This article examines whether biodiversity markets, particularly those created under England’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) policy, can support both inclusive participation and collaborative nature recovery.

Using a case study in Oxfordshire based on interviews and institutional mapping, the authors compare three habitat banking models: for‑profit providers, not‑for‑profit organisations, and individual landowners supported by facilitators.

The findings reveal a key trade-off. For‑profit models tend to increase inclusivity by lowering financial risk and enabling broader participation, but they often lack coordination at the landscape scale. In contrast, not‑for‑profit models promote stronger collaboration and strategic ecological planning at a larger scale but restrict participants.

Overall, the study shows that the design of biodiversity markets strongly influences who participates and how effectively nature recovery is delivered. Recommendations from the research include improving biodiversity markets and policy to link up frameworks and balance inclusivity and collaboration to ensure these markets achieve meaningful, large‑scale conservation outcomes.

Reference: Troiano, M., O. S. E. zu Ermgassen, N. E. Duffus, et al. 2026. Environmental Policy and Governance 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.70077