IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v237y2025ics0921800925001934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Nature cannot always win” – A Q study on stakeholder perceptions on biodiversity offsetting

Author

Listed:
  • Oinonen, Iikka
  • Lehtiniemi, Heidi
  • Aulake, Marianne
  • Huttunen, Suvi

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting (BO) has been a popular tool to tackle biodiversity loss and over 100 countries have adopted it as a part of their conservation efforts. Utilizing Q methodology, which has been rarely used to study BO, we examined the viewpoints of various BO stakeholders in Finland as the country has just introduced BO into their legislation. We found two distinct patterns of perspectives supporting either i) strictly regulated BO to avoid greenwashing, or ii) widespread and flexible BO to ensure corporate needs. There was consensus on some core principles of BO, such as that current conservation commitments cannot be counted as offsetting, and that biodiversity values could be traded up. Interestingly, the stakeholders hesitated to take a stand for the views of local people and the socio-cultural values of biodiversity. As the current Finnish legislation represents a compromise of the different visions for BO, it is not likely to boost BO applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Oinonen, Iikka & Lehtiniemi, Heidi & Aulake, Marianne & Huttunen, Suvi, 2025. "“Nature cannot always win” – A Q study on stakeholder perceptions on biodiversity offsetting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:237:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925001934
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001934
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108710?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 search for a different version of it.

    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:237:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925001934. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.