The adoption of natural capital accounting: Lessons from the Tasmanian forest management system

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Isobella Grover , Shaun Suitor , Julianne O'Reilly-Wapstra , Mark Tocock , Peter Volker , Darla Hatton MacDonald
{"title":"The adoption of natural capital accounting: Lessons from the Tasmanian forest management system","authors":"Isobella Grover ,&nbsp;Shaun Suitor ,&nbsp;Julianne O'Reilly-Wapstra ,&nbsp;Mark Tocock ,&nbsp;Peter Volker ,&nbsp;Darla Hatton MacDonald","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Natural capital accounting (NCA) provides a systematic framework to integrate broader economic and environmental data in a way that aligns with traditional financial accounting. This fuller set of information allows organisations to better manage their environmental risks and dependencies. However, NCA adoption remains limited and fragmented in the forestry sector. We utilise semi-structured interviews as part of an Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to examine the incentives and barriers faced by public and private forestry organisations in adopting NCA. This paper contributes to forestry management by querying the reasons for these gaps in adoption, as well as the barriers preventing adoption and utilisation of NCA at the organisational scale. We base our study in Tasmania, Australia, using its forest management system as a case study<em>.</em> We find that a wide range of Tasmanian organisations perceive clear incentives for adoption. Among them, recognised reporting approaches, access to financial markets and investment opportunities, additional data to inform decision-making, as well as new evidence to support social licence to operate. However, significant barriers exist, such as lack of baseline data, limited internal capacity and often ambiguous guidance on account compilation. These barriers could be addressed through greater standardisation of existing NCA frameworks, establishing accounting standards for natural capital, and increased private-public sector collaboration. Addressing these barriers could enable the adoption of NCA at scale, enhancing the management of natural resources.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 103441"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Natural capital accounting (NCA) provides a systematic framework to integrate broader economic and environmental data in a way that aligns with traditional financial accounting. This fuller set of information allows organisations to better manage their environmental risks and dependencies. However, NCA adoption remains limited and fragmented in the forestry sector. We utilise semi-structured interviews as part of an Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to examine the incentives and barriers faced by public and private forestry organisations in adopting NCA. This paper contributes to forestry management by querying the reasons for these gaps in adoption, as well as the barriers preventing adoption and utilisation of NCA at the organisational scale. We base our study in Tasmania, Australia, using its forest management system as a case study. We find that a wide range of Tasmanian organisations perceive clear incentives for adoption. Among them, recognised reporting approaches, access to financial markets and investment opportunities, additional data to inform decision-making, as well as new evidence to support social licence to operate. However, significant barriers exist, such as lack of baseline data, limited internal capacity and often ambiguous guidance on account compilation. These barriers could be addressed through greater standardisation of existing NCA frameworks, establishing accounting standards for natural capital, and increased private-public sector collaboration. Addressing these barriers could enable the adoption of NCA at scale, enhancing the management of natural resources.
采用自然资本核算:塔斯马尼亚森林管理制度的经验教训
自然资本会计(NCA)提供了一个系统框架,以与传统财务会计相一致的方式整合更广泛的经济和环境数据。这些更全面的信息使组织能够更好地管理其环境风险和依赖性。然而,在林业部门,NCA的采用仍然有限和分散。我们利用半结构化访谈作为制度分析和发展(IAD)框架的一部分,来研究公共和私营林业组织在采用NCA时面临的激励和障碍。本文通过查询这些采用差距的原因,以及在组织规模上阻止采用和利用NCA的障碍,为林业管理做出贡献。我们的研究以澳大利亚塔斯马尼亚州为基地,以其森林管理系统为案例研究。我们发现,塔斯马尼亚的许多组织都有明确的收养动机。其中包括公认的报告方法、进入金融市场和投资机会的途径、为决策提供信息的额外数据,以及支持社会经营许可证的新证据。但是,存在着重大障碍,例如缺乏基线数据、内部能力有限以及关于帐户编制的指导往往含糊不清。这些障碍可以通过进一步标准化现有的NCA框架、建立自然资本会计标准以及加强公私部门合作来解决。解决这些障碍可以使大规模采用NCA,加强对自然资源的管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信