Author
Listed:
- Kuhn, Lukas
- Cebrián-Piqueras, Miguel Ángel
- Riechers, Maraja
- Loos, Jacqueline
- Martín-López, Berta
Abstract
Recent research has called for eliciting plural values of nature, yet little is known on how the choice of methods impacts the different values elicited. Drawing on the notion of methods as value-articulating institutions and using grasslands restoration as a case study, we explored how different elicitation methods influence people's value expressions towards grasslands. We did so in three different ways: (i) comparing values between elicitation methods (i.e., open-ended questions, Likert-Scale survey, rating exercise), (ii) comparing common discourses that emerged using multivariate statistics (i.e. multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and principal component analysis (PCA), and (iii) tracing how interviewees' expressed discourses varied between methods. Our results showed that different elicitation methods not only elicited distinct values and discourses but also influenced the discourse that respondents endorsed during the same interview. These findings demonstrate that elicitation methods act as value-articulating institutions by defining which values could be expressed and how. While the Likert-Scale and rating exercise strongly framed and limited which values could be expressed by respondents, the open-ended questions loosely outlined and guided value expression. This study posits that values can only be understood in light of the methods used to elicit them and further, that using only one method for the elicitation of plural values might lead to neglecting or overlooking of particular values because of the methods conduciveness to eliciting or articulating them. Thus, plural valuation necessarily requires the application of multiple, complementary methods to unleash its full potential to elicit plural values.
Suggested Citation
Kuhn, Lukas & Cebrián-Piqueras, Miguel Ángel & Riechers, Maraja & Loos, Jacqueline & Martín-López, Berta, 2025.
"How methods influence nature's values we find – A comparison of three elicitation methods,"
Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:238:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925002046
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108721
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
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:238:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925002046. 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.