Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people Sandra Dı́az1, Sebsebe Demissew2, Julia Carabias3, Carlos Joly4, Mark Lonsdale5 , Neville Ash6, Anne Larigauderie7, Jay Ram Adhikari8, Salvatore Arico9, András Báldi10, Ann Bartuska11, Ivar 12 Andreas Baste , Adem Bilgin13, Eduardo Brondizio14, Kai MA Chan15 , Viviana Elsa Figueroa16, Anantha Duraiappah17, Markus Fischer18,19, Rosemary 20 7 Hill , Thomas Koetz , Paul Leadley21 , Philip Lyver22, 23 Georgina M Mace , Berta Martin-Lopez24, Michiko 25 Okumura , Diego Pacheco26, Unai Pascual27,28,29 , Edgar Selvin Pérez30 , Belinda Reyers31, Eva Roth32, Osamu Saito33, 34 Robert John Scholes , Nalini Sharma35 , Heather Tallis36 , Randolph Thaman37, Robert Watson38, Tetsukazu Yahara39, Zakri Abdul Hamid40, Callistus Akosim41, Yousef Al-Hafedh42, Rashad Allahverdiyev43, Edward Amankwah44 , Stanley T Asah45, Zemede Asfaw46, Gabor 47 48 Bartus , L Anathea Brooks , Jorge Caillaux49 , Gemedo Dalle50, Dedy Darnaedi51, Amanda Driver52, Gunay Erpul53 , Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre54, Pierre Failler55, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar 56 Fouda , Bojie Fu57 , Haripriya Gundimeda58, Shizuka Hashimoto59, 60 Floyd Homer , Sandra Lavorel61, Gabriela Lichtenstein62, William Armand 63 Mala , Wadzanayi Mandivenyi64, 65 Piotr Matczak , Carmel Mbizvo66, Mehrasa Mehrdadi67 , Jean Paul Metzger68, Jean Bruno Mikissa69, Henrik Moller70 , Harold A Mooney71, Peter Mumby72, Harini Nagendra73 , Carsten 74 Nesshover , Alfred Apau Oteng-Yeboah75, György Pataki76, Marie Roué77, Jennifer Rubis78, Maria Schultz79, Peggy Smith80 , Rashid Sumaila81, 82 83 Kazuhiko Takeuchi , Spencer Thomas , Madhu Verma84, Youn Yeo-Chang85 and Diana Zlatanova86 The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Conceptual Framework are its transparent and participatory Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual construction process and its explicit consideration of diverse Framework. This conceptual and analytical tool, presented scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, here in detail, will underpin all IPBES functions and provide including indigenous and local knowledge. Because the focus structure and comparability to the syntheses that IPBES will on co-construction of integrative knowledge is shared by anproduce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. Salient innovative aspects of the IPBESwww.sciencedirect.com increasing number of initiatives worldwide, this framework should be useful beyond IPBES, for the wider research andCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 2 Open issueknowledge-policy communities working on the links between nature and people, such as natural, social and engineering scientists, policy-makers at different levels, and decision- makers in different sectors of society. Addresses 1 Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologı́a Vegetal (IMBIV-CONICET) and FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CC 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina 2 National Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 3434, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico DF, Mexico 4 Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil 5 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia. Present address: Monash University and Charles Darwin University, Australia 6 Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya 7 IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus, Bonn, Germany 8 Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, P.O. Box 5832, Kathmandu, Nepal 9 Science–Policy Interface and Assessments, Division of Science Policy, Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO, France 10 MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u 2-4, Vácrátót 2163, Hungary 11 US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA 12 Skålagata 50, 5470 Rosendal, Norway 13 Research Division, Ministry of Forests and Water Affairs, Turkey 14 Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, SB-130, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA 15 IRES, University of British Columbia, Canada 16 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 413 Saint- Jacques Street, Montreal, QC H2Y 1N9, Canada 17 Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education on Peace and Sustainable Development, New Delhi, India 18 Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland 19 Biodiversity and Climate Research Center BiK F, SenckenbergGfN, Frankfurt, Germany 20 Social and Economic Sciences, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Ecosystem Sciences, Australia 21 Université Paris-Sud, Lab. ESE, UMR 8079 CNRS/UPS, 91405 Orsay, France 22 Landcare Research, P.O. Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand 23 Centre for Biodiversity & Environmental Research (CBER), Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK 24 Social–Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain 25 Policy Coordination Unit, Executive Office, UNEP, Kenya 26 Universidad de la Cordillera, La Paz, Bolivia 27 Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain 28 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain 29 University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge, UK 30 Fundacion Junej T’inam, Guatemala 31 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa 32 Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark 33 United Nations University, Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Tokyo, Japan 34 CSIR Natural Resources and Environment, Meiring Naudé Road, Brummeria, Pretoria, South Africa 35 Biodiversity Unit, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya 36 The Nature Conservancy Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USACurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 37 University of the South Pacific, Fiji 38 Tyndall Center Department of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK 39 Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan 40 Prime Minister’s Office, Putrajaya, Malaysia 41 Federal University of Technology, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria 42 King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology, P.O. Box 6086, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia 43 Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Baku, Azerbaijan 44 Centre for Environmental Governance (CEGOV), Accra, Ghana 45 School of Environmental & Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, USA 46 Department of Plant Biology & Biodiversity Management, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia 47 Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp 3, Budapest H-1111, Hungary 48 Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO, Paris 75007, France 49 CEL-IUCN and Peruvian Society of Environmental Law-SPDA, Lima, Peru 50 Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 51 Herbarium Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Bogor, Indonesia 52 South African National Biodiversity Institute, South Africa 53 Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, Turkey 54 Biodiversity International, Rome, Italy 55 Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of Portsmouth, UK 56 Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Egypt 57 Research Centre for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 58 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Powai, Mumbai, India 59 Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan 60 The Trust For Sustainable Livelihoods, Trinidad and Tobago 61 Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France 62 INAPL/CONICET, 3 de Febrero 1378, 1426 Buenos Aires, Argentina 63 Department of Plant Biology, University of Yaounde, Cameroon 64 Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa 65 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, and Institute for Agriculture and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland 66 South African National Biodiversity Institute, Claremont, South Africa 67 Technical Expert for Habitats and Protected Areas, Iran 68 Department of Ecology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil 69 Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Foréts (ENEF), Libreville, Gabon 70 Centre for Sustainability: Agriculture, Food, Energy, Environment — Kā Rakahau o te Ao Tūroa (CSAFE), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand 71 Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA 72 Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia 73 School of Development, Azim Premji University, PES Institute of Technology Campus, India 74 UFZ — Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany 75 University of Ghana, Department of Botany, P.O. Box 683, LG 55, LEGON Accra, Ghana 76 Environmental Social Science Research Group and Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary 77 National Museum of Natural History (MNHN), Département Hommes Natures Sociétés, CP 135, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France 78 Climate Frontlines Project, Science Policy and Capacity-building Division, Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO, France 79 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden 80 Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canadawww.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 381 Fisheries Economics Research Unit, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 82 United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan 83 P.O. Box 341, Lanse Aux Epines, St. George’s, Grenada 84 Centre for Ecological Services Management, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India 85 Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 86 Department of Zoology and Anthropology, Faculty of Biology/Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’, Sofia, Bulgaria Corresponding author: Dı́az, Sandra (sdiaz@efn.uncor.edu) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue Edited by Eduardo Brondizio, Rik Leemans and William Solecki For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 20 September 2014; Accepted 21 November 2014 Available online 20th December 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 1877-3435/# 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creative- commons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/). Introduction1 The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012 as an independent intergovernmental body open to all member countries of the United Nations, with the goal of ‘strengthening the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development’ (http://www. ipbes.net). Developed in the wake of other international assessments, specifically the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPBES was designed to proactively develop assessments matched to policy needs, and to support capacity building across scales and topics [1,2]. To achieve this objective, IPBES has four intercon- nected functions: to catalyse the generation of new knowledge; to produce assessments of existing knowl- edge; to support policy formulation and implementation; and to build capacities relevant to achieving its goal. The first public product of IPBES was a conceptual frame- work to underpin all these functions, to structure the syntheses that will inform policy, and to improve com- parability across various assessments carried out at differ- ent spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. Conceptual frameworks, in the context of IPBES, might be described as ‘a concise summary in words or pictures of relationships between people and nature’. In other words, conceptual frameworks depict key social and ecological1 Key terms used in this article are defined in the Glossary. www.sciencedirect.com components, and the relationships between these com- ponents. They provide common terminology and struc- ture for the variables that are the focus of a system analysis, and propose assumptions about key relationships in the system. Conceptual frameworks have the ability to provide a shared language and a common set of relation- ships and definitions to make complex systems as simple as they need to be for their intended purpose. Integrative conceptual frameworks are particularly useful tools in fields requiring interdisciplinary collaboration where they are used to make sense of complexity [3,4] by clarifying and focusing thinking about relationships, supporting communication across disciplines and knowledge systems and between knowledge and policy [5]. In this article, we present a detailed description of the Conceptual Framework approved by the IPBES Second Plenary, aimed not only for those involved in IPBES work but also as a general integrative framework of potential interest for members of the wider research and knowl- edge-policy communities focusing on the links between nature and people. The IPBES Conceptual Framework (hereafter CF) is a highly simplified model of the complex interactions between the natural world and human societies that are most relevant to IPBES’s goal. It builds on the basis of previous influential conceptual frame- works [3,6] and most notably the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [7,8]. The work of IPBES is innovative in two respects. First, it has been constructed in a transparent, inclusive and participatory manner, through multidisciplinary work- shops and open review by a broad range of countries and stakeholders over more than two years (Box 1). Second, it explicitly embraces different scientific disci- plines (natural, social, engineering sciences), as well as diverse stakeholders (the scientific community, govern- ments, international organizations, and civil society at different levels), and their different knowledge systems (western science, indigenous, local and practitioners’ knowledge). Key features of the IPBES Conceptual Framework The CF starts with consideration of the goal of the platform, ‘. . .conservation and sustainable use of biodi- versity, long-term human well-being and sustainable de- velopment’, and therefore the key elements (or components) are nature, the benefits that people derive from nature and a good quality of life. In a shift of focus with respect to most previous initiatives, the CF also highlights the central role that institutions, governance and decision-making play on the links among these elements. Most importantly, the CF explicitly includes multiple knowledge systems. The main elements, their interlinkages and the different knowledge systems are all represented in Figure 1.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 4 Open issue Box 1 The process of developing the IPBES Conceptual Framework Discussions that led to the IPBES CF had their origins long before the formal establishment of IPBES, and built on the experiences in developing and using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment con- ceptual framework and various other processes, including two informal international workshops in Tokyo (2011 and 2012). At the time of the official establishment of IPBES in Panama in April 2012, the IPBES Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft conceptual framework document, drawing on and informed by existing con- ceptual frameworks, and to make this available for online review through an open and transparent process. In support of his work, an informal expert workshop on a conceptual framework for IPBES was organized by UNESCO in Paris in October 2012, supported by IUCN and the Ministry of the Environment of Japan. The outcome of this workshop was made available online by the IPBES Secretariat from December 2012 to March 2013, and submitted as a background document to IPBES-1 (Bonn, December 2013). Feedback from this consultation and discussions at IPBES-1 were compiled by the IPBES Secretariat and taken as the basis for a formal International Expert Workshop on the Conceptual Framework for IPBES, (Cape Town, August 2013), hosted and supported by the Governments of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The workshop was attended by 28 experts from multiple disciplines, representatives from relevant Multilateral Environment Agreement scientific subsidi- ary bodies, as well as from UNEP, FAO, UNDP and UNESCO, and members of the IPBES Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP). The outcome of this workshop was further considered by the MEP, who subsequently proposed a conceptual framework to the IPBES Plenary at its second meeting. The Conceptual Framework (CF) was adopted by IPBES-2 in Antalya in December 2013 [84]. See http://www.ipbes.net/ http://www.ipbes.net/ for full documentation related to this process.The different knowledge systems are indicated using different fonts and colours for the boxes representing the main elements. The headlines in larger bold font indicate the broad, highly inclusive categories, and the green and blue fonts indicate the more specific categories that Western science and other knowledge systems, respectively, often use to refer to them. There is con- siderable debate about the terminology for what we here call western science on the one hand and other knowledge systems, in particular indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), on the other (see glossary2 for definitions). Their use here is intended to be broad and indicative. Similarly, we acknowledge that western science and other knowl- edge systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive in character, content, and history [9,10]. Therefore the clear- cut distinction between the blue and green ‘circuits’ is largely operational, and a means to highlight the import- ance of incorporating diverse perspectives into the CF. A full alignment among the categories of different knowl- edge systems or even disciplines is unattainable, but every effort was made during the development of the CF to represent these alternative views. While a single2 Definitions related to the specific context of the IPES Conceptual Framework; they may thus differ in detail from those used within individual disciplines. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 CF has been retained for practical purposes, it is recog- nized that representations of human–nature relationships may vary across cultures and knowledge systems in relation to specific worldviews and cosmologies, including between scientific and indigenous knowledge systems, as well as among indigenous cultures. The CF is mainly intended to provide common ground, to facilitate cross- disciplinary and cross-cultural understanding and inter- operability, and to identify options for action. Six main elements to link people and nature The CF includes six primary interlinked elements (or components) representing the natural and social systems that operate at various scales in time and space: nature; nature’s benefits to people; anthropogenic assets; institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers of change; direct drivers of change; and good quality of life3 (Figure 1). These elements have been conceived as broad, inclusive categories with which all stakeholders should be able to relate. The six elements are described in detail below: 1. ‘Nature’ in the context of IPBES refers to the natural world with an emphasis on the diversity of living organisms and their interactions among themselves and with their environment. Within the context of western science, it includes categories such as biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem structure and functioning, the evolutionary process, the biosphere, living natural resources (as defined in, e.g. Ref. [7]), shared evolutionary heritage [11,12], and biocultural diversity [13,14] — which incorporates ‘ethnobiodiversity’ [15]. Being western science-based, these categories are indicated in green font within the nature box in Figure 1. Non-living natural resources which may benefit people and therefore contribute to a good quality of life, such as deep aquifers, mineral and fossil reserves, wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, are considered as part of nature, but their direct benefits (i.e. those that are not mediated by non-human living organisms) are not the focus of IPBES. Within the context of other knowledge systems, nature includes different categories and holistic concepts held by indigenous peoples around the world (in blue font). Examples are Mother Earth and systems of life, shared by the indigenous peoples of the South American Andes [16,17], the concepts of sēnluó-wànxiàng (vast forest and every manifestation of nature) and tien-ti (Heaven and Earth) of Taoism shared by East Asian peoples [18], and concepts of the land encompassing non-human living organisms, living people, ancestors, deities and their shared histories in the South Pacific Islands (e.g. fonua, vanua, whenua, ples) [15]. Nature has its own intrinsic values, independent from any human considerations of its worth or importance, and also contributes to societies through the provision of benefits to people, which have3 The inclusive names of the six elements of the CF are indicated in italics in the main text and in bold black font in Figure 1. www.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 5 Figure 1 Good quality of life Global Human wellbeing Living in harmony with nature 8 Living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth 10 1 9 Nature’s benefits 6 Anthropogenic Direct drivers to people assets Natural drivers Ecosystem goods 5 and services National 7 Institutions and Anthropogenic Nature’s gifts 2governance and other drivers indirect drivers 3 Nature 4 Biodiversity and ecosystems Mother Earth Systems of life Intrinsic values Local Changing over time Baseline-Trends-Scenarios Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability The IPBES Conceptual Framework (CF). In the central panel, delimited in grey, boxes and arrows denote the elements of nature and society that are at the main focus of the Platform. In each of the boxes, the headlines in black are inclusive categories that should be intelligible and relevant to all stakeholders involved in IPBES and embrace the categories of western science (in green) and equivalent or similar categories according to other knowledge systems (in blue). The blue and green categories mentioned here are illustrative, not exhaustive, and are further explained in the main text. Solid arrows in the main panel denote influence between elements; the dotted arrows denote links that are acknowledged as important, but are not the main focus of the Platform. Links indicated by numbered arrow are described in the main text (section on Linkages among the elements, and Box 2). The anthropocentric values of nature are embedded in the nature, nature’s benefits to people and good quality of life boxes, and in the arrows connecting them. The intrinsic values of nature (represented by a blue oval at the bottom of the nature box) are independent from human experience and thus do not participate in these arrows (see Values section in main text for detailed explanation). The thick coloured arrows below and to the right of the central panel indicate that the interactions between the elements change over time (horizontal bottom arrow) and occur at various scales in space (vertical arrow). The vertical lines to the right of the spatial scale arrow indicate that, although IPBES assessments will be at the supranational-subregional to global-geographical scales (scope), they will in part build on properties and relationships acting at finer — national and subnational-scales (resolution, in the sense of minimum discernible unit). The resolution line does not extend all the way to the global level because, due to the heterogenous and spatially aggregated nature of biodiversity, even the broadest global assessments will be most useful if they retain finer resolution. This figure, modified from Ref. [78], is a simplified version of that adopted by the Second Plenary of IPBES [84]; it retains all its essential elements but some of the detailed wording explaining each of the elements has been eliminated within the boxes to improve readability. Interacting across spatial scales IPBES level of resolution IPBES Scopeanthropocentric instrumental and relational values (see Values section below). 2. ‘Anthropogenic assets’ refers to built infrastructure, health facilities, knowledge (including ILK and technical or scientific knowledge, as well as formalwww.sciencedirect.com and nonformal education), technology (both physical objects and procedures), and financial assets, among others. Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted to emphasize that a good life is achieved by a co- production of benefits between nature and variousCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 6 Open issueassets built by people (see below). Anthropogenic assets are also important to include in the CF because the value of many of nature’s benefits to people vary depending on the availability and preferences for alternative sources of those benefits. For example, the value of the vegetation and soils of watersheds in filtering water for drinking will be higher when there is no built alternative (e.g. a water filtration plant). 3. ‘Nature’s benefits to people’ refers to all the benefits that humanity — individuals, communities, societies, nations or humanity as a whole — in rural and urban settings — obtains from nature. Ecosystem goods and services — including provisioning, regulating and cultural services [8] — all fall in this category. Because they are categories from western science, they are indicated in green font in Figure 1. Analogous categories in other knowledge systems (indicated in blue font) include that of nature’s gifts [16,19,20]. The importance of nature’s benefits to people can be expressed through a diverse set of valuation approaches and methods (discussed further in the Values section below). The CF is inclusive of all of these value definitions and encourages broad consideration of the full suite of values in any assessment. As an illustration, an assessment that includes consideration of the value of bees would need to consider their diverse values. For example, bees provide pollination services that have monetary value in service to several of the main crops that feed the world, estimated at more than USD 200 billion per year [21]. In addition, bees can provide value via pollination of locally consumed crops, production of honey and other wild foods that are essential sources of nourishment and income more locally [22]. Furthermore, some pollinator species are part of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge and management systems: for example, the rainforest and the open forest honey bees — dabu and walarr respectively — are two of the most important totemic species and form the basis of moieties and land classification for the Yalanji people of the Australian tropical rainforests [23]. Among the Maya, the stingless bees that are raised as part of an ancient practice are considered a gift from the gods [24]. Some of nature’s benefits to people require no intervention (or minimal intervention) of society to be produced. For example, the production of oxygen and the contribution to the regulation of the Earth’s temperature by photosyn- thetic organisms; the regulation of the quantity and quality of water resources by vegetation; coastal protection by coral reefs and mangroves; and the direct provision of food or medicines by wild animals, plants and microorganisms. Most of these benefits, however, depend for their provision on the joint contribution of nature and anthropogenic assets [25,26], in a process sometimes referred to as ‘co-production’ [25]. For example, some agricultural goods such as food or fibre crops depend on ecosystem processesCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, or primary production as well as on social intervention such as farm labour, knowledge of genetic variety selection and farming techniques, machinery, storage facilities and transportation. Trade-offs between the beneficial and detrimental effects of organisms and ecosystems are not unusual [27] and they need to be understood within the context of the bundles of multiple benefits to people provided within specific contexts [28]. In addition, what is beneficial, detrimental or value- neutral depends on the perspective and context of different societies, groups and even individuals [4,29]. The notion of nature’s benefits to people includes detrimental as well as beneficial effects of nature on the achievement of a good quality of life by different people and in different contexts. 4. ‘Institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers’ are the ways in which people and societies organize themselves and their interactions with nature at different scales. They are the underlying causes of change that are generated outside the ecosystem in question (i.e. outside the nature box of Figure 1) and are central to the CF because of their crucial role, influencing all aspects of relationships between people and nature. Their effect can be positive or negative, either in absolute terms or context dependent. They are considered indirect drivers because in the vast majority of cases they do not affect nature directly, but rather through their effects on direct anthropogenic drivers (see below). Institutions encompass all formal and informal interactions among stakeholders and social structures that determine how decisions are taken and implemented, how power is exercised, and how responsibilities are distributed [30] Various collections of institutions come together to form governance systems, that include interactions between different centres of power in society (corporate, customary-law based, governmental, judicial) at different scales from local through to global [31]. Institutions and governance systems determine, to various degrees, the access to, and the control, allocation and distribution of components of nature and anthropogenic assets and their benefits to people. Examples of institutions are systems of property and access rights to land (e.g. public, common-pool or private), legislative arrangements, treaties, customary laws, informal social norms and rules, and international regimes such as agreements against stratospheric ozone depletion. Economic policies, including macro- economic, fiscal, monetary or agricultural policies, are institutions that play a significant role in influencing people’s perception about the importance of nature’s benefits, and their behaviour and thus decisions about the way they interact with nature. People, however, have diverse perspectives on a good quality of life, beyond the domain of wealth and income, to incorporate issues of justice, freedom, and equality.www.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 7Governance systems have different degrees of legiti- macy and voice, performance, accountability, fairness and rights, and scale of operation [32,33]. The thorough consideration of different forms of institu- tions and decisions [34] and their role in altering connections with all other elements in the CF helps decision makers identify and test different policy options. 5. ‘Direct drivers’, both natural and anthropogenic, affect nature directly. ‘Natural direct drivers’ are those that are not the result of human activities and whose occurrence is beyond human control. These include natural climate and weather patterns, as well as extreme events such as prolonged drought or cold periods, tropical cyclones and floods, glacial lake outburst floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. ‘Anthropogenic direct drivers’ are those that are the result of human decisions and actions, namely, of institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers. Some examples of anthropogenic drivers are degradation, exclusion and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, intensification or abandonment, harvesting of wild populations, climate change produced by anthropogenic carbon emissions, pollu- tion of soil, water or air, and species introductions. 6. ‘Good quality of life’ is the achievement of a fulfilled human life. Although what it entails varies consider- ably within and among different societies and cultures, everybody wants to be free from poverty and disease, have a long and fulfilling life, and access to freedoms and rights. It is a highly value-based and context- dependent state comprising multiple factors such as access to food, water, shelter, health, education, good social relationships, physical, energy and livelihood security, equity, cultural identity, material prosperity, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of choice, action and participation in society [35,36]. From virtually all standpoints, a good quality of life is multidimensional, having material, as well as non-material components. Reflecting the diversity of humankind, perceptions of a good life also vary with gender, age, and culture. Different societies, and different individuals within societies, have different views on desirable relation- ships with nature, the material versus the spiritual domain, and the present versus the past or future [36]. Because IPBES aims to embrace different knowledge systems and stakeholders, the consideration of differences and commonalities among these various visions on quality of life is particularly important. The three perspectives on good quality of life mentioned in the top box of Figure 1 — Human well-being, Living in harmony with nature and Living in balance and harmony with Mother Earth — illustrate this point. Human well-being (in green font) is a concept widely used in the international development field and is often defined as the state of physical and mental health of individuals. Common indicators of well-being usedwww.sciencedirect.com in national reports and by policy makers focus on material wealth or on synthetic measures such as the ‘human development index’ (HDI), but for IPBES, it is essential to embrace a broader definition such as suggested in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [7]. Initial indicators of human development, such as income and per capita gross domestic product (GDP), continue to be used by most countries. These indicators are important because average values per person per country are often correlated with child mortality, life expectancy and human development index, but they tend to capture only a small proportion of the many attributes of the current concept of human well-being of individuals. IPBES offers an opportunity to add to the above definitions and indicators the ethical and ecologically sustainable utilization of nature as key components of the concept of human well-being. A number of indicators covering the various aspects of well-being are now available, including genuine progress indicator, inclusive wealth index, the gross national happiness index pioneered by Buthan, OECD good life indicator, and the coefficient of living standard among others [37,38,39 ]. Other knowledge systems or cultural traditions relate more meaningfully to perspectives on a good quality of life that show both differences and commonalities with that of human well-being, and are indicated in blue font. For example, the concept of Living in harmony with nature — which was initially presented in international discourse at the United Nations in 1982, but then largely ignored until recently — has been adopted as vision by the Convention on Biological Diversity and used in its Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets (http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268). This concept appears already in early colonial sources describing indigenous populations in the Andes [40]. Over time, it has come to highlight the interdepen- dence that exists among human beings, other living species and the elements of nature. It implies that we should live together with all other organisms respect- fully even though we need to exploit some of these organisms to a certain degree. This concept was originally proposed to the Convention on Biological Diversity by Japan. The original Japanese term (shizen kyosei shakai) literally means society in symbiosis — or living together — with nature, not only with mutual benefit but also with relationships which are necess- arily detrimental for one of the parties, but which should be made sustainable [41]. Likewise, Living- well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth is a concept originating in the vision of many indigenous peoples worldwide, has been recently incorporated in the legal framework of some Latin American countries [16,19], and emphasizes the collective cosmocentric relationships across time among people and between people and Mother Earth. Balance and harmony refersCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 8 Open issueto individuals in the context of a wider human community, including ancestors and descendants, and also between humans and Mother Earth, which is seen as a holistic entity that sustains all living things, and of which humans are an inextricable part, physically and spiritually. In this vision, Mother Earth is entitled with rights as a collective subject of interest (http://www.cbd. int/decision/cop/?id=12268) [17]. It is evident that there are wide overlaps as well as differences in the perspectives on a good quality of life across various knowledge systems, cultures and societies. Thus, efforts are needed to develop a common ground to understanding how to achieve the various visions of a good quality of life while pursuing the conservation and sustainable use of nature and its benefits to people at different scales. Linkages among the elements Among the complex interactions that link the six elements described in the previous section, the CF focuses on those that are directly relevant to the goal of IPBES. These relationships are indicated by arrows in the main panel of Figure 1, generically described here, and illustrated by anBox 2 An example of application of the CF: Marine wild fisheries There are more than 28 000 fish species recorded in 43 ecoregions in the discovered (nature). With a worldwide network of infrastructure such as p (anthropogenic assets), about 80 million tons of fish are caught every year items in the food supply (nature’s benefits; Arrow 4) of over seven billion required to achieve food security (good quality of life) (Arrow 8). Campaigns and promotion of the benefits of fish protein have induced ch improvement in the diet (good quality of life), and an increased demand predominance of private short-term interests over collective long-term inte perverse subsidies for diesel, are indirect drivers underlying (Arrow 2) the drivers) that, because of their technology or spatial scope or time scale o ecosystems (Arrow 3). The impacts of these practices are combined with biodiversity (nature) directly (Arrow 3). These drivers include chemical pollut of invasive species, diversions and obstructions of freshwater flows into riv reefs and mangroves, and climate and atmosphere change, including oce The steep decline in fish populations can dramatically affect other compon those of marine mammals and seabirds, and ecosystems from the deep s consequences for many societies in the form of decreases in catches (nat ceremonial value nature’s benefits to people and good quality of life), re recreational fishing fleets and associated industries across the globe (anth developed countries, this disproportionally affects the poor and women (q indirectly affect nature and its benefits to people and quality of life well forest areas as an alternative source of protein, and thus affecting populat health [87]. In many cases, lack of recognition of the formal and informal in tenure systems is a further indirect driver that leads to the overriding of the 2, 5, 6, and 7). Institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers can be m depleted marine ecosystems (nature), fisheries (nature’s benefits to peop life). Examples include strengthening and enforcement of existing fishing re Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [88], helping peo wield, the zoning of the oceans into reserves and areas with different levels of cultural norms that avoid overexploitation of ecologically important fish marine tenures and sustainable use systems. In addition, anthropogenic development and implementation of new critical knowledge, such as fishing of the role of marine reserves and no-catch areas in the long-term resilien Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 example in Box 2. A society’s achievement of good quality of life and the vision of what this entails directly influence institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers (Arrow 1 in Figure 1) and, through them, they influence the other elements of the CF. For example, to the extent that a good life refers to an individual’s immediate material satisfaction and individual rights, or to the collective needs and rights of present and future generations, it affects institutions that operate from the subnational scale, such as land and water use rights, pollution control, and traditional arrangements for hunting and extraction, to the global scale, as in subscription to international treaties or biosecurity protocols. Views of what constitutes a good quality of life also indirectly shape, via institutions, the ways in which individuals and groups relate to nature. Perceptions of nature, for example, may range from nature being considered as a resource to be exploited for the benefit of human societies, to nature being seen as a sacred living entity of which humans are only one part. Institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers affect all elements and are the root causes of the direct anthropogenic drivers that affect nature (Arrow 2). For world’s marine ecosystems and probably still many more to be orts and processing industries, and several million vessels [85] (Arrow 6). Fish are predicted to become one of the most important people [85]. This is an important contribution to the animal protein anges in consumption patterns (Arrow 8) and have brought about an for fish in the global markets (Arrow 1). This, together with the rests, weak regulation and enforcement of fishing operations, and exploitation of fisheries by fishing practices (anthropogenic direct f deployment, are destructive to fish populations and their associated those of other anthropogenic direct drivers in affecting marine ion associated with agriculture and aquacultural runoff, the introduction ers and estuaries, the mechanical destruction of habitats, such as coral an warming and acidification. ents of nature, in the form of wildlife, ecological food webs, including ea to the coast. Increasingly depleted fisheries also have negative ure’s benefits to people; Arrow 4), loss of fish species that have high duced access (Arrow 8), and the impaired viability of commercial and ropogenic assets). In the case of many small-scale fisheries in less uality of life) [86]. Decreases in catches by small-scale fisheries can beyond coastal areas, for example, by increasing bushmeat harvest in ions of wild mammals such as primates, and posing threats to human stitutions of indigenous and local peoples and their customary marine se systems by practices that supply fish to the global economy (Arrows obilized to halt these negative trends and foster the recovery of many le) and their associated food security and lifestyles (good quality of gulations, such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of the ple diversify their livelihoods to reduce total fishing effort and improve of catch effort, enhanced control of quotas and pollution, preservation species, and recognition of indigenous and local peoples’ customary assets could be mobilized towards this end in the form of the gear and procedures that minimize by-catch, or a better understanding ce of exploited fisheries. www.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 9example, economic and demographic growth and lifestyle choices (indirect drivers) influence the amount of land that is converted and allocated to food crops, energy crops or plantations; accelerated carbon-based industrial growth over the past two centuries has led to anthropogenic climate change at the global scale; synthetic fertilizer subsidy policies have greatly contributed to the detri- mental nutrient loading of freshwater and coastal ecosys- tems. All of these have strong effects on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and their derived benefits and, in turn, influence different social arrangements intended to deal with these problems. This may be seen, for example, at the global level, with institutions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals or, at the national and subnational levels, arrangements in ministries or laws that contribute to the protection, restor- ation and sustainable management of biodiversity. Institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers also affect the interactions and balance between nature and anthropogenic assets (Arrows 5, 6, and 7) in the co- production of nature’s benefits to people, for example, by regulating urban sprawl over agricultural or recreational areas. This element also modulates the link between nature’s benefits to people and the achievement of a good quality of life (Arrow 8), for example, by different regimes of property and access to land and goods and services; transport and circulation policies; and economic incen- tives as taxations or subsidies. The links between nature and anthropogenic assets are sometimes negative. For example, the deployment of technology and infrastruc- ture typically associated with urbanization, expansion of road networks, industry and large-scale agriculture are often detrimental to nature (see more examples in Box 2). In this sense, the same piece of agricultural machinery, or the same vessel, can be conceptualized as part of the anthropogenic assets that together with nature co-produce a benefit to people (e.g. grains or fish respectively), or as an instrumental part of a direct anthropogenic driver (e.g. land conversion, or direct exploitation, respectively) that affects nature. However, in many cases anthropogenic assets (including knowledge systems and physical practices) create and maintain biodiversity. Examples are the numerous cultivated varieties of rice, potatoes, maize and other crops obtained from wild relatives and main- tained by ancestral agricultural societies in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific Islands [42,43], the highly diverse meadows and pasturelands maintained by traditional pastoral use in Europe [44], and the high heritage and economic value ascribed to nature and eco-tourism initiatives in many African countries [45]. Many cultures around the world also have spiritual and religious practices in which certain places, water bodies, forests, animals, trees are considered sacred, serve as totems, are protected by rituals and taboos, and/or arewww.sciencedirect.com revered as gifts imbued with ancestral and divine pre- sence and significance [46,47]. Different societies, rural and urban, experience different elements of the natural world (different animals, different vegetation types, different seasonal and decadal cycles); and they do so with different immediacy (from everyday intimate con- tact to sporadic contact through the mass communication media). These are important factors shaping their perspectives on the reciprocal relationship between nature and a good quality of life [48,49]. Direct drivers of change are the immediate cause of changes in nature (Arrow 3) and, as a consequence, affect the supply of nature’s benefits to people (Arrow 4). Natural drivers affect nature directly, for example, the climatic regime is one of the most important factors determining the distribution of ecosystems and biomes on Earth [50], and the impact by a massive meteorite is believed to have triggered one of the mass extinctions of plants and animals in the history of life [51]. Furthermore, a volcanic eruption can cause ecosystem destruction, while at the same time serving as a source of new rock materials for fertile soils [52]. Direct drivers also affect anthropogenic assets directly (arrow not shown), for example, when housing or water and power supply systems are disrupted by earthquakes or hurricanes. Direct drivers can also have direct impacts on the quality of life (Arrow 9), including health problems directly associated with particu- larly harsh climates, heat stroke as a result of climate warming, poisoning as a result of pollution, or death as a result of a tsunami. In addition to their effect through Arrows 6 and 7 (see above), anthropogenic assets directly affect the possibility of achieving a good quality of life through the provision of and access to material wealth, shelter, health, education, satisfactory human relationships, freedom of choice and action, and sense of cultural identity and security (Arrow 10). These linkages are acknowledged in Figure 1 but not addressed in depth because they are not the main focus of IPBES when they by-pass nature’s benefits to people. These links, however, need to be considered when assessing the importance of nature’s benefits to people as the relative availability of anthropogenic assets influences how people perceive the importance of benefits from nature (see section on Anthropogenic assets above). Application across scales The processes described in the previous sections occur and interact at different scales and management levels (indi- cated by the thick arrows outside the central panel of Figure 1). The CF can thus be simultaneously applied locally, regionally and globally to, for example, different scales of ecological processes and scales of potential drivers of change. The evidence so far suggests that causal links between nature and benefits to people are strongly scale- dependent, and also straddle over several scales [53]. Such a multi-scale and cross-scale perspective also supports theCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 10 Open issueidentification of tradeoffs within scales, such as between different policy sectors, and across scales, by making clear how nature’s benefits to people can be supplied, used, valued and managed at different spatial and temporal scales, as well as interactions and feedback from many factors which can also function at multiple scales [33]. IPBES will focus on supranational (subregional, regional or continental) to global geographical scales for assessment. However, the properties and relationships that occur at these coarser spatial scales will, in part, be linked to proper- ties and relationships acting at finer scales, such as national and subnational scales. Linking these scales will be a key challenge for IPBES assessments; the CF can support un- derstanding of interactions over various temporal, spatial and management scales [53]. Some interactions may hap- pen very fast, others more slowly, and there is often a correspondence between the space and time scales [50]. For example, changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the oceans often occur over centuries or millennia, whereas changes in biodiversity as a consequence of land use change at the landscape scale often occur at the scale of years or decades. Processes at one scale often influence, and are influenced by processes that occur at other scales. Because of this, assessments will benefit from contemplating the mutual influences, such as control and propagation, between the scale that is the focus of the assessment and finer and coarser scales. Assessments at multiple scales are also recommended as a means to better represent complex interactions across scales. The conceptual framework serves as a starting point for the analysis of institutional arrangements and ecosystem boundaries at different scales. Understanding the mis- match between ecosystems and institutional arrange- ments is particularly critical at when political and administrative boundaries cut across environmental sys- tems, such as watersheds, bio-geo-cultural regions or the territories of nomadic or seminomadic peoples [33,54,55]. Such understanding supported by the conceptual frame- work will provide policy-relevant advice at supranational and subnational scales. For instance, in gathering knowl- edge from, and providing options to policy and decision making at all levels, IPBES might address institutions at global (e.g. Multilateral Environmental Agreements and their financial mechanisms), regional (e.g. New Partner- ship for Africa’s Development, European Union, Associ- ation of Southeast Asian Nations and Mercosur), national (e.g. national environmental protection agencies, minis- tries of finance, agriculture and health) and subnational/ local (e.g. province, state, above-local coherent landscape units, city or village) scales. Validation in the context of the IPBES Conceptual Framework Mutual recognition and enrichment among different dis- ciplines and knowledge systems is an essential goal ofCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 IPBES. The stated goal of IPBES explicitly mentions the interface between science and policy, it is understood that the term ‘science’ in this denotes a broader concept that includes contributions not only from natural, social and engineering disciplines within western science, but also from knowledge of indigenous and local community stakeholders and practitioners. All these knowledge sys- tems can work in complementary and mutually enriching ways. This poses a challenge for validation (i.e. how a portion of knowledge achieves legitimacy, or how assess- ments ensure they interpret and present ILK correctly), due to the different principles and criteria that operate across knowledge systems and across disciplines within western science. Some authors [56,57] have proposed a Multiple Evi- dence Based (MEB) approach to address this challenge. Such an approach acknowledges that there are aspects of each knowledge system — or even discipline, for example, social and natural sciences — that cannot be fully translated from one into another. It also emphasizes the need for co-production through the engagement different stakeholders, such as scientists from different disciplines, practitioners and disseminators, and ILK holders. The MEB approach highlights the complemen- tarity, synergy and cross-fertilization of knowledge sys- tems, rather than the integration of one system into another. It also stresses that relevant stakeholders should be involved at all stages in the processes of knowledge generation, assessment, design of policy support tools and capacity building. Such involvement should include the critical steps of definition of goals, scoping of problems and tasks, and examination and adaptation of findings. Each knowledge system has its own processes of validity. Communities will often recognize that valid knowledge comes from certain knowledge holders: person/s with the rights (e.g. gender, title-holding) and skills (e.g. language, farming). Valid knowledge in ILK systems is tested and retested through practice, for example, the application of medicinal plants, or the use of materials in fishing [31]. The most important validity issue for ILK holders is often that of ensuring that the inclusion and interpretation of their knowledge and information in processes outside of their cultural context is robust in terms of their knowl- edge and belief systems [58]. The meaningful engagement of different knowledge systems will undoubtedly increase the richness and use- fulness of the IPBES assessments and at the same time adds to the complexity of the task at hand [58]. Cross- fertilization and co-construction of knowledge is rela- tively common at the local to subnational scales, but still rare at coarser scales (e.g. regional, global). The devel- opment of new ways of achieving this would be a major contribution of the IPBES process. Valuable lessons for the construction of MEB processes within IPBES can bewww.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 11drawn from existing initiatives such as Japan’s Satoyama Satoumi [59] (http://collections.unu.edu/view/ UNU:1508), the Community Based Monitoring and Information Systems spearheaded by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (http://iifb. indigenousportal.com/), the assessments carried out by the multiple-stakeholder Arctic Council (http://www. arctic-council.org/), and the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Areas Network of community-managed marine areas (http://lmmanetwork.dreamhosters.com/fiji). Values and valuation of nature and its benefits to people The inclusive nature of the CF, in terms of benefits, stakeholders, knowledge systems and worldviews, necess- arily requires the consideration of multiple value systems. Value systems vary among individuals within groups, and across groups at various temporal and spatial scales (e.g. some nations tend to be more dominated by value systems that prioritize individual rights and others by value systems that prioritize collective and community-level values) [60]. The many ways of classifying and naming values, and methods for describing them, have been discussed exten- sively elsewhere [6,61–66] and are beyond the scope of this article. In this section we thus provide a general outline of various approaches to and uses of the term ‘value’ which are important in the context of the CF and more generally in the work of IPBES. A necessary first step is to distinguish between different uses of the term ‘value’. This can refer to the ‘importance, worth or usefulness’ as well as to ‘held values, principles or moral duties’. Both of these notions of value are pertinent to nature and its benefits to people as the held values of individuals and groups (e.g. fairness, truthful- ness, fidelity, as in ‘the values instilled by one’s parents’) are incorporated within institutions, conforming the basis of a society’s culture. In addition, these held values help determine which things a society perceives as being important, beneficial or useful. Both values contribute to achieve a good quality of life. A major distinction adopted in the CF is between intrinsic values and anthropocentric values, including instrumental and relational values. Intrinsic values are those inherent to nature, independent of human judgement, such as non- human species’ inherent rights to exist. Intrinsic values of nature as defined here have no relationship with possible benefits to humans or their quality of life; they thus fall outside the scope of anthropocentric values and valuation methods. Within anthropocentric values, instrumental values are closely associated with the notion of nature’s benefits as far as they allow people to achieve a good quality of life, be it through spiritual enlightenment, aesthetic plea- sure or the production or consumption of a commodity. They can be linked to economic values (including, but not restricted to monetary valuation) as they reflect the extentwww.sciencedirect.com to which they confer satisfaction to humans either directly or indirectly [62]. Relational values, on the other hand, are imbedded in desirable (sought after) relationships, in- cluding those between people and nature (as in ‘living in harmony with nature’) [67], or biophilia [68], regardless of whether those relationships imply tradeoffs to obtain nat- ure’s benefits, and therefore they depart from an economic valuation framework [69]. Relational values are also related to the notion of held values because specific prin- ciples or moral duties can determine how individuals relate with nature and with other individuals. Therefore, all nature’s benefits to people have instrumental values and relational values, and often a given aspect of nature (a species, an ecosystem, a network of ecological interactions) can provide more than one benefit to people, with different instrumental and relational values. These two broad categories of values can be expressed in diverse ways within the CF as they can be experienced in a non- consumptive way (both relational and instrumental values) or through consumption (specific instrumental values), and they can range from spiritual inspiration (both relational and instrumental values) to market-based values (specific instrumental values). They also include existence value (the satisfaction obtained from knowing that nature con- tinues to be there) and future-oriented values. These future-oriented values include bequest value — the pres- ervation of nature for future generations — and the option values of biodiversity as a reservoir of yet-to-be discovered uses from known and still unknown species and biological processes, and as a constant source, through evolutionary processes, of novel biological solutions to the challenges of a changing environment [11]. Many techniques have been developed to estimate instrumental values from an economic perspective and are used at various scales. However, a debate exists as to whether the biodiversity and ecosystem services values can be aggregated into only one metric, e.g. the monetary one [70,71], whether nature per se can or should be valued with such techniques; and how to value the role of biological diversity itself as this is multi-layered and therefore hard to evaluate [60,61,64,72,73]. Evaluating and communicating economic values using a monetary metric can help spread awareness to policymakers and lay people, and help identify social welfare-enhancing de- cisions and actions regarding conservation of nature and its benefits to people, especially when dealing with ecosystem goods and services at local scales and short time horizons, and where the market system is commonplace; this is the case of many provisioning services. But in many situ- ations, when dealing with more complex services such as regulating or cultural services, such valuation may neither be appropriate nor necessary nor sufficient nor practical [60,62,74]. For example, farmers who cherish an agricul- tural way of life as part of their cultural heritage may feel that these values cannot be captured monetarily. TheCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 12 Open issueprovision of clean drinking water by vegetated water- sheds is seen by some cultures as an entitlement and not a commodity, thus being beyond the market logic [60]. Sacred groves have been protected for millennia based on value systems that hold as sacred particular pieces of forest, supported by taboos about their use [47]. It is questionable whether the monetary valuation of such benefits would be helpful in maintaining them. Whatever the approach chosen, valuation approaches and techniques need to fit with the value system of all stakeholders involved to make sure that their preferences, interests, perceptions of nature, and ideas of what would be the legacy to future generations are considered [4,26]. Pairing different value systems with different valuation approaches and techniques can provide an integrated value map of nature’s benefits. This in turn is necessary to identify how policy tools can minimize potential value conflicts across stakeholders and thus enable to take into account the trade-offs between an efficient allocation of nature’s benefits and their equitable distribution across stakeholders [26,75 ]. In summary, multiple valuations may help identify a set of decisions, embedded within an institutional context. This can lead to a good quality of life by supporting the flow of nature’s benefits to people. The more valuation can reflect the value systems embedded in formal and informal institutions of the involved stakeholders, and the more it can appropriately characterize the distribution of the costs and benefits of proposed actions or policies (across time, space and stakeholders), the more useful it is likely to be [76,77]. Valuation frameworks applicable to diverse socio-cultural contexts would be a major contribution by IPBES to the knowledge-policy interface. The way ahead The CF presented in this article is a drastically simplified representation of the links between very heterogenous constellation of societies and an overwhelmingly diverse natural world, We argue that such degree of simplificationGlossary Anthropogenic assets: Built-up infrastructure, health facilities, knowledg scientific knowledge, as well as formal and non-formal education), technolo others. Baseline: A minimum or starting point with which to compare other informa an intervention). Biocultural diversity: Biocultural diversity, defined as the total variety exhib idea that culture and nature are mutually constituting, and denotes three co secondly, links exist between biodiversity and cultural diversity; and finally possibly co-evolution. Biocultural diversity incorporates ethnobiodiversity. Biodiversity (contraction of biological diversity): The variability among l aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a pa functional attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution over ecosystems. Biosphere: All the ecosystems of the world considered together. It includes they occupy on part of the Earth’s crust (the lithosphere), in the oceans (t Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 is justified by the interdisciplinary and cross-cultural un- derstanding required by the unprecedented intent of IPBES to bring together the perspectives and information of a wide spectrum of knowledge systems and stake- holders on the status and trends of the living world and its benefits to people, what to do about them now and what to expect in the future. Within this context, the CF has been considered a ‘Rosetta Stone’ [78] to enable ‘translating’ basic concepts and facilitating communi- cation, and assisting the formulation of fundamental un- derstanding that is transparent, salient, credible and legitimate to all parties involved [79]. IPBES explicitly aims to inform policy and practice. By helping identify the essential elements and interactions that are the causes of and solutions to detrimental changes in biodiversity and ecosystems and subsequent loss of their benefits to present and future generations, the CF should also contribute to positive transformation [80]. Considering that the focus on co-design and con-con- struction of integrative knowledge around complex pro- blems is shared by an increasing number of initiatives [81–83], the CF has the potential to be useful beyond the scope of IPBES. Whether it will have a major influence on the scientific research and knowledge-policy arenas will be tested by practice. Acknowledgements The process leading to the IPBES Conceptual Framework was funded by the IPBES. We are grateful to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Governments of Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom as well as ICSU (International Council for Science), DIVERSITAS, the International Human Dimensions Programme for global change research (IHDP) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for hosting, funding and/or providing technical and administrative support during the process and events that led to the production of the CF. We thank Antonio Dı́az de León and Porfirio Álvarez for their contribution to Box 2. S Dı́az was partially supported by CONICET, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, FONCyT and the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI, with support of the US National Science Foundation). S Demissew was partially supported by Addis Ababa University.e (including indigenous and local knowledge systems and technical or gy (both physical objects and procedures), and financial assets among tion (e.g. for comparisons between past and present or before and after ited by the world’s natural and cultural systems, explicitly considers the ncepts: Firstly, diversity of life includes human cultures and languages; , these links have developed over time through mutual adaptation and iving organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other rt. This includes variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and time and space within and among species, biological communities and the organisms living on the Earth, the resources they use and the space he hydrosphere) and in the atmosphere. www.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 13 Cosmocentric: A vision of reality that places the highest importance or emphasis in the universe or nature, as opposite to and anthropocentric vision, which strongly focuses on humankind as the most important element of existence. Drivers: Natural or anthropogenic (human-induced) factor that directly or indirectly causes a change in nature. Drivers, anthropogenic direct: Direct drivers that are the result of human decisions, namely, of institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers. Drivers, direct: Drivers (both natural and anthropogenic) that operate directly on nature (sometimes also called pressures). Drivers, indirect: Drivers that operate by altering the level, direction or rate of change of one or more direct drivers. Drivers, institutions and governance and other indirect: The ways in which societies organize themselves. They are the underlying causes of environmental change that are external to the ecosystem in question, on which they operate through direct drivers. Drivers, natural direct: Direct drivers that are not the result of human activities and are beyond human control. Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit Ecosystems can be defined at a variety of scales, from a single pond to the globe. Humans and their activities are part of ecosystems as well. Ecosystem functioning: The flow of energy and materials through the arrangement of biotic and abiotic components of an ecosystem. It includes many processes such as biomass production, trophic transfer through plants and animals, nutrient cycling, water dynamics and heat transfer. The concept is used here in the broad sense and it can thus be taken as being synonymous with ecosystem properties or ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem services: The benefits (and occasionally losses or detriments) that people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; and cultural services such as recreation, ethical and spiritual, educational and sense of place. In the original definition of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment the concept of ‘ecosystem goods and services’ is synonymous with ecosystem services. Other approaches distinguish ‘final ecosystem services’ that directly deliver welfare gains and/or losses to people through goods from this general term that includes the whole pathway from ecological processes through to final ecosystem services, goods and anthropocentric values to people. Ecosystem goods: According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, they are included in the general definition of ecosystem services. According to other approaches, they are objects from ecosystems that people value through experience, use or consumption. The use of this term in the context of this document goes well beyond a narrow definition of goods simply as physical items that are bought and sold in markets, and includes objects that have no market price. Ethnobiodiversity: The uses, knowledge, beliefs, management systems, taxonomies and language that a given culture has for the biodiversity with which it relates (ecosystems, species and genetic diversity). Ethnobiodiversity is part of biocultural diversity. Good quality of life: The achievement of a fulfilled human life, the criteria for which may vary greatly across different societies and groups within societies. It is a context-dependent state of individuals and human groups, comprising aspects such access to food, water, energy and livelihood security, and also health, good social relationships and equity, security, cultural identity, and freedom of choice and action. ‘Living in harmony with nature’, ‘living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth’ and ‘human well-being’ are examples of different perspectives on good quality of life. Human well-being: See well-being. Indigenous and local knowledge system (ILK): A cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment. It is also referred to by other terms such as, for example, Indigenous, local or traditional knowledge, traditional ecological/environmental knowledge (TEK), farmers’ or fishers’ knowledge, ethnoscience, indigenous science, folk science. Institutions: Encompass all formal and informal interactions among stakeholders and social structures that determine how decisions are taken and implemented, how power is exercised and how responsibilities are distributed. Knowledge system: A body of propositions that are adhered to, whether formally or informally, and are routinely used to claim truth. Level of resolution: Degree of detail captured in an analysis. A high level of resolution implies a highly detailed analysis, usually associated with finer spatial and temporal scales. A low level of resolution implies a less detailed analysis, usually associated with coarser spatial and temporal scales. Living in harmony with nature: A perspective on good quality of life based on the interdependence that exists among human beings, other living species and elements of nature. It implies that we should live peacefully alongside all other organisms even though we may need to exploit other organisms to some degree. Living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth: A concept originating in the visions of indigenous peoples worldwide which refers to the broad understanding of the relationships among people and between people and Mother Earth. The concept of living-well refers to: Firstly, balance and harmony of individuals considering both the material and spiritual dimensions; secondly, balance and harmony among individuals taking into account the relationship of individuals with a community; and finally, balance and harmony between human beings and Mother Earth. Living-well means living in balance and harmony with everybody and everything, with the most important aspect being life itself rather than the individual human being. Living-well refers to living in community, in brotherhood, in complementarity; it means a self-sustaining, communitarian and harmonic life. Mother Earth: An expression used in a number of countries and regions to refer to the planet Earth and the entity that sustains all living things found in nature with which humans have an indivisible, interdependent physical and spiritual relationship. Nature: The natural world, with emphasis on the diversity of living organisms and their interactions among themselves and with their environment. Nature’s benefits to people: All the benefits (and occasionally losses or detriments) that humanity obtains from nature. Policy tools: Instruments used by governance bodies at all scales to implement their policies. Environmental policies, for example, could be implemented through tools such as legislation, economic incentives or dis-incentives, including taxes and tax exemptions, or tradable permits and fees. Scenarios: Plausible alternative future situations based on a particular set of assumptions. Scenarios are associated with lower certainty than projections, forecasts or predictions. For example, socio-economic scenarios are frequently based on storylines describing several alternative, plausible trajectories of population growth, economic growth and per capita consumption, among other things. These are commonly coupled with projections of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services based on more quantitative models. The term ‘scenarios’ is sometimes used to describe the outcomes of socio-economic scenarios coupled with models of impacts, owing to the high uncertainty associated with the socio- economic trajectories. Systems of life: The complex, integrated interactions of living beings (including humans), such as the cultural attributes of communities, socio- economic conditions and biophysical variables. Trend: The general direction in which the structure or dynamics of a system tends to change, even if individual observations vary. Values: Those actions, processes, entities or objects that are worthy or important (sometimes values may also refer to moral principles). Values, bequest: The satisfaction of preserving the option of future generations to enjoy nature and its benefits. www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 14 Open issue Values, existence: The satisfaction obtained from knowing that nature endures. Values, instrumental: The direct and indirect contributions of nature’s benefits to the achievement of a good quality of life. Within the specific framework of the Total Economic Value, instrumental values can be classified into use (direct and indirect use values) on the one hand, and non-use values (option, bequest and existence values) on the other. Sometimes option values at considered as use values as well. Values, intrinsic: The values inherent to nature, independent of human judgement, and therefore beyond the scope of anthropocentric valuation approaches. Values, option: The potential ability to use some nature’s benefits in the future, although they are not currently used or the likelihood for their future use is low. It represents the willingness to preserve an option for the future enjoyment of known or yet unknown nature’s benefits. The ‘option values of biodiversity’, that is, the value of maintaining living variation in order to provide possible future uses and benefits, often used within the context of conservation biology, is included in this broad concept. Values, relational: The values that are imbedded in desirable (sought after) relationships, including those among people and between people and nature; because such relationships are valued regardless of whether they imply tradeoffs to obtain nature’s benefits, relational values depart from economic valuation frameworks. Value systems: Set of values according to which people, societies and organizations regulate their behaviour. Value systems can be identified in individuals and social groups and thus families, stakeholder groups and ethnic groups may be characterized by specific value systems. Well-being: A perspective on a good life that comprises access to basic materials for a good life, freedom and choice, health and physical well- being, good social relations, security, peace of mind and spiritual experience. Western science: (Also called modern science, Western scientific knowledge or international science) is used in the context of the CF as a broad term to refer to knowledge typically generated in universities, research institutions and private firms following paradigms and methods typically associated with the ‘scientific method’ consolidated in Post-Renaissance Europe on the basis of wider and more ancient roots. It is typically transmitted through scientific journals and scholarly books. Some of its central tenets are observer independence, replicable findings, systematic scepticism, and transparent research methodologies with standard units and categories.References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:  of special interest 1. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA: The Intergovernmental science- policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:9-14. 2. Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H: The biodiversity and ecosystem services science–policy interface. Science 2011, 331:1139-1140. 3. Östrom E: A general framework for analysing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422. 4. Dı́az S, Quétier F, Cáceres DM, Trainor SF, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Bret-Harte MS, Finegan B, Peña-Claros M, Poorter L: Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011, 108:895-902. 5. Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Tomich T, Vira B: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2010, . 6. National Academy of Sciences USA: Valuing Ecosytem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Wasghinton, DC: National Academies Press; 2004, . 7. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well- Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005, . 8. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM et al.: Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:1305-1312. 9. Iaccarino M: Science and culture. EMBO Rep 2003, 4:220-223. 10. Ramnath A: ‘‘Indigenous knowledge’’ and ‘‘Science’’ in the age of globalization. IIM Kozhikode Soc Manage Rev 2013, 3:101-107. 11. Faith DP, Magallon S, Hendry AP, Conti E, Yahara T, Donoghue MJ: Evosystem services: an evolutionary perspective on the links between biodiversity and human well- being. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:66-74. 12. Mace GM, Reyers B, Alkemade R, Biggs R, Chapin Iii FS,  Cornell SE, Dı́az S, Jennings S, Leadley P, Mumby PJ:Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environ Change 2014, 28:289-297. A critical evaluation of the issue of a single global biodiversity boundary, proposing alternative approaches and metrics. 13. Loh J, Harmon D: A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol Indicat 2005, 5:231-241. 14. Maffi L: Biocultural diversity and sustainability. In The Sage Handbook of Environment and Society. Edited by Pretty J, Ball AS, Benton TS, Lee GJ, Orrm DR, Pfeffer D, Ward MJH. Sage Publications; 2007. 15. Thaman RR: Pacific island agrobiodiversity and ethnobiodiversity: a foundation for sustainable pacific island life. Biodiversity (Ottawa) 2008, 9:102-110. 16. Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia: Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra. Gaceta Oficial de Bolivia; 2010. 17. Pacheco D: Living-Well in Harmony and Balance with Mother Earth. A Proposal for Establishing a New Global Relationship Between Human Beings and Mother Earth. La Paz: Universidad de la Cordillera; 2014, . 18. Callicot J, Ames R: Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York; 1989, . 19. Asamblea Constituyente de la República del Ecuador: Constitución de la República del Ecuador. 2008. 20. Zimmerer K: Environmental governance through ‘‘Speaking Like an Indigenous State’’ and respatializing resources: ethical livelihood concepts in Bolivia as versatility or verisimilitude? Geoforum 2013, 57 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoforum.2013.07.004. 21. Gallai N, Salles J-M, Settele J, Vaissière BE: Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 2009, 68:810-821. 22. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE: Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 2010, 25:345-353. 23. Hill R, Baird A, Buchanan D: Aborigines and fire in the Wet Tropics of Queensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Soc Nat Resour 1999, 12:205-223. 24. Sharer RJ: The Ancient Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2006, . 25. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S: Getting the measure of ecosystem services: awww.sciencedirect.com Connecting nature and people in IPBES Dı́az et al. 15social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 2013, 11:268-273. 26. Spangenberg J, Görg C, Truongd D, Tekkene, Bustamente J, Settele J: Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2014, 10:40-53. 27. Shapiro J, Báldi A: Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst Serv 2014, 7:201- 202. 28. Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Diaz S, Feld CK et al.: Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 2009, 59:223-235. 29. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R: Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 2011, 38:370- 379. 30. Östrom E: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990, . 31. Winter G (Ed): Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. 32. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Hill R: Governance of the conservation of nature. In Protected Area Governance and Management. Edited by Worboys G, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I. ANU Press; 2015:170-205. 33. Duraiappah AK, Asah ST, Brondizio ES, Kosoy N, O’Farrell PJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Subramanian SM, Takeuchi K: Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well- being: a conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2014, 7:94-100. 34. Östrom E: Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 2000, 14:137-158. 35. Max-Neef MA: Development and human needs. In Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. Edited by Elkins P, Max-Neef MA. Routledge; 1992:197-213. 36. Rogers DS, Duraiappah AK, Antons DC, Munoz P, Bai X, Fragkias M, Gutscher H: A vision for human well-being: transition to social sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:61-73. 37. Duraiappah AK, Muñoz P: Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United  Nations. Environ Dev Econ 2012, 17:362-367. Contributes to the discussion on the need for comprehensive metrics of human wellbeing. 38. Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Franco C, Lawn P, Talberth J,  Jackson T, Aylmer C: Beyond GDP Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol Econ 2013, 93:57-68. See annotation to Ref. [37]. 39. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Giovannini E, Lovins H, McGlade J,  Pickett KE, Ragnarsdottir KV, Roberts D, De Vogli R, Wilkinson R: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 2014, 505:283-285. See annotation to Ref. [37]. 40. Zimmerer K: The indigenous Andean concept of Kawsay, the politics of knowldege and development and the borderlands of environmental sustainability in Latin America. PMLA Theor Methodol 2012, 127:600-606. 41. Yahara T: History of the human use of environment over 50,000 years and lessons toward ‘‘Shizen Kyosei Shakai’’ (society in harmony with nature). In What is Environmental History?. Edited by Yumoto T, Yahara T, Matsuda H. 2011:75-104. Bun-ichi Sogo Shuppan (in Japanese). 42. Hajjar R, Jarvis DI, Gemmill-Herren B: The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2008, 123:261-270. 43. Thaman R: Agrodeforestation and the loss of agrobiodiversity in the Pacific Islands: a call for conservation. Pac Conserv Biol 2014, 20:180.www.sciencedirect.com 44. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Lazpita JG, Gibon A: Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 2000, 59:47-69. 45. Biggs R, Bohensky E, Desanker PV, Fabricius C, Lynam TA, Musvoto MA, Mutale C, Reyers B, Scholes BRJ et al.: Nature Supporting People: The Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Integrated Report. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; 2004. 46. Berkes F: Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge And Resource Management. Taylor & Francis; 1999. 47. Ormsby AA, Bhagwat SA: Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environ Conserv 2010, 37:320-326. 48. Ernstson H, Sorlin S, Elmqvist T: Social movements and ecosystem services — the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol Soc 2008, 13:39 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/ iss2/art39/. 49. Russell R, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Gould RK, Basurto X, Chan KMA, Klain S, Levine J, Tam J: Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2013, 38:473-502. 50. Chapin FS, Chapin MC, Matson PA, Vitousek P: Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer; 2011. 51. Vellekoop J, Sluijs A, Smit J, Schouten S, Weijers JWH, Damste JSS, Brinkhuis H: Rapid short-term cooling following the Chicxulub impact at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014, 111:7537-7541. 52. Blumetti AM, DiManna P, Ferreli L, Florenza D, Vittorl E: Reduction of environmental risk from capable faults: the case of the Eastern Etna region (eastern Sicily, Italy). Quaternary Int 2007, 173:45-56. 53. Scholes RJ, Reyers B, Biggs R, Spierenburg MJ, Duriappah A:  Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:16-25. Unpacks issues of scale in environmental assessments. 54. Brondizio ES, Östrom E, Young OR: Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social–ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2009, 34:253-278. 55. Hoffman LL, Varady RG, Flessa KW, Balvanera P: Ecosystem services across borders: a framework for transboundary conservation policy. Front Ecol Environ 2010, 8:84-91. 56. Sutherland WJ, Gardner TA, Haider LJ, Dicks LV: How can local and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international assessments? Oryx 2013, 48:1-2. 57. Tengö M, Brondizio E, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M:  Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 2014, 43:579-591. Proposes a conceptual and methodological approach for the considera- tion of environmental evidence coming from different knowledge sys- tems. 58. Thaman R, Lyver P, Mpande R, Perez E, Cariño J, Takeuchi K: The contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to IPBES: building synergies with Science. IPBES Expert Meeting Report. Paris: UNESCO; 2013, 49. UNESCO/UNU. 59. Duraiappah AK, Nakamura K, Takeuchi K, Watanabe M, Nishi M: Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Socio- Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan. United Nations University Press; 2012. 60. Wegner G, Pascual U: Cost–benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Global Environ Change — Hum Policy Dimens 2011, 21:492-504. 61. Reid WV, Mooney HA, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Chopra K, Cropper A, Dasgupta P, Hassan R, Leemans R, May RM: Nature:Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 16 Open issuethe many benefits of ecosystem services. Nature 2006, 443:749-750. 62. Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gómez-Baggetun E, Martı́n- López B, Verman M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, Eppink F et al.: The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Kumar P. Earthscan; 2010:183-256. 63. Brondı́zio ES, Gatzweiler FW, Zografos C, Kumar M: Socio- cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Kumar P. Earthscan; 2010:150-181. 64. Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Pérez M: Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 2011, 35:613-628. 65. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J: Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 2012, 74:8-18. 66. Jax K, Barton DN, Chan KMA, de Groot R, Doyle U, Eser U, Goerg C, Gomez-Baggethun E, Griewald Y, Haber W et al.: Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol Econ 2013, 93:260-268. 67. Takeuchi K: Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: the Satoyama Initiative. Ecol Res 2010, 25:891-897. 68. Wilson E: Biophilia. Harvard University Press; 1984. 69. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T,  Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS et al.: Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 2012, 62:744-756. Discusses the valuation of nonmaterial contributions from ecosystems to a good quality of life. 70. Sagoff M: The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 2011, 70:497-502. 71. Martı́n-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Garcı́a-Llorente M, Montes C: Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indicat 2014, 37:220-228. 72. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH: Biodiversity and ecosystem  services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 2012, 27:19-26. Summarizes links at different levels between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well being. 73. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S et al.: Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341:45-50. 74. Kallis G, Gómez-Baggethun E, Zografos C: To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecol Econ 2013, 94:97-105. 75. Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A,  Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R: Social equity matters inCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:1–16 payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 2014 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146. Provides a timely overview of the equity issues involved in conservation planning and implementation. 76. Garmendia E, Pascual U: A justice critique of environmental valuation for ecosystem governance. In Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Edited by Sikor T. Routledge; 2013:161- 186. 77. Kumar P, Brondizio E, Gatzweiler F, Gowdy J, de Groot D, Pascual U, Reyers B, Sukhdev P: The economics of ecosystem services: from local analysis to national policies. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:78-86. 78. Dı́az S, Demissew S, Joly C, Lonsdale W, Larigauderie A: A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLOS Biol 2015, 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040. 79. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100:8086-8091. 80. McGinnis MD, Östrom E: Social–ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 2014, 19:30. 81. Leemans R, Solecki W: Redefining environmental sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:272-277. 82. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H: Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:420-431. 83. Görg C, Spangenberg J, Tekken V, Burkhard B, Truong D, Escalada M, Heong K, Gertrudo A, Márquez LJVB et al.: Engaging local knowledge in biodiversity research: Experiences from large inter- and transdiciplinary projects. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 2014, 39:323-341. 84. UNEP: IPBES-2/4: conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Report of the Second Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2014:. http://www.ipbes. net/images/documents/plenary/second/working/2_17/Final/ IPBES_2_17_en.pdf. 85. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO): The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2014, . 86. World Bank: Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2012, . 87. Brashares JS, Arcese P, Sam MK, Coppolillo PB, Sinclair ARE, Balmford A: Bushmeat hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply in West Africa. Science 2004, 306:1180-1183. 88. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1995, .www.sciencedirect.com