Local people’s preferences for housing development-associated Biodiversity Net Gain in England

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) in England is a recently legislated mechanism for ensuring that the biodiversity impacts of new developments are appropriately mitigated. Despite the assumption that some elements, such as the preference for locally implemented offsetting of impacts, should provide benefits for people, the policy's focus is on ecological outcomes. The social feasibility of BNG guidelines has not been properly tested, nor has their generalisability across people and places. Understanding the preferences of local project-affected people for Biodiversity Net Gain and incorporating this into both policy and project-level decision-making is a critical step for managing trade-offs ex-ante, thereby maximising the likelihood that BNG projects benefit people’s wellbeing. Using a choice experiment of hypothetical BNG projects in the context of housing development, we examine the trade-offs between the features of the BNG project: distance from home; biodiversity level (species richness); off-site vs on-site biodiversity provision; public access to the offset site; and a non-biodiversity feature (provision of affordable housing). We found that public access and species richness were proportionally more important than proximity and the percentage provision of affordable housing. These preferences were of course, heterogeneous and determined by sociopsychological variables, e.g., captured in the notions of "attachment to place", connectedness to nature, socio-economic variables and rural versus urban location. The preferences expressed identify a range of BNG approaches that respect peoples' preferences and trade-offs, noting that acceptance depends to a great degree on outcomes that are either not an explicit priority (i.e., species richness) or are disincentivised (i.e., public access) by current BNG policy. For BNG to be publicly acceptable and socially sustainable, the study concludes that policy and practice must be flexible enough to incorporate place-specific preferences, especially relating to aspects of access to nature, localised notions of biodiversity, and broader cultural and aesthetic consequences of the development. • Choice experiments examine local people’s acceptance of biodiversity offsetting. • Local people have clear preferences for Biodiversity Net Gain compensation outcomes. • Public accessibility and species richness are the most influential offset outcomes. • Preferences varied according to age, income, geography, and place attachment. • Acceptance depended on outcomes not currently prioritised by net gain policy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Land Use Policy
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107758
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.13

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Local people’s preferences for housing development-associated Biodiversity Net Gain in England

Ben Groom, E.J. Milner‐Gulland, Amber Butler
1 citations
Land Use Policy
Economic and Environmental Valuation
3.13
article

Local people’s preferences for housing development-associated Biodiversity Net Gain in England

Ben Groom, E.J. Milner‐Gulland, Amber Butler
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) in England is a recently legislated mechanism for ensuring that the biodiversity impacts of new developments are appropriately mitigated. Despite the assumption that some elements, such as the preference for locally implemented offsetting of impacts, should provide benefits for people, the policy's focus is on ecological outcomes. The social feasibility of BNG guidelines has not been properly tested, nor has their generalisability across people and places. Understanding the preferences of local project-affected people for Biodiversity Net Gain and incorporating this into both policy and project-level decision-making is a critical step for managing trade-offs ex-ante, thereby maximising the likelihood that BNG projects benefit people’s wellbeing. Using a choice experiment of hypothetical BNG projects in the context of housing development, we examine the trade-offs between the features of the BNG project: distance from home; biodiversity level (species richness); off-site vs on-site biodiversity provision; public access to the offset site; and a non-biodiversity feature (provision of affordable housing). We found that public access and species richness were proportionally more important than proximity and the percentage provision of affordable housing. These preferences were of course, heterogeneous and determined by sociopsychological variables, e.g., captured in the notions of "attachment to place", connectedness to nature, socio-economic variables and rural versus urban location. The preferences expressed identify a range of BNG approaches that respect peoples' preferences and trade-offs, noting that acceptance depends to a great degree on outcomes that are either not an explicit priority (i.e., species richness) or are disincentivised (i.e., public access) by current BNG policy. For BNG to be publicly acceptable and socially sustainable, the study concludes that policy and practice must be flexible enough to incorporate place-specific preferences, especially relating to aspects of access to nature, localised notions of biodiversity, and broader cultural and aesthetic consequences of the development. • Choice experiments examine local people’s acceptance of biodiversity offsetting. • Local people have clear preferences for Biodiversity Net Gain compensation outcomes. • Public accessibility and species richness are the most influential offset outcomes. • Preferences varied according to age, income, geography, and place attachment. • Acceptance depended on outcomes not currently prioritised by net gain policy.

Land Use PolicyVol. 158
University of Exeter (GB), University of Oxford (GB), London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government, Natural Environment Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
3.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.