Public opinions of a net outcome policy: The case of biodiversity net gain in England.

Abstract

Increasingly, there is social pressure for organisations and governments to recognize and address their biodiversity impact or risk reputational (and potentially financial) damage. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is being introduced globally as a means of addressing biodiversity loss and has recently been mandated in England. Understanding public opinions of BNG is crucial for assessing the likelihood of BNG-related project rejection, which has significant implications for operational risk. Using a questionnaire with a nationally representative by age and gender (for England) sample of 500 people, we found that most respondents had limited knowledge of BNG, with 21 % reporting experience with a project aiming to achieve BNG, but generally accepted its core assumptions: that habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement can achieve net biodiversity gains after development losses (58.2 %), and that biodiversity can be measured using a standardised metric (42.8 %). While distrust was high among most actors involved in BNG, particularly developers (48.2 % somewhat or strongly distrust), wildlife charities and ecological consultants were trusted by most respondents (75.6 % and 66.0 % somewhat or strongly trust respectively). Over half (55.6 %) of the respondents felt that a project's environmental impact is acceptable if it achieves BNG. As a result, BNG may act to reassure the majority of the public about a project's biodiversity impacts thereby reducing operational risk. Our findings suggest four strategies to further boost BNG's acceptability: providing understandable information for stakeholders, involving trusted actors like wildlife charities, avoiding the use of pre-existing biodiversity credits; and ensuring developers are seen as responsible for compensatory sites.