Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41526661›Full record

ReviewNature ecology & evolution2026

Five rules for scientifically credible nature markets.

Sophus O S E Zu Ermgassen, Tom Swinfield, Joseph W Bull, Natalie E Duffus, Andrew Macintosh, Martine Maron, Sebastian Theis, Thomas White, Megan C Evans

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sophus O S E Zu ErmgassenNature-Positive Hub, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. sophus.zuermgassen@biology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6044-3389
Tom Swinfield *Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9354-5090
Joseph W BullNature-Positive Hub, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7337-8977
Natalie E DuffusNature-Positive Hub, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7126-4909
Andrew MacintoshAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5700-7105
Martine MaronSchool of the Environment and Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5563-5789
Sebastian TheisDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9840-3806
Thomas WhiteNature-Positive Hub, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Megan C Evans *School of Business, University of New South Wales Canberra at ADFA, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6763-310X

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) GA-101036849RCUK | Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) NE/S007474/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural Resources

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.