Imagine trying to put a price on the sound of birdsong, the resilience of ancient woodlands, or the hidden genetic richness that helps ecosystems survive change. It feels impossible, yet governments, businesses, and communities make decisions every day that depend on exactly these kinds of valuations. When biodiversity remains “priceless,” it also risks being invisible.
A groundbreaking new study from Trinity College Dublin’s E3 Kinsella Challenge-based Multi‑disciplinary Team “Forest” takes on this challenge directly. Supported by the E3 Kinsella Challenge Fund and a generous donation from Anke Heydenreich, the team has produced a major piece of research that examines how forest biodiversity is valued across the world, and why the way we value it matters.
The study, “Valuing the invaluable: a review of economic valuations of forest biodiversity”, by Laqiqige Zhu and Dr Martha O’Hagan‑Luff, has been published in Ecosystem Services.
Why Value Forest Biodiversity?
Forests are among the planet’s richest ecosystems. They regulate climate, protect soils, provide clean water, support wildlife, and underpin cultural and economic life in countless communities. Yet because many of these benefits do not appear in markets, they are often left out of planning and policy.
Economic valuation seeks to express some of these benefits in monetary terms, helping policymakers:
- justify conservation funding
- design more effective environmental policies
- support emerging tools such as biodiversity credits
- assess trade‑offs in land‑use decisions
But putting a price on something so complex is deeply challenging.
What the Study Did
To understand how forest biodiversity is currently valued, Zhu and O’Hagan‑Luff carried out a systematic review and meta‑analysis of global research, gathering:
- 93 studies from around the world
- 265 separate valuation estimates
- a wide range of biodiversity indicators and valuation methods
Because studies differ in currencies, methods, and ecological definitions, the team carefully standardised all values to make meaningful comparisons.
Their analysis offers the clearest global picture to date of how forest biodiversity is defined, measured, and valued.
Major Findings
1. Biodiversity is defined in many inconsistent ways
Some studies focus on endangered species, others on habitat size, others on broad ideas like “biodiversity protection.” Many omit detailed ecological indicators entirely. This makes comparisons difficult and can reduce the usefulness of valuation results.
2. Most studies rely on surveys asking how much people are willing to pay
About 71% of studies use stated‑preference methods (like willingness‑to‑pay surveys). These capture public sentiment but:
- depend on respondents understanding complex ecological concepts
- often reflect ethical or emotional values
- may overlook stakeholders such as forest owners, farmers, or indigenous communities
As a result, valuations vary widely.
3. Different types of valuations respond differently to context
The study found:
- Per‑person valuations (e.g., from surveys) show little link to local ecological or economic conditions, suggesting people express a general moral desire to protect biodiversity.
- Per‑hectare valuations, however, change significantly depending on:
- population density
- income levels
- forest size
- valuation method used
- biome type
Unexpectedly, wealthier countries tended to assign lower per‑hectare values.
4. “Invisible” biodiversity is systematically undervalued
Indicators related to:
- genetic diversity
- ecosystem functions
- processes like nutrient cycling
tend to receive much lower monetary values because they are less visible or harder for non‑experts to understand, despite being essential to ecosystem resilience.
5. There are major global research gaps
More than half of all studies come from Europe. Regions with the greatest biodiversity, such as the Amazon, Congo Basin, or Southeast Asia, remain significantly underrepresented.
Why This Matters
This research highlights the urgent need for:
- clearer definitions of biodiversity in economic studies
- more ecologically accurate indicators
- increased valuation research in biodiversity‑rich regions
- better integration of ecological science with economic methods
It also strengthens the case for multi‑disciplinary approaches—the foundation of the E3 initiative—to bridge the gaps between ecology, economics, and policy.
Forest biodiversity may be “invaluable,” but failing to value it properly has real consequences. This study shines a light on how the world currently measures that value, and where the biggest improvements are needed. By advancing our understanding of biodiversity valuation, Zhu and O’Hagan‑Luff’s work helps ensure forests are protected not only for their beauty and heritage, but for the irreplaceable life they sustain.
Everyone at E3 congratulates Laqiqige and Martha on this fantastic achievement. Your work is an inspiring example of what E3 stands for: Balanced Solutions for a Better World.