INCASE Ireland
.svg)
This case innovation has been analysed using the Transformative Intervention Mixes (TIMs) framework. The framework maps the regulatory, economic, social‑behavioural, technological and material interventions at play, clarifying how these elements interact and what this configuration suggests about the innovation’s capacity to support transformative change.
The case analysis draws primarily on evidence synthesised from:
Farrell et al. (2022)
Overview
Natural Capital Approaches
INCASE Ireland
Ecosystem restoration planning and environmental decision-making; natural capital accounting and ecosystem assessment
A multidisciplinary project led through Natural Capital Ireland to apply the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) at catchment scale, engaging government departments, environmental agencies, corporate bodies and local groups to integrate nature into decision-making.
Catchment-scale accounting application within Ireland, developed through a national convening platform (Natural Capital Ireland) and linked to UN-recognised accounting standards.
Practical: Development of ecosystem extent and condition accounts and proxies for ecosystem condition to inform restoration targets.
Political: Stakeholder engagement across governmental departments and agencies to support integrating ecosystem accounts into decision-making and alignment with EU regulatory frameworks.
Personal: No explicit evidence in the sources.
Moderate to high: The case identifies demand for standardised, transparent mechanisms to integrate nature into decision-making and highlights the need for tailored data gathering and improved communication of outputs into higher-level policy change. Notably, however, the potential for natural capital initiatives to be transformative remains highly contested – the risk being that they commodify nature and expand inequalities by ignoring the root causes of biodiversity loss
TIMs Summary
INCASE is strongly evidenced in the source material as a knowledge- and technology-led intervention, centred on applying SEEA EA ecosystem accounting to produce standardised extent and condition accounts for catchment-scale decision-making. Information and education mechanisms are present through convening and stakeholder engagement via Natural Capital Ireland, while financial support is documented through public research programme funding. Regulatory and market-based instruments are not implemented as tools in the case; rather, the accounting outputs are positioned as inputs that could support implementation of existing EU regulatory frameworks. Choice architecture, social norms and emotional appeal are not described as designed intervention components beyond the facilitation role of the platform.
This configuration implies a primarily epistemic and procedural transformative pathway, where improved measurement and transparency are intended to change how restoration priorities are set and justified in policy and planning.
Implications for Intervention Mix Design
The documented mix is weighted towards evidence generation and standardisation, with limited direct levers to redistribute costs, benefits or compliance incentives. If the intent is broader transformative scope, additional alignment would be needed with binding governance instruments and/or incentive mechanisms that use the accounts in allocation and enforcement decisions, but these are not currently evidenced in the sources. Complementary engagement tools could also be required to ensure that account outputs translate into durable organisational routines and decisions, rather than remaining as analytical products. Specific and sustained attention would also need to be given to ensuring interventions serve to centralise concern for social equity and move beyond the narrow application of natural capital initiatives merely as tools for commodifying nature.
TIMs Matrix
| Tool Category | Examples | How it ENABLES (mechanisms) | How it HINDERS (barriers) | Opportunities to strengthen | Risks / caveats | Additional suggestions and resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | ||||||
| Financial / Market-Based | Government of Ireland funding under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research Programme 2014-2020 administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. | Public research funding enables development of multidisciplinary accounting methods and stakeholder processes needed to operationalise ecosystem accounts. | Project-based funding may constrain continuity once the programme ends and may limit scaling beyond pilot applications. | Dependence on time-limited programme funding could limit maintenance of accounts and updates if resourcing declines. | Implement commitment devices like public co-funding pledges to ensure long-term project continuity beyond the initial funding phase. | |
| Information / Education | Natural Capital Ireland forum facilitating discussions across ecologists, policymakers, business leaders and NGOs; stakeholder engagement across departments, agencies and local groups. | Convening and engagement builds shared understanding of natural capital concepts and supports uptake of standardised accounting approaches. | Stakeholder resistance is noted where regulatory frameworks impose costs without demonstrated benefits to affected stakeholders. | Emphasise targeted communication of account outputs to support higher-level policy change and demonstrate relevance to stakeholders. | If benefits are not perceived as credible or salient, engagement may not translate into adoption, risking low legitimacy for the accounts. | Apply loss aversion by framing communications around specific avoided losses to make ecosystem data more salient and relevant to local stakeholders. |
| Choice Architecture | Integration of transparent accounting mechanisms (SEEA EA) to integrate nature into decision-making. | Standardised accounts can reframe decisions by making ecosystem extent, condition and service flows more visible and comparable across options. | The technical complexity and sheer volume of data produced by catchment-scale ecosystem accounting can overwhelm decision-makers, causing them to fall back on simpler, traditional financial metrics. | Integrate SEEA EA criteria as a mandatory, default requirement in public procurement, cost-benefit analyses, or land-use planning forms. Decision-makers should have to actively ‘opt out’ and justify why natural capital wasn’t considered, rather than treating it as an optional add-on. | Risk that accounting framings are interpreted as definitive rather than conditional on data quality and assumptions. In the attempt to make data highly salient and easy to digest (e.g., through dashboards), critical nuances about data limitations and the use of proxies might be obscured, potentially leading to overconfident or misdirected restoration targets. | Implement ‘Scenario Choice Frameworks’ where policymakers are presented with two or three clearly defined restoration pathways (derived from the accounts) rather than open-ended choices, reducing decision fatigue. |
| Social Norms | Platform-based collaboration among ecologists, economists and other stakeholders through Natural Capital Ireland and INCASE. | Cross-sector collaboration can normalise use of common accounting standards in environmental decision processes. | Deep-seated departmentalism where natural capital is viewed as a ‘niche environmental issue’ rather than a core economic concern. | Identifying ‘Natural Capital Ambassadors’ within key government departments to model the use of SEEA EA in high-level policy change. | If participation is uneven, shared norms may reflect dominant actors and exclude local perspectives. | Showcase ‘positive deviants’ from local peer groups to build social proof and normalise the use of common accounting standards across sectors. |
| Emotional Appeal | ||||||
| Technology | Application of SEEA EA accounting framework at catchment scale; use of the SER Restorative Continuum as a proxy where condition data are absent. | Accounting tools and proxies operationalise measurement of ecosystem extent and condition and can direct restoration targets when direct condition data are lacking. | Absence of relevant condition data requires proxies and tailored data gathering, limiting precision and comparability. | Tailored approaches to data gathering and ecological guidance to establish national reference levels for ecosystem types are highlighted as necessary. | Proxy-based assessments may be over-relied upon if data limitations are not transparent, potentially misdirecting restoration targets. | Leverage the ‘IKEA effect’ -the psychological tendency for people to value a product more when they have partially created it - by involving stakeholders in data ground-truthing to increase their trust in and sense of ownership over proxy-based assessments. |
| Infrastructure (Hard/Soft) | Natural Capital Ireland as a convening platform; cross-departmental stakeholder network established through INCASE. | Institutional platforms and networks support sustained coordination, shared methods and translation of technical outputs into governance contexts. | Coordination burdens across multiple departments and sectors may slow decision cycles and dilute accountability for account use. | Apply behavioural ‘sludge audits’ to identify and remove cognitive friction in inter-departmental workflows. | ||
| Biophysical Resources | Assessment of restoration actions such as removal of livestock and revegetation measures in degraded upland peatlands as inputs to condition proxies. | Linking documented pressure reduction and active restoration actions to condition assessment supports targeting and tracking of ecosystem recovery trends. | Simplified proxies may under-represent complex ecological responses across ecosystem types. | Break down long-term restoration outcomes into highly visible, short-term behavioural or process-oriented milestones so that stakeholders feel a sense of continuous progression and reward. | ||
| Knowledge | Development of ecosystem extent and condition accounts; ecological knowledge to establish national reference levels; identification of demand for integrating nature into decision-making in agriculture and bioeconomy contexts. | The initiative produces transparent indicators and accounts intended to reveal costs and benefits of restoration policies and projects and to inform policy and planning. | Long-run adoption depends on data availability and on communicating outputs into higher-level policy changes, which is identified as a need. | Improve translation of account outputs into higher-level policy decisions, as explicitly noted as a requirement in INCASE. | Accounts may be interpreted as comprehensive valuations rather than partial indicators, risking misapplication in decisions. | Mandate qualitative narratives alongside quantitative metrics to counter anchoring bias and ensure decision-makers engage with the underlying ecological complexities. |
| Other |
Note: Blank cells reflect that the documentary evidence available for this case did not contain sufficiently explicit information to address these dimensions. This absence should not be interpreted as implying that such mechanisms were irrelevant or ineffective, but simply that they were not documented within the scope of the source materials.