# Exploring the formation of public acceptability of biodiversity offsetting in Finland

## TL;DR

This study explores how the public in Finland accepts biodiversity offsetting, finding that people generally support it despite limited knowledge, and that their acceptance is influenced by hopefulness and perceived benefits.

## Contribution

The study empirically examines the factors influencing public acceptability of biodiversity offsetting in Finland, including the role of hopefulness and perceived impacts.

## Key findings

- Biodiversity offsetting was largely unknown to the public but was generally judged to be highly acceptable.
- Acceptability was positively related to the belief that offsetting resolves conservation conflicts and negatively related to concerns about land use restrictions and nature degradation.
- Hopefulness amplified the positive effect of concern for biodiversity on acceptability.

## Abstract

Public acceptance of nature conservation instruments is critical for their effective and fair implementation. Understanding conservation governance as a rational activity aligns with the view that citizens base their judgments of conservation instruments on a critical evaluation of the anticipated ecological, economic, and social impacts. However, although citizens generally consider various conservation instruments acceptable, their awareness and knowledge about the instruments are often limited, suggesting that the judgments may also be influenced by factors other than knowledge. We explored acceptability of voluntary biodiversity offsetting in Finland that was written into law in 2023. We hypothesized that public acceptability of the instrument hinges partially on the level of concern for biodiversity loss and of hopefulness that biodiversity loss can be halted and that level of acceptability is justified through rational arguments regarding the instrument's impacts. We tested our hypotheses empirically with an online survey of a representative sample of Finnish citizens (n = 1993). Biodiversity offsetting was largely unknown to the public; yet, it was generally judged to be highly acceptable. The supportive argument was that biodiversity offsetting promotes resolution of conservation conflicts, and the opposing arguments were that it restricts land use and leads to degradation of nature values. Hopefulness amplified the positive effect of concern for biodiversity on acceptability of offsetting (β = 0.072). Acceptability was positively related to the argument that biodiversity offsetting results in resolution of conservation conflicts (β = 0.424) and negatively related to the claims that it results in restriction of land use (β = −0.213) and destruction of nature values (β = −0.195). Our results broaden theoretical understanding of the public acceptance of conservation policies.