ArticleEnvironmental management2025
Market-Based Instruments for Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes: An Evaluation of Quality Criteria in a German case study.
Article in Environmental management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Market-based instruments (MBIs) for the protection and promotion of biodiversity have gained significant importance in recent years. The success of MBIs depends largely on the transparent presentation of their actual effects, which rely on the quality of implementation. Quality criteria can be used to evaluate this. To date, few studies have examined whether and how these criteria are applied. This study seeks to address this gap, by using MBIs in the German agricultural landscape as a case study. Quality criteria were defined on the basis of a literature review; then applied to MBIs identified through an internet search and finally analyzed. Quality criteria related to methodological approaches (implementation, maintenance, used seed mixtures) and quality control (monitoring, localization) are presented less frequently than information on rights and obligations or the use of financial funds. Among the 151 MBIs analyzed, 70% lack control mechanisms and monitoring systems, indicating unverified effectiveness. Additionally, MBIs financed through program approaches are more likely to have control mechanisms and include perennial measures than MBIs funded by direct payments of sponsors or consumers purchasing a product. The development of MBI offerings suggests that there is persistent and growing demand, as some programs have been running for several decades. However, without ecological monitoring, it is not possible to ascertain whether these measures benefit biodiversity. To establish standardized methods for comparing MBIs for biodiversity, policymakers must consider official guidelines and, where appropriate, implement regulatory frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.