MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407394491 · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103448

Towards an efficient implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in forests – An analysis of alternative voluntary conservation mechanisms and selection criteria

2025· article· en· W4407394491 on OpenAlex
Johanna Kangas, Markku Ollikainen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Policy and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKoneen Säätiö
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Biodiversity conservationBiodiversityNature ConservationBusinessTurnoverEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental economicsEconomicsEcologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the European Union's Biodiversity Strategy aim to halt biodiversity loss by 2030. Both include ambitious goals to increase the area of protected land and sea to 30 % with 10 % devoted to strict protection. The required land areas are large and challenge current instruments tailored to meet much less ambitious conservation goals. Forest conservation traditionally relies on voluntary flat-rate or cost compensation policies inviting predominantly conservation-minded landowners to conserve their forests. More efficient instruments are needed to meet the ambitious goals of forest biodiversity conservation. We examine how alternative auction mechanisms perform relative to the current instruments under different selection criteria in promoting strict conservation targets. We demonstrate that the studied mechanisms differ in their ability to invite sites to the conservation program. The auction incentivises higher participation from landowners who do not have strong conservation motives and decreases information rents from landowners with strong conservation motives. When selection criteria favour high-quality sites, like old-growth stands, the auction mechanisms outperform the cost compensation policy by providing the largest area of conserved land and the highest ecological values. Thus, auctions offer a promising option for implementing forest biodiversity conservation in accordance with the EU Biodiversity Strategy. • Ambitious biodiversity conservation targets for forests require new policy instruments. • Conservation auctions analysed against a cost compensation policy, data from a Finnish PES scheme. • Auctions outperform the widely applied cost compensation policy in most studied cases. • Auctions invite sites of higher quality and sites from landowners with low conservation motives. • Auctions can cost-effectively implement the conservation goals of the EU biodiversity strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it