Nature Finance and Ecosystem Valuation: A Bibliometric Mapping of Financialization of Biodiversity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v3i08.2185Keywords:
Nature Finance, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Valuation, Financialization, BibliometricAbstract
This study investigates the evolving landscape of scholarly research on nature finance and the financialization of biodiversity through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of literature indexed in Scopus from 2000 to 2025. Using VOSviewer, we mapped co-occurring keywords, author networks, temporal trends, and country collaborations to identify dominant themes, emerging topics, and influential contributors. The findings reveal a conceptual transition from traditional ecosystem service valuation toward market-based conservation instruments, including conservation finance, carbon markets, and blockchain-based solutions. The thematic clusters emphasize the increasing intersection between finance, sustainability, and biodiversity policy, with recent trends showing a surge in decentralized finance applications for environmental assets. Notably, the United Kingdom and United States dominate collaborative networks, while Asia-Pacific regions exhibit growing engagement in the field. This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of biodiversity financialization and offers practical insights for policymakers, financial institutions, and environmental stakeholders aiming to design inclusive and effective biodiversity finance strategies. It also identifies gaps for future interdisciplinary research that bridges ecological science with financial innovation.
References
[1] B. Kumar, L. Kumar, A. Kumar, R. Kumari, U. Tagar, and C. Sassanelli, “Green finance in circular economy: a literature review,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., pp. 1–41, 2023.
[2] C. Fu, L. Lu, and M. Pirabi, “Advancing green finance: a review of sustainable development,” Digit. Econ. Sustain. Dev., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 20, 2023.
[3] M. A. Khan, H. Riaz, M. Ahmed, and A. Saeed, “Does green finance really deliver what is expected? An empirical perspective,” Borsa Istanbul Rev., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 586–593, 2022.
[4] M. A. Fahmi, F. Nurfauzia, K. Yulita, and W. Nurfitriani, “The role of green procurement, green supply chain management, green marketing strategy, and customers’ environmental attitudes on green purchase intentions of plastic bag substitutes: A structural equation model on modern retail,” Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 66–77, 2023.
[5] S. Mahmood, H. Sun, A. Iqbal, A. A. Alhussan, and E.-S. M. El-kenawy, “Green finance, sustainable infrastructure, and green technology innovation: pathways to achieving sustainable development goals in the belt and road initiative,” Environ. Res. Commun., vol. 6, no. 10, p. 105036, 2024.
[6] M. Migliorelli and P. Dessertine, “The rise of green finance in Europe,” Oppor. challenges issuers, investors Mark. Cham Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2, p. 2019, 2019.
[7] G. C. Daily et al., “Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver,” Front. Ecol. Environ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 2009.
[8] R. M. May, S. A. Levin, and G. Sugihara, “Ecology for bankers,” Nature, vol. 451, no. 7181, pp. 893–894, 2008.
[9] J. Dempsey and D. C. Suarez, “Arrested development? The promises and paradoxes of ‘selling nature to save it,’” Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 653–671, 2016.
[10] P. A. Whitelaw, B. E. M. King, and D. Tolkach, “Protected areas, conservation and tourism–financing the sustainable dream,” J. Sustain. Tour., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 584–603, 2014.
[11] J. Leendertse, M. Schrijvers, and E. Stam, “Measure twice, cut once: Entrepreneurial ecosystem metrics,” Res. Policy, vol. 51, no. 9, p. 104336, 2022.
[12] C. Corson, K. I. MacDonald, and B. Neimark, “Grabbing ‘green’: markets, environmental governance and the materialization of natural capital,” Hum. Geogr., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2013.
[13] S. Thomas, “Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 107, pp. 22–38, 2014.
[14] Y. Hou, S. Zhou, B. Burkhard, and F. Müller, “Socioeconomic influences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being: A quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 490, pp. 1012–1028, 2014.
[15] I. Ring, “Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: the case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil,” Land use policy, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 485–497, 2008.
[16] L. C. Gerhardinger, E. A. S. Godoy, P. J. S. Jones, G. Sales, and B. P. Ferreira, “Marine protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas,” Environ. Manage., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 630–643, 2011.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Loso Judijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com