facilitate habitat Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 37

companies with their area-specific choices, based on the importance of public support in their local environment and the desire to achieve compensation preferably as locally as possible; and 3. a national organizational structure, including (a) a central board as shown in Figure 1 for habitat banking to legally arrange trade in biodiversity credits, create tools and protocols, and supervise the functioning of habitat banking, and (b) a habitat bank that registers biodiversity credits, areas for which credits are registered and habitat responsibilities, providing insight into the potential supply and demand of biodiversity credits and financially monitoring the trade of biodiversity credits.

Sustainability5.3. Socio2020-E,cological12, 3756 Learning about Socio-Cultural and Relational Values in Bottom-Up Integral Area Pilots11 of 36 Provinces can play an important role in testing potential nature valuation systems, ecological opportunity maps and habitat banking organizations. They have the expertise to facilitate habitat bankingbanking experiments experiments in in integral integral area area pilots pilots thatthat bring together together opportunities opportunities for creating for creating new newnature nature (creating(creating nature nature credits) credits) and and demand demand for for naturenature compensation. They They can can bring bring individual individual interests interests of landownersof landowners and and land land users users in in line line with with collectivecollective interests interests of ofeconomic economic and and nature nature development. development. In someIn some provinces provinces in The in Netherlands,the Netherlands, the possibilities the possibilities of taking of taking practical practical steps steps towards towards habitat habitat banking havebanking been investigated have been investigated [25,122–124 [].25 Gorissen,122–124]. et Gorissen al. [15] et(pp. al. 49–50) [15] (pp. have 49–50) elaborated have elaborated the frameworks, the outlinesframeworks, and preconditions outlines and for preconditions a successful forimplementation a successful implementation of such area pilots of such for ahabitatrea pilots banking. for habitatThese pilotsbanking. allow for organizational and social learning [125–135], and for sustainability-oriented These pilots allow for organizational and social learning [125–135], and for sustainability- innovation [107]. They thus enable the further development of best practices of the area pilots into a oriented innovation [107]. They thus enable the further development of best practices of the area habitat banking system that will ultimately also have an added value in terms of mandatory nature pilots into a habitat banking system that will ultimately also have an added value in terms of compensation,mandatory innature line withcompensation, the principles in line of with the BBOPthe principles Standard of the [22 ,BBOP23,83 ].Standard Based on [22 scientiﬁc,23,83]. Based literature, we proposeon scientific a learning literature, process we propose scheme a learning for the furtherprocess developmentscheme for the offurther habitat development banking in of three habitat phases, as shownbanking in Figurein three4 phases. , as shown in Figure 4.

Ecological networks Domain of marketization and socialization

Habitat banking in domain of voluntary nature compensation

Systems (Further) development of: Learning by doing Observe building Tools Practise Reflect Habitat banking in domain Protocols Gain experience Understand of mandatory nature Guidelines Nature valuation system(s) compensation Organizational structures Ecological opportunity maps Organizational structures

n Single-loop learning:

m WHAT we do can be

u improved!

t r Double-loop learning:

u F HOW: Do we do the right things?

Triple-loop learning: WHY do we make certain choices?

FigureFigure 4. Further 4. Further development development of of habitat habitat bankingbanking through through single single-loop,-loop, double double-loop-loop and andtriple triple-loop-loop learninglearning [15]. [15].

These three learning phases can be referred to as follows: 1. Single-loop learning: habitat banking as an experiment. This learning cycle is about operational optimization and eco-efficiency, i.e., what we do can be improved: Do we do the things right? In other words, do we work effectively, or can things be improved? Single loop learning therefore means learning through the consequences of specific actions. In the case of habitat banking, this initially relates to the available nature valuation system(s), ecological opportunity maps and organizational structures. 2. Double-loop learning: further development of habitat banking for voluntary nature compensation. This is about organizational transformation, and the how: Do we do the right things? Do we work efficiently, or can we achieve our goal more easily by focusing (more) on other things? In double loop learning people reflect on the assumptions which underlie their actions. In habitat banking, double loop learning results in (further) developed tools, protocols, guidelines and organizational structures. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 12 of 36

3. Triple loop learning: habitat banking as a system, ultimately also for mandatory nature compensation. This learning cycle is about system building and societal change, i.e., the why: Why do we make certain choices? Only with this solid substantiation can habitat banking as a system have sufficient strength for a responsible further application in the context of mandatory nature compensation to deliver no net loss or net gain of biodiversity [22,23,83], with use of the developed tools, protocols, guidelines, and organizational structures. Different parts of a habitat banking system can go through different learning cycles simultaneously [131].

The learning process described above is still fairly technocratic and reductionist. It is based on the predominant vision on habitat banking in scientific literature, where nature valuation systems, ecological opportunity maps and organizational structures are considered objective truths. This approach is associated with the risk that ultimately (i) personal commitments towards nature, narratives and constructs of connectedness with nature and the natural landscape will be eroded [47,59], and (ii) the development of a habitat banking system gets stuck in bureaucratic work processes and institutions that produce “more of the same” or “at most a better version of the same” [134]. Such work processes and institutions may thus gradually lose their democratic legitimacy. To counterbalance this development, it is crucial to organize the learning process on habitat banking in connection with the corresponding social and cultural context [86,136]. For a democratic development process of habitat banking, it is therefore vital that discursive practices include marginalized notions of nature and its values [59,114] (p. 6; pp. 40–49). As a consequence, in order to prevent the development of a habitat banking system from stagnating, it is necessary to establish the learning process above in association with a cocreative learning process: a joint interaction process of social learning by doing. This socio-ecological learning process is accompanied by the development of horizontal social networks: dynamic, open and complex social systems on different scales, each with their own identity and value systems [134]. In the context of habitat banking, these horizontal social networks provide further insight into (i) the relationships and associated value systems between people and nature and between people themselves, (ii) the corresponding role of man towards nature of culturally reflexive stewardship [54] and indirect reciprocity [56], and (iii) the universal moral values in communities of indirect reciprocity [56]. Horizontal social networks that apply socio-ecological learning generate self-organizing social-ecological systems (SESs). In interaction with the organization of habitat banking, these SESs enforce an adaptive management of the approach and further development of habitat banking. Adaptive managers and decision-makers constantly monitor and integrate the right ecological, social and economic information into management, thus turning policy-making into an interdisciplinary, participatory and iterative process in which uncertainty is dealt with in a responsible manner [81,107,137,138].

6. Assessment of Nature Valuation Systems for Habitat Banking For the success of habitat banking, it is crucial to use ecologically justified and validated methods to determine the value of nature and biodiversity that is developed (credits), or that is lost (debits) [18,31,34]. Based on these validated credits and debits, choices can be substantiated aiming at nature-inclusive solutions, the extent of nature compensation and social support [15], as well as at the many other application areas mentioned in the literature [33]. A frequently asked question is how to monetize calculated nature values in order to facilitate trade between supply and demand of biodiversity credits. The findings with habitat banking in Germany, England and Sweden [15,139,140] (p. 38, Annex 3) show a preference for valuation systems that express nature values in objective units, but not in monetary units (money). The monetary value of biodiversity credits (positive) and biodiversity debits (negative) arises from market forces and depends on specific local or regional circumstances (e.g., land prices and development costs). The four nonmonetary nature valuation systems we assessed (1. [28]; 2. [18]; 3. [31,32]; and 4. [33]) (where we refer to “validation” in this article, other publications about habitat banking refer to “certification”) can all be considered as primary valuation systems. (Primary systems are systems that Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 13 of 36

are designed to calculate nature value; secondary systems can be used to calculate nature value, but are not primarily designed for this [33] (p.15).) They are all rooted in the mean species abundance (MSA) index and further refined for their use in practice. The mean species abundance index is an indicator of naturalness or biodiversity intactness. It is defined as the mean abundance of original species relative to their abundance in undisturbed ecosystems. An area with an MSA of 100% means a biodiversity that is similar to the natural situation. An MSA of 0% means a completely destructed ecosystem, with no original species remaining. MSA is similar to the biodiversity integrity index, the biodiversity intactness index (BII) and the living planet index (LPI) [141]. The GLOBIO team (i.e., a team of about 10 staff members at PBL charged with projects on international biodiversity and other topics such as biodiversity indicators, and goods and services [141]) emphasizes that MSA does not completely cover the complex biodiversity concept and that complementary indicators should be included, when used in extensive biodiversity assessments. MSA is an integrated indicator for measuring the current and future status of biodiversity in areas that request or offer nature credits [18]. In this context, the valuation methods examined are essentially based on the acreage of the lost or created nature area, the ecological quality and a weighting factor, based on rarity and trends of species or the habitat type they live in. In addition to the primary valuation systems, Jaspers et al. [33] consider the Red Lists as a secondary valuation system for assessing the effects of interventions on nature value and biodiversity. In combination with the primary systems, this secondary system can be used to bypass practical problems in the assessment. For example, when defining nature types or partly Sustainabilityarbitrarily 2020, 12 determination, x FOR PEER REVIEW of the weighting factors per nature type. In such cases, biodiversity17 of 37 value Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR canPEER be REVIEW directly linked to the current or future occurrence of Red List species17 of 37 or the rarity of species University, and  The selection of species groups with a limited versus a large number of reference rather than via nature types. The occurrence of rare species or Red List species is indicative of quality, Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEERaimed REVIEW at (i) “n o net 17 of 37 species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality score. This University, and rarity and possible degree of threat. The combination of a primary The valuation selection of system species with groups the with Red a Lists limited versus a large number of reference Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW loss” of biodiversity 17 of 37 can give a distorted picture that should be corrected. aimed at (i) “no net species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality score. This University, and and ecosystems,as a and secondary valuation system integrates the speciesThe selection completeness of species and groups weighting withAs aa score limitedfixed (rarityframe versus of and areference large number for the of societal reference valuation of calculated nature points is loss” of biodiversity can give a distorted picture that should be corrected. University, andaimed at (i) “no net (ii) “inclusivethreat) green at the species level [15] (p. 41The and selection Annexspecies of 4, species section leads groups directly E). We with thereforeto a a relatively limited considermissing versus low-quality theain large this Red versus valuationnumber Lists a alsorelatively of syste referencem, highthis result-quality does score. not Thisprovide information on the actual and ecosystems, and  As a fixed frame of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature points is aimed at (i) “no nloetss ” of biodiversity growth”. Togethersuitable for use in addition to primaryspecies leads valuation directlycan systems give to a arelatively distorted for further low picture-quality refinement that versus shouldvalue at a thebeofrelatively naturecorrected. scale in ofhigh points areas -quality oror units score. with This more general validity. (ii) “inclusive green missing in this valuation system, this result does not provide information on the actual loss” of biodiversityand ecosystems, and with the Dutcharea pilots. can give a distorted pictureAs a fixed that shouldframe of be reference corrected. for the(System) societal optimizations valuation of calculatedrecommended nature by points Jaspers is et al. [33] should actually be growth”. Together value of nature in points or units with more general validity. and ecosystems, and(ii) “ inclusive green Ministry of Economic  As a fixed framemissing of referencein this valuation for the societalsystem, valuationthisrealized. result of does calculated not provide nature information points is on the actual with the Dutch The results of the assessment of the four primary nature (System) valuation optimizations systems recommended using the four by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be (ii) “inclusive greengrowth ”. Together Affairs, the two missing in this valuationvalue of systenaturem, in this points result or does units not with provide more generalinformation validity. on the actual Ministry of Economic assessment criteria of Section2 (a. ecologically justified; b. workable;realized. c. credible; and d. applicable) are growth”. Togetherwith the Dutch initiating value of nature in points(System) or units optimizations with more general recommended validity. by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Affairs, the two shown in Table1. Based on this assessment of nature valuation systems, we analyzed the question of with the DutchMinistry of Economic organizations form  (System) optimizationsrealized. recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be initiating their application areas and associated advantages and disadvantages in Table2. We distinguish the Ministry of EconomicAffairs, the two the platform’s realized. organizations form following assessment scores in Tables1 and2: Affairs, the two initiating secretariat [76]) the platform’s initiating organizations form secretariat [76]) organizations form the platform’s == veryvery positive, positive /very= positive, appropriate.  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear the platform’s secretariat [76]) = very positive, == positive,positive /appropriate. = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear secretariat [76]) = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,moderately /less = limited, appropriate. ? = unclear = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,  == limited,limited ?/ not= unclear appropriate. ? = unclear

In general, our ﬁndings in Table2 are as follows:

The National Green Fund’s nature valuation system [31,32] is the most suitable for mandatory • nature compensation. The value system of the preliminary study on habitat banking [18] is most useful for area pilots on • habitat banking with voluntary nature compensation. The PBL’s valuation system [28] and the BEE platform’s aggregated valuation system [33] are • more or less in the middle between the two previous systems. The BEE platform’s aggregated valuation system [33] is the most suitable for facilitating sustainable • integrated area development, because it quickly and unambiguously shows the eﬀects of various options for action in areas on nature, both inside and outside protected nature areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 14 of 36

The PBL’s valuation system [28], the value system of the preliminary study on habitat banking [18] • and the BEE platform’s aggregated valuation system [33] are all suitable for use in pilots on habitat banking with voluntary compensation. For area pilots on habitat banking with mandatory and voluntary compensation, all four assessed • nature valuation systems can be used, possibly in combination in order be able to provide area-speciﬁc customization.

Finally, we would like to make the following comments on this study of nature valuation systems:

1. The concept of “biodiversity” should be seen as a discursive find of recent times [154] (p. 53), while the relationship between man and nature is already as old as humanity. 2. All nature valuation systems assessed here are based on the idea that the value of nature and biodiversity can be objectively calculated. However, as we have already seen, the idea of an objective truth about the value of nature and biodiversity does not exist, as all valuation processes are socially and culturally constructed. It is vital for the success of habitat banking to make this awareness operational in its work processes. 3. Environmental impact assessments and economic versus ecological value assessments have difficulty in capturing, in particular, socio-cultural values and underlying human and moral values [54,155]. As a result of all this, governments, policy makers and nongovernmental organizations struggle with the question of how communities can be effectively involved in environmental decision-making. Participatory processes in bottom-up area pilot projects can contribute to solving this problem. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 15 of 36 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEERSustainability REVIEW 2020 , 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW17 of 37 17 of 37 17 of 37 University,Sustainability and 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  The selection17 of of 37 species groups with a limited versus a large number of reference University, and  The selection of species groups with a limited versus a large number of reference University, and University, aimedand at (i) “noUniversity, net and  The selection of species groups with a limitedThe selection versusspecies a oflarge leadsspecies number directly groupsThe of to reference selectionwith a relatively a limited of species low versus-quality groups a large versus with number aa relativelylimited of reference versus high -aquality large numberscore. This of reference aimed at (i) “no net species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality score. This aimed at (i) “no net aimed at (i) “nloosUniversity, sn”et of biodiversity andaimed at (i) “no net species leads directly to a relatively low-qualityspecies versusleads candirectly a relatively giveThe toa selection distorteda relativelyhighspecies-quality of picture leadsspecies low score. -directlyquality that groups Thisshould versusto with a relativelybe a corrected. limitedrelatively low versus -highquality -aquality large versus number score. a relatively This of reference high-quality score. This Tablelo 1.ss”Global of biodiversity assessment of four mean species abundance (MSA)-based primarycan give nature a distorted valuation picture systemsthat should against be corrected. criteria a–d. loss” of biodiversity loss” of biodiversityandaimed ecosystems, at (i) “nloos snand”et of biodiversity can give a distorted picture that should becan corrected. give a distorted species As picture leads a fixed directlycan that frame give should to ofa distorteda reference relatively be corrected. picture for low the -quality thatsocietal should versus valuation be a corrected.relatively of calculated high-quality nature score.points This is and ecosystems, and  As a fixed frame of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature points is and ecosystems, and a. Ecologicallyand ecosystems,b.l(ii)o Workables s and“”inclusive of biodiversityand green ecosystems, c. Credible and Transparent  As a fixed frame of reference for the societal As avaluation fixedcanmissing frame give of calculatedinaof distortedthis reference valuation Asnature picture for a fixed thesyste points that societal framem, should isthis of valuation result reference be corrected. does of for notcalculated the provide societal nature information valuation points ofison calculated the actual nature points is Criteria Valuation System (ii) “inclusive green d. Applicablemissing in this valuation system, this Mainresult Remarksdoes not /provideConcerns information on the actual →(ii) “inclusive green ↓ Justified (ii) “inclusiveUncomplicatedand growthgreen ecosystems, ” Payable. Together(ii) and “inclusive Objective green Social Supportmissing in this valuation system, this resultmissing does notin this providevalue valuationAs of information anature fixed systemissing inframem, points onthis inof the resultthis referenceor actual units valuation does with for not the moresyste provide societalm, general this information valuation result validity. does of on calculatednot the provide actual nature information points ison the actual growth”. Together value of nature in points or units with more general validity. growth”. Together growth”. Together(ii)with “inclusive the Dutch greengrowth ”. Together value of nature in points or units with morevalue general of nature validity.missing in points(System) in this orvalue unitsoptimizationsvaluation ofwith nature systemore recommendedinm, general points this result orvalidity. units doesby withJaspers not more provide et al. general [ 33information] should validity. actually on the beactual with the Dutch  (System)Developed optimizations primarily recommended for use in by sustainable Jaspers etintegrated al. [33] should area actually development be and with the Dutch with the DutchMinistrygrowth ”of. Together Economicwith the Dutch  (System) optimizations recommended•  by(System) Jaspersvaluerealized. et optimizations al. [of33 nature ] should inrecommended actuallypoints(System) or be unitsoptimizations by withJaspers more et recommended al.general [33] should validity. by actually Jaspers be et al. [33] should actually be Ministry of Economic realized. cost benefit analysis (CBA). Ministry of Economic Ministry of EconomicAffairs,with the the DutchMinistry two of Economic realized. Calculatesrealized. relative decrease(System) orrealized. optimizations increase in nature recommended value. by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Affairs, the two • Affairs, the two Affairs, theMinistry two initiating of Economic Affairs, the two As a fixed framerealized. of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature points initiating • initiating initiatingorganizations Affairs,Sustainability the two form initiating2020 Sustainability, 12, x FOR 2020 PEER, 12 REVIEW, x FOR PEER REVIEW is missing in this valuation system,17 of 37 this result17 doesof 37 not provide information on organizations form organizationsSustainability form 2020 , 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWorganizations Sustainability fotherminitiating platform 2020,organizations 12’s, x FOR PEER fo REVIEWrm 17 of 37 the actual value of nature17 of 37 in points or units with more general validity. the platform’s Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 University, and  The selection of species groups with a limited versus a large number of reference the platform’s the platformorganizations’University,secretariats Sustainability [ 76and fo])therm 2020 platform, 12, x FOR’s PEER REVIEW Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEERNature REVIEW points or unitsThe and selection mean17 speciesof of 37 species abundance groups(MSA) with a accordinglimited versus to the a PBL large17 of number37 of reference secretariat [76]) •  University,secretariat [ 76and]) University,secretariatUniversity, [ aimed76andthe]) and platformat (i) “naimedo’secretariats n et at (i) “n [76o ])n et  The selection of species groups withsystem a limited provideThe Theselection versus species aselection scientific a oflarge leadsspecies of basis numberspecies directlyspecies groups for groups theof leadsto reference with objectivea relatively directlywith a limited a determination limited to low aversus relatively-quality versus a large ofversus alow thelarge number- qualityquality a numberrelatively ofversus reference of highreference a relatively-quality score. high- qualityThis score. This Environmental Assessment aimed at (i)University,secretariat “no net  [ l76andos])s=” veryof biodiversity positive,T  = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclearnature, species but underlying leads directlyThe data selection to arecan a oftenrelatively give of species lacking.a distorted low groups-quality picture with versus thata limited ashould relatively versus be corrected. high a large-quality number score. of referenceThis aimed at (i) “no net aimed= very at positive, (i) “nlooUs sn ”et of = biodiversity positive,  = moderately,  = limited,species ? University,= leadsunclear directly and to a relatively low-qualityspecies versusleads candirectly a relatively give toa distorteda relativelyhigh-quality picture low score.-quality that Thisshould versus be a corrected. relatively The high selection-quality of score. species This groups with a limited versus a large number of reference Agency of The Netherlands= very positive, = positive,lo ss” = of moderately, biodiversity= very  positive, = limited,and ecosystems,  ?= = positive, unclear and=O very  = positive,moderately, = positive, = limited,  ?= =moderately, unclear  = limited,Requiredcan ? = usegive unclear of a expertdistorted judgement picture that asAs wella should fixed as theframe be availability corrected. of reference of e ffforect the forecasting societal valuation of calculated nature points is loss” of biodiversity loss” of biodiversityandaimedP? ecosystems, at (i) “no nandet  can giveaimed a distortedat (i) “no picturenet that should• becan corrected. give a distorted species As picture leads a fixed directly that frame should to of a reference relatively be corrected. for low the -quality societalspecies versus valuation leads a relatively directlyof calculated high to a- qualityrelatively nature score.points low -This qualityis versus a relatively high-quality score. This (PBL) [28] = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclearmodels  for certain types of nature are unfavorable in relation to objectivity and ecosystems, and and andecosystems, ecosystems,l(ii)os s and“”inclusive of and biodiversity  (ii)green “inclusive greenS  As a fixed frame of reference for the societal As avaluationAs fixed acanmissing fixed frame give of frame calculatedinaof distortedthis reference ofmissing valuationreference nature picture forin this thesystefor points that societalvaluationthem, should societal isthis valuation result syste be valuation corrected. m,does ofthis notcalculated of result providecalculated does nature information not nature providepoints points ison information the is actual on the actual loss” of biodiversity and applicability. can give a distorted picture that should be corrected. (ii) “inclusive green (ii) “inclusiveandgrowth ecosystems, green”. Together growth and ”. Together missing in this valuation system, this result doesmissing not provideinvalue thisAs valuationof information anature fixedvalue inframesyste points ofonm, ofnature the this referenceor actual unitsresult in points with doesfor the moreor not unitssocietal provide general with valuation informationmorevalidity. general of calculated on validity. the actual nature points is (ii) “inclusive green and ecosystems, and Variousmissing uncertainties in this valuation have beensyste identifiedm, this result in the does determination not provide ofinformation natureAs a fixed points on frame the actual of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature points is growth”. Together growth”.(ii) Together “inclusive greenwith the Dutch value of nature in points or units with• more generalvalue of validity. naturemissing in in points this valuation or units(System) with syste optimizations morem, this general result recommendedvalidity. does not provide by Jaspers information et al. [on33 ]the should actual actually be growth”. Togetherwith the Dutch (ii) “inclusive green basedvalue on of the nature PBL system:in points(System) i) or the unitsoptimizations exact with content more recommended of general measures validity. to by bemissing Jaspers assessed; inet al.this ii) [33 valuation] should systeactuallym, this be result does not provide information on the actual with the Dutch Ministry of Economic  (System) optimizationsrealized. recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be with the Dutch with the DutchMinistrygrowth ”of. Together Economic  growth(System)”. Togetheroptimizations recommendedfuture by (autonomous)(System) Jaspersvaluerealized. et optimizations al. developments;[of33 nature ] should inrecommended actuallypoints iii) theor be units information by withJaspers more and et al.general models value[33] should validity.of used nature toactually in points be or units with more general validity. MinistrySustainability of Economic 2020, 12 , x FORAffairs, PEER the REVIEW two Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW realized. 17 of 37 17 of 37 Ministry of EconomicSustainability 2020, 12, xMinistry FOR PEER of REVIEW EconomicAffairs,with the the Dutch two realized.with the Dutch 17 of 37 assessrealized. the e ffects of autonomous(System) optimizations developments recommended and measures by [Jaspers30 ]. (These(System) et al. [ 33optimizations] should actually recommended be by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWSustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 17 of 37 Affairs, the two Sustainability 2020Affairs,, 12, xMinistry FOR the PEERtwoinitiating of REVIEW Economic initiating 17 of 37 realized. Affairs, the twoSustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Ministry of Economic concerns of Van Gaalen et al.17 [ 30of ]37 did not only apply to the PBLrealized. system, but also University,initiating and organizations foUniversity,rm and  The selection of species groups with a limitedThe selection versus a of large species number groups of referencewith a limited versus a large number of reference initiatingUniversity, and initiatingorganizations Affairs, the two form Affairs, the Thetwo selection of speciesto thegroups other with valuation a limited systems versus the a large authors number investigated of reference [15].) University, and aimed at (i) “noUniversity, net and aimed at (i) “no net  The selection of species leadsgroups directly withThe a tolimited selection a relatively versus of species low a large-speciesquality groups number leadsversus with of directly areferencea relativelylimited to aversus relativelyhigh- aquality large low numberscore.-quality This of versus reference a relatively high-quality score. This organizationsaimed form at (i) “noUniversity, net and organizationsthe initiatingfo platformrm ’sthe platform’s species leads directly The to selection a relativelyThe application of species low-quality groups of weighting versus with a factors limitedrelatively could versus high be -aquality further large number score. improved This of reference [30]. organizationsUniversity,aimed form at (i) and “n o net loss” of biodiversity initiating  speciesThe selection leads directly of species to a groupsrelativelycan give with alow distorted a- limitedquality picture versus that a largerelatively should number behigh corrected. of-quality reference score. This aimedaimed at (i) “n ato (i) n et“n ol onsets” ofthe biodiversity platform’ s secretariat [76]) speciesspecies leads directlyleads• directly canto a giverelatively to a relativelydistorted low-quality picturelow-quality versus that shouldversus a relatively abe relatively corrected. high-quality high -quality score. score.This This the platformloss’”s of biodiversity the platformorganizations’secretariats [76 fo])rm organizationscan give fo rma distorted picture that should be corrected. loss” of biodiversity and ecosystems,aimedlos sand ”at of (i) biodiversity “no net and ecosystems, and can give a distortedDeveloped picture As that a primarilyfixed speciesshouldcan frame give leadsbe for corrected. ofa application directlydistorted reference to picture afor relatively the flexible thatsocietal As compensationshouldlow a valuation- fixedquality be framecorrected. versus of on calculatedof a referencea relatively nature for high the points -societalquality is valuationscore. This of calculated nature points is secretariatand [76 ecosystems,]) los sand” of biodiversity secretariatthe [76 platform]) ’s  As a fixedcan frame give• aof distorted reference picture for the that societal should valuation be corrected. of calculated nature points is secretariatlos sand[”76 of]) ecosystems, biodiversity and (ii) “inclusive green the platform’s voluntary basis.can give Asa distorted a fixed frame picture of thatreferencemissing should forin be thisthe corrected. societalvaluation valuation system, ofthis calculated result does nature not providepoints is information on the actual and ecosystems,and ecosystems, and (ii) and “inclusive green = very positive,= very = positive,  = positive,moderately,  =  moderately, = Aslimited, a fixedAs a  = framefixed unclear= limited, missing frameof reference ? of = in unclearreference this for valuation the for societal the syste societal valuationm, this valuation result of calculated does of calculated not nature provide nature points information points is is on the actual (ii) “inclusive green secretariat [76]) T secretariatmissing [76 ])in this valuation? system, this result does not provide information on the actual Preliminary study on habitat(ii) “inclusive green growth”. andTogether(ii) ecosystems, “inclusive = very and positive,green = growthpositive,”. Together = moderately, For  habitat = limited,missing banking: ? = unclear in this valuation Samevalue syste remarks of naturem, this formissing Asin natureresult points a fixed indoes quality thisor frame notunits valuation determinationprovide of with reference moresyste informationvalue m,general for as ofthis forthe nature result PBL societalvalidity.on the in system. does points actual valuation not or provide units of calculated with information more nature general on pointsthe validity. actual is growth= very”. Together positive,(ii) “inclusive = positive, green  = moderately,U = very  positive, = limited,  ?= = positive, unclearO  = moderately,  = limited,value of ? nature = unclearmissing in points •in this or units valuation with systemorem, general this result validity. does not provide information on the actual banking [18]. with the(ii) Dutch “growthinclusive ”. Together green with the Dutch Simply (System) applicable,missingvalue optimizations especially in of this nature valuation due recommendedin topoints the systelack orm, units of thisby a(System) weightingwithJaspers result more does etoptimizations al. factor.general not [33 ]provide should validity. recommended informationactually be onby theJaspers actual et al. [33] should actually be with thegrowth Dutchgrowth”. Together”. Together P? = very positive,S = positive,  = moderately, (System)value  = limited, valueof optimizations nature of ? •nature =in unclear points recommendedin points or units or withunits by more withJaspers generalmore et al.general validity.[33] should validity. actually be with the Dutch = very positive, Suitable= positive, for  application = moderately, (System) in the contextoptimizations= limited, of habitat? = unclear recommended banking in theby Jaspers domain et of al. [33] should actually be with the Dutch Ministry of Economicgrowth”. Together Ministry of Economic  (System) •optimizationsrealized. recommended value of nature by Jaspersin points et oral. units[33realized.] should with more actually general be validity. Ministry of Economicwith the Dutch realized.  (System)voluntary optimizations compensation. recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Affairs, theMinistrywith two the Dutchof Economic Affairs, the two  realized.(System) optimizations recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Affairs,Ministry theMinistry two of Economic of Economic realized.realized. Affairs, the two initiatingMinistry Affairs, of Economic the two initiating Developed primarilyrealized. for application in relation to mandatory compensation initiating Affairs, the two • organizationsAffairs, forminitiating the two organizations form and offsetting. organizationsinitiating forminitiating the platformorganizations’initiatings form the platform’s Limited depending on expert judgement. the platformorganizationsorganizations’s form form • secretariatorganizations [76])the platform form’s secretariat [76]) Method of determining future nature quality is not clear. secretariatthe [ platform76the]) platform’s ’s • thesecretariat platform’ s[ 76]) Policy status is given too much emphasis in the calculation (compared to, for secretariatsecretariat [76]) [76]) • Instrument for Nature Points of secretariat= very [positive,76]) = positive,T  = moderately,= very  positive, = limited,  ?= =positive, unclear  = moderately,example,  the = limited, criterium ? “ecological= unclear quality”). Jaspers et al. [33] recommended to = very positive, = positive,U  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear The Netherlands’ National = very positive, O = positive,  = moderately,For habitat banking:  = limited, ? = unclearbring the weighting factors of the Nationaal Groenfonds & Van = very= positive, very positive, = Ppositive, = positive,  = moderately,  = moderately, = limited,  = limited, ? = unclear ? = unclear Green Fund [31,32] = very positive, S?= positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclearGroenendael [31,32] more in line with the scale of the PBL system [28] and made proposals to that effect [15] (Appendix 4, pp. 95–105). As a fixed frame of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature • points is missing in this valuation system, it cannot make clear the actual nature value in points or units with more general validity. Less suitable for use in habitat banking in voluntary compensation. • Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 16 of 36

Table 1. Cont.

a. Ecologically b. Workable c. Credible Transparent Criteria Valuation System d. Applicable Main Remarks/Concerns → ↓ Justified Uncomplicated Payable Objective Social Support Developed primarily to determine the added value of nature-inclusive projects • for nature quality. Conversely, it is also aimed at promoting nature-inclusive projects and • Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW increasing social support. 17 of 37 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEERSustainability REVIEW 2020 , 12, x FOR17 ofPEER 37 REVIEW By choosing to calculate the quality17 of of37 nature using species17 lists of 37 from the Manual • University,Sustainability and 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of Nature Target TypesThe [142 selection], Jaspers17 of of 37 etspecies al. [33 groups] ignored with the a morelimited recent versus systems a large number of reference University, and  The selection of species groups with a limited versus a large number of reference University, and aimedUniversity, at (i) “n ando net University, and The selection of species groups withof thea limited Natura versus 2000species habitata Thelarge leads selection typesnumber directly [143 of of], speciesto reference the a relatively Vegetation groups The low selectionwith of-quality a limited of versusspecies versus a groups relatively a large with number high a limited-quality of reference versus score. a This large number of reference aimed at (i) “no net species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality score. This aimed at (i) “no net laimedosUniversity,s” of at biodiversity (i) “n ando n et aimed at (i) “nospecies net leads directly to a relatively lowThe-quality Netherlands versuscanspecies a [ 144relatively giveThe–149 leads a selection ],distorted andhigh directly the-quality of picture Nature speciesto a score.relativelyspecies that and groups This Landscapeshould leads lowwith be -directlyquality a corrected. limited Index versusto [150 aversus relatively]. a relatively a large low number -highquality-quality of versus reference score. a relatively This high-quality score. This Aggregated nature valuation loss” of biodiversity can give a distortedIndependently picture that of this, should we considerbe corrected. the premise of Jaspers et al. [33] that the loss” of biodiversity andlaimedoss ”ecosystems, of at biodiversity (i) “no nandet loss” of biodiversitycan give a distorted picture that should• be corrected. speciescan giveAs leads aa fixeddistorted directly frame picture to of a reference relativelycan that give should for lowa distortedthe -bequality societal corrected. picture versus valuation thata relatively shouldof calculated behigh corrected.-quality nature score.points This is system of the Platform BEE and ecosystems, and  As a fixedspecies frame lists of reference in the Manual for the of societal Nature valuation Target Types of calculated [142] have nature been fully points and is and ecosystems, and land(ii)oss “” ecosystems,inclusive of biodiversity green and and ecosystems, and As a fixed frame of reference for the societal valuationcanmissing give Asof calculatedina fixeddistortedthis valuation frame nature picture of referencesyste points that m, shouldAs isthis for a fixedresult the be societal corrected.frame does notof valuation reference provide of informationfor calculated the societal natureon valuationthe pointsactual ofis calculated nature points is (Biodiversity-Ecosystems- (ii) “inclusive green missing in thisnationally valuation validated, system, this as questionable.result does not provide information on the actual (ii) “inclusive green and(ii)growth “ecosystems,inclusive”. Together green and (ii) “inclusive greenmissing in this valuation system, this result does not providevaluemissing As of information ainnature fixed this valuationinframe points on of the referenceorsyste actualmissing unitsm, withthis for in resultthisthe more societalvaluation doesgeneral notvaluation systevalidity. providem, ofthis information calculated result does nature on not the providepoints actual is information on the actual Economy) [33] (Platform BEE growth”. Together value of natureNature in points quality or units should with be more determined general more validity. on the basis of habitat quality than growth”. Together (ii)growthwith “inclusive the”. Together Dutch green growth”. Togethervalue of nature in points or units with• more general validity.missingvalue (System) of innature this optimizationsvaluation in points systeorvalue units recommendedm, ofthiswith nature result more in does bygeneral points Jaspers not orvalidity.provide etunits al. [with33 information] should more general actually on the validity. beactual was a “green deal” of the Dutch with the Dutch  (System)proposed optimizations by Jaspers recommended et al. [33] andby Jaspers less on et the al. species [33] should lists ofactually Bal et al.be [142]. employers’with organization—the the Dutch Ministrygrowthwith the”of. Together Economic Dutch with the Dutch (System) optimizations recommended by Jaspersvaluerealized. et al. (System)[of33 nature ] should optimizations in actuallypoints or be units recommended(System) with more optimizations bygeneral Jaspers validity. et recommended al. [ 33] should by actually Jaspers be et al. [33] should actually be Ministry of Economic realized. After all, species present or to be developed depend on the habitat quality and ConfederationMinistry of of Netherlands Economic MinistryAffairs,with the of the EconomicDutch two Ministry of Economicrealized. realized. (System) optimizationsrealized. recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be Affairs, the two thus are the result of that. Since this requires more expert judgement, we IndustryAffairs, and Employers the two MinistryAffairs,initiating of theEconomic two Affairs, the two recommend furtherrealized. optimization, based in particular on the criteria a) initiating (VNO-NCW)initiating and the nature organizationsAffairs,initiating the two fo rm initiating ecologically justified; b) workable and c) credible. organizations form organization—theorganizations Dutch form organizationstheinitiating platform fo’srm organizations form In determining the current and future situation, Jaspers et al. [33] assume national committee of the the platform’s • the platform’s organizationssecretariatthe platform [76 fo’])srm the platform’s different groups of species. As a result, the situation before and after the International Union for secretariat [76]) secretariat [76]) secretariatthe platform [76’s]) secretariat [76]) intervention are not comparable. In this regard, we recommend (i) to assess the Conservation of Nature (IUCN secretariat [76])= very positive,T = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclearcurrent and future situation on the basis of the same groups of species, in order Netherlands) over the years = very positive,U = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,  = limited,= very ? = positive, unclearO = positive,= very  = positive,moderately, = positive, = limited,  ?= =moderately, unclearto establish  = the limited, baseline ? = situation;unclear and (ii) to use the same groups of species as 2012–2016. These organizations P? indicators to predict the future situation and to measure developments SustainabilitySustainabilitySustainabilitySustainability 2020 2020 2020 2020, 12, ,12 ,12, =12x, very, x FOR,x FORx FOR FORpositive, PEER PEER PEER PEERS REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW= REVIEW positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear 171717 of17 of of37 of 37 37 37 worked together with corporate periodically after the intervention. businesses, nature and For certain types of nature, plants are excluded from the assessment. By contrast, • environmental organizations, University,University, and and we recommend using plants asa basisTheThe for theselection selection assessment of of of species species all types groups ofgroups nature. with with a a limited limited versus versus a a large large number number of of reference reference development cooperation and University,University, and and   TheThe selection selection of of species species groups groups with with a alimited limited versus versus a alarge large number number of of reference reference For certain types of nature, the assessment of the species group of plants Wageningen University, and aimedaimed at at (i) (i) “n “noo n netet • speciesspecies leads leads directly directly to to a a relatively relatively low low-quality-quality versus versus a a relatively relatively high high-quality-quality score. score. This This aimedaimed at at (i) (i) “n “noo n netet produces a different qualityspecies scorespecies because leads leads the directly plant directly data to in to thea arelatively Nationalrelatively low low-quality-quality versus versus a arelatively relatively high high-quality-quality score. score. This This aimed at (i) “no net loss” of lolsolsos”s ofs”” of biodiversityof biodiversity biodiversity Database Flora and Fauna (NDFF)cancancan give [151give give ]a are distorteda a notdistorted distorted fully used. picture picture picture that that that should should should be be becorrected. corrected. corrected. biodiversity and ecosystems, loss” of biodiversity can give a distorted picture that should be corrected. As a point for improvement, we therefore recommend using the data from the and (ii) “inclusive green andandandand ecosystems, ecosystems, ecosystems, ecosystems, and and and and •    AsAsAs Asa afixeda afixed fixed fixed frame frame frame frame of of of referenceof reference reference reference for for for for the the the the societal societal societal societal valuation valuation valuation valuation of of of calculatedof calculated calculated calculated nature nature nature nature points points points points is is is is growth”. Together with the National Vegetation Database (LVD) [152,153] in addition to the NDFF. (ii)(ii)(ii)(ii) “ inclusive“ “ inclusive“inclusiveinclusive green green green green In line with this, we considermissing ecologicalmissingmissingmissing in opportunityin in thisin this this this valuation valuation valuation valuation maps as asyste logicalsystesyste system,m, nextm, m,this this this step.this result result result result does does does does not not not not provide provide provide provide information information information information on on on onthe the the the actual actual actual actual Dutch Ministry of Economic • growthgrowth””. .Together Together Another recommendation is tovalue furthervalue of developof nature nature the in frame in points points of reference or or units units Nature with with more more general general validity. validity. Affairs, the two initiating growthgrowth”.” Together. Together • valuevalue of of nature nature in in points points or or units units with with more more general general validity. validity. Target Types [142] into reference lists of more common species on the basis of organizations form the withwithwith the the the Dutch Dutch Dutch    (System)(System)(System) optimizations optimizations optimizations recommended recommended recommended by by byJaspers Jaspers Jaspers et et al.et al. al.[33 [ 33[]33 should] ]should should actually actually actually be be be platform’s secretariat [76]) with the Dutch available databases. (System) optimizations recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be MinistryMinistryMinistry of of Economicof Economic Economic The selection of species groupsrealized.realized. withrealized. a limited versus a large number of reference Ministry of Economic • realized. Affairs,Affairs,Affairs, the the the two two two species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality Affairs, the two score. This can give a distorted picture that should be corrected. initiatinginitiatinginitiatinginitiating As a fixed frame of reference for the societal valuation of calculated nature points • organizationsorganizationsorganizationsorganizations fo fo form formrmrm is missing in this valuation system, this result does not provide information on thethe platform platform’s’s the actual value of nature in points or units with more general validity. thethe platform platform’s’ s (System) optimizations recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually • secretariatsecretariatsecretariatsecretariat [ 76[ [76 76[])76]) ]) ]) be realized.

= =very= =very =very veryvery positive, positive, positive, positive,    = =positive,== =positive, positive, positive,positive,    = = moderately,= =moderately, moderately, moderately,   = = limited,=limited, =limited, limited, limited, ?? = ?=? ?unclear.= unclear= =unclear unclear unclear Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWSustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWSustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW17 of 37 17 of 37 17 of 37

University, and University, and University, and  The selection of species groups withThe a limited selection versus of species a large groups number with ofThe areference limited selection versus of species a large groups number with of areference limited versus a large number of reference aimed at (i) “no net aimed at (i) “no net aimed at (i) “no net species leads directly to a relativelyspecies low-quality leads directlyversus a to relatively a relatively highspecies low-quality-quality leads score. directlyversus This a to relatively a relatively high low-quality-quality score. versus This a relatively high-quality score. This Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Sustainability 2020Sustainability, 12, x FOR PEER 2020, REVIEW12, x17 FOR of 37 PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 17 of 37 loss” of biodiversity loss” of biodiversity loss” of biodiversity can give a distorted picture that shouldcan give be corrected. a distorted picture that shouldcan give be corrected. a distorted picture that should be corrected. and ecosystems, and and ecosystems, and and ecosystems, and  As a fixed frame of reference for theAs societal a fixed valuation frame of referenceof calculated for thenatureAs societal a fixed points valuation frame is of referenceof calculated for thenature societal points valuation is of calculated nature points is University, and University, andUniversity,  and The selection of species groups with a limited versus a large number ofThe reference selection ofThe species selection groups of specieswith a limitedgroups versuswith a limiteda large numberversus a of large reference number of reference aimed at (i) “no net (ii) “inclusive green (ii) “inclusiveaimed at (i)green “no net species(ii) “ inclusiveleads directly green to a relativelymissing low in- qualitythis valuation versus asyste relativelym, thismissing high resultspecies-quality in does this leads not valuationscore. directlyprovide This syste toinformation a m,relatively thismissing result on low the in does- quality thisactual not valuation versusprovide asyste informationrelativelym, this high result on- qualitythe does actual not score. provide This information on the actual Sustainability 2020, 12Sustainability, x FOR PEER 2020 REVIEW, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW aimed at (i) “no net 17 of 37 17 of 37 species leads directly to a relatively low-quality versus a relatively high-quality score. This growth”. Together growth”. Together growth”. Together Sustainabilityvalue of nature 2020, in12 ,points x FOR PEERor units REVIEW withvalue more of nature general in validity. points or units withvalue more of nature general in validity. points or units with17 of more37 general validity. loss” of biodiversity loss” of biodiversityloss” of biodiversitycan give a distorted picture that should be corrected. can give a distortedcan give picture a distorted that should picture be thatcorrected. should be corrected. and ecosystems,Sustainability and2020 , 12, 3756with the Dutch withand the ecosystems, Dutch and  withAs a fixedthe Dutch frame of reference for(System) the societal optimizations valuation recommended of calculated (System) nature byAs Jaspers a optimizationsfixed points etframe isal. [33 of ] recommended referenceshould actually for(System)17 the ofby be 36societal Jaspers optimizations valuationet al. [33 ]recommended shouldof calculated actually nature by be Jaspers points et isal. [33] should actually be University, and University, and and ecosystems, and  TheUniversity, selection of and species The selection groups withof species a limited groups versus with a alarge limited number versusAs of a areference fixedlarge framenumber of ofreference reference for theThe societal selection valuation of species of calculated groups with nature a limited points versus is a large number of reference (ii) “inclusive green Ministry of Economic Ministry(ii) “ofinclusive Economic green missingMinistry in thisof Economic valuation systerealized.m, this result does not provide informationrealized.missing on the in thisactual valuation systerealized.m, this result does not provide information on the actual aimed at (i) “no netaimed at (i) “no net (ii) “inclusive green speciesaimed leads at directly (i) “nspecieso tonet a leadsrelatively directly low to-quality a relatively versus low a relatively-quality versus highmissing-quality a relatively in this score. valuation high This-quality syste m,score. thisspecies This result leads does directly not provide to a relatively information low on-quality the actual versus a relatively high-quality score. This growth”. Together Affairs, the two Affairs,growth the” .two Together valueAffairs, of nature the in two points or units with more general validity. value of nature in points or units with more general validity. loss” of biodiversitylos s” of biodiversity growth”. Together can giveloss a” distortedof biodiversitycan picture give a that distorted should picture be corrected. that should be corrected.value of nature in points or units withcan moregive a general distorted validity. picture that should be corrected. with the Dutch initiatingTable 2. The usefulness of fourinitiatingwith MSA-based the Dutch primary valuation (System)initiating systems optimizations for applications recommended at by regional Jaspers andet al. national[33] should scale actually(System) levels. be optimizations recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be and ecosystems, andand ecosystems, and with the Dutch  andAs a ecosystems, fixed frame andofAs reference a fixed frame for the of societal reference valuation for the societalof calculated valuation (System)nature of pointscalculated optimizations is nature recommended points is As a by fixed Jaspers frame et ofal. reference[33] should for actually the societal be valuation of calculated nature points is Ministry of Economic organizations form organizationsMinistry of fo Economicrm realized.organizations form realized. (ii) “inclusive green(ii) “inclusive green Ministry of Economic missing(ii) in“inclusive this valuationmissing green syste in thism, valuationthis result syste doesm, not this provide result informationdoes notrealized. provide on the information actual on the actualmissing in this valuation system, this result does not provide information on the actual Affairs, the twoApplication Valuationthe platform’s SustainableSustainabilitythe Area2020 platformAffairs,Sustainability, 12, x FOR the’s PEER two 2020Pilots ,REVIEW 12 Habitat-Banking, x FOR PEERthe REVIEW platformSustainability with ’s 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 37 17 of 37 17 of 37 growth”. Together→ growth ”. Together Affairs, the two value ofMandatory nature in valuepoints Compensation of or nature units within points more or general units Key with validity. Remarks, more general Pros and validity. Cons Systemsecretariat [76]) Developmentsecretariat [76]) Voluntary Compensationsecretariat [76]) growth”. Together value of nature in points or units with more general validity. initiating with the Dutch initiating initiating   (System) optimizations recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be with the Dutch↓ University, and University, and (System)with the optimizations Dutch recommended by Jaspers The et al.selection [33] should of species actually groups be withThe a limited selection versus of species a(System) large groups number optimizations with of areference limited recommended versus a large by number Jaspers etof al.reference [33] should actually be organizations foNetherlandsrm EnvironmentalMinistry of EconomicUniversity, and organizations form realized.  The selectionWidely of applicable, species groups but not with always a limited optimal versus in a large number of reference Ministry of Economic = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,= veryorganizations positive,  = limited, fo=rm positive, ? = unclear realized. = moderately,= Ministryvery positive, of  Economic = limited,= positive, ? = unclear  = moderately, •  = limited, ? = unclear realized. the platformAssessment’s Agency (PBL) [28] aimed at (i) “noaimed net atthe (i) platform “no net ’s aimed at (i) “no net species leadsspeciﬁc directlyspecies situations. to leads a relatively directly low to a-quality relatively versusspecies low -aquality relatively leads directlyversus high a -to relativelyquality a relatively score. high lowThis-quality-quality score. versus This a relatively high-quality score. This Affairs, the two Affairs, the two SustainabilitySustainability 2020 2020, 12, ,12 x ,FOR x FOR PEERthe PEER platform REVIEW REVIEW’s Affairs, the two 17 17of 37of 37 secretariat [76]) loss” of biodiversitySustainabilitySustainabilityloss” ofsecretariat biodiversity 2020 2020, 12 [76,, 12 x]) FOR, x FOR PEER PEER REVIEWlo sREVIEWs” of biodiversity can give a distortedcan give picture a distorted that should picture17 be of17 corrected.that 37of 37 should can give be corrected. a distorted picture that should be corrected. initiating initiating secretariat [76]) initiating There is a risk that rare nature is and ecosystems,and and ecosystems, and and ecosystems, and  As• a fixed frame As of a reference fixed frame for ofthe reference societal valuationfor theAs societal a offixed calculated valuation frame of nature referenceof calculated points for is thenature societal points valuation is of calculated nature points is Preliminaryorganizations study formorganizations habitat form organizations form compensated with less rare nature. = very positive, = positive,  =(ii)University, moderately, “University,inclusive greenand(ii) = andlimited, “ inclusive ? = greenunclear = very positive,(ii)  “inclusive= positive, green  = moderately,  = limited, ? missing= unclear in this valuationmissing  The inThe syste thisselection selection m,valuation this ofresult ofspeciessyste speciesdoesm, this notgroupsmissing groupsresultprovide inwith does thiswithinformation not avaluation limited a provide limited on systeversus informationthe versus m,actual this a large aresult largeon thenumber does numberactual not ofprovide ofreference reference information on the actual the bankingplatform [’18s ]. the platform’s University,University, and and = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,  = limited,In ? the = unclear ﬁeld of voluntaryTheThe selection selection compensation, of ofspecies species this groups groups with with a limited a limited versus versus a large a large number number of ofreference reference growth”. Together growth”. Together the platform’s • value of nature in points or units withvalue more of nature general in validity. points or units with more general validity. secretariat [aimed76growthaimed]) ataimed” .(i)at Together (i)“n ato“n n(i)oet n “n eto net value of naturerisk species isin limited.speciespoints speciesleads or leads units directly leads withdirectly more directly to toa general relatively a relatively to avalidity. relatively low low -quality- qualitylow- qualityversus versus aversus relatively a relatively a relatively high high-quality -highquality- qualityscore. score. This score. This This secretariat [76]) aimed at (i) with“no thenet Dutch with the Dutch secretariat [76])  (System)species leadsoptimizations directly recommended to a relatively(System) by Jaspers low optimizations-quality et al. [33 versus ]recommended should a actuallyrelatively by be Jaspers high et-quality al. [33] shouldscore. actuallyThis be loslsowith”s sof” ofbiodiversitythe biodiversity Dutch  (System) optimizationscancan give give a distorted arecommended distorted picture picture by Jaspers that that should et should al. [33 be] should becorrected. corrected. actually be Netherlands National Green loslso”s sof” ofbiodiversityMinistry biodiversity of Economic Ministry of Economic Centralizationrealized.cancan give of give government a distorted a distorted goals picture limitspicturerealized. that that should should be becorrected. corrected. Ministry= very of positive, Economic  = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear realized.• Fund [31,32= ]very positive,and and =ecosystems, positive, ecosystems,  = and moderately, and = limited, ? = unclear = very positive, = positive,the applicability.   As= moderately,As a fixed a fixed frame frame = limited, of ofreference reference ? = unclear for for the the societal societal valuation valuation of ofcalculated calculated nature nature points points is is Affairs,andand ecosystems, the ecosystems, twoAffairs, and theand two Affairs, the two  AsAs a fixed a fixed frame frame of ofreference reference for for the the societal societal valuation valuation of ofcalculated calculated nature nature points points is is (ii)(ii) “inclusive(ii) “initiatinginclusive(ii) “inclusive “inclusive green green greeninitiating green initiating Compensationmissingmissingmissingmissing in on inthis the inthis valuationbasisthisin valuation this valuation of naturevaluation syste syste points system, system, thism, this m, resultthis result this result does result does doesnot doesnot provide not provide not provide provide information information information information on on the on the actualon the actual the actual actual • growthorganizationsgrowthgrowthgrowth”. Together”. Together” .fo organizationsTogether”rm. Together form organizations form canvalue bevalue a fallbackvalue ofvalue ofnature of optionnature ofnature innature if inpoints compensation inpoints inpoints orpoints orunits orunits with orunits with units with withmore withmore more general more general general general validity. validity. validity. validity. withthewith platformthe withthe Dutch Dutch ’thes the Dutch platform ’s the platform’s the same  type(System)(System) of nature(System) optimizations isoptimizations not optimizations possible. recommended It recommended recommended by by Jaspers Jaspers by Jasperset al.et al.[33 et[]33 al.should] should[33] shouldactually actually actually be be be with the Dutch should be made (System) an additional optimizations condition that recommended by Jaspers et al. [33] should actually be secretariat [76])secretariat [76]) secretariat [76]) MinistryMinistryMinistryMinistry of ofEconomic ofEconomic ofEconomic Economic onlyrealized. compensationrealized.realized.realized. by a nature type with an Biodiversity-Ecosystems-Economy Affairs,Affairs,Affairs, the the two two the two = very positive, = positive,  = moderately,= very positive,  = limited,= positive, ? = unclear  = moderately, equal  or = higherlimited, weighting ? = unclear factor is possible. Platform (BEE Platform) [33] Affairs, the= very two positive,  = positive,  = moderately,  = limited, ? = unclear Stimulates nature-inclusive thinking and initiatinginitiatinginitiatinginitiating • organizationsorganizations fo rmform acting, thus facilitating sustainable organizationsorganizations fo rmform area development. thethe platformthe platformthe platform platform’s ’s ’s ’s Featured(system)-optimizations are not • secretariatsecretariatsecretariatsecretariat [76 [])76 [])76 [])76 ]) yet realized.

== veryvery= very= very appropriate,positive,= verypositive, positive, positive,  = positive,== positive,appropriate,= positive,= positive,  = moderately, = moderately, = moderately,less = moderately, appropriate,  = limited, = limited, = limited, = limited,not ? = ? appropriate.unclear = ? unclear = ? unclear = unclear Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 18 of 36

7. Ecological Opportunity Maps: Search Tools for Ecological and Economic Developments In addition to one or more nature valuation systems as an objective supporting instrument for habitat banking, ecological opportunity maps are required [34] (pp. 73–75). Such ecological opportunity maps are geographical maps that show the suitability of locations and areas for species and habitat types. These maps can therefore facilitate suppliers and buyers of biodiversity credits to make choices about where they want to introduce which compensation. Ecological opportunity maps are generated by linking distribution data of species and plant communities (possibly aggregated into habitat types or nature target types) to various thematic maps (including geomorphology, soil, water management, climate and land use) using GIS [156]. Ecological opportunity maps can be combined with other map layers, based on, for example, the hotspot monitor [157], Atlas Natural Capital [158] or research into multifunctional green space and the importance of nature in the context of the Atlas for municipalities [159]. For the background of working with ecological opportunity maps, we refer to AppendixA. Ecological opportunity maps can be used for two purposes, which provide information relevant to the development of mandatory and voluntary compensation plans:

1. optimization of the choice of a planning location by identifying risks and reducing the research burden for initiators; and 2. ﬁnding a suitable compensation location and calculating the net gain of nature.

In AppendixA we further discuss working with ecological opportunity maps (Appendix A.1), methods for creating ecological opportunity maps (Appendix A.2), and the use of ecological opportunity maps for planning considerations (Appendix A.3).

8. Organizational Structures for Habitat Banking in The Netherlands In principle, three main forms of organization are suitable for the coordination of transactions in the context of habitat banking and sustainable development: (1) pure markets characterized by a demand, a supply, a transaction of (virtual) goods or services and a price (e.g., the Western European wood market or stock markets); (2) hierarchies, with a focus mainly on command and control (e.g., the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) [160]); or (3) hybrid forms, which combine features of markets and hierarchies (e.g., Apple Inc. with its independent dealer network, or more specifically, the wetland mitigation banking system in Florida—the Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) [24]). Scientific research has shown that a hybrid form of organization is most suitable for habitat banking. This means the market characteristics of a habitat banking system should allow a certain degree of autonomy and self-adjustment between developers of nature credits and habitat bankers, but only once the number of allocated or required credits has been determined by regulators [19,24,90]. Oversimplification of a habitat banking system as just “a market” has led to much criticism of this compensation for nature and biodiversity [24]. For creating confidence in a habitat banking system, it is essential that regulators (i) are independent, (ii) have the necessary expertise and experience (with regard to nature conservation policy, land use policy and planning regulations, environmental legislation, business law and financial administration), (iii) are adequately funded and have sufficient staffing capacity to work effectively and within reasonable time limits, and (iv) can be controlled, with publicly available audits of their activities and decisions [19]. Research into habitat banking in The Netherlands has also shown that societal confidence in the system, as well as users’ confidence in each other are essential to its success. These users can include companies, private landowners, land management organizations, banking institutions and possibly public authorities. Habitat banking in The Netherlands is regarded a feasible option for voluntary compensation if its governance and management are designed independently, transparently, cost-effectively and efficiently [18,33]. To this end, the following elements are considered important in the context of a regulatory role within an organizational structure for habitat banking in The Netherlands: 1) a central board for habitat banking and 2) a habitat bank [18,122]. This is in line with the approach Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 19 of 36 in many other countries [19,20,90,139,161] and also essentially corresponds to the organizational structure that emerged from the investigations of Blom et al. [26] on how to set up a trading system for biodiversity in Europe. Combining the two instances in one organization would be simpler and potentially save costs but is not recommended. It would undermine the credibility of habitat banking because an organization that is solely controlled itself does not inspire confidence. In addition, the tasks of a central board for habitat banking and a habitat bank are so different that there is no added value in terms of both content and financial aspects of the association in a single organization [18]. In order to be able to start habitat banking against the background of socio-ecological learning in Dutch area pilots, a decision is required on (1) the establishment or designation of both a central board for habitat banking and a habitat bank, and (2) validation of the value and quantity of nature credits and debits [22,23,83]. For an explanation of the character and tasks of both organizations, we refer to, among others, De Bie and Warmenhoven [18] (pp. 53-56) and Gorissen et al. [15] (pp. 44–48). For the first period until the viability of habitat banking has been proven in practice, it is recommended to connect with existing organizations for the role of both organizations [18]. We investigated which existing organizations might be suitable for the role of both organizations during an initial phase of learning and experimenting. The results are shown in Tables3 and4 respectively. Finally, we would like to point out that organizations for a first role in habitat banking should aim at (i) supporting participatory decision-making processes in bottom-up area pilot projects and (ii) providing adequate guidance for these processes. Of course, they must be prevented from developing power cultures with maintenance of their own organization as main objective.

Table 3. Overview (not exhaustive) of the advantages and disadvantages of candidates for the role of the central board for habitat banking in an initial phase. (The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the National Green Fund has been adopted from De Bie and Warmenhoven [18].).

Organization Advantages Disadvantages Commission for Well acquainted with the system and methodology Unknown with implementation of Environmental Impact • • of prevention, mitigation and compensation. nature compensation. Assessment [162] Compensation is the ﬁnal piece of impact Less familiar with biodiversity, • • assessment and is therefore in line with habitat types and the like; more environmental impact reporting. focused on environmental impacts. High level of knowledge and experience about This is an operational task that is • • monitoring and reporting on not fully compatible with the environmental measures. Commission’s completely Familiar with a wide range of companies and independent role in Environmental • their activities. Impact Reporting. National Green Well aware of the methodology of mandatory Unfamiliar with environmental Fund [163] • • nature compensation. management by and in companies. Extensive experience in the implementation of the Is not unprejudiced about the • • mandatory nature compensation. implementation of voluntary compensation due to close involvement with mandatory compensation. IUCN NL [77], in Working at the interface of companies and It is not yet known whether continuation of Platform • • natural capital. IUCN-NL is open to extending its BEE [76] Focuses on three themes: (1) green international range of duties with tasks • cooperation; (2) greening the business sector; associated with a central board for (3) restoration and conservation of nature. habitat banking. Is broadly composed of stakeholders from the • business community and stakeholders with a background in nature and environmental protection and biodiversity (including NGOs). Has knowledge of biodiversity measurement • methods, the Natural Capital Protocol and Sector Guides. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 20 of 36

Table 3. Cont.

Organization Advantages Disadvantages Another organization as a possible candidate for the role of central board for habitat banking in the future is the Metta Standard and Metta Index Organization [164] (see below). The Metta Standard and Index organization enables the quantification of the environmental impacts of a company, and facilitates the compensation of those impacts, after the company has mitigated them to the extent possible internally. This means that the Metta organization is currently mainly a user of habitat banking. As a result, the Metta organization is not yet equally eligible as a candidate for the role of central board for habitat banking. However, if the Metta organization continues to develop in this direction, it will become an interesting candidate for this. Metta Standard and Has developed the Metta quality mark for Quite new initiative with—to Metta Index • • impact-neutral entrepreneurship. date—a limited number organization [164]. Has developed quantification rules of customers. • for compensation. Beyond biodiversity, which means that the Metta • organization focuses not only on biodiversity, but also on other environmental impacts of companies, such as the use of natural resources, water and energy, land use and space occupancy, greenhouse gases and other emissions to the atmosphere, waste, and noise and light pollution. Has experience in doing assessments at companies • and determining the need for compensation. Has experience with the mitigation ladder in • relation to the ecological footprint of companies. Offers the necessary compensation through projects. • Great expertise in the field of standardization • and auditing.

Table 4. Overview (not exhaustive) of the advantages and disadvantages of candidates for the role of the habitat bank in an initial phase. (The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the National Green Fund has been adopted from De Bie & Warmenhoven [18].).

Organization Advantages Disadvantages National Green Fund [163] Well aware of the methodology of A lot of money paid to the Green • • mandatory nature compensation. Fund for mandatory compensation Extensive experience in the has not yet been spent. • implementation of the mandatory nature compensation. Face the Future [165] Experience with trading of No experience with • • CO2-credits and forest protocols; nature compensation. recent expansion of expertise with agriculture and agroforestry. Experience with ecosystems and • ecosystem services. Netherlands Enterprise Agency Experience with Green Certiﬁcates As a government agency (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend • • for banks. connected with the government. Nederland: RVO) [166] Forest and Nature Compensation Well aware of the methodology of Initiative is only a few years old Foundation [167] • • mandatory nature compensation. (foundation was established in Extensive experience in the 2012). If this continues to develop • implementation of the mandatory well, we see no disadvantages for nature compensation. the time being. Organization in the ﬁeld of Informed about forest and nature We see no disadvantages for the stewardship and area • • compensation and area development. time being. development

Bank that invests in sustainable Experience in realizing ﬁnancial No experience with businesses and projects • • returns with respect for nature and nature compensation. climate, for example green projects (green energy, nature and sustainable building), environmental and water technology, organic farming and natural food. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 21 of 36

9. Discussion Habitat banking is not undisputed. And it is still true that “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” [120,168]. In view of the substantial decline in nature and biodiversity, this statement calls for measures that can contribute to solutions for nature compensation and sustainable development. It is actually very clear that a healthy economy should be embedded in a healthy ecology and society [107], but how is this translated into adequate action perspectives? Does it make any sense at all to continue to consider nature conservation in conjunction with compensation for what will be destroyed by continued economic development? How can the interests of stakeholders, such as developers, nature conservation experts, businesses, citizens and habitat bankers, be involved in negotiation and decision-making processes in such a way that they do not subsequently pursue their own interests through protest actions or legal proceedings? Furthermore, what about the obvious conflicts of interest between different stakeholders? As long as there are no supported answers to these and similar questions, indicating that conflicts of interest are not being resolved but avoided, destructive compromises and unsustainable solutions are implicitly accepted, while explicitly dealing with them opens ways to constructive and sustainable solutions [89]. Actually, starting with habitat banking in practice, offers opportunities to explicitly ask and answer these questions. Nature compensation and habitat banking are, in principle, technocratic systems to support private investment in conservation and market-based approaches to halt biodiversity loss. In at least a number of European countries, the rise of these systems in the current neoliberal era coincides with budget cuts in nature policy, the increasing commodification of nonhuman nature and the ongoing deregulation of environmental legislation [95]. The Netherlands also belongs to these countries [169]. In this regard, Apostolopoulou and Adams [95] argue that public attention to the dialectic of “un-green and green grabbing” (“un-green grabbing” is defined as the current neoliberal process of intensifying the exploitation of protected natural areas [95]) in society is paramount. This is because neoliberal logic and practices (i) ultimately act as a catalyst for the further degradation of nature and biodiversity; (ii) have to a large extent been able to motivate the state apparatus to develop into an entrepreneurial entity of the capital, and (iii) have radically changed our theoretical and political understanding of people’s social relationship with nature, while (iv) advocates of the resulting capitalist expansion themselves imply contradictory normative assumptions about nature and biodiversity. In the context of “un-green and green grabbing”, it is indeed not inconceivable that habitat banking will be misused by capitalist expansion. However, it can also provide a unique opportunity to explicitly consider contemporary nature conservation in relation to the human–nature relationship: extrapolation of its recent history to the future, ethical motives and moral responsibilities to nature or their loss over time, scientific challenges and political implications [89]. Nature policy in former times was almost exclusively legitimized by the intrinsic value of nature [39,170], which means that nature conservation initially was a normative endeavor [171]. This justification for nature conservation is not widely acknowledged and still remains highly controversial [172], partly because it proved very difficult for people to understand and discuss nature’s intrinsic value and its philosophical implications [173] (p. 153). Moreover, the notion of intrinsic value does not seem to motivate most people to behave in a way that is essential for nature conservation and sustainable development [46,174]. Conservationists should therefore define their new mission for the 21th century [171]. Perhaps relational values, further investigated within the frame of habitat banking, can help to find the way back to lost ethical motives and moral responsibilities to nature. Relational values can play a key role in framing and facilitating discussions in participatory decision-making processes aimed at linking environmental changes to physical and to nonmaterial human values, thereby contributing to the re-evaluation of conservation policy [170] (p. 8). This learning process could ultimately result in a contemporary innovation of the human–nature relationship based on (i) equivalence, (ii) a vision of humanity as part of nature, and (iii) a role of people towards nature grounded in culturally reflexive stewardship [54] and indirect reciprocity [56]. In this respect again, habitat banking can be misused by adapting it to the extrinsic values of mainly market players, but it Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 22 of 36 can also contribute to reposition relational values in society, thereby helping to bridge the growing gap with underlying human and moral values. A multiple as well as multilayered value system for application in social-ecological systems [82,175,176] at regional area level could help prevent misuse of habitat banking.

10. Conclusions We conclude that habitat banking has added value for biodiversity and sustainable development, since this trading system of nature values (nature credits) (i) provides space for economic and social developments, while at the same time creating opportunities for developing new nature; (ii) offers new action perspectives to societal parties who want to deal with or make more targeted investments in nature development, thereby creating a more socially and ecologically responsible living environment; (iii) supports choices and decisions by stakeholders with ecologically justified, workable and trustworthy instruments and frameworks; (iv) offers a starting point for new financial mechanisms and business models for nature development and conservation, making the nature sector less dependent on government grants; (v) frees nature policy from excessive detailing and technocracy and the associated dependence on expert judgement; and (vi) ultimately also leads to an improvement of mandatory nature compensation. However, these conclusions are not undisputed. The controversy surrounding habitat banking can be traced back to an expected side effect in current neoliberal contexts in the Western world, that habitat banking will mainly lead to a further polarization between ecological values (planet) and economic values (profit), whereby social and cultural perspectives and values of nature (people) are pushed into the background. The added value of habitat banking, though, is not twofold but triple in principle: (1) people: social and societal, (2) planet: governmental and political, and (3) profit: financial and economic. In short, socio-cultural and social values, and ultimately people’s ethical and moral values towards nature and biodiversity, require more attention in habitat banking. To this end, it is important to realize that nature valuation processes are socially and culturally constructed and, as a consequence, to launch habitat banking in conjunction with socio-ecological learning processes, which develop towards the application of multiple and multi-layered valuation approaches. In this context, a better understanding of relational values, which support (i) meaningful relationships and responsibilities between individuals in companies and society, (ii) relationships with and between associated societal institutions, and eventually (iii) the human–nature relationship, could also contribute to the inclusion of socio-cultural and social values within habitat banking and could ultimately restore the loss in current time of people’s moral values towards nature. To actually realize the added value of habitat banking for The Netherlands, we conclude that it is important to start small with habitat banking, initially (i) within bottom-up regional integral area pilots (ii) in the domain of voluntary nature compensation, and (iii) using participatory decision-making. This is in order to (1) minimize or limit the potential risks to nature and biodiversity (2) while at the same time increasing societal confidence, (3) be able to create a context of learning and experimentation and ultimately generate socio-ecological learning en route to social-ecological systems (SESs), and (4) be in a position to involve the widest possible range of relevant stakeholders of these areas with their belonging value systems. Thereby, it is recommended that the results of reductionist-technocratic economic and ecological value calculations should ultimately not be used as objective truths, but as input for the considerations about the multiple values of nature with regards to habitat banking in specific participatory area processes. This approach should enable the owners and users of those areas to gain a more decisive say in comparison with institutions and businesses, which can contribute to the democratic legitimacy of habitat banking and ultimately also of mandatory nature compensation. Over time, habitat banking thus helps to discover the significance of a contemporary human–nature relationship based on equivalence, a vision of humanity as part of nature, and a role of people towards nature grounded on culturally reflexive stewardship and indirect reciprocity. In short, habitat banking contributes to the further development of social-ecological systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 23 of 36

In all of this, based on our findings we consider it important to conduct extensive additional scientific research aimed at further collection and analysis of empirical data. As the success of habitat banking is context-dependent, this actually applies to all aspects of habitat banking we investigated for this article. Guidance of integral area pilots from the scientific community is in any case also important in this context. Furthermore, it would be interesting to conduct additional scientific research on the basis of more specific research questions, derived from relevant theories (e.g., institutional theories and supplementary learning theories).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.J.G., C.M.v.d.H. and J.H.J.S.; methodology, M.M.J.G., C.M.v.d.H., and J.H.J.S.; validation, M.M.J.G. and J.H.J.S.; investigation, M.M.J.G.; resources, M.M.J.G. and J.H.J.S.; data curation, M.M.J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.J.G.; writing—review and editing, M.M.J.G., C.M.v.d.H. and J.H.J.S.; visualization, M.M.J.G.; supervision, M.M.J.G., C.M.v.d.H. and J.H.J.S.; project administration, M.M.J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Stephan Hennekens (Wageningen Environmental Research) for his help with our research into ecological opportunity maps, and Arjan Ruijs (former researcher of PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) for his involvement during the early stages of this research, as well as for his critical review of the text. We also thank Steven de Bie (Conservation Consultancy and partner at De Gemeynt) and Jan van Groenendael (emeritus professor at Radboud University) for their help, and their tips and suggestions in the initial phase of the research. Finally, we are indebted to the Dutch province of Limburg, which has made manpower available to carry out this research and commissioned the survey among citizens and businesses in Limburg in 2015. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Appendix A. Ecological Opportunity Maps

Appendix A.1. Working with Ecological Opportunity Maps in General Ecological opportunity maps of species and plant communities provide insight into the probability that a species or plant community could occur in an area of which no current observations are known. These maps also show whether a species may be more abundant than is apparent from the current known observations, in particular as stated in the National Flora and Fauna Database (NDFF) [151]. Ecological opportunity maps are an important tool for including biodiversity in planning decisions in a responsible way.

Appendix A.2. Methods for Creating Ecological Opportunity Maps There are various methods for generating ecological opportunity maps. Two methods are discussed below: (1) a method for drawing up species opportunity maps (Appendix A.2.1) and (2) a method for determining plant community opportunities (Appendix A.2.2).

Appendix A.2.1. Species Opportunity Maps On behalf of the Dutch Nature Data Authority, SOVON has made opportunity maps for a number of critical animal species and plant species in 2013 [177]. For this purpose, spatial static models were used, in which both presence and absence data of species are included. Information on absence is just as important as information on the presence of species and both types of data therefore play an important role in spatial modelling. In addition, information on land use and other environmental characteristics is used for modelling. This information is needed to describe relationships in statistical models between the observations and the environmental characteristics. These relationships are then used to predict the expected occurrence in The Netherlands (at the level of square kilometers). The makers of the ecological opportunity maps have drawn up a large set of environmental characteristics per square kilometer. A total of 323 environmental variables were used for the modelling with information on, among other things, land use, soil, groundwater level, crops, forest composition and water types. In order to avoid accidental connections and to speed up the modelling process, preselections were made from the total Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 24 of 36 set of variables of species of agricultural land, semi-open landscape, buildings, nature, forest and water. As a result, the number of variables offered per species was limited to 70–110 [156]. On the website of the NDFF you can find an overview of the species for which opportunity cards are available [178]. Ecological opportunity maps have been drawn up for some fifty species, ranging from plant species to dragonflies, fish, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, mammals and an invertebrate species.

Appendix A.2.2. Opportunity Maps for Plant Communities A different method is used to generate opportunity maps for plant communities. As with species, the probability of a certain plant community occurring is calculated at the scale of square kilometers. Contrary to the approach for species, no use is made of observations about plant communities. An observation of a plant community concerns an analysis of the vegetation based on its species composition (i.e., vegetation recordings), which is assigned to a plant community either manually or automatically. What is used to generate opportunity maps for plant communities is, on the one hand, the floristic composition of a plant community in the form of a so-called synoptic table as displayed in Figure A1, and on the other hand, the occurrence of plant species in The Netherlands on the scale of square kilometers. For the time being, the information on the occurrence of plant species is based on an older version of FLORBASE [179]. At present, the distribution data is stored in the NDFF [151]. The advantage of using the floristic data is that for a large number of species, more or less land-covering distribution information is available. The probability of the occurrence of a plant community is determined by identifying on the scale of a square kilometer for which characteristic species observations are available in the database (FLORON/NDFF). The next step is to calculate the fidelity rates of these species. Then standardization is applied by setting the highest value per plant community at 100, so that opportunity maps of different plant communities can be combined in further analyses. Figure A2 shows the distribution of the Arrhenatheretum elatioris (Glanshaver-associatie) [146] on the left, based only on vegetation recordings as shown in Figure A2a. One could speak of a current distribution, but the picture is far from complete because vegetation recordings of the Arrhenatheretum elatioris have not been made everywhere in The Netherlands. However, a clear pattern can be seen in which the system of the large rivers is well reflected. If we then consider the opportunities map on the right in Figure A2b, we can roughly see the same pattern with the large rivers as the most important region of occurrence for the Arrhenatheretum elatioris. In comparison with the current distribution, however, it can also be seen that the Arrhenatheretum elatioris could potentially occur in many more places in The Netherlands than is currently the case. Particularly in the dunes, Zeeland and the South of Limburg, this plant community seems to have a much greater potential than the actual distribution area. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 37

Sustainabilitythe NDFF2020 [151, 12]., 3756The advantage of using the floristic data is that for a large number of species, more25 of 36 or less land-covering distribution information is available.

FigureFigure A1. A1.Floristic Floristic composition compositionof of thethe ArrhenatheretumArrhenatheretum elatioris elatioris (16Bb01)(16Bb01) [146 [146] (Used] (Used with with permission permission of S.of HennekensS. Hennekens [180 [180,181,181]).]).

The probability of the occurrence of a plant community is determined by identifying on the scale of a square kilometer for which characteristic species observations are available in the database (FLORON/NDFF). The next step is to calculate the fidelity rates of these species. Then standardization is applied by setting the highest value per plant community at 100, so that opportunity maps of different plant communities can be combined in further analyses. Figure A2 shows the distribution of the Arrhenatheretum elatioris (Glanshaver-associatie) [146] on the left, based only on vegetation recordings as shown in Figure A2a. One could speak of a current distribution, but the picture is far from complete because vegetation recordings of the Arrhenatheretum elatioris have not been made everywhere in the Netherlands. However, a clear pattern can be seen in which the system of the large rivers is well reflected. If we then consider the opportunities map on the right in Figure A2b, we can roughly see the same pattern with the large rivers as the most important region of occurrence for the Arrhenatheretum elatioris. In comparison with Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 37

the current distribution, however, it can also be seen that the Arrhenatheretum elatioris could potentially occur in many more places in the Netherlands than is currently the case. Particularly in Sustainabilitythe dunes,2020 Zeeland, 12, 3756 and the South of Limburg, this plant community seems to have a much greater 26 of 36 potential than the actual distribution area.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure A2. A2.Maps Maps of of the the ArrhenatheretumArrhenatheretum elatioris elatioris (16Bb01)(16Bb01) [146 []146: (a)]: Actual (a) Actual distribution distribution based onbased on vegetationvegetation recordings; recordings; ((b)b) OpportunityOpportunity map map based based on oncommon common occurrence occurrence of characteristic of characteristic species species withinwithin a squarea square kilometer. kilometer. TheThe intensity of of the the red red color color indicates indicates the degree the degree of occurrence. of occurrence. The more The more intense the color, the greater the chance of occurrence (used with permission of S. Hennekens intense the color, the greater the chance of occurrence (used with permission of S. Hennekens [180,181]). [180,181]). Appendix A.3. Use of Ecological Opportunity Maps for Planning Considerations 3. Use of Ecological Opportunity Maps for Planning Considerations Diﬀerent perspectives can be chosen for the assessment of the consequences of planning changes Different perspectives can be chosen for the assessment of the consequences of planning changes on biodiversity. on biodiversity. 1. 1. InIn a regiona region it it is is possible possible to search search for for locations locations where where the theloss lossof biodiversity of biodiversity is expected is expected to be to be limited,limited, for for example example during during the the construction construction oror expansionexpansion ofof aa pigpig farm.farm. ByBy makingmaking a cross-sectioncross- ofsection stacked of opportunity stacked opportunity maps of maps species of species and plant and communities,plant communit theies, whitest the whitest areas areas can can be identiﬁed,be i.e.,identified, the areas i.e. where, the theareas opportunities where the opportunities for the occurrence for the of occurrence species and of species plant communities and plant are communities are lowest (i.e., potentially promising planning locations). However, a selection lowest (i.e., potentially promising planning locations). However, a selection must be made of those must be made of those species and plant communities that are most sensitive in relation to the speciesplanned and intervention. plant communities that are most sensitive in relation to the planned intervention. 2. 2. If,If, as as a a result result of of aa plannedplanned intervention, valuable valuable nature nature is lost is lostsomewhere, somewhere, compensation compensation is is mandatory.mandatory. A A habitathabitat with proportional proportional biodiversity biodiversity value value will willtherefore therefore have to have be c toreated be created at at anotheranother location location (in (in the the region) region) (or (or at least at least the ecologicalthe ecological preconditions preconditions will will have have to be to developed, be underdeveloped, which under the desired which the biodiversity desired biodiversity will develop will develop over time). over time). In such In such a case, a case, ecological opportunityecological opportunity maps can maps be used can asbe used search as toolssearch for tools identifying for identifying the potentiallythe potentially most most suitable locationssuitable (potentiallylocations (potentially suitable suitable compensation compensation locations). locations Here). Here again, again, not not all all opportunityopportunity maps maps need to be taken into consideration. If, for example, the compensation includes the need to be taken into consideration. If, for example, the compensation includes the restoration of restoration of a piece of nature belonging to the Ericion tetralicis (Dophei-verbond) [145], only Ericion tetralicis a piecethose ofspecies nature and belonging plant communities to the that are characteristic(Dophei-verbond) of it should be [145 taken], only into those account. species and plant communities that are characteristic of it should be taken into account.

References

1. Planbureau van de Leefomgeving (PBL). Balans van de Leefomgeving 2018. Nederland Duurzaam Vernieuwen; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 284. Available online: https://themasites.pbl.nl/balansvandeleefomgev ing/wp-content/uploads/pbl-2018-balans-van-de-leefomgeving-2018-3160.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2019). 2. Schoukens, H. Biodiversity Banking: Voorbij de Tegenstelling Natuur Versus Economie? 2015. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55803235.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 27 of 36

3. European Environment Agency. State of Nature in the European Union - Results from Reporting under the Nature Directives 2007–2012. EEA Technical Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; p. 173. 4. European Environment Agency. Annexes A–F to: State of Nature in the EU - Results from Reporting under the Nature Directives 2007–2012. EEA Technical Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; p. 80. 5. Bouwma, I.; Sanders, M.; Jagers op Akkerhuis, G.; Knol, O.; Verboom, J.; De Wit, B.; Wiertz, J.; Van Hinsberg, A. Biodiversiteit Bekeken: Hoe Evalueert en Verkent het PBL HET Natuurbeleid; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 57. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/PBL_2014_Biodiversiteit_bek eken_924_0.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2019). 6. Algemene Rekenkamer. Compensatie van Schade aan Natuurgebieden. Vervolgonderzoek Naar Bescherming van Natuurgebieden; Algemene Rekenkamer: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 27. Available online: https://ww w.rekenkamer.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2014/04/16/compensatie-van-schade-aan-natuurgebieden (accessed on 25 July 2018). 7. Bredenoord, H.; Van Hinsberg, A.; De Knegt, B.; Kragt, F. PBL-notitie QuickScan Hoofdlijnennotitie “Ontwikkeling en Beheer van Natuur in Nederland” Globale Toetsingvan Effectiviteit en doelmatigheid; PBL: Den Haag, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 13. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL_2 013_QuickScan-Hoofdlijnennotitie_01101.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2019). 8. Overbeek, M.; Bogaardt, M.J.; Dagevos, J. Intermediairs die Bijdragen van Burgers en Bedrijven aan Natuur en Landschap Mobiliseren; WOt-Technical Report 48; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; p. 50. Available online: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/reports/495459 (accessed on 22 July 2019). 9. Van Leenders, C.; Bor, A.M.; Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland. Bedrijven en Biodiversiteit. Inzichten uit de Community of Practice; Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1–36. Available online: www.duurzaamdoor.nl/bedrijven-en-biodiversiteit (accessed on 22 July 2019). 10. Farjon, H.; Arnouts, R. Leren van Het Energieke Platteland. Lokale en Regionale Coalities Voor Duurzame Plattelandsontwikkeling; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 86. Available online: https://www.pbl. nl/sites/default/files/downloads/PBL_2013_Hoofdrapport_Het_energieke_platteland_769.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2018). 11. Van den Berg, A. Beleving en Participatie Natuur, Landschap en Groen in Limburg—Resultaten Enquêtes Onder Burgers en Bedrijven; Province of Limburg: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2015; p. 81. 12. Van den Berg, A. Beleving van Natuur en Landschap in Brabant. Draagvlak- en Belevingsonderzoek Voor het Provinciaal Natuur- en Landschapsbeleid; Province of North Brabant: Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 53. Available online: https://www.brabant.nl/-/media/B2396D605C3E4DA6BB130FFCA438EFCF.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2012). 13. TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers; TEEB: Mriehel, Malta, 2010; Available online: http://www.teebweb.org/media/2010/09/TEEB_D2_Local_Policy-Makers_Report-Eng.pdf%5Cnhttp: //www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study/and/Reports/Reports/Local/and/Regional/Policy/Makers/ D2/Report/Translations/layTEEB_D2_Druckvar_end_ES.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2019). 14. Bull, J.W.; Suttle, K.B.; Gordon, A.; Singh, N.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 2013, 47, 369–380. [CrossRef] 15. Gorissen, M.; Van der Heide, C.; Schaminée, J.; Ruijs, A. Van Dominee tot Koopman? Habitatbanking in Nederland; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 120. Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/406102 (accessed on 12 November 2018). 16. Ministery of Economic Affairs. The Natural Way forward. Government Vision on Nature; Ministery of Economic Affairs: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 55. Available online: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documente n/beleidsnota-s/2014/04/11/natuurlijk-verder (accessed on 19 July 2019). 17. Swanenvleugel, B.; Play-Time, Bunde, The Netherlands. Vermaatschappelijking in het Fysieke Domein. Personal communication, 2012. 18. De Bie, S.; Warmenhoven, H. Vooronderzoek Habitatbanking: Voorstellen voor de systematiek, organisatie en uitvoering van habitatbanking in Nederland. In Een Onderzoek in Opdracht van het Platform Biodiversiteit, Ecosystemen en Economie (PBEE); De Gemeynt: Klarenbeek, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 105. Available online: http://www.platformbee.nl/assets/Pb2012-001_Voorstudie_Habitatbanking.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 28 of 36

19. Eftec; IEEP. The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection—The case of habitat banking. In Technical Report for European Commission DG Environment; Eftec: London, UK, 2010; p. 269. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec_habitat_technical_report.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2019). 20. Eftec; IEEP. The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection—The case of habitat banking. In Summary Report for European Commission DG Environment; Eftec: London, UK, 2010; p. 43. Available online: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/ca7fa04d-df03-46a5-887e-5ea111c3ae77/eftec_habitat_ banking_summary_report.pdf?v=63664509726 (accessed on 23 July 2019). 21. Bekessy, S.A.; White, M.; Gordon, A.; Moilanen, A.; Mccarthy, M.A.; Wintle, B.A. Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 108, 140–149. [CrossRef] 22. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook; BBOP: Washington DC, USA, 2009; p. 105. Available online: https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/biod iversity-offset-design-handbook-pdf.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2019). 23. Conway, M.; Rayment, M.; White, A.; Berman, S. Exploring Potential Demand for and Supply of Habitat Banking in the EU and Appropriate Design Elements for a Habitat Banking Scheme; Final Report submitted to DG Environment; ICF GHK: London, UK, 2013; p. 158. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/envec o/taxation/pdf/Habitat_banking_Report.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2019). 24. Vaissière, A.C.; Levrel, H. Biodiversity offset markets: What are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 81–88. [CrossRef] 25. De Koe, M.; Provincie Flevoland, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Verbeek, I.C.; Provincie Flevoland, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Natuurcompensatiebank in Flevoland Verkenning Naar Mogelijkheden en Kansen. Unpublished. Personal communication, 2010. 26. Blom, M.; Bergsma, G.; Korteland, M. Economic Instruments for bIODIVERSITY. Setting up a Biodiversity Trading System in Europe; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2008; p. 77. Available online: https://www.ce.nl/publicat ies/download/651 (accessed on 9 September 2019). 27. Creswell, J.; Poth, C. Qualiltative Inquiry & Research Design. Choosing Among Five Approches; SAGE Publications Inc.: London, UK, 2018; p. 459. 28. Sijtsma, F.; Van Hinsbergen, A.; Kruitwagen, S.; Dietz, F. Natuureffecten in de MKBA’s van Projecten Voor Integrale Gebiedsontwikkeling; PBL: Den Haag, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 37. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/500141004.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2018). 29. De Blaeij, A.; Verburg, R. Voor- en Nadelen van het Gebruik van Natuurpunten bij het Bepalen en Monetariseren van Natuureffecten; LEI: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2011; p. 35. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/189816 (accessed on 2 September 2019). 30. Van Gaalen, F.; Van Hinsberg, A.; Franken, R.; Vonk, M.; Van Puijenbroek, P.; Wortelboer, R. Natuurpunten: Kwantificering van Effecten op Natuurlijke Ecosystemen en Biodiversiteit in Het Deltaprogramma. Achtergrondstudie; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 94. Available online: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/pub licaties/PBL_2014_Natuurpunten_Achtergrondstudie_1263.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2019). 31. Groenfonds, N.; Nationaal Groenfonds, Hoevelaken, The Netherlands; Van Groenendael, J.; Nationaal Groenfonds, Hoevelaken, The Netherlands. Instrumenten Natuurcompensatie. Natuurpunten en Natuurbank. Kennisdocument. Unpublished. Personal communication, 2014. 32. Groenfonds, N.; Nationaal Groenfonds, Hoevelaken, The Netherlands; Van Groenendael, J.; Nationaal Groenfonds, Hoevelaken, The Netherlands. Instrumenten Natuurcompensatie. Natuurpunten en Natuurbank. Kennisdocument. Unpublished. Personal communication, 2013. 33. Jaspers, C.; Mouissie, M.; Wessels, S.; Barke, J.; Kolen, M.; Bucholc, A. Natuurpuntensysteem voor een Uniforme Waardering van Natuurkwaliteit; Sweco: Houten, The Netherlands, 2016; Available online: http://docplayer.nl /25162430-Natuurpuntensysteem-voor-een-uniforme-waardering-van-natuurkwaliteit.html (accessed on 14 November 2018). 34. Kalisvaart, M.; Van Groenendael, J. Natuurcompensatie - voor wat hoort wat. In Natuur in de Uitverkoop? Beschouwingen over Ecologie en Economie; Schaminée, J., Janssen, J., Van der Heide, M., Eds.; KNNV Uitgeverij: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2013; Vegetatiekundige Monografieën 5; pp. 59–77. 35. Holstege, S. Natuurcompensatie. Een Onderzoek Naar de Effectiviteit van het Nederlandse Compensatieproces. Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 23 March 2012; p. 101. Available online: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/242234 (accessed on 24 July 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 29 of 36

36. Volkers, B. Eindrapport Stuurgroep Natuurcompensatie; Stuurgroep Natuurcompensatie: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 35. Available online: http://florafaunawet.stowa.nl/Upload/Flora-enfaunawet/eind rapport-stuurgroep-natuurcompensatie.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2019). 37. Gordon, A.; Bull, J.W.; Wilcox, C.; Maron, M. Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 532–537. [CrossRef] 38. Leroy, P.; Gersie, J. Een historisch tegendraadse ambitie: De vermaatschappelijking van het natuurbeleid in Nederland. In Medeverantwoordelijkheid voor Natuur; Overbeek, G., Lijmbach, S., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 23–44. Available online: http://www.wageningenacad emic.com/books/natuur_inleiding.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018). 39. Dammers, E.; Ludwig, K.; Van Puijenbroek, P.; Tisma, A.; Van Tol, S.; Vonk, M.; Bouwma, I.; Farjon, H.; Gerritsen, A.; Pedrolli, B.; et al. Perspectives on the Future of Nature in Europe: Storylines and Visualisations. Background Report; PBL: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 146. Available online: http://themasites.pbl.nl/ natureoutlook/2016/ (accessed on 25 July 2019). 40. Zuidelijke Rekenkamer. Kwaliteit Natuurcompensatie Provincie Limburg (vervolgonderzoek). Deel I Bestuurlijk Rapport; Zuidelijke Rekenkamer: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 27. Available online: https://zuidelij kerekenkamer.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/000454_br-natuurcompensatie-limburg-301013.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2019). 41. Zuidelijke Rekenkamer. Kwaliteit Natuurcompensatie Provincie Limburg. Deel II Rapport van Bevindingen; Zuidelijke Rekenkamer: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 71. Available online: https://www.zuidelijke rekenkamer.nl/2013-kwaliteit-natuurcompensatie-provincie-limburg/ (accessed on 22 July 2019). 42. Zuidelijke Rekenkamer. Kwaliteit Natuurcompensatie Provincie Noord-Brabant (Vervolgonderzoek). Deel I Bestuurlijk Rapport; Zuidelijke Rekenkamer: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 32. Available online: https://www.zuidelijkerekenkamer.nl/2014-kwaliteit-natuurcompensatie-provincie-noord-brabant -vervolgonderzoek/ (accessed on 22 July 2019). 43. Zuidelijke Rekenkamer. Kwaliteit Natuurcompensatie Provincie Noord-Brabant (Vervolgonderzoek). Deel II Rapport van Bevindingen; Zuidelijke Rekenkamer: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 105. Available online: https://www.zuidelijkerekenkamer.nl/2014-kwaliteit-natuurcompensatie-provincie-noord-brabant -vervolgonderzoek/ (accessed on 22 July 2019). 44. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [CrossRef] 45. Chan, K.M.; Balvanera, P.; Benessaiah, K.; Chapman, M.; Díaz, S.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Gould, R.; Hannahs, N.; Jax, K.; Klain, S.; et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1462–1465. [CrossRef] 46. Van den Born, R.J.; Arts, B.; Admiraal, J.; Beringer, A.; Knights, P.; Molinario, E.; Polajnar Horvat, K.; Porras-Gomez, C.; Smrekar, A.; Soethe, N.; et al. The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 841–856. [CrossRef] 47. Drenthen, M. Natuur in Mensenland. Essays over ons Nieuwe Cultuurlandschap; KNNV Uitgeverij: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 255. 48. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; MEA: Washington DC, USA, 2003; p. 266. Available online: http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2018). 49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; MEA: Washington DC, USA, 2005; p. 285. Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/d ocument.354.aspx.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2018). 50. Bateman, I.J.; Mace, G.M.; Fezzi, C.; Atkinson, G.; Turner, K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 48, 177–218. 51. Elkington, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [CrossRef] 52. Veeneklaas, F.; Salverda, I.; Van Dam, R.; During, R. Empirisch onderzoek naar de relatie Mens—Natuur/Groen. Een State of the Art; Alterra, Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011; p. 112. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/176836 (accessed on 22 July 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 30 of 36

53. Turner, R.K.; Paavola, J.; Cooper, P.; Farber, S.; Jessamy, V.; Georgiou, S. Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46, 493–510. [CrossRef] 54. Winthrop, R.H. The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 208–214. [CrossRef] 55. Van Dam, R.; Salverda, I.; During, R.; Duineveld, M. Burgers en hun Landschap: Burgerparticipatie en Maatschappelijk Initiatief ; Alterra: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 253. Available online: https://www. wur.nl/nl/Publicatie-details.htm?publicationId=publication-way-343737333139 (accessed on 17 August 2019). 56. Nowak, M.A.; Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 2005, 437, 1291–1298. [CrossRef] 57. Van der Steen, M.; Van Twist, M.; Chin-A-Fat, N.; Kwakkelstein, T. Pop-up Publieke Waarde–Overheidssturing in een Context van Maatschappelijke Zelforganisatie; Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur (NSOB): Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 60. Available online: https://www.nsob.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pop-up-publieke-waarde.-Overheidssturing-in -de-context-van-maatschappelijke-zelforganisatie.-NSOB.-2013.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2018). 58. Bredenoord, H.; Van Broekhoven, S.; Dirkx, J.; Van Doren, D.; Folkert, R.; Kunseler, E.; Verwest, F.; Vugteveen, P.; Westerink, J. Naar een Kennisagenda voor Vermaatschappelijking van Natuur. Achtergrondstudie; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 57. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/p ublicaties/3339_KennisagendaVermaatschappelijkingvannatuurwebsiteversie.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019). 59. Wensink, R. Habitat Banking. Instrument or Alibi for Nature Conservation and Its Societalization? Master’s Thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, January 2019; p. 102. Available online: https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/123456789/7213/Wensink%2C_Ramon_1.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 19 July 2019). 60. Raad voor het openbaar bestuur (Rob). Loslaten in Vertrouwen. Naar een Nieuwe Verhouding Tussen Overheid, Markt én Samenleving; Rob: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 84. Available online: https://kennisopenba arbestuur.nl/media/63034/loslaten-in-vertrouwen.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2019). 61. Hajer, M. De Energieke Samenleving. Op Zoek Naar een Sturingsfilosofie voor een Schone Economie; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2011; p. 78. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/Signa lenrapport_web.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2019). 62. Bergsma, G.; Odegard, I.; De Bie, S.; Head, M.; Croezen, H. Benchmark Biodiversiteit. De Impact op Biodiversiteit van Nederlandse Sectoren en Bedrijven; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 152. Available online: https://www.ce.nl/publicaties/download/1650 (accessed on 28 July 2019). 63. Buijs, A.; Elands, B.; Van Koppen, C. Vijfentwintig jaar Burgerbetrokkenheid in het Natuurbeleid. Analyse van Beleidsdiscoursen en Publiek Draagvlak; WOt-Technical Report 103; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 86. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/428786 (accessed on 22 July 2019). 64. Buijs, A.; Langers, F.; Mattijssen, T.; Salverda, I. Draagvlak in de Energieke Samenleving: Van Acceptatie naar Betrokkenheid en Legitimatie; Alterra, Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 86. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/238760 (accessed on 25 July 2018). 65. Kistenkas, F.; Nieuwenhuizen, W.; Kamphorst, D.; Broekmeyer, M. Natuur en Landschap in de Omgevingswet; WOt-Technical Report 133; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 50. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/465835 (accessed on 13 October 2018). 66. Bergmans, F. Integrating People, Planet and Profit. In Management Models for Corporate Social Responsibility; Jonker, J., De Witte, M., Bergmans, F., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 117–125. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-33247-2_14 (accessed on 22 August 2018). 67. Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998, 8, 37–51. [CrossRef] 68. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up; Richardson, J., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–16. Available online: https://www.johnelkington.com/archive/TBL-elki ngton-chapter.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2018). 69. Fisk, P. People, Planet, Profit: How to Embrace Sustainability for Innovation and Business Growth; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2010; p. 240. 70. Campagna, C.; Guevara, D.; Le Boeuf, B. Sustainable development as deus ex machina. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 54–61. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 31 of 36

71. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In Proceedings of the 4th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, New York, NY, USA, 25 September 2015; United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 34. Available online: https: //sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2018). 72. Wiertz, J. Ecologische Overwegingen bij Verdeling van Middelen Tussen en Binnen Provincies voor een Herijkte EHS; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 26. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL_2012_Ecologische_overwegingen_bij_v erdeling_van_middelen_tussen_en_binnen_provincies_voor_een_Herijkte_EHS_500070013.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2019). 73. Nationaal Groenfonds. Jaarverslag 2013; Nationaal Groenfonds: Hoevelaken, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 80. Available online: https://www.nationaalgroenfonds.nl/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/Nationaal_Groenfo nds_Jaarverslag_2013.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2019). 74. Schaminée, J.; Janssen, J.; Van der Heide, M. Natuur in de Uitverkoop? Beschouwingen over Ecologie en Economie; KNNV: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2013; Vegetatiekundige Monografieën 5; p. 161. 75. Taskforce Biodiversiteit en Natuurlijke Hulpbronnen. Groene groei: Investeren in Biodiversiteit en Natuurlijke Hulpbronnen; Schefferdrukkerij: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; p. 93. Available online: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/03/06/rapport-groene-groei-investeren-i n-biodiversiteit-en-natuurlijke-hulpbronnen (accessed on 4 May 2019). 76. Platform for Biodiversity Ecosystems and Economy (Platform BEE). Available online: https://naturalcapital.fut ureproof.community/cirkels/platform-bee-stimuleren-van-natuurlijk-kapitaal-in-het-bedrijfsleven (accessed on 23 August 2019). 77. IUCN NL. Available online: https://www.iucn.nl/themas/groene-economie; https://www.iucn.nl/partners (accessed on 23 August 2019). 78. Naturalcapitals.community. Available online: https://naturalcapital.futureproof.community; https: //natrualcapital.futureproof.community/ondernemersvraag?q=habitat%20banking#/filter/ (accessed on 23 August 2019). 79. Van Egmond, P.; Ruijs, A. Natuurlijk Kapitaal: Naar Waarde Geschat; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2016; p. 162. Available online: https://themasites.pbl.nl/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/wp-content/uploads/2014/ PBL_2016_Natuurlijk-kapitaal_1455.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018). 80. Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland | Natuur & Economie Verbinden. Available online: https://themasites.pbl.n l/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/; https://www.pbl.nl/publicaties/natuurlijk-kapitaal-naar-waarde-geschat (accessed on 23 August 2019). 81. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, 29th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; p. 280. 82. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [CrossRef] 83. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Guidance Notes to the Standard on Biodiversity Offsets; BBOP: Washington DC, USA, 2012; p. 121. Available online: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/index. php (accessed on 23 July 2019). 84. Bor, J.; Petersma, E.; Kingma, J. De Verbeelding van het Denken. Geïllustreerde Geschiedenis van de Westerse en Oosterse Filosofie; Tweede druk; Uitgeverij Contact: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Antwerpen, Belgium, 1996; p. 400. 85. Capra, F.; Luisi, P. The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision, 4th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; p. 498. 86. Buijs, A. Public Natures. Social Representations of Nature and Local Practices. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 11 September 2009; p. 296. Available online: http://library.wur.nl /WebQuery/wurpubs/382322 (accessed on 24 July 2018). 87. Apostolopoulou, E.; Adams, W.M. Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: Reframing nature to save it. Oryx 2017, 51, 23–31. [CrossRef] 88. Spash, C.L. Bulldozing biodiversity/: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 541–551. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 32 of 36

89. Devictor, V. When conservation challenges biodiversity offsetting. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 483–484. [CrossRef] 90. Koh, N.S.; Hahn, T.; Boonstra, W.J. How much of a market is involved in a biodiversity offset? A typology of biodiversity offset policies. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 679–691. [CrossRef] 91. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; de Groot, R.; Lomas, P.L.; Montes, C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1209–1218. [CrossRef] 92. Vatn, A. The environment as a Commodity. Environ. Values 2000, 9, 493–509. [CrossRef] 93. Vatn, A. Institutions and the Environment; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2005; p. 481. Available online: https://books.google.nl/books/about/Institutions_And_The_Environment.html?id=1mYnA QAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed on 23 September 2019). 94. McGrath, M. ‘Licence to trash’ offsetting scheme set back until autumn. 2013. Available online: https: //www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23502362 (accessed on 20 September 2019). 95. Apostolopoulou, E.; Adams, W.M. Neoliberal capitalism and conservation in the post-crisis era: The dialectics of “Green” and “Un-green” Grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode 2015, 47, 15–35. [CrossRef] 96. Hooper, D.U.; Adair, E.C.; Cardinale, B.J.; Byrnes, J.E.; Hungate, B.A.; Matulich, K.L.; Gonzalez, A.; Duffy, J.E.; Gamfeldt, L.; O’Connor, M.I. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 2012, 486, 105–109. [CrossRef] 97. Dirkx, J.; De Knegt, B. Natuurlijk Kapitaal als Nieuw Beleidsconcept. Balans van de Leefomgeving 2014. Deel 7; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 26. Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/ 456932 (accessed on 5 September 2019). 98. Ring, I.; Hansjürgens, B.; Elmqvist, T.; Wittmer, H.; Sukhdev, P. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 15–26. [CrossRef] 99. Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef] 100. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Ba¸sakDessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef] 101. Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Madhu, V.; Amsworth, P.; Christie, M.; Cornelissen, H.; Eppink, F.; et al. Chapter 5 The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The Ecological and Economic Foundations; TEEB Document; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 183–255. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Unai_Pascual/publication/303444184_The_Economics_of_Valuing_Ec osystem_Services_and_Biodiversity/links/5746b08208aea45ee8561db8/The-Economics-of-Valuing-Ecosys tem-Services-and-Biodiversity.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2018). 102. Geneletti, D. Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham/Northampton, UK, 2016; p. 511. Available online: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id =q3dmDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Handbook+on+Biodiversity+and+Ecosystem+Services+in+ Impact+Assessment&ots=dt7XJfpoKV&sig=p9MnLrouktFe_WXWGAzR17EISd0#v=onepage&q=Handb ook/on/Biodiversity/and/Ecosystem/Services/in/Impact/Assessment&f=false (accessed on 5 September 2019). 103. Moreno-mateos, D.; Maris, V.; Béchet, A.; Curran, M. The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 552–559. [CrossRef] 104. Remme, R.P.; Schröter, M.; Hein, L. Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 10, 6–18. [CrossRef] 105. Remme, R.P.; Schröter, M. Effects of budget constraints on conservation network design for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol. Complex. 2016, 26, 45–56. [CrossRef] 106. Remme, R.P. Accounting for Ecoystem Services and Biodiversity in Limburg Province, The Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 13 January 2016; p. 220. 107. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [CrossRef] 108. Raworth, K. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 2017, 1, 48–49. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 33 of 36

109. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [CrossRef] 110. Buijs, A.; Hovardas, T.; Figari, H.; Castro, P.; Devine-Wright, P.; Fischer, A.; Mouro, C.; Selge, S. Understanding People’s Ideas on Natural Resource Management: Research on Social Representations of Nature. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1167–1181. 111. Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 2018, 359, 270–272. 112. Piccolo, J.J. Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 37, 8–11. [CrossRef] 113. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef] 114. Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language; Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972; p. 252. Available online: https://archive.org/details/TheArchaeologyOfKnowledge/page/n1 (accessed on 19 July 2019). 115. Pepper, D. Modern Environmentalism. An Introduction; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1996; p. 376. Available online: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=AF7qoVccgLoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1& dq=Modern+environmentalism.+An+introduction.+Pepper&ots=KI2ehRj5W6&sig=e8Et5PzEX5ttU_zDx XB_JH92RwI#v=onepage&q=Modern%20environmentalism.%20An%20introduction.%20Pepper&f=false (accessed on 4 October 2018). 116. Admiraal, J.F.; Van Den Born, R.J.; Beringer, A.; Bonaiuto, F.; Cicero, L.; Hiedanpää, J.; Knights, P.; Knippenberg, L.W.; Molinario, E.; Musters, C.J.; et al. Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 44, 148–157. [CrossRef] 117. Ganzevoort, W.; Van Den Born, R.J.; Halffman, W.; Turnhout, S. Sharing biodiversity data: Citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 26, 2821–2837. [CrossRef] 118. Knippenberg, L. (Ed.) Motivation for Biodiversity Action: Vocabulary, Theories and Framework; BIOMOT: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1–142. 119. Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 144, 67–72. [CrossRef] 120. Munda, G. Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 158, 662–677. [CrossRef] 121. Escobar, A. Construction Nature. Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures 1996, 28, 325–343. [CrossRef] 122. Bugter, R.; Vader, J.; Van den Hoven, M. Investeren in Natuur: Naar Pilots voor een Bredere Vorm van Habitatbanking; Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 60. Available online: http: //library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/413468 (accessed on 18 April 2019). 123. Wiltink, H.; Warmenhoven, H.; De Bie, S. Habitatbanking Gelderland, Rapportage Pilots. Samenvattende Rapportage; Gemeynt: Klarenbeek, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 20. Available online: https://www.gemeynt.nl/n l/download/eindrapport-habitatbanking-gelderland/ (accessed on 13 June 2019). 124. Jaspers, C.J.; Provincie Flevoland, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Mouissie, A.M.; Provincie Flevoland, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Rekeneenheid Natuurboekhouding Markermeer. Onderzoek naar de Geschiktheid van Rekeneenheden voor een Toekomstig Natuurboekhoudsysteem ten Behoeve van TBES. Unpublished. Personal communication, 2014. 125. Argyris, C.; Schön, D.A. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reis 1997, 77, 345–348. [CrossRef] 126. Swieringa, J.; Wierdsma, A. Op Weg Naar een Lerende Organisatie. Over het Leren en Opleiden van Organisaties; Wolters-Noordhoff Uitgevers: Groningen, The Netherlands, 1990; p. 170. 127. Senge, P. De Vijfde Discipline. De Kunst & Praktijk van de Lerende Organisatie; Scriptum Books: Schiedam, The Netherlands, 1992; p. 399. 128. Argyris, C. On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Antwerpen, Belgium, 1999; p. 480. 129. Greenwood, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. ILR Rev. 1997, 50, 701. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 34 of 36

130. Zuidelijke Rekenkamer. De Provincie Limburg als Lerende Organisatie; Zuidelijke Rekenkamer: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 54. Available online: https://www.zuidelijkerekenkamer.nl/?s=De+provincie+Li mburg+als+lerende+organisatie (accessed on 22 July 2019). 131. Reed, M.S.; Evely, A.C.; Cundill, G.; Fazey, I.; Glass, J.; Laing, A.; Newig, J.; Parrish, B.; Prell, C.; Raymond, C.; et al. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 10. [CrossRef] 132. Kenter, J.O.; Reed, M.S.; Fazey, I. The Deliberative Value Formation model. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 194–207. [CrossRef] 133. Sinek, S. Start with Why. How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action; Penguin Group: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 245. Available online: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=iyw6ul1x_n8C&oi=fnd &pg=PR9&dq=what+how+why+sinek&ots=UMF5jYxx00&sig=v1_f5cEslpr8cebrIDgjHvW1-cQ#v=one page&q=what/how/why/sinek&f=false (accessed on 30 August 2019). 134. Wierdsma, A.; Swieringa, J. Lerend organiseren. Als meer van hetzelfde niet helpt. In Lerend Organiseren, 4th ed.; Noordhoff: Groningen/Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 24, (out of 206); Available online: https://www.managementboek.nl/code/inkijkexemplaar/9789001876951/lerend-organiseren-en-ver anderen-andre-wierdsma.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2019). 135. Argyris, C. A Life Full of Learning. Organ. Stud. 2003, 24, 1178–1192. [CrossRef] 136. Mommaas, H.; Latour, B.; Scruton, R.; Schmid, W.; Mol, A.; Schouten, M.; Dammers, E.; Slob, M.; Muilwijk, H. Nature in Modern Society Now and in the Future; PBL: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 120. Available online: http://themasites.pbl.nl/natureoutlook/2016/ (accessed on 25 July 2018). 137. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; p. 393. 138. Fischer, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Bennett, E.M.; Balvanera, P.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.; Daw, T.; Folke, C.; Hill, R.; Hughes, T.P.; et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 144–149. [CrossRef] 139. Vader, J.; Roza, P.; Selnes, T.; Gaaff, A. Natuurcompensatie over de grens. In Een Analyse van natuurcompensatie in Het Buitenland; LEI: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2007; p. 105. Available online: http://www.lei.dlo.nl/pub licaties/PDF/2007/6_xxx/6_07_15.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2019). 140. Van Damme, A. Habitat Banking. De Compensatie van Schade aan Natuurgebieden. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium, 2012; p. 107. Available online: https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/892/0 31/RUG01-001892031_2012_0001_AC.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2019). 141. GLOBIO. Modelling Human Impacts on Biodiversity. Available online: https://www.globio.info/what-is-gl obio/how-it-works/impact-on-biodiversity (accessed on 2 September 2019). 142. Bal, D.; Bal, D.; Beije, H.; Felllinger, M.; Haveman, R.; Van Opstal, A.; Van Zadelhoff, F. Handboek Natuurdoeltypen, 2nd ed.; Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 832. 143. Janssen, J.; Schaminée, J. Europese Natuur in Nederland. Habitattypen; KNNV: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; p. 120. 144. Schaminée, J.; Stortelder, A.; Westhoff, V. De vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 1. Inleiding tot de Plantensociologie: Grondslagen, Methoden en Toepassingen; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden; Leiden, The Netherlands, 1995; p. 296. 145. Schaminée, J.; Weeda, E.; Westhoff, V. De Vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 2. Wateren, Moerassen en Natte Heiden; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden; Leiden, The Netherlands, 1995; p. 360. 146. Schaminée, J.; Stortelder, A.; Weeda, E. De Vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 3. Plantengemeenschappen van Graslanden, Zomen en Droge Heiden; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden; Leiden, The Netherlands, 1996; p. 356. 147. Schaminée, J.; Weeda, E.; Westhoff, V. De Vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 4. Plantengemeenschappen van de Kust en van Binnenlandse Pioniermilieus; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden; Leiden, The Netherlands, 1998; p. 346. 148. Stortelder, A.; Schaminée, J.; Hommel, P. De Vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 5. Plantengemeenschappen van Ruigten, Struwelen en Bossen; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden; Leiden, The Netherlands, 1999; p. 376. 149. Schaminée, J.; Haveman, R.; Hommel, P.; Janssen, J.; De Ronde, I.; Schipper, P.; Weeda, E.; Van Dort, K.; Bal, D. Revisie Vegetatie van Nederland; Uitgeverij Westerlaan-Publisher: Lichtenvoorde, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 232. 150. Nature and Landscape Index. Available online: https://www.bij12.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-landschap/ind ex-natuur-en-landschap/de-index-natuur-en-landschap/ (accessed on 15 March 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 35 of 36

151. National Database Flora and Fauna. Available online: https://www.ndff.nl (accessed on 15 March 2019). 152. De Landelijke Vegetatie Databank. Available online: http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/googlema pslvd.aspx (accessed on 15 March 2019). 153. Schaminée, J.; Janssen, J.; Haveman, R.; Hennekens, S.; Heuvelink, G.; Huiskes, H.; Weeda, E. Schatten voor de Natuur. Achtergronden, Inventaris en Toepassingen van de Landelijke Vegetatie Databank; Alterra: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2006; p. 112. 154. Escobar, A. Whose Knowledge, Whose nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements. J. Political Ecol. 1998, 5, 53–82. [CrossRef] 155. Small, N.; Munday, M.; Durance, I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 57–67. [CrossRef] 156. Sierdsema, H.; Hallmann, C.; Van Kleunen, A. Technische Documentatie “Kansenkaarten”; SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 71. Available online: https://www.ndff.nl /wp-content/uploads/2016/06/technische-documentatie-kansenkaarten.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2019). 157. Hotspot Monitor. Available online: https://www.rug.nl/about-us/news-and-events/video/archive/unifocus/d e-hotspotmonitor; https://www.rug.nl/society-business/centre-for-information-technology/research/services/ gis/portfolio/projecten/the-hotspotmonitor; http://www.hotspotmonitor.nl/hotspotsite/?page=4 (accessed on 2 September 2019). 158. Atlas Natural Capital. Available online: https://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl (accessed on 2 September 2019). 159. Atlas for Municipalities. Available online: https://www.atlasvoorgemeenten.nl (accessed on 2 September 2019). 160. EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en (accessed on 9 February 2020). 161. Needham, K.; De Vries, F.P.; Armsworth, P.R.; Hanley, N. Designing markets for biodiversity offsets: Lessons from tradable pollution permits. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 1429–1435. [CrossRef] 162. Commissie voor de Milieueffectrapportage. Available online: https://www.commissiemer.nl (accessed on 21 December 2019). 163. Nationaal Groenfonds. Available online: https://www.nationaalgroenfonds.nl (accessed on 21 December 2019). 164. METTA Standaard. Available online: https://metta-standaard.org/en/top-2/home-en/ (accessed on 24 August 2019). 165. Face the Future. Available online: https://facethefuture.com. (accessed on 24 August 2019). 166. Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland. Available online: https://www.rvo.nl (accessed on 24 August 2019). 167. Bos- en Natuur Compensatie. Available online: http://www.bosennatuurcompensatie.nl (accessed on 24 August 2019). 168. Funtowicz, S.O.; Ravetz, J.R. The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol. Econ. 1994, 10, 197–207. [CrossRef] 169. Buijs, A.; Mattijssen, T.; Arts, B. “The man, the administration and the counter-discourse”: An analysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 676–684. [CrossRef] 170. Klain, S.C.; Olmsted, P.; Chan, K.M.; Satterfield, T. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 1–13. [CrossRef] 171. Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 366–376. [CrossRef] 172. Justus, J.; Colyvan, M.; Regan, H.; Maguire, L. Buying into conservation: Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 187–191. [CrossRef] 173. Van den Born, R.J. Thinking Nature. Everyday Philosophy of Nature in The Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 4 July 2007; p. 184. 174. Vucetich, J.A.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Nelson, M.P. Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 321–332. [CrossRef] 175. Dearing, J.A.; Wang, R.; Zhang, K.; Dyke, J.G.; Haberl, H.; Hossain, M.S.; Langdon, P.G.; Lenton, T.M.; Raworth, K.; Brown, S.; et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 227–238. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3756 36 of 36

176. Hossain, M.S.; Dearing, J.A.; Eigenbrod, F.; Johnson, F.A. Operationalizing safe operating space for regional social-ecological systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584, 673–682. [CrossRef] 177. NDFF Kansenkaart. Available online: https://www.bij12.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-landschap/productenca talogus/portals/nationale-databank-flora-en-fauna-ndff/ndff-kansenkaart/ (accessed on 24 December 2019). 178. Overzicht Kansenkaarten. Available online: https://www.ndff.nl/overdendff/toepassingen/kansenkaarten/o verzicht-kansenkaarten/ (accessed on 24 August 2019). 179. Floron. Available online: https://www.floron.nl/onderzoek/verspreidingsonderzoek (accessed on 24 August 2019). 180. Hennekens, S.; Smits, N.; Schaminée, J. SynBioSys Nederland versie 2; Alterra: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. 181. SynBioSys, N.L. Syntaxonomisch Biologisch KennisSysteem. Available online: https://www.synbiosys.alterr a.nl/synbiosysnl/ (accessed on 6 January 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).