IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v237y2025ics0921800925001934.html

“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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Janet A. & Brown, Katrina, 2014. "Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 257-265.
    2. Schulz, Tobias & Ohmura, Tamaki & Troxler, David & Lieberherr, Eva, 2024. "Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Florence L. P. Damiens & Libby Porter & Ascelin Gordon, 2021. "The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 170-179, February.
    4. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    5. Bidaud, Cécile & Schreckenberg, Kate & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "The local costs of biodiversity offsets: Comparing standards, policy and practice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 43-50.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:4ygh7_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    8. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    9. Bull, Joseph & Baker, Julia & Griffiths, Victoria Frances & Jones, Julia & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2018. "Ensuring No Net Loss for people as well as biodiversity: good practice principles," SocArXiv 4ygh7, Center for Open Science.
    10. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Aiora Zabala & Unai Pascual, 2016. "Bootstrapping Q Methodology to Improve the Understanding of Human Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    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. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    2. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    3. Eccarius, Timo & Liu, Shu-Chiu, 2024. "Views of emerging sustainability leaders on the future of Transport: A Q study in a Taiwan tertiary education program," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    4. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Schaal, Tamara & Jacobs, Annie & Leventon, Julia & Scheele, Ben C. & Lindenmayer, David & Hanspach, Jan, 2022. "‘You can’t be green if you’re in the red’: Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. Stéphanie Barral & Ritwick Ghosh & Esteve Corbera, 2025. "The politics of influence in biodiversity offsetting," Post-Print hal-05169141, HAL.
    7. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Dugasseh, Frank Akowuge & Zandersen, Marianne, 2025. "Farmer perceptions of REDD+ livelihood interventions as incentive mechanism for reducing deforestation in the Juabuso-Bia cocoa forest landscape," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Schulze, Christoph & Matzdorf, Bettina & Rommel, Jens & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & García-Llorente, Marina & Gutiérrez-Briceño, Inés & Larsson, Lina & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Zawadzki, Wojciech, 2024. "Between farms and forks: Food industry perspectives on the future of EU food labelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    11. Pauline Pedehour & Marianne Lefebvre, 2023. "Combining digital technologies and incentives for water conservation: A Q-method study to understand preferences of French irrigators," Post-Print hal-04626643, HAL.
    12. Arturo Zenone & Carlo Pipitone & Giovanni D’Anna & Barbara La Porta & Tiziano Bacci & Fabio Bertasi & Claudia Bulleri & Anna Cacciuni & Sebastiano Calvo & Stefano Conconi & Maria Flavia Gravina & Ceci, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes about the Transplantations of the Mediterranean Seagrass Posidonia oceanica as a Habitat Restoration Measure after Anthropogenic Impacts: A Q Methodology Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    14. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Ober, Carina & Canessa, Carolin & Frick, Fabian & Sauer, Johannes, 2025. "The role of behavioural factors in accepting agri-environmental contracts – Evidence from a Q-method and thematic analysis in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    16. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.
    17. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis, 2017. "Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 234-245.
    18. Sorola, Matthew, 2022. "Q methodology to conduct a critical study in accounting: A Q study on accountants’ perspectives of social and environmental reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, "undated". "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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: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.

    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.