Navigating across individual and deliberative values: A dual Q-method approach to elicit diverse values in grassland restoration

The current ‘UN Decade on Restoration’ calls for collaboration between scientists and practitioners to formulate guidelines for ecosystem restoration, within which transdisciplinary approaches are imperative to rethink the diverse values associated with nature, paving the way for sustainable ecosystem restoration. In our study, conducted within a real-world laboratory for grassland restoration in Germany, we employed an individual and a deliberative Q method approach coupled with participant observation and discourse analysis. We aimed to investigate how values attributed to grasslands that were elicited individually can shift through group deliberation. Our findings revealed significant differences between the expression of grasslands values from an individual perspective compared to a deliberative group setting. Compared to individual values, deliberative perspectives exhibited less diversity and encompassed fewer values. Specifically, the proportion of relational values decreased significantly in importance during the deliberation process, while the expression of intrinsic and instrumental values increased. Except for stewardship, care and aesthetic values, relational values were generally lower in the deliberative compared to individual Q-method Exercise. Values expressed explicitly in the individual Q-method exercise, such as sense of place, therapeutic value, cultural identity, relaxation values, notably declined in the deliberative group setting. The shift in value expressions was strongly associated with a sense of trust in the institutional setting, participants' perception of a group balanced process, participants' self-confidence and awareness of the shift in value expressions. Moreover, we argue that the shift in value expressions might result from the legacies of mainstream narratives in restoration and conservation, such as the importance of ‘nature for itself’ (intrinsic values) and ‘nature for people’ (instrumental values). Our study underscores the importance of considering both individual and deliberation levels in participatory ecosystem restoration processes, as values can be more dynamic than previously considered. Transdisciplinary and participatory approaches, such as those employed in this study, can provide valuable insights to better inform and legitimise associated restoration practices.