An Agonistic Perspective on the Challenge of Biodiversity Value Integration

The identity-laden conflict comprising clashing biodiversity values can hinder the integration of plural biodiversity values into policy. Until now, research on the elicitation and negotiation of biodiversity values approached this task by applying an economic or a deliberative model to guide the elicitation of values and transformation knowledge regarding their negotiation. However, both models have weaknesses in generating robust and transformative outcomes, which lie in their approach to dealing with identity conflicts and their related passions and affects. To address this gap, I explain how research has used both models and discuss how an agonistic model can improve the debate. I will show that current models highlight integrating and synergising values. In contrast, the agonistic model aims at eliciting distinctive values that challenge hegemonic values and the unsustainable status quo. Thereby, it implies dealing with and utilising passions and affects within the research process. Implications and operational suggestions for biodiversity value research applying the agonistic model are outlined. These include changes in the research structure, eliciting negative attributions and marginalised or missing values, and altered communication within group valuation settings. This article is relevant to researchers in biodiversity valuation and facilitators of value negotiations that aim to achieve value integration.