The Environment Consultant

Development and environmental conservation have frequently been presented as competing priorities within land-use planning, infrastructure delivery and resource management. This framing has influenced public debate, policy discourse, and regulatory design, often reducing complex decision-making processes to binary outcomes.

In practice, development continues under a wide range of economic, demographic, and political pressures, reflecting patterns that in many cases precede the formal integration of conservation objectives into planning and assessment systems.

As a result, conservation objectives are increasingly incorporated into statutory and voluntary assessment frameworks alongside ongoing development — rather than guiding early decisions about whether, where, and how development occurs.

The tension between these domains therefore arises less from incompatibility than from limitations in how impacts, benefits and trade-offs are conceptualized and evaluated to meet both development and conservation goals.

This article examines the intersection between development initiatives and conservation objectives through the lens of cost–benefit analysis and environmental assessment practice. The focus lies on how development decision-making can incorporate ecological considerations more rigorously without assuming that development itself is avoidable.

Development as a structural driver of environmental change

Development refers to the physical, economic and institutional processes through which land, resources and infrastructure are transformed to meet societal needs.

In environmental assessment contexts, development typically encompasses housing expansion, transport infrastructure, energy generation, industrial activity and associated services.

These activities exert direct and indirect pressures on ecosystems through land take, habitat fragmentation, pollution, resource extraction and altered ecological processes.

The role of impact assessments

To address the environmental consequences arising from these development-driven pressures, environmental assessment frameworks, most notably Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), were established globally as formal mechanisms to identify, predict and mitigate adverse effects before irreversible decisions are made. EIAs operate within existing planning systems to inform decision-making about likely environmental impacts, evaluate alternatives, and identify measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for ecological harm.

EIAs do not seek to prevent development, but rather inform regulators and assist on planning permitting. In this sense, EIAs represent an institutional response to the recognition that development is a persistent structural driver of environmental change, and that mitigation depends less on halting development than on improving how its impacts are anticipated, assessed and managed.

Where is the gap?

In many jurisdictions, environmental and economic assessments are conducted in parallel before development approval, with limited integration between the two. In these cases, cost–benefit analysis evaluates the proposed development’s economic and social rationale, while environmental assessment considers ecological impacts separately.

Although the findings of the environmental assessment may lead to mitigation requirements or design adjustments, they rarely influence the fundamental justification, scale, or location of the development. After all, development underpins the provision of basic human needs such as housing, food, and essential resources, underscoring the need to manage environmental impacts responsibly.

This approach contrasts with jurisdictions that employ integrated appraisal frameworks, where environmental and economic considerations are assessed jointly, allowing ecological effects to shape project alternatives from the outset. Unfortunately, this does not occur everywhere, and anthropogenic activities such as development continue to damage ecosystems and drive biodiversity loss.

What can be done?

Addressing the gap between development planning and conservation objectives requires stronger policy alignment, improved scientific integration, and greater institutional awareness at national and international levels.

This includes setting biodiversity considerations more firmly within global policy agendas, strengthening international agreements, and ensuring national compliance mechanisms translate high-level commitments into enforceable regulatory practice.

International policy frameworks play a key role in aligning development planning with environmental limits. The Paris Agreement, for example, influences development decisions by requiring consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks, encouraging climate-resilient and nature-based solutions — such as wetlands for flood control or urban green spaces for heat mitigation. This integration can deliver both climate adaptation and economic benefits.

Statutory initiatives such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England complement this climate agenda by requiring developments to deliver at least 10% increase in biodiversity value compared with the pre-development baseline, aiming not only to offset losses but also to reverse historical ecological degradation.

At the national level, increased awareness and capacity are necessary to ensure that such policies are implemented effectively. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment should evolve from being treated primarily as procedural permitting requirements toward functioning as informative tools that actively shape early-stage development conceptualization.

Cost-analysis of ecosystem services

Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services enables environmental benefits to be incorporated into economic decision-making and cost–benefit analysis, internalizing impacts traditionally treated as externalities. Evidence shows that accounting for services such as flood regulation, climate moderation, soil fertility, and recreational value can significantly influence project appraisals and lead to more efficient and resilient development outcomes.

Beyond public planning, corporations can create long-term value by adopting nature-positive and regenerative practices that reduce risk, lower costs, and improve asset performance and aesthetics.

For example, regenerative agriculture improves soil health and yield stability while cutting input costs. Similarly, nature-integrated real estate often achieves higher property values and lower flood and maintenance risks, as attractive natural surroundings create more desirable living environments that increase sales values.

Is it too late to implement conservation practices in existing development?

Even after infrastructure projects become operational, conservation measures can still be added to reduce ecological impacts. A well-known example is the Netherlands, where road networks were originally designed to minimize construction costs and travel times. Later assessments revealed severe habitat fragmentation and risks to protected species.

In response, the government launched the Meerjarenprogramma Ontsnippering (MJPO) in 2005, a nationwide programme to retrofit wildlife corridors and reconnect habitats. Implemented over several phases until 2018, the programme cost €410 million and led to an 83% reduction in large mammal roadkills. While the initiative proved effective, it also showed that integrating conservation at an earlier stage would have avoided the need for costly corrective measures.