The nature of science is changing, particularly in its relationship to decision-making and policy formulation. In essence, science is becoming more complex with questions becoming broader in scope and with the consequent need to span disciplines and achieve integration between scientific disciplines and socio-economic concerns. Given this complexity, levels of uncertainty are increasing and there is a need to make decisions in the face of such uncertainties. In addition, we are seeing that the stakes are high in scientific discourse and there is an urgency associated with decision-making. Many observers refer to this as a period of post-normal science but, whatever terminology one adopts, it is clear that we need new tools to support science and decision-making given this complexity, uncertainty, importance and urgency. These statements apply strongly to the environmental sciences and in particular to issues related to biodiversity and its relationships with economics and society. The Dasgupta Review highlights the criticality of nature for our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing, our failures in managing nature to date and the huge risks associated with this. Crucially, it calls for transformative change in the way we think, act and measure success, seeing our economies as fundamentally embedded and interlinked with nature. This resonates with statements from the post-normal science literature calling for a fundamental rethink about the approaches and tools we use for decision-making related to science. In response to these challenges, we will deliver a transformative approach to embedding biodiversity values in decision-making by integrating novel perspectives around the economics of biodiversity with virtual labs (collaborative, cloud-based environments supporting transparent science). As a starting point, we will build a comprehensive evidence base to support economics of biodiversity decision-making within virtual labs, thus: i) facilitating the necessary integration of data and analyses around biodiversity and its economic and non-monetary benefits, values and costs; ii) promoting an approach that is collaborative and open, both critical components in supporting the necessary dialogue between disciplinary experts and stakeholders, and supporting collective reasoning around uncertainties. We will extend virtual labs by adding trustworthy and accountable decision-making capability, through decision-support frameworks. These frameworks will be informed by a systems thinking approach, building on the integration offered by virtual labs, and promoting an understanding of interactions and feedback. This will enable deeper analyses of co- or incidental benefits or other synergies associated with biodiversity and socio-economic activity, which we see as crucial in supporting improved decision-making in this area. The work will be evaluated through two complementary case studies, investigating co-benefits between: i) biodiversity and renewable energy in the planning and operation of solar parks; ii) biodiversity and agricultural production in land use decision-making. Note that we seek a flexible approach to the design of decision-support frameworks, where they can be specialised for different contexts and scales with commonalities and variabilities emerging from the case studies. The research is fundamentally transdisciplinary in nature and we have a consortium with internationally leading expertise in science, data science and social science (see Part I). We adopt an agile approach to the research, an approach that can achieve the necessary cross-disciplinary dialogue, as well as enabling tighter integration of stakeholders in the co-design of solutions. We have a rich set of project partners supporting this process, and have already engaged with our partners in co-design activities in preparation for this proposal.

Human activities are directly and indirectly depleting the World's natural resources. At the same time, we rely on these resources for our livelihoods and well-being. Urgent action is thus needed to better manage our impact on the natural world. A key factor driving these negative impacts is that the decisions that people, businesses and governments make tend to be based on a limited set of nature's values that tend to be linked to economic markets. In biodiversity economics, these values are called 'instrumental' values: the predominantly monetary benefits of goods and services people obtain from nature. However, the global assessment on the value of nature has identified several other 'non-instrumental' value concepts, which include: relational values (the value we have for our relationships with nature); transcendental values (our overarching principles and life goals); shared values (collective values that expressed by groups, communities and cultures); and intrinsic values (values for nature independent of human welfare). NAVIGATE aims to enhance our understanding of these non-instrumental value concepts and explore how these values might be better integrated into economic thinking and policy decisions. Our research will undertake detailed reviews of the 'non-instrumental' value concepts. We will draw on a range of scientific perspectives to provide greater clarity on definitions of these value concepts, how they might be measured (using both monetary and other indicators) and how they might best be integrated into policy and business decisions. We will also ask decision makers whether they currently consider these values, and if not, how they think they could incorporate them. Based on the above, we will develop methods for assessing these values and feeding them into policies. To test our ideas, we will apply our methods to four case studies that will value the non-instrumental values associated with forests and woodlands. Our case studies include: the UK national forest; a new woodland that has recently been planted in Wales to store carbon, reduce flooding and promote outdoor recreation; urban woodland in the City of Helsinki, Finland; and conservation woodlands in Tanzania that provide timber products to the UK market. With the help of local stakeholders and policy makers, we will explore options to feed our findings relating to the value of our case study forests / woodland into actual policy decisions, through a range of existing and new approaches, such as cost-benefit analysis, natural capital accounting and deliberative democratic valuations. Conventional economic measures tend to only consider the instrumental values of nature, but it has been argued that better decisions could be made for our planet if the policies also account for a wider range of values including non-instrumental values, expressed in both monetary and non-monetary terms. The outputs from our research will include: a series of scientific papers and policy guidance documents for embedding non-instrumental values into decisions. We will also produce a video and infographics to explain the implications of our research to the public.

Due to the need for climate change action, UK Government has committed to the ambitious task of achieving 'net zero' greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, some emissions from farming, aviation and other activities are very difficult to eliminate. So to reach net zero the UK must also directly remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere amounting to the equivalent of 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide/year. Of the Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) options available, increasing the carbon stored in the UK's 'treescapes' (forests, hedgerows etc.) has the greatest potential, the lowest cost, and can be started immediately. Planting woodlands can store carbon in standing trees, in forest soils and in timber products. For these reasons, the UK is committed to a huge increase in forest cover. However, our understanding of all these processes and how they vary across locations and over time is incomplete. This major programme will gather evidence, address knowledge gaps and allow decision makers to understand the GGR consequences of different planting options. Woodlands can also deliver many other benefits, creating habitats to conserve wild species, enhancing water quality, regulating rainfall and reducing flood risk, and providing recreation (hence the "GGR+" title). GGR+ will examine all the diverse aspects of forestry to identify "The Right Tree in the Right Place". However, it is equally possible to plant the wrong tree in the wrong place. This can result in damage to biodiversity, and even cause some soils to release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Also, if certain types of agriculture are displaced, there could be higher imports of food from countries that destroy rainforests to increase farm yields. On top of this, climate change means that many risks (forest fires, extreme weather, disease) are changing faster than ever. "The Right Tree in the Right Place" is not a simple proposition - if we are not careful, and don't consider the complexities properly, the UK's net zero tree planting strategy will be poorly designed, and at worst could result in forests that actually increase climate change. However, even understanding the consequences of planting in different locations is not enough to plan the future of the UK's forests. Land is typically privately owned and Government cannot dictate its use. Rather they need to create the conditions and incentives needed for owners to decide to plant trees. Consequently, GGR+ will also undertake the economic research needed to turn science advice into practice. This challenge cannot be addressed by scientists alone, and the GGR+ partners include UK land use policy makers, including all of the Forestry authorities, the Defra teams responsible for forestry, climate and agriculture (who will use GGR+ to plant 30,000ha/year), as well as the Ministry of Defence (which has huge land holdings). From the private and NGO sectors our partners include massive land owners such as Network Rail and the National Trust (who together will fund over 74,000ha of planting based on GGR+ advice), as well as a network of over 1,400 farmers, the timber and building sector and many other stakeholders. Together with our partners, GGR+ will design innovative "decision support tools"; bespoke software allowing users to examine the effects of a tree planting investment or policy in terms of greenhouse gas storage, food production, incomes of those involved, effects on biodiversity, water quality, flooding, recreation etc. Perhaps most revolutionary, this tool will allow users to specify what outcomes they want and then see what planting, policy or investments they need to get those outcomes. This is an exciting, highly interdisciplinary approach to answering the surprisingly challenging question of finding "The Right Tree in the Right Place" and setting the UK on the path to delivering net zero emissions by 2050.