Carbon Credits and the Ethics of the Biodiversity Crisis
Introduction
We understand the world to be a diverse place that is home to a variety of species.
The word we use to describe this idea is biodiversity (Díaz & Malhi 2022). We use
biodiversity to interpret the amount of diversity in a particular area by measuring diversity at
the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels (UNDRR 2019). Approaching biodiversity from
these three areas allows us to monitor the health of individual species populations as well
as the health of the ecosystem. When we refer to biodiversity loss, we can refer to both loss
of genetic diversity within a population or loss of the population entirely (Shin et. al. 2022).
This can be caused by several factors, including habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution,
and climate shifts. As human societies have expanded, habitat loss and fragmentation has
worsened. Building of new cities and homes often means environmental degradation to
make way for new construction whether by outright destruction of habitat or by pollution
(Singh, Shukla, and Singh 2021). Forests have been bulldozed to make way for new
farmland, creating benefits economically, but negative impacts environmentally. Forests
serve as zones of carbon sequestration, an essential ecosystem service for mitigating
climate change, and when the forest is cut down, not only is that service lost, but the
sequestered carbon then gets released into the atmosphere, worsening the problem of
carbon emissions (Singh, Shukla, and Singh 2021).
To mitigate climate change and habitat loss, create more conservation areas, and
preserve habitats, conservation groups have worked on a number of strategies. One such
strategy has been to take the model of the carbon credit system and apply it to biodiversity
(Kujala, et. al. 2022). The carbon credit system allows companies that need to meet
emissions standards to buy credits for carbon sequestered elsewhere so that these
companies can meet their quota for lowering emissions. This has been up for debate on
effectiveness because the lowering of emissions in one area does not account for pollution
being continued in another area (Dutschke and Schlamadinger 2003). However, because
carbon emissions and sequestration can be measured, many see this as an effective
strategy to address carbon emissions (van der Gaast, Sikkema, and Vohrer 2016). Recently,
some conservationists have borrowed the idea of a carbon credit system and shifted the
focus to biodiversity. This credit system allows companies to buy biodiversity credits that
promote biodiversity projects and contribute to meeting conservation quotas, much as
they do for carbon. A major problem here is that biodiversity cannot be quantified in the
same way as carbon emissions (Ives and Bekessy 2015). To construct buildings over a
wetland while buying biodiversity credits that conserve a forest does not make up for the
loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the bulldozed wetland. Proponents say that
creating a market for biodiversity in this way will produce more funding for conservation
projects and overall improve conservation outcomes (Flammer, Giroux, and Heal 2025).
3However, this credit system will not replace the need for public policy to address the
biodiversity loss crisis, and a credit system creates an ethical quandary. This article argues
that trading biodiversity in this way is unethical because it creates a hierarchy in which
certain environments’ biodiversity is seen as more valuable, negating inherent value and
value of ecosystem services.
Background on Biodiversity Loss
Biodiversity loss today is primarily anthropogenic, or human caused. Expansion of
human cities has led to ecosystems being built over and fragmented by development. The
growing of cities tends to be economically beneficial for people while being detrimental to
wildlife. Fragmentation of habitats have meant increased human-animal interactions as
wildlife try to navigate the changing landscape (Yuan, Zhang, and Zhang 2024). While
human development has led to prosperity for many people, destruction of the environment
is not beneficial for everyone in the short term, and beneficial for no one in the long run.
Our current capitalistic, mixed, free market economy bears a utilitarian philosophy of
extraction for the purposes of human need (Ogali 2022). The idea that we need lumber for
building, therefore, we need to cut down forests exemplifies utilitarian thinking. Maximizing
the overall benefit requires the utilitarian to specify who the benefits are for. If benefiting
humans, the environment becomes a resource to be utilized to fuel consumption. This
deemphasizes responsibility to nature if human needs are being met. However, human
needs and the environment are intertwined. In the United States, Westward Expansion
drove people across the country to settle in the grassland prairies of the Midwest. States
such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado were seen as havens for
white settlers hoping to make their fortune in farming (McLeman, et. al. 2013). In the early
twentieth century, new technologies began to emerge, the ability for humans to transform
their environment was brought to an industrial scale. As cities started to rapidly expand,
farmers in the Midwest were able to use new tractor and tilling technologies to plant huge
monocrop farms (McLeman et. al. 2013). Tearing through and removing native grasses, the
farmers were able to manufacture an agricultural boom, producing one of the largest wheat
harvests the world had ever seen (Borowski 2012). This was seen as economically
beneficial and utilitarian in its philosophy. Human needs were being met on such a scale
that the market could not support the boom, causing surpluses that the government had to
subsidize. Furthermore, this destructive form of farming led to one of the worst
environmental disasters in American history: The Dustbowl.
The Dustbowl serves as a reminder of how important biodiversity is to the health of
the ecosystem, and to the people living there. Aggressive tilling of the soil and the planting
of singular crop species led to native species dying off. Buffalo populations dwindled due
to lack of native vegetation and rampant hunting. Countless other native species began to
disappear from the plains, replaced by rows of farmland. By the 1930’s, the tactics used to
farm had destroyed the soil, leaving it dry, desolate, and dusty. When winds kicked up, they
now carried massive amounts of dirt in the form of dust particles, further stripping the land
of nutrients. The massive dust storms proved deadly to both animals and humans, as the
environmental damage was indiscriminate in its harm. Dust filled the lungs of cows,
5horses, and people, choking out life from the environment. The soil health being so poor
made it near impossible to grow anything edible for both animals and humans, and many
people were forced to leave their homesteads to try to find opportunity and healthy air
elsewhere. For those unable or unwilling to leave their homes, they had to endure not only
the environmental hardships caused by the dust storms, but the economic ones as well.
The short boom in farming had led to resource extraction on a scale the environment could
not support, and it therefore collapsed, tanking the local economies that relied on
agriculture income (McLeman, et. al. 2014). With the situation becoming untenable, the
government stepped in to discern if the environment could be saved, or if it should be
abandoned as a loss to industrialization. The Dustbowl is one of the first government
responses to an environmental disaster where conservation measures needed to be
mandated in order to regain environmental stability (McLeman, et. al. 2014). This is also
where we begin to see the rise of conservation easements, where people are paid to keep
their land undeveloped and as part of the natural ecosystem. People were being given
money and tax breaks to restore the environment. The land was more valuable to
conservation than it was to agriculture during this time, and Aldo Leopold’s theories about
biocentrism gained traction (Mangrum 2021). The conservation movement began to take
on ethics of the inherent value of nature, and the deontological view that we should
conserve nature because it is right to do so, regardless of the benefits to humans.
As the 1900’s steamed ahead, it was becoming more apparent that humans were
impacting the environment in immense ways. The horrors of the Dustbowl were only part of
the story of environmental destruction. Throughout the early 1900’s-1960’s, the Cuyahoga
River caught on fire over a dozen times due to pollution, and air pollution hung over cities
like a constant fog, which came to be referred to by the colloquialism “smog” (Stradling and
Stradling 2008). Aldo Leopold and other conservationists like John Muir, and Rachel Carson
began to shift the conversation around what conservation means to humans, prompting a
wide cultural shift in how we interact with the environment (Mangrum 2021). They
introduced the idea that humans are a part of the environment and not separate from it.
Therefore, we impact the environment, and those impacts affect human health and
wellbeing. This shift led to the groundbreaking environmental legislation of the Clean Air
Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. These pieces of legislation laid the
groundwork for conservation in the United States, focusing energy and funds on the
problem of creating a stable and habitable environment for all living things. The
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) specifically focuses on the issue of biodiversity loss
at the species level (Carroll, et. al. 2021). Under the ESA, species that are threatened or
endangered are allotted certain protections to safeguard the remaining populations from
further loss. This includes the designation of critical habitat, in which a species’ essential
6habitat is identified and protected from most forms of development (Carroll, et. al. 2021).
Conservationists praise these protections because they provide ecological benefits to both
the environment and people who benefit from the ecosystem services and the beauty of
green spaces.
However, this critical habitat designation has received much criticism from oil, gas,
mineral, and lumber industries that seek to develop the land to maximize economic profits.
These companies take an anthropocentric, utilitarian approach, putting profits and jobs at
the center of the discussion, whereas conservationists argue a more biocentric approach
that values all living things. Regardless of opinion, the ESA does have notable
shortcomings. In addition to long wait times for listing, the biggest hurdle that the ESA
faces in protecting endangered species is a lack of funding. Funding challenges
conservation worldwide, as there is seen to be more value in development of land for
economic gain rather than keeping ecosystem services and the intrinsic value of the land.
Conservationists have worked diligently to conserve species despite these funding
challenges, but the obstacle of money persists.
Discussion
The newest idea to emerge to subsidize conservation efforts and mitigate
biodiversity loss is to sell biodiversity credits. Much like carbon credits, biodiversity credits
seek to quantify biodiversity units and sell them to companies that need to meet
conservation goals and regulations. The idea is to create a market economy for biodiversity,
where biodiversity could be bought and traded, similar to the stock market (Cui, Hou,
Wang, and Wen 2022). This approach aligns with anthropocentric utilitarian thinking, where
human needs are still considered paramount. The biodiversity credit system creates a
hierarchy in which environments are divided up into categories of importance (Ives and
Beckessy 2015). Proponents of this system promote the ability to fund biodiversity projects
in ecologically important areas such as wetlands or forests, while still stimulating the
economy by developing on “undesirable” land, such as a desert or grassland. Here we see
the issue with biodiversity credits creating concessions for harmful development in one
area as long as another area is preserved. Taking a utilitarian approach may incorporate
economic interests as equal to conservation interests, but ultimately, defining certain
habitats as undesirable and others as important negates intrinsic value of environment.
Grasslands and forests are as comparable as apples and oranges in their ecological value.
The way that grasslands function to foster biodiversity is dissimilar from a forest because
the environments are different. Trading biodiversity in forests for development in grasslands
is not an equal trade. Furthermore, both grasslands and forests have intrinsic value beyond
how humans value it. Taking humans out of the picture, the grassland and the forest would
still function ecologically, and the value that it possesses as an environment that is home
to many species remains. Therefore, creating a system to compare these environments to
be traded on the market is not equitable or ethical. A biodiversity credit system creates an
ethical loophole for companies seeking to absolve themselves of guilt or responsibility for
the environmental harm they cause by normal operations (Ives and Beckessy 2015). Rather
than seeking to improve methodology and operations to be more sustainable, companies
can buy these credits and continue business as usual. A common term for this is
“greenwashing”, where companies tout themselves as being champions for conservation
or sustainability, while not improving their business habits to become more sustainable
(Zhao and Lee 2024).
Biodiversity credits are another form of greenwashing. Many companies and
individuals have positioned themselves to align with a virtue ethics perspective
emphasizing stewardship and sustainability as part of their identity but then have unethical
business practices. This has to do with virtue ethic’s subjective definition of goodness and
responsibility to the environment. A company may set conservation goals but not change
their actual business practices to reflect those goals, rather focusing on buying biodiversity
8credits to meet their quota (Ives and Beckessy 2015). Ultimately, this greenwashing still
produces environmental harm and therefore does not align with ethical practices. An
example is when companies are outward conservationists in their marketing and pricing
but ultimately use unethical labor practices to produce the product (Adamkiewicz,
Kochańska, Adamkiewicz, and Łukasik 2022). This is where the intersection of
environmental justice and biodiversity credits come into play. Conservation does not come
without equity, and when we discuss biodiversity loss, it is always worth noting that low-
income communities worldwide are those that rely most on critical ecosystem services
such as temperature and flood control (Herreros-Cantis and McPhearson 2021). When
buying biodiversity credits, the devaluing of one environment over another creates inequity
for the people living in those environments. When biodiversity credits are purchased for the
preservation of one environment, it could mean the destruction of another. For people, that
could mean being displaced as was the case in India in 2019 when the Supreme Court
ordered millions of people to vacate a forested area for the purpose of wildlife conservation
efforts (Broome and Stevens 2019). This infringed on human rights, while not
accomplishing the proposed conservation efforts.
Conservation is predicated on environmental justice. Without equity in our social
systems, we cannot hope to create ethical credit transfer systems. Environmental racism
similarly devalues land based on the people that live on it, creating a trading system that
echoes biodiversity credits. In the United States, areas where people of color live are more
likely to house toxic waste dump sites than areas with white people (Henderson and Wells
2021). This is another example of trading one environment for another, with little regard to
the people, animals, and plants that live there. Though biodiversity credits are attempting
to solve biodiversity loss, they are not equitable or ethical and do not disavow companies
of the responsibility to reform their business practices to become more sustainable and
equitable.
The biodiversity credit system has been modeled after systems that promote
inequity by only allowing a few individuals access to the system. The Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) included equity as one of the promoters of biodiversity, placing a
high priority on creating equitable systems of resource management (Frankham 2022).
Many of the problems associated with biodiversity loss, habitat loss and fragmentation,
pollution and degradation, can all be associated with social inequities and the promotion
of unsustainable practices (Díaz and Malhi 2022). Sustainability does not simply mean
mitigating environmental harm, it also means paying workers fairly, providing equitable
housing, improving agricultural practices, and a cultural shift towards lowering
consumption. If people’s basic needs are met, then they have space to make choices
about sustainability. If people are struggling and surviving, they may not have access or the
9option to choose more sustainably. When basic needs are met, we can then explore
adopting a wider biocentric philosophy, one which relies on participation in the ideal.
Participation in this case looks like environmental stewardship, where management and
utilization of resources is contrasted with the needs of the environment to maintain
sustainable growth and development. Stewardship focuses not on resource extraction but
rather seeks to create a relationship with the earth (Turnbull, Clark, and Johnston 2021).
This practice incorporates intrinsic value into the thought process as we start to view the
land as more than just a utility. Continuing and further increasing the prevalence of
programs such as conservation easements, where incentives are given to keep the land
natural and biodiverse, could create an equitable solution without trading one environment
for another (Kemink, Adams, Pressey, and Walker 2020). This means a radical reinvestment
in the environment, where land values are equitable for promoting biodiversity.
We cannot seek to create ethical systems of conservation that borrow from ethically
dubious precedent. Creating a market for biodiversity in a capitalistic way pulls focus from
the issues of equity inherent in the credit trading system. Instead, the focus should be on
creating social equity, fostering a relationship with local environments, and investing in
green infrastructure to lessen our resource requirements (Deivanayagam, et. al. 2023). This
includes creating conservation requirements for companies that cannot be circumvented
by the purchasing of credits. This could be modeled after the emissions requirements
regulations, where companies are required to lower their emissions by a certain threshold.
By identifying unsustainable practices within industries, standards can be set to reach
sustainability goals. Holding businesses and governments accountable for their lack of
sustainability is a part of environmental stewardship. Using purchasing power to influence
how companies operate is another example of stewardship practices (Deivanayagam, et.
al. 2023). Demanding from companies and officials that the environment should be
respected demonstrates value that goes beyond human need. Honoring treaties and giving
land back to indigenous people moves the needle closer to equity, highlighting a
relationship to the land that goes beyond owned value. These proposed solutions seek to
create socio-cultural shifts towards a more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive society,
ultimately revaluing the environment as more than just a “natural resource” or credit to
trade for human consumption.
References:
Adamkiewicz, Julia, Ewa Kochańska, Iwona Adamkiewicz, and Rafał M. Łukasik. 2022.
“Greenwashing and sustainable fashion industry.” Current Opinion in Green and
Sustainable Chemistry, Volume 38, December 2022, ISSN 100710.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452223622001225
Borowski, Susan. 2012. “The Dust Bowl: A wake-up call in environmental practices.”
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Published December 3, 2012.
https://www.aaas.org/taxonomy/term/10/dust-bowl-wake-call-environmental-
practices#:~:text=Between%201925%20and%201930%2C%20plenty,to%20easily%20be
%20swept%20away.
Broome, Neema Pathak and Stan Stevens. 2019. “Blog: India’s Supreme Court order
threatens conservation, livelihoods, and rights in India’s protected areas and forests.”
IUCN. Published March 11, 2019. https://iucn.org/news/commission-environmental-
economic-and-social-policy/201903/blog-indias-supreme-court-order-threatens-
conservation-livelihoods-and-rights-indias-protected-areas-and-
forests#:~:text=The%20India%20Supreme%20Court's%20interim,2006%20(Forest%20Rig
hts%20Act).
Carroll, Carlos, Daniel J. Rohlf, Bridgett M. vonHoldt, Adrian Treves, and Sarah A.
Hendricks. 2021. “Wolf Delisting Challenges Demonstrate Need for an Improved
Framework for Conserving Intraspecific Variation under the Endangered Species Act.”
BioScience, Volume 71, Issue 1, January 2021, pages 73-84.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/71/1/73/5941853
Cui, Chuyun, Yilei Hou, Tianyi Wang, and Yali Wen. 2022. “Biodiversity conservation
supported by finance: Global practice and policy enlightenment.” Biodiversity Science,
Volume 30, Issue 11, 2022. https://www.biodiversity-
science.net/EN/abstract/abstract93031.shtml
Deivanayagam, Thilagawathi Abi, Sonora English, Prof. Jason Hickel, Ph.D., Jon Bonafacio,
Renzo R. Guinto, Kyle X Hill, Mita Huq, Rita Issa, Hans Mulindwa, Heizal Patricia Nagginda,
Priscila de Morais Sato, Sujitha Selvarajah, Chetna Sharma, and Prof. Delan Devakumar,
Ph.D. 2023. “Envisioning environmental equity: climate change, health, and racial justice.”
Health Policy, Volume 402, Issue 10395, pages 64-78.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00919-4/fulltext
Díaz, Sandra, and Yadvinder Malhi. 2022. “Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, Trends, and
Perspectives.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 47, 2022, pages 31-
1163. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120120-
054300
Dutschke, Michale and Bernhard Schlamadinger. 2003. “Practical Issues Concerning
Temporary Carbon Credits in the CDM.” Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics,
Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA) Discussion Paper 227, 2003.
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/26241/?v=pdf
Flammer, Caroline, Thomas Giroux, Geoffrey M. Heal. 2025. “Biodiversity finance.” Journal
of Financial Economics, Volume 164, February 2025, article no. 103987.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X24002101
Frankham, Richard. 2022. “Evaluation of proposed genetic goals and targets for the
Convention on Biological Diversity.” Conservation Genetics,
van der Gaast, Wytze, Richard Sikkema, and Moriz Vohrer. 2016. “The contribution of forest
carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge.” Climate Policy, Volume
18, 2018, pages 42-48 (2016).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1242056
Herreros-Cantis, Pablo, and Timon McPhearson. 2021. “Mapping supply of and demand for
ecosystem services to assess environmental justice in New York City.” Ecological
Applications, Volume 31, Issue 6, September 2021. Published June 17, 2021.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eap.2390
Henderson, Sheree and Rebecca Wells. 2021. “Environmental Racism and the
Contamination of Black Lives: A Literature Review.” Journal of African American Studies,
Volume 25, pages 134-151, (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12111-020-
09511-5
Ives, Christopher D. and Sarah A. Bekessy. 2015. “The ethics of offsetting nature.” Front
Ecol Environ, Volume 13, Issue 10, 2015, pages 568-573. doi:10.1890/150021
Kemink, Kaylan M., Vanessa M. Adams, Robert L. Pressey, and Johann A. Walker. 2020. “A
synthesis of knowledge about motives for participation in perpetual conservation
easements.” Conservation Science and Practice, Volume3, Issue 2, February 2021. First
published November 16, 2020.
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.323
Kujala, Heini, Martine Maron, Christina M. Kennedy, Megan C. Evans, Joseph W. Bull,
Brendan A Wintle, Sayed M. Iftekhar, Kagtherine E. Selwood, Kahli Bessiner, Dave Osborn,
and Ascelin Gordon. 2022. “Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers
to confirm no net loss.” One Earth, Volume 5, Issue 6, pages 650-662, Published June 17,
122022. https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(22)00266-
4?uuid=uuid%3Ac7fe3911-745e-4e09-9add-4776e91366db
Mangrum, Benjamin. 2021. “Rachel Carson, Environmental Rights, and the Publicity of
Aesthetic Judgements.” ELH, Volume 88, No. 3, Fall 2021, pages 765-793.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/804224/summary
McLeman, Robert A., Juliette Dupre, Lea Berrand Ford, James Ford, Konrad Gajewski, and
Gregory Marchildon. 2013. “What we learned from the Dust Bowl: lessons in science,
policy, and adaptation.” Population and Environment, Volume 35, 2014, pages 417-440.
Published August 28, 2013. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z
Ogali, Matthew Dayi Ph.D. 2022. “Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Theory, Captialism, and
Global Industrial Pollution.” Academic Journal of Current Research, Volume 9, Issue 1,
January 2022.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/108633940/Bentham_Industrial_Pollution-
libre.pdf?1702157391=&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DJEREMY_BENTHAMS_UTILITARIAN_THEORY_CAPIT.p
df&Expires=1741481381&Signature=Kcp1ObbNXlsv22KiViuS2nTWSX9Ir62Nxp7vNngxG7c
wYQsqdxc0L2IkV0Ec3p6lSXd2d-
jBe3owmXwgAUwhR8AOP6DTU7SxZjrxdtyBknYwddoCsEO72WWmZM6eTNN4QFU9qB1nH
Xjg8dwvHEzITGo-MBuiG6r-
65slDKlMA0sDz9I8jKamc7de1OHIpp77SvwVDpPR~UBL4gziRR5i4gb5cqIXtnQ-
rXKDZysWs9eDlMCarg4Fb-BtDpuk4o98-
dU2HB32JnkKM7Fa8didmUqJ9Qwc9tHDrM8S9L45uKgy2JCGVhtYRhB6XmSsQwVOCUTctt
gjU5iPQEf5qOeBDw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Shin, Yunne-Jai, Guy F. Midgley, Emma R. M. Archer, Almut Arneth, David K. A. Barnes, Lena
Chan, Shizuka Hashimoto, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Gregory Insarov, Paul Leadley, Lisa A.
Levin, Hein T. Ngo, Ram Pandit, Aliny P. F. Piers, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Alex D. Rogers, Robert J.
Scholes, Josef Settele, and Pete Smith. 2022. “Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally
benefit the climate.” Global Change Biology, Volume 28, Issue 9, May 2022, pages 2846-
2874. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.16109
Singh, Vijeta, Shikha Shukla, and Anamika Singh. 2021. “The principal factors responsible
for biodiversity loss.” Open Journal of Plant Science, Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 11-14, 2021.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/101397970/OJPS-6-126-
libre.pdf?1682263908=&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_principal_factors_responsible_for_bi.pdf&Expire
s=1741477406&Signature=MaX1MKOAv91elqNbDwvHRpwXYmaIV8pqESjRFLsPRPRKgiG2i
13j2-GkYOstEtqs2xfXoEXYXd5SFlZy8AfWnaI02~-
7VQFQ2KTh1SztO4voYPh~Lu997uaIBXh0mdfzpqd1aciJf2djlxH4BQLFb67clfrTsnsaLf6UDL
w-l1p0QK0LE9o1q5NczAR5lHBL-
vrVEBzdH6uY3GT3j3b9PGltpJosRhZpyVQQQ26A3zlgoqmB3MGHg4OCb6tV0B0QNA9hyiso
q-81w6Dlga~aGyrjsQ1UOU~PBmzBwXmZwyvVQfkaf~hcmKFo3jJvwK037MrQhaUtPNU-
rgs-uRkSLt~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Stradling, David, and Richard Stradling. 2008. “Perceptions of the Burning River:
Deindustrialization and Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River.” Environmental History, Volume 13,
Issue 3, July 2008.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1093/envhis/13.3.515?journalCode=eh
Turnbull, John W., Graeme F. Clark, and Emma L. Johnston. 2021. “Conceptualising
sustainability through environmental stewardship and virtuous cycles—a new empirically-
grounded model.” Sustainability Science, Volume 16, Pages 1475-1487. Published June 9,
2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-021-00981-4
UNDRR. 2019. “Biodiversity Loss.” Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk
Reduction. Last updated December 20, 2019. https://www.undrr.org/understanding-
disaster-
risk/terminology/hips/en0008#:~:text=Biodiversity%20loss%20refers%20to%20the,global
%20extinctions%20to%20population%20extinctions%2C
Yuan, Rongyan, Ning Zhang, and Qing Zhang. 2024. “The impact of habitat loss and
fragmentation on biodiversity in global protected areas.” Science of the Total Environment,
Volume 931, June 25, 2024, article no. 173004.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724031516
Zhao, Ya-Nan, and Chien-Chiang Lee. 2024. “The impact of vertical environmental
regulation mechanism on greenwashing.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 475,
October 10, 2024, ISSN 143637.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652624030865
14
