IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v76y2025ics2212041625000981.html

Relational values in nature-based solutions and their role in transformative change: evidence from choice modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Zilleruelo, Rodrigo
  • Rolfe, John
  • Valck, Jeremy De
  • Dwane, Gordon

Abstract

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly promoted as human actions that harness nature’s properties and functions to deliver multiple benefits to people and nature. In this way, they are championed as an approach to help achieve sustainable development. This framing has garnered broad attention and support. However, the specific values that underpin public support for NbS remain underexplored, even though understanding them is essential for assessing the policy legitimacy of NbS, clarifying their conceptual foundations, and evaluating their transformative potential. We use environmental valuation to understand public support for funding four types of NbS—two land-based: 1. Living seawall and 2. Constructed wetland, and two water-based: 3. Coral gardening and 4. Seaweed biofilter—projects in Queensland, Australia, and to examine the underlying values that shape this support. Mixed Logit models indicate that households are willing to pay approximately AU$75–150 per year for implementing these solutions, with no substantial differences in preferences across the four types. Crucially, model interactions with attitudinal variables reveal that relational values are stronger predictors of support than instrumental or intrinsic values. This strong association between NbS and relational values may offer an opportunity to increase public acceptance of NbS and, more broadly, to support societal transformation in a nature-positive direction through longer-term initiatives that seek to reframe the relationship between people and nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Zilleruelo, Rodrigo & Rolfe, John & Valck, Jeremy De & Dwane, Gordon, 2025. "Relational values in nature-based solutions and their role in transformative change: evidence from choice modelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:76:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000981
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625000981
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101794?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. ., 2023. "Education and awareness raising to encourage formalisation," Chapters, in: A Modern Guide to the Informal Economy, chapter 10, pages 240-260, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2015. "Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 125-142, January.
    3. De Valck, Jeremy & Rolfe, John, 2018. "Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Valuation: Status, Challenges and Road Ahead," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 11(4), pages 355-422, August.
    4. Willi Bauer, 2023. "Reframing Urban Nature-Based Solutions Through Perspectives of Environmental Justice and Privilege," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 334-345.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Jeroen Coelen & Frido E. H. M. Smulders, 2023. "Educating Entrepreneurship through Design," FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, in: Joern H. Block & Jantje Halberstadt & Nils Högsdal & Andreas Kuckertz & Helle Neergaard (ed.), Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training, pages 401-415, Springer.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    12. Ainscough, Jacob & Wilson, Meriwether & Kenter, Jasper O., 2018. "Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 93-101.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    14. Hanson, Helena I. & Wickenberg, Björn & Alkan Olsson, Johanna, 2020. "Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Trevor Zink & Roland Geyer, 2017. "Circular Economy Rebound," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(3), pages 593-602, June.
    16. Jithendran S. & Rajeev Kumar A.D. & Sreeanandan, 2023. "Higher Educational Financing – A Utilitarian Approach," The Review of Finance and Banking, Academia de Studii Economice din Bucuresti, Romania / Facultatea de Finante, Asigurari, Banci si Burse de Valori / Catedra de Finante, vol. 15(1), pages 41-48, June.
    17. repec:sae:envval:v:6:y:1997:i:2:p:213-233 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Luca Coscieme & Paul Sutton & Lars F. Mortensen & Ida Kubiszewski & Robert Costanza & Katherine Trebeck & Federico M. Pulselli & Biagio F. Giannetti & Lorenzo Fioramonti, 2019. "Overcoming the Myths of Mainstream Economics to Enable a New Wellbeing Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    20. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    21. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    22. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    23. Afshaneh, 2023. "Role of Education in Conflict Management in Afghanistan," Journal of Conflict Management, IPRJB, vol. 3(1), pages 25-36.
    24. Bockarjova, Marija & Botzen, Wouter J.W. & Koetse, Mark J., 2020. "Economic valuation of green and blue nature in cities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    25. Unai Pascual & Patricia Balvanera & Christopher B. Anderson & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Michael Christie & David González-Jiménez & Adrian Martin & Christopher M. Raymond & Mette Termansen & Arild Vatn, 2023. "Diverse values of nature for sustainability," Nature, Nature, vol. 620(7975), pages 813-823, August.
    26. Daly, Andrew & Hess, Stephane & de Jong, Gerard, 2012. "Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 333-341.
    27. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    28. Willi Bauer, 2023. "Reframing Urban Nature-Based Solutions Through Perspectives of Environmental Justice and Privilege," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 334-345.
    29. Petr Mariel & David Hoyos & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Thijs Dekker & Klaus Glenk & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Ulf Liebe & Søren Bøye Olsen & Julian Sagebiel & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-030-62669-3, December.
    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. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    4. Martinet, Vincent & David, Maïa & Mermet-Bijon, Vincent & Crastes Dit Sourd, Romain, 2025. "Cost vector effects in forced-choice discrete choice experiments: Assessing the acceptability of future glyphosate policies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    5. O'Dell, Dallas & Contu, Davide & Shreedhar, Ganga, 2025. "Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Bénédicte Rulleau, 2024. "Household preferences for cyber-attack resilient water distribution networks: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04157111, HAL.
    7. Rolfe, John & Carnell, Paul & Marine, Sabiha & Whiteoak, Kym & Zilleruelo, Rodrigo & Wartman, Melissa, 2026. "Valuing coastal wetland restoration in Australia with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    8. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    9. Jorck, Gerrit von & Börger, Tobias & Ghirardello, Linda & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Praetorius, Barbara, 2025. "The impact of work arrangements on the choice to work from home: a discrete-continuous choice experiment," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 59, pages 1-029.
    10. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    14. Lang, Ferdinand & Chen, Cheng & Alemu, Mohammed Hussen & Lundhede, Thomas & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2026. "Private funding for soil health: Private individuals’ preferences for ecosystem services and biodiversity certificates," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Gajderowicz & Marek Giergiczny & Gabriela Grotkowska & Urszula Sztandar-Sztanderska, 2020. "Choosing the Future: Economic Preferences for Higher Education Using Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(4), pages 510-539, June.
    17. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    18. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Massenberg, Julian Richard & Lienhoop, Nele, 2022. "Between complexity and unfamiliarity: Preferences for soil-based ecosystem services," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2022, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Vogdrup-Schmidt, Mathias & Strange, Niels & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Support for Transnational Conservation in a Gain-Loss Context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 49-58.
    20. Sobolewski, Maciej, 2021. "Measuring consumer well-being from using free-of-charge digital services. The case of navigation apps," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(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:ecoser:v:76:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000981. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.