Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making the Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Engineering and Ecosystems

  • 242 Accesses

Abstract

Nature-based solutions, which combine natural and modified ecosystems, are becoming an increasingly important means of addressing environmental and business challenges in a cost-effective manner. The adoption of this natural technology within a company or organization, however, can be challenging as it requires adjusting, often long-standing, engineering, finance, and business practices. In this chapter, we present an example of a tool, the nature scorecard, that was developed and implemented to help drive the adoption of nature-based solutions within one company – The Dow Chemical Company – through its collaboration with The Nature Conservancy. This tool was designed to provide information on a project’s environmental components and performance to complement traditional financial metrics, such as return on investment. We present both technical details of the tool and key qualitative characteristics that should be considered in the development of similar tools and resources. Going forward, robust scientifically grounded information and metrics, like those provided from the nature scorecard, will be critical for driving the continual adoption and integration of nature-based solutions in business decisions. Ultimately, the tool presented here is just one example; future iterations of the tool will need to be informed by on-the-ground use and new relevant science and data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An exception was made to the water availability metric, which has two subcomponents (surface water and groundwater) that each have their own components. Which subcomponent is analyzed for a given site depends on that site’s water intake methods (e.g., groundwater or surface water sources) – sites that intake from both surface and groundwater sources take an average of both subcomponents.

References

  • Business Wire. 2011. “Dow and The Nature Conservancy Announce Collaboration to Value Nature.” Press Release, Midland, MI (January 24). Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110124006239/en/Dow-Nature-Conservancy-Announce-Collaboration-Nature.

  • Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Richard P. Sharp, Charlotte Weil, Elena M. Bennett, Unai Pascual, Katie K. Arkema, Kate A. Brauman, et al. 2019. “Global Modeling of Nature’s Contributions to People.” Science 366 (6462): 255–58. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Jarod, France Guertin, Todd Guidry, Martha Rogers, Zen Saunders, Michael Uhl. 2021. “Lessons Learned from a Corporate Manufacturer on Driving the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4442.

  • DiMuro, Johnathan, Guertin, France, Helling, Rich, Perkins, Jessica and Romer, Scanlon. 2014. “A Financial and Environmental Analysis of Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 18: 631–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Dow Chemical Company. 2021. “Valuing Nature.” Retrieved from https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/science-and-sustainability/2025-goals/nature.html.

  • The Dow Chemical Company and The Nature Conservancy. 2017. “Working Together to Value Nature: 2017 Summary Report.” Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Dow-TNC%202017%20Collaboration%20Report.pdf.

  • (ESII) Ecosystem Services Inventory and Identification Tool. 2021. “ESII: The tool that helps you make better decisions. Better for your organization and better for nature.” Retrieved from https://www.esiitool.com/.

  • Feng, S., Gao, D., Liao, F., Zhou, F. and Wang, X., 2016. “The health effects of ambient PM2. 5 and potential mechanisms.” Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 128, pp.67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guertin, France, Kevin Halsey, Thomas Polzin, Martha Rogers, and Betsy Witt. 2019. “From Ash Pond to Riverside Wetlands: Making the Business Case for Engineered Natural Technologies” Science of the Total Environment 651 (1):419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, Melanie S., Aaron van Donkelaar, Chi Li, Alexei Lyapustin, Andrew M. Sayer, N. Christina Hsu, Robert C. Levy, et al. 2020. “Global Estimates and Long-Term Trends of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations (1998–2018).” Environmental Science & Technology 54 (13): 7879–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofste, Rutger, Samantha Kuzma, Sara Walker, Edwin Sutanudjaja, Marc Bierkens, Marijn Kuijper, Marta Faneca Sanchez, et al. 2019. “Aqueduct 3.0: Updated Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk Indicators.” World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/writn.18.00146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Ivy B., Jeffrey Keisler, and Igor Linkov. 2011. “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Ten Years of Applications and Trends.” Science of The Total Environment 409 (19): 3578–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2021. “Nature-Based Solutions for People and Planet.” Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions.

  • Johnson, J. A., Ruta, G., Baldos, U., Hertel, T., Liu, J., Nootenboom, C., Polasky, S., & Roxburgh, T. (2020). Global futures: Modelling the global economic impacts of environmental change to support policy-making. Woking, UK: WWF, GTAP and the Natural Capital Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Justin Andrew; Ruta, Giovanni; Baldos, Uris; Cervigni, Raffaello; Chonabayashi, Shun; Corong, Erwin; Gavryliuk, Olga; Gerber, James; Hertel, Thomas; Nootenboom, Christopher; Polasky, Stephen. 2021. The Economic Case for Nature: A Global Earth-Economy Model to Assess Development Policy Pathways. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35882 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.

  • Keeney, Ralph L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. “Value-Focused Thinking: Identifying Decision Opportunities and Creating Alternatives.” European Journal of Operational Research 92 (3): 537–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L., and Robin S. Gregory. 2005. “Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives.” Operations Research 53 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0158.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, Craig W. 1997. Strategic decision making: Multiobjective Decision Making with Spreadsheets. Wadsworth Publishing Company, US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, Timm, Francisco J. Escobedo, José L. Hernandez, Sebastián Varela, Sonia Delphin, Jonathan RB Fisher, and Janice Waldron. “Reforestation as a Novel Abatement and Compliance Measure for Ground-Level Ozone.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 40 (2014): E4204-E4213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, Jason R. W., and Margot W. Garcia. 2004. “Using Value-Focused Thinking to Improve Watersheds.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (3): 313–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Capital Project, 2023. InVEST 3.13.0. Stanford University, University of Minnesota, Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakleaf, James R., Christina M. Kennedy, Timothy Boucher, and Joseph Kiesecker. 2014. “Tailoring Global Data to Guide Corporate Investments in Biodiversity, Environmental Assessments, and Sustainability.” Sustainability 5(10): 4444–4460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, Sheila MW, Robert I. McDonald, Alexander S. Maas, Anthony Rogers, Evan H. Girvetz, Jeffrey North, Jennifer Molnar, Tim Finley, Gená Leathers, and Johnathan L. DiMuro. “Finding Solutions to Water Scarcity: Incorporating Ecosystem Service Values into Business Planning at The Dow Chemical Company’s Freeport, TX Facility.” Ecosystem Services 12 (2015): 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy), Dow, Swiss Re, Shell and Unilever. 2013. “The Case for Green Infrastructure.” Joint-Industry White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/the-case-for-green-infrastructure.pdf.

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2019. “Strategies for Operationalizing Nature-Based Solutions in the Private Sector.” The Nature Conservancy Business Council Natural Infrastructure Working Group White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/NBSWhitePaper.pdf.

  • Walker, Brian and David Salt. 2010. Resilience Practice. Island Press: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA

    Martha Rogers & Lianna McFarlane-Connelly

  2. The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA

    France Guertin

  3. Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Eric Lonsdorf

  4. Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, Natural Capital Insights, St Paul, MN, USA

    Chris Nootenboom

  5. Global Technology Center Civil Engineering Department, The Dow Chemical Company, Chennai, India

    Todd Guidry

Authors
  1. Martha Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. France Guertin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Lonsdorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Nootenboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lianna McFarlane-Connelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Todd Guidry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to France Guertin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, School of Sustainability, School of Complex Adaptive Systems, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Bhavik R. Bakshi

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    Nature Screen for wetlands project in Midland, Michigan

A screenshot of a page titled, 2025 sustainability goal, valuing nature. It has information about nature-based business processes, followed by fields to fill under submitter information and project information. A few fields in them are filled.
A screenshot. It has 6 checkboxes under project type, of which 3 are checked. Below, an optional project objective field is present which is filled.
A screenshot with a title, nature screen questions and comments. There are 2 questions under initial screening questions and 2 text boxes for additional comments under project comments. Question 1, has a combo box. Question 2, has 6 checkboxes, of which 1 is checked.
A screenshot of a page. There are 2 questions with textboxes for additional comments on their right. Question 1, has 6 checkboxes, of which 3 are checked. Question 2, has a combo box. Submit your project button is at the bottom of the page.
  1. 2.

    Scorecard for wetlands restoration project in Midland, Michigan

A screenshot, titled nature scorecard has 2 fields to be filled on the right and 3 tables for asset information, impacted area by project, and project information. 2 other tables provide data on project impacts and project performance.
A screenshot with 4 tables. 1 and 2 on the left present impact factors, values of environment vulnerability, and site category rank of water availability and climate, respectively. 3 and 4, on the right present values of project performance on improving water availability and climate, respectively.
A screenshot with 4 tables. 1 and 2 on the left present impact factors, values of environment vulnerability, and site category rank for air quality and biodiversity, respectively. 3 and 4, on the right present values of project performance on improving air quality and biodiversity, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rogers, M., Guertin, F., Lonsdorf, E., Nootenboom, C., McFarlane-Connelly, L., Guidry, T. (2023). Making the Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions. In: Bakshi, B.R. (eds) Engineering and Ecosystems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35692-6_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation