TY - JOUR

T1 - How methods influence nature's values we find – A comparison of three elicitation methods

AU - Kuhn, Lukas

AU - Cebrián-Piqueras, Miguel Ángel

AU - Riechers, Maraja

AU - Loos, Jacqueline

AU - Martín-López, Berta

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Authors

PY - 2025/12

Y1 - 2025/12

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Grassland restoration

KW - Nature's values

KW - Plural valuation

KW - Relational values

KW - Value elicitation methods

KW - Value-articulating institutions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105009630943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108721

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108721

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:105009630943

VL - 238

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

M1 - 108721

ER -