MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409987934 · doi:10.1016/j.ecz.2025.100029

Towards 30×30 biodiversity targets: Potential contributions of ecological restoration based on biodiversity credit

2025· article· en· W4409987934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ningyu Yan, Gengyuan Liu, Marco Casazza, Xiji Chen, Zhifeng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Critical Zone · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiodiversityRestoration ecologyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) aims to safeguard at least 30 ​% of the world's land and ocean by 2030, global initiatives to restore, maintain, and enhance ecosystems are intensifying to meet these targets. However, the extent to which ecological restoration activities will contribute to achieving the 30 ​× ​30 biodiversity targets remains unclear. Herein, we employ a biodiversity credit accounting method—where a biodiversity credit is defined as a standardized, quantifiable unit of measurable conservation outcomes— to evaluate how ecological restoration activities, when integrated with dynamic credit pricing mechanisms, contribute synergistically to achieving GBF biodiversity targets. The results indicate that across the 157 ecological restoration projects, an estimated 210,709 biodiversity credits are anticipated. Greenway-, lake-, and river-oriented projects accounted for 69 ​%, 13 ​%, and 18 ​%, respectively. In general, greenway-oriented projects generate more credits per unit of cost than lake- and river-oriented projects but fewer credits per unit of land. The total estimated biodiversity credits are at 2.78 to 5.70 billion Chinese Yuan (CNY), based on the average credit transaction price in 2023, which covers 8–17 ​% of restoration costs. At the highest credit transaction price in 2023, credits can fully cover the restoration costs. This research establishes a connection between restoration projects and five GBF targets: protecting at least 28–30 ​% of land (Target 2), restoring ecosystem functions (Target 11), enhancing green spaces and urban planning (Target 12), integrating biodiversity into assessments (Target 14), and stimulating biodiversity offsets (Target 19). Identifying the benefits and contributions of restoration efforts strengthens our understanding of biodiversity conservation and may facilitate the formulation of action strategies to achieve as many GBF targets as possible. Contribution of this study to examining the targets of GBF by 2030. • Biodiversity credits offer a promising market-based approach to boost ecological restoration and conservation efforts. • Projects across various ecosystems can generate significant biodiversity credits, providing both ecological and economic benefits. • Restoration projects can contribute to multiple GBF targets, highlighting the role of biodiversity credits in achieving global biodiversity goals. • Biodiversity credits can partially cover restoration costs and contribute to a more sustainable and resilient economy.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Critical ZoneSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207