IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v236y2025ics0921800925001648.html

Public perceptions of biodiversity and the value of its conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Uggeldahl, Kennet
  • Olsen, Søren Bøye
  • Lundhede, Thomas
  • Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl

Abstract

Nature and biodiversity are in an unprecedented decline. One of the main policy solutions for reversing this trend involves putting a monetary value on biodiversity impacts. However, one of the concerns about valuing changes in biodiversity using economic valuation methods revolves around the methodological assumption that the public accurately and adequately understands and perceives this inherently abstract and complex concept. Yet, few studies have investigated what the public actually perceives as biodiversity, and what their perceptions of its value are. We use Q-methodology to explore this. We find that the public's perceptions of biodiversity to a large degree align with the main elements of the scientific definitions of the concept, and also include concepts linked to biodiversity, such as naturalness, connectedness and balance. Further, we find perceptions of the value of biodiversity conservation to include instrumental as well as intrinsic values, with specific arguments such as a human responsibility to protect nature and biodiversity playing an important part. Our findings suggest that using more comprehensive representations of changes in biodiversity in stated preference studies, rather than the commonly used simplifying indicators, better aligns with people's underlying perceptions of the good being valued.

Suggested Citation

  • Uggeldahl, Kennet & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2025. "Public perceptions of biodiversity and the value of its conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:236:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925001648
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001648
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108681?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    2. Boyd, James & Ringold, Paul & Krupnick, Alan & Johnston, Robert J. & Weber, Matthew A. & Hall, Kim, 2016. "Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 359-443, June.
    3. R. J. Scholes & R. Biggs, 2005. "A biodiversity intactness index," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7029), pages 45-49, March.
    4. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    5. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    6. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    7. James Boyd & Robert J. Johnston & Paul Ringold, 2023. "Biophysical Measures to Support Analysis and Communication of Existence Values," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(2-3), pages 153–230-1, June.
    8. Farnsworth, K.D. & Adenuga, A.H. & de Groot, R.S., 2015. "The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 350-354.
    9. Nick Hanley & Charles Perrings, 2019. "The Economic Value of Biodiversity," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 355-375, October.
    10. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Valck, Jeremy & Rolfe, John, 2019. "Comparing biodiversity valuation approaches for the sustainable management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 23-31.
    2. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    4. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    5. Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, "undated". "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Daniels, Silvie & Witters, Nele & Beliën, Tim & Vrancken, Kristof & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Monetary Valuation of Natural Predators for Biological Pest Control in Pear Production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 160-173.
    8. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2016. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? A conceptual framework for economic valuation of biodiversity," UFZ Discussion Papers 9/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    9. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? Economic value of biodiversity as result of uncertainty and spatial interactions in ecosystem service provision," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 50-57.
    14. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017. "Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    16. Ratzke, Leonie, 2023. "Revealing preferences for urban biodiversity as an environmental good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Market and Institutional Limits in Supplying Animal Welfare: some Conceptual Thoughts for Future Agricultural Economic Research," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(02), April.
    19. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    20. Azizi, Leyla & Scope, Christoph & Ladusch, Anne & Sassen, Remmer, 2025. "Biodiversity disclosure in the European finance sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:236:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925001648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.