THIS CONTENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology - read more

Why is nothing being done about the destruction of nature?
“We hand over the data, but then it stops there"

Norwegian municipalities are collecting more and more data on how what they do affects nature, but do not always know what to do with it.

Nature provides us with benefits such as clean air, drinking water, food, and recreation. It stores carbon and reduces flooding. Even so, we are cutting down forests and digging up bogs at a rapid pace and on a large scale.
Sølvi Normannsen Communication adviser
Presented by: Presented by: Presented by: NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Published

Europe is destroying nearly 50 square metres of land and topsoil every second. 

Norway tops the list of European countries with the most land lost to construction per person, according to Green to Grey. 

At the same time, we have never had access to more data and knowledge about the nature and ecosystems we are destroying.

“We are acquiring more and more ecological data as a basis for land-use planning. You would think that the decisions we make just get better and better for nature. But that’s not the case. So what’s really going on?” asks Arron Wilde Tippett.

Don’t know what to do with the information

“There's no one miracle cure that can reverse the loss of natural areas and biodiversity," says researcher Arron Wilde Tippett.

Tippett has studied how data on nature and the environment can be used in land-use plans and building projects that require the use of nature. 

Ecological data can be maps of habitat types, records of various plant and animal species, or measurements of water quality and biological conditions in lakes and rivers. 

As an ecologist, Tippett says he is trained to produce and analyse extensive datasets about species and ecosystems, and what natural benefits they give us.

“We hand over the data in reports, but then it stops there. Out in the municipalities, they don’t always know what to do with the information. We must stop producing data for the sake of data, and instead become better at ensuring that the knowledge is actually used,” he says.

A short circuit in the planning process

What Tippett is describing resembles a short circuit in the municipal planning processes. 

In technical terms, it's called the Knowledge Deficit Model. It is based on the assumption that the more knowledge we have, the better decisions we make.

“That’s not always the case,” Tippett says.

He refers to recent media reports about how Norway is sacrificing thousands of vulnerable natural areas the country has agreed to preserve.

“Everyone understands that we have an ongoing biodiversity and land use crisis,” he says.

Tippett has interviewed 16 municipal planning professionals from across Norway.

Work in silos, collaborate little

According to the Norwegian Planning and Building Act, municipalities have a great deal of autonomy. Planning happens through municipal master plans, area plans, and detailed regulation plans. 

It's the latter that are most common: Private interests are behind seven out of ten such detailed regulation plans, acording to the new study from NTNU and the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO).

The study also shows that:

  • Relatively few stakeholders are involved in planning and zoning matters.
  • Planning systems do not particularly facilitate engagement.
  • Implications of private plans often only become clear to affected stakeholders in the later stages of planning processes.
  • Different agencies may work on the same case, but in light of different legislation.
  • There is little cooperation across agencies.
  • Relevant information is not shared.

All this means that input and knowledge can be lost in the planning phase.

Participation is limited to the earliest phases. Often, residents only get involved after decisions have already been made.

Ensuring more participation

The researchers emphasise that the more people who can engage with insight and knowledge, the better the decisions that are made. 

In the new study, they propose new ways of using ecological data. They present what they call the PRISM model. The group has launched what they call the PRISM model. 

Simply explained, it's about splitting the indofmation into different components and spreading the knowledge out to more people.

“In the same way that white light is refracted into a rainbow when it passes through a prism,” Tippett explains. “The idea is to engage as many people as possible. By showing how they are affected and what's actually at stake, we can ensure more and earlier participation.”

Nature Accounts are next

Part of the backdrop for the research is that Norway has committed to delivering a national nature account based on a standard from the UN. 

Reporting is likely to start as early as next year. The goal is to increase awareness of nature’s intrinsic value, and for more decision-makers to understand that we as a society depend on it functioning well.

The nature accounts will show the state of ecosystems, areas, and habitat types. It will give us a kind of Gross National Natural Product, comparable to the better-known Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

“The PRISM model will incorporate the nature accounts into regulation and planning work. It will help to balance what local nature can actually tolerate against planned use,” says Tippett.

Nature provides vital services

Nature is a round-the-clock service centre for vital services. 

It delivers clean air for us to breathe and water to drink. It provides us with food, offers places for recreation and to improve our mental and physical health. It provides insects that pollinate plants, stores carbon, and reduces flooding.

The nature accounts will describe what benefits nature gives us. It will show what ecosystems mean for the economy and welfare, and that overuse and depletion of resources harm value creation.

Even so, we cut down forests and dig up marshes at a high pace and on a large scale.

Hard-pressed municipalities

“There's a lot of work ahead. Small municipalities in rural areas in particular may face demanding challenges in mapping habitat types and their condition. Many are already hard pressed," says Tippett.

Some may only have one land-use planner who gets all the building cases on their desk.

At the same time, municipalities are supposed to create a desirable place to live. They need to keep the population stable and preferably increase it. They have to attract private developers to ensure economic development, jobs, and tax revenues.

Untouched nature vs. survival

Roads, infrastructure, commercial areas, cabin fields, data centres. Weighing untouched nature against a municipality’s survival is demanding. 

Tippett says that several of the informants in the study were frustrated with politicians who had a completely different agenda than considering how vulnerable the natural environment is.

“It happens that elected representatives choose to approve developments, contrary to professional advice. My respect for the planners has grown through this work. They are often in a difficult situation,” Tippett says.

No miracle cure

Another paradox is that it is often the smallest municipalities that have the most valuable natural areas. 

They also often have few land-use planners and professional resources.

“There's no one miracle cure that can reverse the loss of natural areas and biodiversity. But I think a lot can be improved if we start to coordinate the knowledge we have better,” he says.

Reference:

Tippett et al. A new conceptual model for ecological data communication in the context of spatial planning and policy, Environmental Science & Policy, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104240

———

Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no

More content from NTNU:

ntnu partner environmental protection society and culture environmental policy environment climate
Powered by Labrador CMS