By Heidi Lehtiniemi, Christopher M. Raymond, Viola Hakkarainen, and Suvi Huttunen
This Plain Language Summary is published in advance of the paper discussed. Please check back soon for a link to the full paper.
Biodiversity loss threatens existential functions we all depend on, such as food and water. The destruction of nature is driven by land-use change and intensive exploitation of natural resources. It is increasingly obvious that the way humans treat nature must change. Since values steer action, necessary societal change can be created by addressing the values societies operate on. Biodiversity offsetting aims to make the destruction of nature visible and measurable. We interviewed habitat experts facing a challenging task: quantifying the value of nature for biodiversity offsetting.
Our results based on content analysis demonstrate how experts have differing understandings of nature. We identified two groups of habitat experts: the first group applied natural scientific knowledge for scientific accuracy and the second integrated knowledge on legislation, markets and ecology for societal impact. Further, the first group considered only pristine areas with minimal human impact as nature (often found in national parks), while second appreciated areas with future potential through restoration efforts, ecosystems that are important for locals’ wellbeing and even emotional ties between humans and places (that can also be found in urban locations). As pristine ecosystems become rarer, finding balance between human and nature becomes evident. Different understandings and values reflect underlying motivations for nature conservation: first group is motivated by moral responsibility, second by relationships between nature and human.
Research shows that a broad, systemic change across societies is needed to halt biodiversity loss. While we are pessimistic about the ability of biodiversity offsetting to rapidly change societal structures, it may reflect a larger shift in worldviews and appreciation towards nature. Our results support previous studies arguing that to motivate systemic change, social and relational values must be included in biodiversity governance.
