ReviewNature ecology & evolution2026
Five rules for scientifically credible nature markets.
Review in Nature ecology & evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A framework for unit-level biodiversity credit integrity and market-level governance.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nature markets are proliferating rapidly around the world, yet it is underacknowledged that they have been practised in various forms for decades. A large body of scientific research has shown that nature markets regularly do not achieve their environmental objectives and provides generalizable lessons to support their ongoing improvement. The scale of the biodiversity crisis and the enduring popularity of nature markets mean it is now critical to stop reproducing the same mistakes. Here we synthesize international research from the history of nature markets and summarize five rules that are necessary precursors for achieving their environmental aims. We propose a checklist for investors, policymakers and civil society to assess whether nature markets are likely to be delivering scientifically credible outcomes. We score the world's largest nature markets against these rules and show that all face integrity risks. Lastly, we outline critical evidence-based actions that can be taken to push nature markets towards greater integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41526661What 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.