Better engagement in conservation policymaking: Considering ethical values could foster connection across diverse stakeholders, finds pollinator study

Measures to protect and restore biodiversity within the EU (and beyond) rely on the engagement of multiple stakeholder groups, for example NGOs and researcher institutions, who hold a variety of opinions and beliefs. Understanding key stakeholder perspectives and motivations is critical to developing and implementing effective policies with their engagement.

In a new study, researchers from France, Sweden and the UK – funded through the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme – have examined the worldviews and values of key stakeholder groups in EU pollinator conservation. This topic is a priority within the EU; it is explicitly referenced in the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, addressed through both the Pollinator Initiative and Article 10 of the Nature Restoration Regulation, and is a focus for society-centred citizen engagement platforms and initiatives such as the Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators.

The researchers interviewed 27 individuals from businesses, research institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policymaking bodies. They used a semi-structured interview format with open questions to collect qualitative data. They also collected quantitative data, asking participants to a) rate nine statements about pollinators in terms of their level of agreement; and b) select the most and least important values of pollinators from a list of provided options.

The respondents showed a high degree of consensus in their responses to the first five of the nine statements. For instance, 25 individuals disagreed that “Environmental regulations have placed unfair burdens on industry”. At least 20 agreed with statements asserting limits to economic growth, negative impacts of human interference in nature, and animals’ and plants’ right to exist. The researchers characterise these responses as presenting a ‘bio-ecocentric’ worldview: one grounded in beliefs about the importance of nature in its own right. Most (21) respondents demonstrated this worldview across these five statements. 

Across the remaining four statements, responses varied far more. The statements included assertions about the resilience of nature in the face of human impacts; the sufficiency of natural resources to meet human needs; and the necessity of using agricultural chemicals. In this cluster, eight participants showed notably anthropocentric world views: views grounded in concerns about human needs and activities.

In the value prioritisation activity, both “use” values – focusing on how humans benefit from pollinators – and “non-use” values – such as why pollinators matter in their own right and for their role in nature – were popular. The role of pollinators in sustaining nature and biodiversity was the most frequently prioritised value, followed by their value for producing a wide variety of human foods. A non-use value – their fundamental right to existence – was also chosen by 10 participants. Human cultural use values – pollinators’ contribution to art, leisure and recreation, and their natural beauty – were most commonly selected as least important.

The participants tended to regard both use and non-use values as important regardless of their worldview (bio-ecocentric, anthropocentric or other). All acknowledged the role of pollinators in supporting human society, while participants from every sector recognised pollinators’ intrinsic right to exist. One respondent demonstrated a notably anthropocentric worldview, and chose exclusively use values as the most important, but still described nature conservation and sustainable use as a ‘moral responsibility of humanity’.

This study has significant implications for policy development and communication, say the researchers. While use and intrinsic values (e.g. the right to exist) are most commonly cited in debate and promotion of conservation policies, the researchers argue that key actors are also motivated by values beyond these categories. For example, they cite responses in the study that indicate the importance of relational values – those grounded in how people relate to nature, such as moral principles or responsibilities (e.g. responsibility to conserve nature for future generations). The researchers therefore suggest that appealing to a wider range of values in conservation policy development could enhance engagement among diverse stakeholders.

The researchers recognise that they did not randomly select the study participants: they chose them to represent specific influential sectors and for their expertise. Their beliefs and opinions are, therefore, unlikely to be fully reflective, with consumers, farmers and local enterprises being key unrepresented stakeholder groups. Further research could include a more diverse range of stakeholders, suggest the authors, and consider a wider range of relational values to deepen understanding in this area; additionally, they suggest that their conclusions on diversifying the range of values considered in pollinator conservation activities could also apply to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Source: 

Uwingabire, Z., Vanbergen, A. J., Damiens, F. L. P., Breeze, T. D., van der Wal, R., and Young, J. C. (2025) Worldviews and values of key societal actors influencing decision-making around nature: The case of wild pollinator conservation in Europe. People and Nature 7:1366–1381. doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70035