Diverse values of nature for sustainability.

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature's diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature's values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a 'values crisis' underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature's diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.

Ecosystem service trends in basin-scale restoration initiatives: a review.

The integration of ecosystem services in ecological restoration projects presents an opportunity for enhancing benefits to human livelihood and funding sources as well as generating public support for such initiatives. This study reviewed the global trends in integrating ecosystem services in basin-scale restoration projects through bibliographic analysis. Few studies appear to incorporate ecosystem services, possibly due to the inconsistency and absence of the use of universally accepted classifications. Our review notes an increasing trend from 2006 onward toward the inclusion and citation of this concept, although its use is still limited. In this review, the supporting service was found to be the most cited (8), followed by regulatory (3), cultural (1) and provisioning (1) services. Identifying the number of services related to a restoration action was problematic when the services were not explicitly cited. We identify opportunities for increased integration of ecosystem services in basin-scale restoration projects, suggesting a conceptual framework following from new hierarchical maps. This is based on congruence between degrading processes or threat maps (e.g., thresholds of impacts) and ecosystem service maps. The resultant map will facilitate the targeting of threatened service supply at different scales from the basin scale to the scale of the restoration site. We urge the scientific community to standardize definitions and create methodologies and software tools that facilitate the incorporation of ecosystem services in large-scale restoration plans.

An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation.

Research on ecosystem services has grown markedly in recent years. However, few studies are embedded in a social process designed to ensure effective management of ecosystem services. Most research has focused only on biophysical and valuation assessments of putative services. As a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem service research should be user-inspired and user-useful, which will require that researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the outset and collaborate with them in strategy development and implementation. Here we provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services. The model comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management. Outcomes of social, biophysical, and valuation assessments are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation. The latter then are transformed into user-friendly products to identify, with stakeholders, strategic objectives for implementation (the planning phase). The management phase undertakes and coordinates actions that achieve the protection of ecosystem services and ensure the flow of these services to beneficiaries. This outcome is achieved via mainstreaming, or incorporating the safeguarding of ecosystem services into the policies and practices of sectors that deal with land- and water-use planning. Management needs to be adaptive and should be institutionalized in a suite of learning organizations that are representative of the sectors that are concerned with decision-making and planning. By following the phases of our operational model, projects for safeguarding ecosystem services are likely to empower stakeholders to implement effective on-the-ground management that will achieve resilience of the corresponding social-ecological systems.