: Received: 28 December 2021 / Approved: 4 January 2022 / Online: 4 January 2022 (15:20:18 CET)
: Received: 8 February 2022 / Approved: 9 February 2022 / Online: 9 February 2022 (10:50:06 CET)
: Received: 21 April 2022 / Approved: 21 April 2022 / Online: 21 April 2022 (17:37:36 CEST)
The needs for environmental reporting to include positive outcomes considering differences between creation of less harm, benefits and net benefits are explored. To become mainstream, nature-positive development needs positive messaging, measures and metrics to guide, plan and assess urban outcomes. With the accelerating climate crisis and negative messages getting the upper-hand, it’s important to avoid paralysis by bad news. Whilst striving for a nature-positive world, more effort should be on moving beyond zero to qualify and quantify benefits, gains, and regenerative outcomes instead of oscillating around damage and loss sticking points. Life Cycle Benefit Assessment (LCBA) is a method to measure gains in accelerating restoration and climate security. It enables a good news focus as its reach is to quantify and show positive gains beyond the negative and zero loss outcomes. The paper aims to clarify concepts, challenges and quantitative methods then review real-world third-party-certified case studies. Climate security, human wellness and resource viability gains inside safe operating space within planetary boundaries are quantified as positive benefits. Contrary to conventional Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) LCBA assigns damage and loss as negative debts and benefit as positive gains. It concludes that LCBA offers business and design a new environment assessment tool, with research needed on economic and other outcomes.
Nature-Positive; Quantified Benefit Assessment; Security; Wellness; Viability; Gain
EARTH SCIENCES, Environmental Sciences
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.