The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the contribution of land capital to the growth of emissions and income per capita in the long run. We collect new satellite data from the Earth Observatory to obtain estimates of the Enhanced Vegetation Index at the country level for the period 2000–2015. We use these data and the World Bank wealth estimates of natural capital to calibrate and empirically test an extension of the Green Solow model with land degradation and land capital investment. We show that the model is consistent with the cross-country variation in growth rates of carbon emissions per capita and find that there is convergence at the global level, with the contribution of land capital investment to the growth of emissions being negative and significant in all specifications.

This paper investigates potential biodiversity valuation tools which actuaries could use in their work. It is an initial research paper into a selection of UK-based biodiversity valuation tools identified by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs in its publication “Enabling a Natural Capital Approach Guidance”. The “Enabling a Natural Capital Approach Guidance” publication is seen as a comprehensive practical guide to natural capital and therefore is determined a sensible starting point on which to base this research. This research paper is not intended to be an exhaustive exploration of all biodiversity tools available, but rather is intended to identify a selection of tools which may be candidates for further research into their actuarial use case. We conclude that there are tools which merit additional research, and we recommend that these tools be further investigated to understand (i) the specific actuarial use case(s), (ii) whether the tools are applicable to direct infrastructure investments only or a broad range of asset classes, and (iii) whether their scope can be extended beyond the UK.

This paper highlights the urgent need for actuaries to take into account the importance, perils and impacts of global biodiversity risks. The Biodiversity and Natural Capital Working Party has been set up to take forward a series of activities including think pieces, webinars and external engagement to ensure our proactive engagement with these risks.

This paper introduces the concept of Natural Capital and explores the implications for actuarial work by way of case studies. It is part of a wider series of IFoA papers focussing on the risks from global biodiversity loss and how these risks can be mitigated.

Biodiversity points are a quantitative measure for biodiversity. For over a decade, biodiversity points are being applied in the Netherlands for measuring the impact of roads, enclosure dams, and other water management projects on the non-use value of biodiversity. Biodiversity points are quite similar to the quality-adjusted life years used for cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare treatments. Biodiversity points can be calculated by multiplying the size of the ecotope (e.g., number of hectare), the ecological quality of the ecotope (0–100 %), and the ecological scarcity of each type of ecotope. For many infrastructure projects, the impact on the non-use value of biodiversity can be a principal purpose or a major co-benefit or trade-off, for example, for a park, a fish sluice, a road, an ecoduct, an enclosure dam, or a marine protected area. Biodiversity points are a simple, transparent, and standardized way to aggregate and quantify the qualitative or ordinal assessments by ecological experts. For measuring the non-use value of biodiversity, they are also more informative than valuation by revealed or stated preferences methods. This paper provides the first overview of the application of this method in the Dutch practice of cost–benefit analysis. It also discusses its merits and limitations. The calculation and use of biodiversity points are illustrated by four case studies.

No net loss approaches to environmental policy claim that policy should maintain aggregate levels of natural capital. Substitutability between natural assets allows losses in some assets to be compensated for by gains in others while maintaining overall levels of natural capital. This paper argues that significant goods that matter to people’s well-being will be lost through a policy of no net loss. The concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services that underpin the no net loss approach to environmental policy cannot capture important dimensions of value that are central to human well-being.

Community gardens, as previous research has found are as much about growing the community and the individuals involved, as gardening itself. The study of Green Synergy's community garden initiatives within Lincoln's relatively deprived Abbey Ward provided an exceptional case study in which to review the inter-relationship of impact both at a community and individual level. The social element of community gardening in building connections between social and natural capital is explored, and how community gardens can provide a ‘counter-narrative’ to perceptions of place and individual well-being.

The qualitative research approach which included observation, interviews, a focus group and workshop was designed to reflect the wide scope of the projects and generate both individual and communal reflection on the projects. The themes that emerged open up a further understanding of the multiple dynamics arising from the collaborative creation of ‘green spaces’ in providing bonding and bridging social capital within communities, together with challenging narratives of individual and community capacity. In so doing, it adds to existing research evidence on the diverse community connections, spaces and products that community gardening engenders.

Ecosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

We study the sustainability of long-run growth in a two-sector economy where a renewable natural resource is exploited under private property rights. We obtain short- and long-run growth trajectories in closed form, examine transitional dynamics, and characterize convergence properties. We find conditions for sustainable long-run growth, which depend on the harvesting rate, and show that the speed of convergence decreases during transition. We identify a stronger version of Hartwick's rule and analyze parameter dependences for endogenous variables. Economic growth relies less on abundance or scarcity of natural resources than on the way they are managed.