The Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth, and its methodological guidance

1 Rolling draft Last updated: November 2025 The Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth1,2 and its methodological guidance Guidance prepared by the task force on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and reviewed by the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and the Bureau in November 2025. A link to the present document was included in the information provided to the Plenary at IPBES 12 in document IPBES/12/INF/16. Suggested citation: IPBES (2025). The Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth, and its methodological guidance, version November 2025, IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17530778 To get the previous version of this methodological guidance visit https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8171338 1 For more information on the term ‘Mother Earth’ in the IPBES context, please refer to the IPBES Conceptual Framework - Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M.A., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002. 2 Though not repeated every time throughout the present document after “Nature Futures Framework”, it is understood that any mention of the framework implicitly includes this subtitle. 2 Table of contents Background .................................................................................................. 4 Part I: Foundations of the Nature Futures Framework .......................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................. 5 A. How scenarios are used in policymaking and decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services .................................................................................................. 5 1. Use of scenarios and models ................................................................................. 5 2. Limitations of current scenarios and models ........................................................ 6 3. Addressing shortcomings for the development and use of scenarios and models in the context of nature and nature’s contributions to people ................... 6 4. Development of a new framework to promote the effective use of scenarios for nature and nature’s contributions to people ..................................................... 7 B. Foundations of the Nature Futures Framework ................................................................ 8 1. History of the Nature Futures Framework and its contribution to catalysing the development of scenarios and models ............................................................. 8 2. Description of the Nature Futures Framework ...................................................... 9 3. What is unique in the Nature Futures Framework? ............................................. 11 4. Relation between the Nature Futures Framework and the IPBES conceptual framework, and between the Nature Futures Framework and the Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature ...................................... 12 Part II: Methodological guidance for using the Nature Futures Framework (NFF) .............................. 12 A. Introduction ................................................................................................ 12 B. Formulating futures across knowledge systems ............................................................. 13 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 13 2. History of engagement with IPLCS groups in the work of the task force on scenarios and models to support the formulating of futures in IPBES assessments ................................................................................................ 13 3. Formulating futures across knowledge systems .................................................. 16 C. Methods for envisioning / developing desirable nature futures ..................................... 18 1. Common and specific features ............................................................................ 20 2. Visioning ................................................................................................ 21 3. Pathways ................................................................................................ 21 4. Narratives ................................................................................................ 22 5. Indicators ................................................................................................ 22 6. Models ................................................................................................ 23 7. Exploring futures by combining methods ........................................................... 24 D. Knowledge gaps and future work ................................................................................... 25 E. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................ 25 Part III: Additional material to support the Nature Futures Framework methodological guidance ................................................................................................ 26 A. Common and specific features ....................................................................................... 26 1. Description ................................................................................................ 26 B. Visioning ................................................................................................ 27 1. Description ................................................................................................ 27 2. Knowledge gaps on visioning ............................................................................. 28 3. Case study examples on visioning ...................................................................... 28 4. Case study examples of futures work across knowledge systems ....................... 33 C. Narratives ................................................................................................ 35 1. Description ................................................................................................ 35 2. Knowledge gaps on narratives ............................................................................ 35 D. Indicators ................................................................................................ 40 1. Description ................................................................................................ 40 2. Knowledge gaps on indicators ............................................................................ 41 3. Case study examples on indicators ..................................................................... 42 E. Modelling and social-ecological feedbacks ................................................................... 44 1. Description ................................................................................................ 44 3 2. Knowledge gaps on modelling ............................................................................ 45 3. Knowledge gaps on social-ecological feedbacks ................................................ 45 4. Case study examples on modelling ..................................................................... 47 Annex I: References ................................................................................................ 48 Annex II: Glossary of terms used in the Nature Futures Framework ................................................... 58 4 Background 1. The Nature Futures Framework is a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth. The framework was developed in direct response to the conclusions of the Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which identified limitations of existing scenario approaches in their usefulness for biodiversity and ecosystem services. It fills a gap by providing a tool for the development of nature-centric scenarios that address the diversity of human-nature relationships to inform contextand place-specific policy options based on locally held values of nature in order to achieve a good quality of life (including human well-being and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth). 2. At IPBES 9, held from 3 to 9 July 2022, the IPBES Plenary, in decision IPBES-9/1, welcomed the progress made by the task force on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the implementation of objective 4 (b) of the work programme of the Platform up to 2030, including the foundations of the Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth, as set out in annex VI to that decision. 3. The Plenary also approved the workplan for the task force on scenarios and models for the intersessional period 2022–2023, which foresaw further development of the foundations of the Nature Futures Framework including but not limited to alignment with the IPBES conceptual framework and the findings of the IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature.3 The workplan also foresaw the further development of the draft methodological guidance on the use of the Nature Futures Framework, based on the organization of a government review and an online dialogue with IPBES national focal points, in collaboration with the IPBES capacity-building task force. This work was to be undertaken with consideration for technical and capacity gaps in adapting the Nature Futures Framework to specific contexts. 4. The document below provides the latest work on the foundations of the Nature Futures Framework and the further-developed methodological guidance. The text of Part I on the foundations of the Nature Futures Framework is identical to the document welcomed by the Plenary at IPBES 9 in decision IPBES-9/1 but has been complemented by the updates prepared in line with the workplan of the task force, consisting of an additional paragraph on the alignment with the IPBES conceptual framework and the findings of the IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature (Section I/D), and a synthesis of catalysed work on scenario development across knowledge systems, which has been uploaded to Zotero (Nature Futures Framework | Zotero). The subsequent sections provide the methodological guidance which is a living document and was first made available at IPBES 9 in document IPBES/9/INF/16. A second version of the methodological guidance was included in document IPBES/10/INF/13, and responded to comments received from governments and an online dialogue with national focal points held on 20 September 2022 asking for a clearer structure and distinction between the various methods in which the Nature Futures Framework can be used. Part II and Part III of this document provide a further revised version of the methodological guidance, which has been prepared as part of the workplan activities of the task force, set out in annex VII decision IPBES-11/1. The current version responds to the request by governments to provide content to better account for different knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems and Mother Earth-centric scenarios and models. Additional revisions reflect ongoing development of the Nature Futures Framework by the Nature Futures Framework community of practice4. A link to the current version was made available in document IPBES/12/INF/16 as part of the information provided to the Plenary at IPBES 12. 3 IPBES (2022). Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522. 4 The Nature Futures Framework community of practice is a recently established, community-led network supporting the development and real-world application of the Nature Futures Framework. Established in 2024, it currently consists of over 100 members, spanning academic researchers, practitioners, and policy experts. To join the community of practice, please sign up at https://forms.gle/xLvJXUXzpazLcyGf7. 5 NB: The following reproduces annex VI to decision IPBES-9/1: Part I: Foundations of the Nature Futures Framework5 A flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth6 Introduction 1. The Nature Futures Framework is a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth. The framework was developed in direct response to the conclusions of the Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2016a), which identified limitations of existing scenario approaches in their usefulness for biodiversity and ecosystem services. It fills a gap by providing a tool for the development of nature-centric scenarios that address the diversity of humannature relationships to inform contextand place-specific policy options based on locally held values of nature in order to achieve a good quality of life (including human well-being and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth). A. How scenarios are used in policymaking and decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services 1. Use of scenarios and models 2. Scenarios and models of changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services are powerful tools for informing decision makers and other stakeholders on potential future impacts of changes across scales on nature, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life. “Nature”, “nature’s contributions to people” and “good quality of life”, as well as “instrumental values”, “intrinsic values” and “relational values”, are terms used in the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), in the preliminary guide on values and throughout IPBES assessments and documents, noting that nature embodies different concepts for different people, including biodiversity, Mother Earth, systems of life and other analogous concepts. 3. In line with this terminology, scenarios are alternative pathways to possible futures for one or more key components in a system, particularly for drivers of change in nature and nature’s contributions to people, including alternative policy or management options (IPBES, 2016a; Díaz et al., 2018). Models are qualitative or quantitative representations of key components of a system and of relationships between those components, and can be used to translate scenarios of possible futures for drivers of change or policy interventions into projected consequences for nature and nature’s contributions to people (IPBES, 2016a). In combination, scenarios and models can play important roles in relation to the major phases of the policy cycle, which are (i) agenda setting, (ii) policy design, (iii) policy implementation and (iv) policy review, as described in the Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models (Figure 4). “Exploratory scenarios” can contribute to problem identification and agenda setting by examining a range of plausible futures, while “intervention scenarios” can contribute to policy design and implementation by evaluating alternative policy or management options, through either “target-seeking” or “policy-screening” analysis (IPBES, 2016b, Figure 4). Scenarios and models have been used in the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019a) and its Summary for Policymakers (2019b) and regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2018d) to provide assessments of the current status of biodiversity and ecosystem services and to explore projections under different potential futures. 4. The Global Assessment Report indicates that the decline of biodiversity and ecosystem services is projected to continue or worsen in many future scenarios that consider rapid human population growth, unsustainable consumption, and declining production (see, for example, Figure 5 As presented in annex VI to decision IPBES-9/1. 6 Though not repeated every time throughout the present document after “Nature Futures Framework”, it is understood that any mention of the framework implicitly includes this subtitle. 6 SPM.8 of the Global Assessment Report, IPBES, 2019b). In contrast, scenarios with assumptions of low-to-moderate human population growth across scales, low carbon growth, a circular economy, and transformative changes will better support long-term sustainability and good quality of life (IPBES, 2019a, Figure SPM.8; 2019b). 2. Limitations of current scenarios and models 5. As is pointed out in the IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models, most existing scenario approaches for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people have a number of shortcomings. The obvious main limitation is the extent of knowledge about the properties of nature and of its components, and about the interactions and feedback processes associated with those components. Most existing scenario approaches, especially at the global and regional scales, have been developed to address climate change issues rather than biodiversity and ecosystem services issues per se, and are limited to assessing the impacts of drivers on states of nature and nature’s contributions to people. They often consider biodiversity gains or losses as an endpoint, rather than recognizing the full range of interconnections and feedback between nature and people that are central to the IPBES conceptual framework (Seppelt et al., 2020). 6. Existing scenario approaches are also limited in their ability to incorporate diverse values, norms and policy objectives related to nature conservation, sustainable use, and good quality of life (IPBES, 2016a). As a result of limited stakeholder involvement, scenarios have often underrepresented the diversity of worldviews and Indigenous and local knowledge (Obermeister, 2019). Furthermore, institutional barriers to the use of scenario outcomes and the timing of presenting scenarios to governments (e.g., “windows of opportunity” – see Kingdon, 1984) may need to be addressed, with a view to increasing the chance that scenario-related insights are taken up in political agendas. Capacity and technological constraints often limit the ability to monitor the status and trends of biodiversity and further deepen institutional barriers. 7. Because all models have strengths and weaknesses (IPBES, 2016a), it is vital that their capacities and limitations be carefully evaluated and communicated in assessment and decision-making processes (see Sietz & van Dijk, 2015; Fonte et al., 2012). The limitations of current scenarios and models are not necessarily a reflection of deficiency in approach – rather, they are a reflection of the degree of complexity involved in solving current problems. Existing approaches often explore the impacts of direct and indirect drivers on nature and people (e.g., adverse climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services), rather than focusing on the transformative changes required to achieve international goals for people and nature under relevant multilateral environmental agreements and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 3. Addressing shortcomings for the development and use of scenarios and models in the context of nature and nature’s contributions to people 8. Addressing the shortcomings of existing scenario approaches for nature and nature’s contributions to people at different scales requires better integration of the feedback processes between nature and good quality of life for people. Participatory approaches are also required to involve stakeholders in the development of future scenarios for nature and people and to incorporate multiple value perspectives and different pathways to achieve societal goals and to address the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (IPBES, 2016a; Rosa et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2023; Durán et al., 2023). The inclusion of values of nature can enhance the development of new global scenarios for nature and nature’s contributions to people, as it allows the diversity of human-nature relationships to inform contextand place-specific policy options based on locally held values of nature (Braun & Castree, 2005; Cronon, 1996; Descola, 2013; Head, 2016; Latour, 2004; Robin et al., 2013). 9. To address these requirements, the IPBES Plenary mandated the expert group (2016–2019) and task force (2019–2023) on scenarios and models to catalyse the development of new scenarios that can better inform policymaking for nature and nature’s contributions to people (see the terms of reference of the task force, set out in annex II to decision IPBES-7/1), building on the IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models. To capture the plurality of value perspectives on nature, the former expert group and current task force have worked on a new framework for the development of nature-centred and Mother Earth–centred scenarios, called the “Nature Futures Framework”. Having a framework that is applicable across different scales, regions and value perspectives allows the development of comparable new scenarios to better support future IPBES assessments. 7 4. Development of a new framework to promote the effective use of scenarios for nature and nature’s contributions to people 10. This framework is consistent with the conceptual framework of IPBES. Ideally, scenarios based on the Nature Futures Framework will include all six primary interlinked elements of the IPBES conceptual framework representing natural and social systems and their interrelationships: nature; nature’s contributions to people; anthropogenic assets; institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers of change; direct drivers of changes; and good quality of life (Diaz et al., 2015, 2018). The Nature Futures Framework provides a tool to help identify which of these elements are emphasized when creating scenarios of desirable futures. Scenarios focusing on “nature for society” place a greater emphasis on nature’s material and regulating contributions to people. Scenarios focusing on “nature for nature” place a greater emphasis on the nature element of the IPBES conceptual framework. Scenarios focusing on “nature as culture”/ “one with nature” have a more complex relationship to the IPBES conceptual framework and are best understood as emphasizing the cultural contexts that permeate all relationships between people and nature (Diaz et al., 2018). Nature futures framework scenarios aim to achieve good quality of life, including eliminating poverty, eliminating hunger, and achieving education for all and gender equality. 11. Specifically, the framework aims to catalyse the development of scenarios that focus on achieving a world that realizes the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of “Living in harmony with nature” (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010), the goals of other relevant multilateral environmental agreements and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. These visions and goals require reversing declines in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Pereira et al., 2020). The framework is explicitly designed to include multiple specific values of nature in scenarios and models. Positive or desirable nature futures represent scenarios in which biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are improved in one or more value perspectives in relation to the current situation. 12. Creating scenarios and models based on multiple values can make them more inclusive. The explicit inclusion of multiple values of nature enables scenarios and models to better consider and incorporate Indigenous and local knowledge systems and values, as well as to better consider sociocultural contexts and alternative governance and economic systems, diverse methods of sustainable resource utilization and diverse approaches to biodiversity conservation. The IPBES task force on scenarios and models is developing methodological guidance on how to apply the Nature Futures Framework to the development of quantitative and qualitative scenarios for a diverse range of settings and scales. A draft of the methodological guidance was presented in appendix I to document IPBES/9/INF/16, and further dialogues were held with national focal points, Indigenous and local knowledge experts, scientific communities and IPBES stakeholders to further iterate the methodological guidance of the Nature Futures Framework between the ninth and tenth sessions of the IPBES Plenary. A second version of the methodological guidance was in document IPBES/10/INF/13, and responded to comments received from governments and an online dialogue with national focal points held on 20 September 2022 asking for a clearer structure and distinction between the various methods in which the Nature Futures Framework can be used. Part II and Part III of this document provide a further revised version of the methodological guidance, which has been prepared as part of the workplan activities of the task force, set out in annex VII decision IPBES-11/1. The current version responds to the request by governments to provide content to better account for different knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge systems and Mother Earthcentric scenarios and models. Additional revisions reflect ongoing development of the Nature Futures Framework by the Nature Futures community of practice. 13. The present document does not contain actual scenarios developed on the basis of the Nature Futures Framework. Scenario development by the scientific community with models and other tools, and narrative development and refinement with stakeholders, still need to be carried out and are planned for the next four years, with final outputs available in time for use in a potential second edition of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (see Figure 1). 8 Figure 1 Envisioned process for catalysing a community of practice for developing scenarios based on the Nature Futures Framework over time a Abbreviations: CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity; COP – Conference of the Parties; ILK – Indigenous and local knowledge; NFF – Nature Futures Framework; NFP – national focal points; SBSTTA – Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice; SSH – social sciences and humanities. a The yellow-green colour gradient represents transitions in the lead of the listed activities from the IPBES task force on scenarios and models to the broader community. While the weight of the involvement of the task force is transferred to the broader community over time, there has been strong stakeholder engagement from the onset of the process. The blue arrow presents the activities of the task force on scenarios and models. It is anticipated that community engagement and outreach activities will lead to the formation of research consortiums and funded research projects that will achieve the goal of creating multi-scale (from local to global) scenarios based on the Nature Futures Framework, which would continue to be developed and refined over the long term. B. Foundations of the Nature Futures Framework 1. History of the Nature Futures Framework and its contribution to catalysing the development of scenarios and models 14. The Nature Futures Framework can be used to describe a diverse set of desirable futures for nature and people that differ in their emphasis on the types of values that people assign to nature (Pereira et al., 2020). It takes into consideration the call for plural values of nature and nature’s contributions to people to be recognized, referring to the preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, developed under the first IPBES work programme. 7 This preliminary guide on values, as well as the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature (IPBES, 2022a), are underpinned by the view that the use of diverse conceptualizations of multiple values of nature and its benefits to people must be acknowledged and fostered in order to adequately address the challenge of global sustainability (Pascual et al., 2017; IPBES, 2015). Whereas both the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature and the Nature Futures Framework incorporate values of nature, they have different purposes. The former assesses existing literature and describes different approaches to the conceptualization of values of nature, whereas the latter serves as a starting point for co-development of scenarios of desirable futures for nature. The framework emphasizes the intrinsic (“nature for nature”), instrumental (“nature for society”) and relational (“nature as culture/one with nature”) values, identified as the specific values referred to in the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature (Figure SPM.2 in IPBES, 2022a). 15. Taking into account the properties, interactions and feedback that operate in nature, the Nature Futures Framework emerged from stakeholder consultations that gathered a wide range of visions of desirable futures for biodiversity and people (Lundquist et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2020). This 7 IPBES/4/INF/13, annex III. 9 framework allows those involved in scenario-building to recognize and address, in a more explicit manner, plural values ascribed to nature and nature’s contributions to people, which conventional scenario-building methods often fail to capture. The framework places the specific values that humans assign to nature at its core. The underlying assumption for formulating any type of desirable future vision of nature is that nature is valued much more in the future, but the reasons why it is valued – the underlying value perspectives – can vary widely. The diverse ways in which humans value nature can be used to develop a diverse range of possible future scenarios that address current declines in nature and nature’s contributions to people across all three value perspectives, as evidenced in the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The framework is novel in that it explicitly provides a space for the inclusion of relational values within a global biodiversity scenarios framework, acknowledging that relational values, such as cultural identity, sense of place, traditions, and reciprocity with nature, are often poorly represented or marginalized in assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services. 2. Description of the Nature Futures Framework 16. The Nature Futures Framework represents the plurality of value perspectives on human-nature relationships that forms the foundation for the development of desirable future scenarios for people and nature (Figure 2). Within the triangle in Figure 2, each corner of the triangle illustrates the orientation towards one of the following three value perspectives on the relationship between humans and nature: nature for nature, emphasizing intrinsic values: nature as culture/one with nature, emphasizing relational values; and nature for society, emphasizing instrumental values (see glossary in Annex II). The space within the triangle represents a continuum or gradient between these three value perspectives. As such, all the potential locations within the triangle relate to each of the three corners and thus offer some combination of all three value perspectives. It is important to bear in mind that the vertices, or corners, of the triangle offer extreme cases of what could be considered specific value perspectives to navigate to a “desirable future for nature”. 17. The Nature Futures Framework has been developed together with different stakeholders through engagement with them since 2016 in order to address gaps in current scenarios and modelling processes for nature and nature’s contributions to people by opening up to more diverse perspectives on how the future is conceptualized. However, while it attempts to be as inclusive as possible, like all tools, it has limitations, including the fact that it may not be able to fully encapsulate all ontologies, cosmologies, knowledge systems and worldviews. The examples in the right-hand part of Figure 2 are taken from the IPBES conceptual framework but are not an exhaustive list of knowledge systems and worldviews. The bands and dots indicate that the leftand right-hand parts of the figure are intimately related, but in complex ways that cannot be described in a one-to-one relationship. Currently available scenarios and models are not well adapted to the right-hand part of the figure, and so one objective of the scientific community should be to find tools that can be used to work with it. 18. Desirable futures developed through the Nature Futures Framework may be placeor context-specific, subject to local cultures and values. Examples of the use of the framework to develop “desirable futures for nature” are provided in the methodological guidance in Part III. The framework does not aim to identify any particular narratives or scenarios as preferred based on their location in the Nature Futures Framework, reflecting the fact that value preferences vary culturally and geographically. 16 however, may require new methods, and the IPLCS perceptions of time and human-nature relations discussed should be central in such work.10 37. Following up on the 2021 dialogue workshops, the two task forces held a second joint Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshop in Leticia, Colombia, in February 2023, on the transformative change assessment and scenarios of the future. In recognition of the synergies between these themes, the workshop was designed around visioning and pathway-building exercises, combining scenario-building methods with the topics covered in each of the chapters of the transformative change assessment. During the workshop, there were further discussions of Indigenous and local knowledge and scenarios, including on how to address IPLCS scenarios in on-going and future IPBES assessments. This further dialogue workshop included local as well as global IPLCS participants to inform both local and regional/global elements to guide co-development of further IPLCS scenarios. 3. Formulating futures across knowledge systems 38. IPLCS scenarios may be developed across a gradient of co-development, from IPLCS-led without the involvement of scientists through to co-led or co-produced. Where co-production or cocreation involves both scientists and IPLCS groups, it is important that the engagement follows some guiding principles. While many experts may already be familiar with these, reiterating them helps reinforce best practices, reduce ambiguity and power imbalance, build a shared understanding of desirable futures, and ensure a respectful, ethical and rights-based approach. The task force on scenarios and models and the task force on Indigenous and local knowledge co-hosted a workshop entitled “workshop to reflect on scenarios and models to better account for different knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge systems, and Mother Earth-centric scenarios and models” in Subic Bay, Philippines, in May 202511 (IPBES, 2025). Here, the participants articulated certain principles (Box 1) to guide ILK engagement with scenario building and modelling activities. It was also acknowledged that these principles should be regularly reviewed and updated, and that they are useful in wide-ranging activities of scenarios and modelling involving tools other than NFF. These principles are also applicable to engagement with other knowledge holders, sector representatives (including business) and stakeholders for future visioning and scenario building. Box 1 Guidance for engagement with IPLCS for scenario building and modelling activities This guidance is intended for researchers and practitioners working in partnership with Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCSs) on scenario building and modelling. It outlines a set of best practices derived from a workshop co-hosted by the task force on scenarios and models and the task force on Indigenous and local knowledge, entitled “workshop to reflect on scenarios and models to better account for different knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge systems, and Mother Earth-centric scenarios and models,” held in the Philippines in May 2025 (IPBES 2025). The guidance covers distinct steps and dimensions of the collaboration – each important in its own right – but they are all interlinked and many elements are recurring across the ten points below. While many experts may already be familiar with these elements, reaffirming them supports ethical engagement, reduces ambiguity and power imbalances, fosters shared understanding of desirable futures, and ensures that all engagement is respectful, inclusive, and grounded in rights-based approaches. 1) Foundational ethics & consent ◦ Obtain and honour Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) (Hofbauer, 2022), and consistently follow agreed ethical standards throughout all the stages of process. ◦ Clearly communicate the benefits of the work to IPLCSs, not just research or policy outputs. 2) Recognize ILK as a full knowledge system ◦ Recognize ILK as equally valid alongside Western scientific knowledge. If cross-validation is needed, ensure it is led by appropriate ILK holders within their systems. 10 For a detailed description of the workshop see IPBES (2021). 11 The workshop report can be viewed at: https://files.ipbes.net/ipbes-web-prod-public-files/202512/IPBES_ILK-Scenarios_Workshop2025_REPORT_final.pdf 17 ◦ Plan for long-term, multi-generational perspectives (e.g., “next seven generations”) based on the community visions, not just externally imposed targets like 2030 or 2050 goals. 3) Shared leadership & roles ◦ Prioritize Indigenous-led or co-led approaches where possible. Avoid tokenism and be transparent about who leads which components of the process. ◦Establish culturally appropriate safe spaces or community caucus where IPLCS participants can raise concerns and define terms of engagement. ◦ Recognize IPLCSs as leaders, partners, and collaborators, rather than only contributors, participants or informants within the scenario-building processes. 4) Co-design the process (before methods) ◦ Agree in advance on goals, success criteria, languages, facilitation and project timelines. Provide multilingual facilitation as needed. ◦ Consider the use of NFF as a flexible starting point to invite multiple worldviews and value systems. Avoid imposing a single perspective. ◦ Make an explicit commitment to mobilizing ILK, co-designing and co-producing processes, and integrating locally defined indicators. 5) Prioritize ILK-aligned methods, then integrate western science ◦ Start with community-based approaches such as storytelling, art, seasonal and lunar calendars, land-based observation, rituals, and local monitoring. ◦ Where communities express interest, weave in tools such as participatory mapping, GIS, systems thinking analysis, or problem trees, ensuring decision-making remains in community hands. ◦ Focus on intergenerational collaboration between youth and elders for knowledge transfer, guidance and capacity-building. 6) Knowledge governance, rights & data stewardship ◦ Embed applicable Indigenous rights across all aspects of the process, grounded in community sovereignty, cultural identity and long-term stewardship. ◦ Where appropriate, use community protocols or life plans to define engagement rules, rights (including FPIC), and visions owned by the community. ◦ Jointly determine ownership, stewardship, access and storage arrangements for all generated data and outputs. 7) Outputs, indicators & scaling ◦ Collaboratively decide on desired outputs such as narratives, maps, indicators or policy recommendations, and who owns and hosts them. ◦ Prefer indicators that are locally relevant, understandable and usable by communities with potential to inform larger assessments when appropriate. ◦ When scaling up, carefully assess what knowledge can be transferred and how to clearly and accurately communicate ILK for policy without distorting it. 8) Policy relevance & action orientation ◦ Develop outputs that reflect local realities while also having the potential to influence national, regional, and global processes. ◦ Focus on implementation by developing actionable plans and strategies where possible to move beyond theoretical contributions. ◦ Draw inspiration from examples of community-owned planning that has informed national biodiversity targets and monitoring frameworks. 9) Risk assessment & safeguards ◦ Identify and plan around threats to ILK and futures thinking (e.g., land pressure, invasive species, climate impacts, cultural erosion). 18 ◦ Build protective measures for environmental defenders, and respect customary governance and sacred sites. 10) Monitoring, learning & long-term continuity ◦ Co-establish community-based monitoring and information systems to track progress toward shared targets, with feedback loops for reflection and adaptation. ◦ Build in opportunities for ongoing reflection and updated consent as scope shifts. Maintain relationships and responsibilities beyond the formal project timeline. C. Methods for envisioning / developing desirable nature futures 39. The NFF is designed to be a flexible tool that can be applied to many contexts and does not specify either the number of future scenarios to be developed nor the specific methods for generating these scenarios. Rather, it allows users to develop scenarios in a creative and relevant manner applicable to their context, applying elements of the methodological guidance as needed, and drawing on the wealth of existing literature on scenario development. In order to address gaps in the literature, the NFF is unique in that it puts nature and nature’s contributions to people at the centre of the process and aims to catalyse the development of scenarios based on desirable perspectives on nature in diverse contexts and across scales. These diverse ways in which people value nature can be used to characterise a diverse range of relationships that people have with nature, and based on these, develop possible future scenarios. NFF-based scenario applications could be helpful to illuminate possibilities for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of ‘Living in harmony with nature’, where ‘biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people’ (CBD, 2010), and to give support to the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. By generating scenarios based on desirable perspectives on nature, applying the NFF guidance further allows for the identification of transformative policy options that can enable these futures, including pathways to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals across economic, social and environmental criteria as well as the synergies between sustainability goals. 40. As such, the NFF combines a target-seeking approach to scenario development (to determine what is inside versus outside the triangle, i.e., desirable versus undesirable) with an exploratory approach (to represent the diverse range of values that underlie desirable futures within the triangle). The NFF can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative policy, management and transformative options (policy-screening approach; Figure 5) for different uses and challenges of scenarios modelling in policy processes). With this in mind, it is important to emphasise that the corners of the triangle are not antagonistic, but rather relative: moving closer to one value perspective means moving away from one of the others. This relativity between extreme value perspectives ensures that emerging scenarios are inclusive, pluralistic, and representative of the many sustainable combinations that can take place within the triangle. How to capture this complexity of plural values in the NFF will depend on the goals/targets of the study and this will determine the most appropriate methods. Hence, it is important to start by explicitly defining these goals/targets and then to think critically about the process that is required to meet these goals. In particular, it may be necessary to think through the need for participation in defining the goals and then how to ensure that the process is inclusive. Reflexivity on goals, process and methods is important to ensure that all elements of the IPBES conceptual framework as well as diverse value perspectives on nature are taken into account when using the NFF for scenario development. Finally, the NFF is not only useful for scenario development, but can also be useful to open dialogue on existing scenarios or ongoing processes to discuss possible futures. In practice, the NFF can be used as a classification tool to locate existing scenarios or ongoing processes on a spectrum of nature values (Okayasu et al., 2025). 19 Figure 5 This figure shows the roles played by different types of scenarios corresponding to the major phases of the policy cycle. Types of scenarios are illustrated by graphs of changes in nature and nature's contributions to people over time. The four major phases of the policy cycle are indicated by the labels and grey arrows outside the blue-coloured quarters of the circle. In "exploratory scenarios", the dashed lines represent different plausible futures, often based on storylines. In "target-seeking scenarios" (also known as "normative scenarios"), the diamond represents an agreed-upon future target and the coloured dashed lines indicate scenarios that provide alternative pathways for reaching this target. In "policy-screening scenarios" (also known as "ex-ante scenarios"), the dashed lines represent various policy options under consideration. In "retrospective policy evaluation" (also known as "ex-post evaluation"), the observed trajectory of a policy implemented in the past (solid black line) is compared to scenarios that would have achieved the intended target (dashed line) (Figure SPM.2, IPBES, 2016). Of note, in the context of NFF applications, the policy cycle can be understood as a project life cycle. This involves the scoping, design, implementation and review of a nature-related project. 41. Once the goals/targets of the study have been clearly defined, the methods for building new scenarios at different locations within the NFF or translating existing scenarios to particular locations in the NFF can be chosen. Many methods for scenario development have been described in the scientific literature. In this section, methods related to (1) common and specific features, (2) visioning, (3) pathways, (4) narratives, and (5) indicators, are described in Figure 6. For each method, there is a brief description of what the method involves and how it could be applied or tested for the NFF. Further information on approaches and case studies is provided in Part III. Where possible, links to publications describing the method and its application to the NFF in more detail, are included. The reader is also referred to the Zotero library on NFF publications for further examples.12 As stated, the method chosen will depend on the goals of the study. Furthermore, scenarios are utilized and tested by (6) models; scenario and modelling methods are commonly combined within studies to develop scenarios that have both qualitative and quantitative elements, as described in (7) combining methods. 12 https://www.zotero.org/groups/4937409/nature_futures_framework/library 20 Figure 6 Conceptual relationships between the methods for using the NFF, from the development of scenarios to the identification of indicators and models to assess such scenarios, ultimately informing policy or project implementation and evaluation. All items in bold are methods further described in the text. 1. Common and specific features 42. Common and specific features can be a useful methodological approach for defining themes that are important to describe in scenarios and are dependent on the goal of the study (Figure 7). Common features are shared across all scenarios within a scenario framework, whilst specific features are unique to the position of the scenario within the framework being used for a study. If scenarios are being developed from scratch, common and specific features can be used to identify the main building blocks of the scenarios. If a study is using existing scenarios, they can help in analysing and comparing characteristics between scenarios. Scenarios with shared specific features may be referred to as a ‘scenario family’ 13 . Archetype analysis may be useful for defining ‘scenario families’ or ‘scenario archetypes’ that have shared specific features or characteristics (Harrison et al., 2019; Sitas et al., 2019). 43. In the case of the NFF, common features reflect shared global goals for nature and nature’s contributions to people across all NFF-based scenarios (Kim et al., 2023). In this respect they help in defining what is inside the triangle, i.e., what features are essential for a future to be desirable for nature and people, regardless of value perspective. Common features will depend on the study goals, but examples include halting biodiversity loss, keeping global warming to below 2°C, and controlling invasive alien species. In contrast, specific features relate to a particular position in the NFF triangle and reflect the value perspective (or combination of value perspectives) that is associated with that position (Figure 7). Specific features should be able to differentiate between scenarios in different positions in the NFF triangle and help to ensure that the set of scenarios developed within a study are distinct from each other. Examples of specific features could include the species that are the primary focus of conservation and restoration efforts, and the extent and types of protected area designations, i.e., those with primary objectives on sustaining intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values of nature and nature’s contributions to people. Common and specific features can be defined through a participatory process with stakeholders, expert elicitation, literature survey or a combination of these methods. Further information is given in Part III/A. 13 Scenario family: Scenarios that have a similar demographic, societal, economic and technical change storyline (IPCC glossary: Glossary of terms on the IPCC-Data Distribution Centre). 21 Figure 7 Common and specific features and scenario families 2. Visioning 44. A vision is a description (narrative, image, etc.) of a desirable future state and usually depicts the explicit desires, assumptions, beliefs, and paradigms that underlie the desired future of those undertaking the visioning process (Wiek and Iwaniek, 2014; McPhearson et al., 2016; Pereira et al., 2018). Importantly, visions of a desired future state can form the target space for target-seeking scenarios (or an orientation for transformative change) that describe how the future unfolds towards making the visions a reality. The NFF can be used to help participants in the visioning process to articulate their diverse values, preferences and types of relationships with nature, in order to envision a desirable future that is shaped by these aspirations (Lundquist et al., 2017; Mansur et al., 2022). The NFF ensures that nature and people are at the centre of these co-produced visions, and, importantly, provides a tractable link between the envisioned futures and their underpinning value expressions. 45. An illustrative example can be found in the application of the NFF at the first IPBES youth workshop to envision desirable futures (Rana et al., 2020; Part III/B, Box 2). Other examples include the use of the NFF to apply a creative participatory visioning process for the high seas (Part III/B, Box 3), and to structure a participatory process with key stakeholders of a new National Park in the Kingdom of the Netherlands to collaboratively explore desirable nature futures for the park (Kuiper et al., 2022; Part III/B, Box 4). Developing innovative ways of representing Indigenous framing of visioning is a relatively recent phenomenon (Cheok et al., 2025). Dialogues held with Indigenous and local communities as part of the engagement process with the NFF also resulted in nature future visions based on perspectives discussed at three regional Indigenous and local knowledge workshops, and a plenary dialogue session where commonalities across the regional visions were identified (IPBES 2021b; Figure 4). 3. Pathways 46. Pathways are descriptions of strategies for moving from the present situation towards a predefined vision or set of specified targets. They describe purposive courses of actions that build on each other, from short-term to long-term actions into broader transformation (Ferguson et al., 2013; Frantzeskaki et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2014). Thus, building and analysing pathways is key to evaluating the effectiveness of possible policies or sets of policy options for achieving desirable futures for nature and people. For the development of new pathways, the NFF can be combined with existing frameworks or methodological approaches. One such framework is the Three Horizons Framework and its adaptations, which helps to identify and describe the features of the current system that would need to be fostered and those that would need to decline, as well as the transient dominance of certain phenomena that, collectively, constitute pathways from the current system to particular, desirable visions of the future (Sharpe et al., 2016). A particularly important adaptation is the move away from a singular endpoint, to allow for branching pathways based on key decisions or 22 extreme or shock events (Pereira et al., 2021a), as well as a recognition of the complex interactions and disruptions in the transition pathways (Hebinck et al., 2022). 47. The use of the NFF in the development of pathways for achieving desirable futures for nature and people is an active area of development and innovation. A recent IPBES youth workshop served as a pilot for developing NFF-based pathways (IPBES, 2022b; Schmitt et al., 2025). This effort leveraged previous work, including the development of NFF-based visions with youth (Rana et al. 2020; Part III/B, Box 2), NFF illustrative narratives developed by the task force on scenarios and models (Durán et al., 2023; Part III/C, Box 7) and experience in applying the NFF and three horizons framework (Kuiper et al., 2022; Part III/B, Box 4). 4. Narratives 48. Narratives (or scenario narratives) are qualitative descriptions of the future, typically in the form of written stories. They communicate the underlying characteristics, general logic and developments (including common and specific features) of a scenario. As such, a narrative can be used to weave together a vision with a pathway into a coherent story. A narrative can also be outlined first, after which a compelling vision and concrete pathway can be developed. Indeed, narratives can provide the basis for further development, discussion and dissemination of the ideas behind the narrative, for example through the formulation of quantitative scenarios using models. Based on the NFF, an unlimited number of narratives of desirable nature futures may be produced. 49. A narrative family (or scenario family) is a non-exhaustive group of narratives or scenarios that correspond to a particular position within the NFF. This provides a means of classifying NFF-based scenarios and other existing scenarios into groups with similar assumptions and options to facilitate comparison and synthesis for IPBES and other assessments. This is similar to the approach of grouping scenarios into ‘scenario archetypes’ that was used in the IPBES Global Assessment and Regional Assessments of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2018d; 2019a; Sitas et al., 2019). Narrative families could also be used to explore how different narratives for any single position in the NFF differ in terms of assumptions, options and outcomes for nature, nature’s contributions to people, and human well-being. In 2019, the task force developed six narratives as illustrative examples (briefly described in Part III/C, Box 7; and see PBL, 2020; Durán et al., 2023). These six narratives, co-developed as part of a narrative development exercise based on visioning by consulted stakeholders, reflect just a portion of many possible narratives for particular locations in the NFF. These illustrative narratives are not prescriptive for the corresponding locations in the NFF and users of the NFF can develop narratives that are best suited for and reflective of their locations and context. 5. Indicators 50. Indicators are another important tool for both scenarios and models. Indicators can be used to construct coherent descriptions of narratives in qualitative or quantitative terms. They also enable models to quantify the narratives for comparison of various policy options. When working across knowledge systems on formulating futures, the guidance described in Part II/B is essential for the development of indicators that in some way claim to represent perspectives of IPLCSs. For the NFF scenarios, an integrative use of quantitative and qualitative indicators is needed given the limited availability of indicators for certain nature value perspectives, in particular, ‘nature as culture/one with nature’ (see below). Furthermore, indicators can be identified across the elements of the IPBES conceptual framework using common and specific features of the NFF. These indicators can then be mapped onto policy frameworks such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As such, they can be used to set milestones that represent the complex dynamics amongst diverse societal and physical factors, nature, and nature’s contributions to people (Kim et al., 2023, see Tables 1 and 2). 51. The task force on scenarios and models seeks to catalyse the use of existing indicators and identify potential gaps in indicators concerning more comprehensive and inclusive representation of diverse value perspectives of nature in new scenarios. Most current global scenarios and models do not use indicators that adequately capture the diversity of NFF specific value perspectives. Some ‘missing’ indicators relevant for global NFF-based scenarios can be inferred or derived from existing scenarios and models, but in other cases, efforts will be required to identify or develop these indicators. However, it is not in the mandate of the task force to develop new indicators, rather its role is to identify indicators made available such as those identified by the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership and indicators derived from the Essential Biodiversity Variables and Essential Ecosystem Service Variables by Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network. Some initial efforts to map indicators into suites of existing global indicators based on the different specific value 23 perspectives of the NFF, including those used for the Convention on Biological Diversity (GEO BON, 2020; Larsson et al., 2025) and the Sustainable Development Goals (see Part III/D, Box 9), have been catalysed by the task force and undertaken by various scientific networks and Indigenous community members. The initial results show that very few existing indicators represent specific features of the ‘nature as culture/one with nature’ value perspective. One example demonstrated an indicators’ analysis approach through application of the NFF in a spatial prioritization of protected areas in Europe, which entailed mapping the diverse values of nature and prioritizing areas where values cooccurred (O’Connor et al., 2021). 6. Models 52. Models can be used to assess the consequences of different policy interventions, including trade-offs, synergies, and unintended consequences, in NFF-based scenarios for biodiversity and nature contributions to people (Kim et al., 2023). NFF-based scenarios can also create feedback effects that may reinforce (through positive, or self-reinforcing, feedback loops) or hamper (through negative, or self-correcting, feedback loops) the intended outcomes of policy interventions (Sterman, 2001; for an example in an urban context, see Mansur et al., 2022). Models can range from purely qualitative to purely quantitative. Qualitative models typically describe the relationships in a system through visual diagrams (Vennix 1999; Inam et al. 2015; Checkland and Poulter 2020; Reumers et al. 2022), whereas quantitative models can range from purely statistical ones that rely on correlative relationships between variables in a social-ecological system to process-based approaches that can simulate complex social-ecological dynamics through mathematical equations including rule-based relationships or agent-based modelling (IPBES, 2016a; Brown & Rounsevell, 2021). Various modelling approaches can be used complementarily in the development of NFF-based scenarios, including participatory methods benefiting from local and expert knowledge. For example, fuzzy cognitive mapping can be used to distil stakeholder knowledge and preferences to inform quantitative models (Kok, 2009). Initial narratives produced with qualitative tools may need to be refined in response to results from models, while models themselves may need to be refined to best capture key dynamics or priorities informed by local and expert knowledge. 53. Depending on the time and spatial scales of scenarios, different models may be used to develop NFF-based scenarios. For short-term to medium-term projections (years to one decade) and at landscape to regional scales, one can explore how different management regimes acting on direct drivers may lead to different outcomes for nature and nature’s contributions to people. For instance, one could explore three management regimes for a landscape, across the three corners of the NFF (O'Connor et al., 2021) and compare them with the current management regime. A map of current land-use could be modified in consultation with managers and other key stakeholders, to allocate more areas of the landscape to strict nature protection (‘nature for nature’), or nature-based solutions (‘nature for society’), or cultural landscapes (‘nature as culture/one with nature’)14. Different levels of ambition for each of the NFF-based scenarios could also be explored, for instance by allocating increasing proportions of the landscape to one of the management regimes (e.g., Nelson et al., 2009). Then biodiversity models that project species’ responses to land-use change could be used to project biodiversity, while ecosystem service models that project ecosystem services delivered by different biophysical elements could be used to project nature's contributions to people (for a list of models, see Kim et al., 2018)15. Economic models can be used to assess costs, benefits and trade-offs for individual stakeholders. Long-term scenarios, involving multi-decadal time scales, and often carried out at global scales, require that the trajectories of the direct drivers (e.g., land-use and harvest regime) themselves are modelled by examining the dynamics and the policy options for indirect drivers (e.g., population growth and lifestyle). Dynamics of indirect drivers have been explored for instance in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs; van Vuuren et al., 2017) and have been analysed with Integrated Assessment Models (IPBES, 2016a) and further explored with biodiversity and ecosystem service models (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018). However, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways may not be sufficient to achieve any of the nature futures, and it may be necessary to explore more sustainable pathways (e.g., Aguiar et al., 2020). Global modelling studies 14 The extent to which the characteristics of protected areas can be taken into account, such as types of uses subject to regulation and strength of regulation, often depends on the model's capacity and thus requires transparent reporting. 15 Links between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and ecosystem services are only partially accounted for in the existing assessments, in part, due to the need for more capacities of biodiversity models. For more information, please refer to the methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES, 2016a) and its SPM (IPBES, 2016b). 24 are also important to understand remote impacts and displacement effects (Marques et al., 2019). For further details, see Part III/D, Box 9. 7. Exploring futures by combining methods 54. To address the challenge of offering useful and relevant information for decision-making, various methods to formulate futures can be combined in a toolbox for developing scenarios and models for global environmental assessments such as those undertaken by IPBES (Pereira et al., 2021a). Such a toolbox of methods to formulate futures that harness complementarities between topdown and bottom-up methods. It could address current knowledge gaps more effectively than the individual methods and could be used depending on the specific aim(s) to be achieved. A review of approaches across research communities engaging with futures and anticipatory governance (Muiderman et al., 2020) identified four groupings of these approaches, each of which differs in their ultimate aims. Of these approaches, the ultimate aims are relevant for global environmental assessments: 1) risk assessment and strategic planning; 2) exploring diverse and plausible 16 futures to enhance preparedness; and 3) collectively envisioning desirable futures that will be transformative. 55. Table 1 below maps how the different methods relevant to the NFF might offer unique and complementary contributions to multi-scale scenarios, based on the three different aims. Table 1 Matrix showcasing toolbox of mixed methods for approaches methods to explore futures (Adapted and modified from Pereira et al., 2021b and Muiderman et al., 2020). 16 The literature distinguishes between three types of futures: probable, plausible and possible. Probable futures are those that are likely to happen; plausible futures are those that could happen based on current understanding; and possible futures are those that might happen, but are not considered plausible given current knowledge. The probability decreases from probable to plausible to possible (e.g., Cork et al., 2023). 25 D. Knowledge gaps and future work 56. The methodological guidance of the NFF is still evolving and should therefore be considered as work in progress. Ongoing efforts to apply the NFF to scenario development, and ultimately to policymaking, will help catalyse further refinement of the NFF’s methodological guidance and associated modelling tools. Users of the NFF, including the Nature Futures Framework community of practice and other stakeholders, may be interested in filling some key knowledge gaps, including: 1) developing additional illustrative narratives as examples to showcase the plurality of scenario narratives that can be created using the NFF (Part III/C); 2) identifying and using indicators for the NFF that can be associated with different specific value perspectives (Part III/D); 3) addressing knowledge gaps in models of social-ecological feedbacks (Part III/E); and 4) advancing current modelling frameworks to facilitate the application of the NFF (Part III/E). 57. The task force is not mandated to undertake these activities itself; rather, it aims to catalyse them. As shown in Figure 1, the involvement of the task force is envisioned to gradually reduce as the task force catalyses further work on scenarios and models, and community interest and participation increases. Ultimately, the development of NFF-based scenarios across scales, in different regions of the world, and in different knowledge systems, will depend on adoption of the NFF by the scientific and practitioner communities. Capacity-building efforts are part of that catalysation process, and together with the IPBES task force on capacity-building, the task force on scenarios and models will consider different methods, such as webinars, downloadable content on the NFF and NFF-based scenarios tailored to different audiences. These priorities are envisioned as necessary elements to enhance the use of the NFF in supporting ongoing IPBES assessments. Other priorities may, however, emerge during the ongoing development and utilisation of NFF-based scenarios by governments and the scientific community. E. Concluding remarks 58. Positive scenarios for nature and people, and the participatory processes involved in their development, are needed to facilitate policymaking by governments globally and nationally, and decision-making by other stakeholders, that can achieve sustainable futures. The development of such new scenarios needs to take into account various perspectives on people’s relationships to nature and different stakeholder needs across scales. In this respect, it is also important to ensure for the scenarios to have internal consistency; there should be no conflicts or contradictions amongst the components of a given scenario, and the scenario storyline should flow logically and be believable within its own established rules or context (Cumming et al., 2005; Schweizer and Kriegler, 2012; Schweizer and O’Neill, 2014; Johansen, 2018). The NFF provides a framework for doing so. The use of the NFF by the scientific community and other stakeholders can lead to the further development, identification and utilisation of new qualitative and quantitative scenarios. In turn, increased availability of NFF-based scenarios can provide valuable input for future IPBES assessments and trigger the much-needed actions and societal transformations towards a desirable future for nature and people. 32 Figure Box 3 Graphical representations of High Seas futures: top left - nature for nature, top right - nature for society, bottom - nature as culture/one with nature, ©CareCreative Box 4 Using the NFF to explore desirable nature futures of National Park Hollandse Duinen National Park Hollandse Duinen in the Netherlands is being developed in one of the most densely populated regions of Europe. It aims to showcase how humans and nature can coexist. The surface area of the park is ~450 km 2 and covers the entire coastline of the province of Zuid Holland, including sea, beaches, dunes and forests, but also agriculture, infrastructure and cities. The development of the national park occurred bottom-up. A diverse group of local land managers and other stakeholders recognised that, in the face of Anthropocene pressures, the preservation of high biodiversity values in this unique landscape requires an integrated and collective effort and started exploring new ways of interacting with each other and with nature. In 2019, the NFF was applied to structure a participatory visioning process to inform the bottom-up development of National Park Hollandse Duinen (Kuiper et al., 2022). The process, collaboratively designed by researchers and key stakeholders, combined the NFF with the Three Horizons framework, a foresight tool for collaborative exploration of transformative change (Sharpe et al., 2016), and the Sustainable Development Goals. The purpose was to envision desirable futures for the national park, explore transformational pathways to get there, and assess the potential contribution to the Agenda 2030. 33 More specifically, the NFF was used as a tool to help stakeholders identify and articulate their own desired relationship with nature, understand the diversity and plurality of people’s perspectives on nature, and identify shared values as fertile grounds for the development of rich, pluralistic visions in which multiple values of nature are enhanced. The Three Horizons Framework was used to explore transformative pathways, connecting the visions to the present. An SDG target analysis was used to assess how the envisioned futures of the national park would benefit the 2030 Agenda. This case provides an example of the application of the NFF in an ‘on the ground’ development process; an example of how the nature as culture/one with nature perspective is understood in a WesternEuropean setting; an example of how visions can be built up from value expressions from across the NFF space, instead of creating visions that represent a specific area of the NFF. The ‘nature as culture/one with nature’ perspective was appreciated by the participants because it extended existing discussions on the dichotomy between intrinsic and instrumental values, openingup a broader appreciation of nature based on which new partnerships between stakeholders could be explored. The visions that emerged facilitated a discussion of trade-offs and opportunities for synergies in the area of the National Park. Through the participants, these discussions fed into the development of a landscape strategy document that was presented in 2020, which in turn paved the way for the first implementation program 2021-2025. Both documents (in Dutch) can be retrieved from the website of National Park Hollandse Duinen (www.nationaalparkhollandseduinen.nl). 4. Case study examples of futures work across knowledge systems 68. Many examples showcase futures development with IPLCSs. Here, examples presented range from global visions for IPLCS to locally co-developed examples involving collaboration across IPLCS and climate change modellers (Box 5 and Box 6). Box 5 A global vision of six transitions from IPLCS IPLCSs reflect a diversity of local communities and knowledge systems, and engage with extended time horizons spanning the past, the present and the future in their planning and actions. In the Local Biodiversity Outlook 2 report published in 2020, international consortia of IPLCSs organizations shared the contributions of IPLCSs to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011– 2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. Drawing on these local cases the report then paints a detailed vision of a desirable future which could contribute to addressing the climate, biodiversity and sustainable development crises in the world. This vision is composed of six transitions (see below) and for each transition they describe a more detailed vision, rationale, the benefits it would provide, visible signs (indicators) of its emergence and guiding examples, and finally key components of the transition. The starting point for these transitions is their analysis of what they see as the problem tree of the socio-ecological crises of the world (see LBO 2020, p.249) which has as its deepest root the separation of humans from nature and self-oriented values accompanied by viewing nature as an economic resource and top-down governance. The six transitions represent changes towards more balanced relationships within societies and with nature and while each transition is considered to represent “specific urgent issues and contains its own dynamic” they are all “systemically linked to each other” (LBO 2020, p.253). The six transitions and the detailed vision of each below are summarized in the report that is available at www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net. 1. Cultural transitions towards diverse ways of knowing and being Humanity’s diverse ways of living, knowing and being in nature are celebrated, promoting plural values and worldviews across our economic, political and social systems, thereby securing the mutual resilience of nature and society. The diverse cultures of IPLCSs inform and inspire the blossoming of new cultural narratives that locate humanity within a living, intelligent and sacred world. Education for sustainable development is universal and the importance of biodiversity and cultural values are widely understood. People everywhere have relevant information, awareness and the capacity for sustainable development and lifestyles that are in harmony with nature. 2. Land transitions towards securing customary land tenure of IPLCSs The territories of life of IPLCSs, including their distinct cultural, spiritual and customary relationships with their lands and waters and their intrinsic and vital contributions to human well-being, 34 biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation, are secured. The collective lands, territories and resources of IPLCSs are legally recognized and protected in keeping with international law; land-use classifications and land registration to uphold customary tenure are reformed; and the global coverage of areas conserved, sustainably used and restored are progressively and significantly increased. 3. Governance transitions towards inclusive decision-making and self-determined development Nested governance institutions, including IPLCS authorities, are exercising decision-making at appropriate scales, ensuring whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches that guarantee respect for human rights and diverse biodiversity and cultural values. These governance institutions are upgrading policy, legal and institutional transparency and accountability towards greater equity, wellbeing, sustainability and resilience for all. 4. Incentives and financial transitions towards rewarding effective culture-based solutions Incentives, including financial support for IPLCS collective actions and innovative culture-based solutions, are prioritized; environmental, social and human-rights safeguards on biodiversity financing are applied; and perverse incentives and harmful investments are ended or redirected. 5. Economic transitions towards sustainable use and diverse local economies Diverse and human-scale economic systems are thriving, within which IPLCS customary sustainable use and other small-scale producers are contributing to sustainable and resilient economies. Scaleddown consumption patterns are guaranteeing a sustainable and just society. 6. Food transitions towards revitalizing Indigenous and local food systems. Vibrant ecosystems and cultures ensure genetic diversity and diverse diets, improving health, resilience and livelihoods. Revitalized Indigenous and local food systems contribute to local food security, food sovereignty and agroecology, and underpin a just agricultural transition. Box 6 Co-production example between the Sámi Council and climate scientists A project that illustrates the benefits of co-producing knowledge between ILK and scientific frameworks has been conducted by the Sámi Council in Northern Europe together with climate scientists.17 The Sámi perspectives add vital insights that are not captured by dominating scientific frameworks, for instance, through centering relational knowledge, seasonal cycles and responsibility to future generations. Particularly, the reindeers play an important role in many Sámi families, which follow the herds through eight seasonal migrations and associate their identity and livelihoods with the animals. In this way, the reindeer behavior is crucial to consider while strategizing the future of the way of life for the Sámi, which is often neglected in other scientific and political decisions. The project “Our land is different now”, combines past and future trends of weather, snow and ice cover with Sámi observations of conditions on-the-ground, including animal behavior and impacts on livelihoods. This co-production has illustrated how ILK from across a large area can be represented in a storymap alongside maps and other data from climate scientists showing climate impacts, to the benefit of both systems of knowledge. The project has shown advantages for climate science, as it allows better understanding of changes on the ground and how these impact livelihoods. It also shows benefits for Sámi, as some aspects of the projected climate futures are not within the realm of lived experience, such projected unprecedented highs in temperatures. Therefore, ILK systems may need added support to identify and manage such never-before-experienced phenomena. A key aspect in the scenario process has been that the Sámi have not been identified as “stakeholders” in the project, but as rights-holders. This made trust-building important between scientists and Sámi herders. Experiences from the project also highlighted the importance of self-determined futures, noting that Sámi communities want to shape scenarios based on their own values, relationships with the land, and cultural continuity. 17 Project link: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b7f8e949186f430f96fe569664b0532d. 35 C. Narratives 1. Description 69. Narratives (or scenario narratives) are qualitative descriptions of the future, describing the underlying characteristics, general logic and developments, typically in the form of written stories. Narratives provide the framework for further development, discussion and dissemination of the ideas behind the narrative, for example by formulation of quantitative scenarios using models. Based on the NFF an unlimited number of narratives of desirable nature futures may be produced. Captured in the narrative can be a vision, common and specific features, and a pathway that links the present to the vision through actions. 70. A narrative family is a non-exhaustive group of narratives that correspond to a particular position within the NFF. All narratives within a narrative family should be coherent with the corresponding NFF specific value perspectives and specific features aligned with these. This provides a means of classifying NFF-based scenarios and other existing scenarios into groups with similar assumptions to facilitate comparison and synthesis for IPBES and other assessments. Narratives based on the ‘nature for nature’ value perspective describing the future of the high seas (Pereira et al., 2022; Box 3) or the future of urban areas (Mansur et al., 2022; Bina et al. 2024; Box 8) may fall in the same narrative family. This is similar to the approach of grouping scenarios into ‘scenario archetypes’ that was used in the IPBES Global Assessment and Regional Assessments of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2018d; 2019a; Sitas et al., 2019). Narrative families could also be used to explore how different narratives for any single position in the NFF differ in terms of assumptions and outcomes for nature, nature’s contributions to people, and human well-being. The most distinct narrative families are located at the three vertices of the NFF (Figure Box 7). Other possible narrative families could correspond to intermediate positions between the vertices and at the centre of the Framework. 71. IPBES will not develop a specific set of narratives based on the NFF. Rather the IPBES task force on scenarios and models envisions that narratives will be developed by different scientific communities and other stakeholders, which can serve as input to upcoming IPBES assessments. However, the task force has developed six narratives as illustrative examples that are described briefly in Box 7 and are explained in detail in Durán et al. (2023) (preliminary versions of these illustrative narratives are also described in PBL (2020)). Each of these six narratives, co-developed as part of a narrative development exercise, reflect just one of many possible narratives for particular locations in the NFF, and are not prescriptive for narratives in those locations in the NFF. The flexibility of the NFF allows others to create narratives that utilise elements particular to their own sociocultural, economic and political context for that particular location in the framework, within the constraints of the common and specific features for that location (Figure 8). 72. Collaboration amongst disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, and modelling communities, and with stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities and faith groups, can assist in identifying narratives that represent the pathways for the transformative changes that are required to achieve local, regional, national, and/or international targets for nature, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life, and to co-explore desirable and feasible solutions/ arrangements between actors. This collaboration can further be of benefit to the development of a new generation of scenarios and associated indicators and can facilitate dialogue between different stakeholders to contribute to conflict resolution and to inform and give voice to those interested parties whose input is often marginalised in these decisions. 2. Knowledge gaps on narratives 73. The process of creating illustrative narratives using the NFF highlighted one of many possible methods for operationalising the framework (Durán et al., 2023; PBL, 2020) that could be expanded to apply the NFF to diverse sociocultural and geographical contexts. Many of the knowledge gaps identified for visioning (Section III/B/2) also apply to narratives. More areas for future engagement and illustrative narrative development include: • Use of NFF-based narratives to engage diverse communities to explore and identify transformative interventions and sustainability solutions A given narrative might be consistent with a range of potentially transformative options, such as different economic concepts like post-growth, degrowth, circular economy, and decoupling, as well as different knowledge systems and ways of thinking about human-nature relations. These options can be harnessed to inform the development of narratives that represent potentially 36 transformative futures. At the same time, NFF-based narratives can also serve to unpack existing concepts such as continued, but ‘green’ growth, by exploring what would be required to enable this development pathway and by describing the future that might emerge. Using NFF-based narratives enable further exploration of possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change as presented in Table SPM.1 of the IPBES Global Assessment (IPBES, 2019a). Creative engagement that leverages the imagination is increasingly recognised as an important capacity to mobilise in the global assessment community and more can be done to enable its uptake for the formulation of diverse futures. • Articulation and assessment of the different values ascribed to nature and nature’s contributions to people within the NFF A strength of the NFF is that it accommodates a multitude of different specific value perspectives, but delineating what falls outside the framework’s triangle and ensuring consistency among NFF-based scenarios are challenging, as existing scenario approaches often focus on drivers and consequences that are outside of that triangle. It is important to realise that the inside of the triangle is relative to the three corners, that relativity (of goals, targets, and mechanisms for change) needs to be maintained, and that the framework can be used to identify both synergies and trade-offs between different specific value perspectives. While narratives based on the corners of the NFF triangle may be particularly useful to show contrasts and illuminate trade-offs, narratives based on the centre space may be developed to highlight how value perspectives, or associated policy options, may reinforce each other to produce synergies. • Appreciation and engagement with the diverse range of values of nature and visions of the future as highlighted by the IPBES values assessment While the aim of the NFF is to allow for a plurality of perspectives to emerge, these perspectives are ultimately narrowed down as soon as scenarios are created. It is important to recognise that the illustrative narratives do not imply a singular, restrictive story to capture a particular perspective. Encouraging variations to the stories created by different groups in different spaces is one way to address this. 3. Case study examples on narratives 74. Various case studies have developed short narratives based on the NFF, mostly to describe future visions (e.g., see Mansur et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2022b, Box 3). To show how the NFF may be used to generate diverse narratives of nature futures, the IPBES task force on scenarios and models has created six ‘illustrative narratives’ (Box 7). Another example, inspired by the NFF, showcases narratives for urban futures (Box 8; Bina et al., 2024). Box 7 Illustrative narrative examples Summary description of the six illustrative narratives developed by the IPBES task force on scenarios and models through an iterative, co-development process (for full descriptions of the narratives, please refer to Durán et al., 2023). The illustrative narratives were created at the corners and edges of the NFF so that they are clearly different while still all holding nature at the core (Figure Box 7). Indeed, scenarios are typically created to provide contrasts, to open-up for a wide range of future possibilities while illuminating implications and trade-offs so that these can be properly evaluated. It does mean that these illustrative narratives are on the edge of what people generally may still consider to be desirable. Also, by focusing on the corners and edges, no narratives are presented that represent the middle of the NFF space whilst such narratives could highlight how value perspectives may reinforce each other. Additional illustrative narratives may be created that focus more on synergies than trade-offs. Optimising nature - ‘Nature for society’ A highly connected world that shares knowledge and technology to maximise efficient and sustainable utilisation of nature’s contributions to people while ensuring maintenance of the key ecosystem functions that underpin them. Key words: eco-efficiency, green growth, smart cities, urban-rural integration, land-sharing, optimised ecosystem services, engineered ecosystems 37 Reciprocal stewardship - ‘Nature as culture/one with nature’ In this world, values of reciprocity and harmony drive the relationships of humans with nature at all levels of human organization. Biological and cultural diversity are co-conserved and co-managed across a wide range of interconnected bio-cultural systems. Key words: bio-cultural heritage, stewardship, commons, post-growth, cultural landscapes, engineered ecosystems, self-sufficient settlements Arcology - ‘Nature for nature’ People respect and value all life on Earth intrinsically. This world is characterised by extreme landsparing as vast areas of land and sea are strictly protected from human interventions. People live in dense self-sustaining urban areas designed to minimise the role of humans in the biosphere. Key words: planetary stewardship, post-growth, smart cities, blue-green infrastructure, protected area, large scale ecological dynamics, rewilding, self-sufficient settlements Innovative commons - Balancing ‘nature for society’ and ‘nature as culture/one with nature’ People have built a world of innovative ecological commons and live in interconnected green-blue cities and rural settlements across landand seascapes. People use their local and traditional knowledge, and technology, to manage and expand the use of ecosystems and biodiversity and to also enhance their culture. Key words: bio-cultural heritage, commons, post-growth, blue-green infrastructure, urban-rural integration, cultural landscapes, land-sharing, optimised ecosystem services Dynamic futures - Balancing ‘nature as culture/one with nature’ and ‘nature for nature’ Dynamic, connected and biodiverse ecosystems are valued to allow traditions and culture, spiritual values and connections to be re-established and new ones to be shaped. Society accommodates the dynamics of nature through both traditional and innovative lifestyles which take into consideration cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge, by for example, allowing space for migrations. Key words: planetary stewardship, post-growth, urban-rural integration, engineered ecosystems, large scale ecological dynamics, rewilding, self-sufficient settlements Sharing through sparing - Balancing ‘nature for nature’ and ‘nature for society’ People favour the utilisation of nature but also value and protect the self-regulating capacity of the biosphere as biodiversity and natural processes provide the resilience that enables humanity to stay within planetary boundaries. While sparing space for nature, remaining areas are used intensively but efficiently and sustainably. Key words: eco-efficiency, green growth, blue-green infrastructure, urban-rural integration, optimised ecosystem services, protected area, engineered ecosystems, rewilding 38 Figure Box 7 Placement of the illustrative narrative examples within the NFF. The illustrative narratives were created to provide methodological guidance and inspiration for using the NFF. They show how diverse, pluralistic narratives may be produced out of the NFF. As the NFF does not capture the full variety of people-nature relationships as perceived by the different cosmologies and worldviews of people (as depicted in the right-hand part of Figure 2), neither do the narratives produced from them. 39 Box 8 Narrative examples for urban nature futures Bina et al. (2024) explored “desired urban futures for nature in 2050”. Six workshops involving 111 participants linked to ‘Conexus’, a project on nature-based solutions in European and Latin American cities, explored emerging desired futures, evolving ideas of nature, human-nature relationships, and agency. The approach offers space for reflection, creative exploration, and weaving together of new, hopeful, caring, emancipatory stories. Three examples of narratives from the project are presented below. Across all examples, narratives illustrated the need for transformative change across humannature relationships, education, awareness and cultural changes, and implementation of alternative economic models (Figure Box 8). Figure Box 8 Transformative changes identified across themes, as illustrated by desired urban futures for nature in 2050. (Adapted from Bina et al., 2024) Urban Narrative 1: Stories of humans and nature in the city In the decades to 2050, the unfolding climate and biodiversity crises forced both the public and private sectors to radically rethink how cities were planned and governed: “(…) there was no choice but to change peoples’ habits and ways of living. States and private companies were forced to change their production processes and ways of thinking about cities.” A vision for a different kind of relationship with nature in the city began with naming a fundamental tension across society between the desire to change and adapt the city to pursue better human-nature relationships and solve the many unfolding crises, and need to address fundamental socio-economic inequality and injustice which were reflected in the prevailing urban form. Eventually the people of the city understood that without meeting their basic needs, they could not build a future based on a sustainable and nurturing relationship with their environment and nature: the prevailing sentiment became that both perspectives could coexist and that all members of society could contribute to reduce trade-offs, acknowledging the entangled nature of these structural conditions. Urban Narrative 2: Stories of cultural change and alternative economic models The transformation began with a profound cultural change that took place across government and society, affecting all systems, from social-ecological to techno-economic, with a view to redefine policies and practices and their impact on peoples’ lives and on nature. This was driven by major shifts in society that implied changes in the economic model and overall power balance: “We managed to shift political power from a patriarchal society with an androcentric economy to a feminist economy where the values are what sustains life and not things”. Fundamental changes were envisioned in the way the economy was governed and organized, promoting a greater work-life balance. It led to a focus on life as the main goal, promoting alternative economic models and measures, such as the introduction of a universal basic income (UBI). Urban Narrative 3: Stories of cultural change, equity and food Another, connected, major shift occurred thanks to a deeper understanding of the potential of cities as living landscapes, which helped to reduce the dominance of globalization, and emphasise interconnectedness between different scales and local identity. The city thus developed a thriving relationship with its rural surroundings, focusing on the regeneration of ecological systems and communities. The structural and systemic transformations aimed to create a more equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities across society. A key transformative area involved local 40 food production:"...almost 50% of [food] is provided by sustainable food systems, and local producers have had a lot of political and financial support...there are several community gardens in the cities and they are open to all with plenty of vegetables and fruits.” D. Indicators 1. Description 75. There are different ways to identify indicators in the development of NFF-based scenarios, reflecting the diversity of ways to develop these scenarios. The selection and the role of indicators in NFF-based and other scenarios vary considerably with their intended use and it is important to consider the constraints in data availability and accessibility of indicators that many countries (and communities) will face. To select suitable indicators for particular scenarios, it is advisable to scan relevant indicators across the wide range of data sources that are collected regularly, including those beyond nature conservation. When aiming to co-develop scenarios for planning and decision-making in a community setting, existing (i.e., community-produced) data could take priority and be used to inform indicator development. When engaging in a process with IPLCSs it is important to consider carefully the guidance for working across knowledge systems (Part II/B, Box 1). 76. Some initial efforts have been made to align indicators in existing global indicator lists with the different specific value perspectives of the NFF, including those used for the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets, the Sustainable Development Goals, and indicators made available by the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership. This indicator compilation represents work in progress (see Table 2; Larsson et al., 2025), and should be validated by scientists from diverse disciplines. 77. These indicators can support scenario development by providing historical trends and facilitate dialogue on projections to the future on a range of common and specific features for each of the NFF specific value perspectives. These indicators can be used in scoring and mapping systems or places comparatively or across time within the NFF triangle space. The indicators approach followed by the IPBES task force on knowledge and data and the authors of the IPBES values assessment, including ILK indicators, can also be used as reference in the development of NFF-based scenarios (IPBES, 2022a). Indicators can be identified across the elements of the IPBES conceptual framework and across the three NFF specific value perspectives in the context of the focal research or policy question (see Tables 1 and 2 of Kim et al., 2023 for illustrative examples). Then, using those indicators, systems or places can be assessed on their status and trends towards different policy targets. Table 2 Examples of indicators from the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership and their preliminary alignment with NFF value perspectives (Larsson et al., 2025). NFF perspective Indicator name Nature for nature Living Planet Index Species Protection Index Nature for society Level of water stress: Freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources Estimated Fish Catch Marine Stewardship Council Certified Catch Nature as culture/ One with nature Index of linguistic diversity 78. Furthermore, indicators can be used to measure the effectiveness of different interventions in mitigating impacts of direct and indirect drivers, using representative indicators mapped to different NFF value perspectives (see Box 9). In some cases, these indicators may be outputs of scenarios and models. Currently, global scenarios and models do not use indicators that adequately represent all NFF value perspectives. Some ‘missing’ indicators relevant for NFF-based scenarios can be inferred or derived from existing scenarios and models, but in other cases, efforts will be required to identify or develop new indicators. One approach for developing new indicators that could be useful in modelling is to start 'bottom-up' by identifying, at local community scales, chains or systems of cause 41 and effect (cause-chains) that start with behaviours expressing one or more value perspectives and ends in impact on biodiversity (Larsson et al., 2025). 2. Knowledge gaps on indicators 79. Indicators are valuable for communicating the potential success of different scenarios at achieving biodiversity or sustainability goals and should be able to capture both positive and negative outcomes across the three specific value perspectives as well as drivers and responses linked to pathways towards realising those outcomes.. Hence, the NFF requires identification and development of additional indicators that can be associated with the different specific value perspectives. Reviews of existing global indicator sets led by members of the task force on scenarios and models showed that the availability of indicators is not balanced across the three NFF specific value perspectives, with most of them illustrating specific features of the “nature for society” and “nature for nature” perspectives, and few available indicators for “nature as culture/one with nature”. For example, from 193 ‘ready to use’ indicators from various global policy related indicator sets, only two indicators were categorised exclusively as specific features of the “nature as culture/one with nature” perspective, while close to 75 could represent both this and one other value perspective or all three perspectives (Larsson et al., 2025). This finding is in line with the knowledge gaps identified in earlier IPBES assessments which pointed to a lack of indicators of nature’s non-material contributions to people and associated aspects of good quality of life (IPBES 2018d; 2019a). 80. Noticing the gap in “nature as culture/one with nature” indicators, efforts to identify possible indicators for this perspective have commenced, including operationalising relational values of nature as the corollary to “nature as culture/one with nature” perspective into distinct components. Larsson et al. (2025), drawing on and integrating the identification of components of relational values from a set of authors (Zylstra et al., 2014; Shiefer and van der Noll 2017; Allen et al., 2018; dos Santos and Gould, 2018; and West et al 2018) suggest relational values have six primary components: connectedness, identity, care, responsibility, social cohesion and kinship. Each of these components in turn is associated with secondary components that help to clarify what the “nature as culture/one with nature” value perspective encompasses. The next step, if one is seeking to use indicators as input into models with biodiversity as a key outcome, is to systematically link these components to specific observable behaviours relevant for biodiversity outcomes (Larsson et al., 2025). In another study, more than 40 indicators associated with the NFF specific value perspectives (existing and aspirational) were collated from the use of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EESVs)18 for modelling NFF-based scenarios across all three value perspectives (Kim, 2022). The EBVand EESV-based indicators can be used or developed as common and specific indicators. Remote-sensing and in-situ data can be used in models to assess the status, trends, and dynamics of nature and nature’s contributions to people. The gaps identified in these lists imply similar gaps in the indicators (representing each specific value perspective) that have been used in existing models and scenarios. 81. The task force on scenarios and models, while not having a mandate to develop indicators itself or to provide any list thereof, encourages the scientific community to further develop indicators for NFF-based scenarios through the following activities: • Continued work on developing more detailed guidance for the process of identifying appropriate indicators for the three specific NFF value perspectives, through illustrating potential example indicators. • Selection of some example indicators for each illustrative NFF narrative, and work with the scientific community to define the baseline conditions and relevant context-specific data to inform the indicators, analyse their trends, and identify the models available to examine their dynamics from local to global levels. This initial indicator exercise could provide guidance and help to catalyse the development by the scientific community of representative indicators for each illustrative NFF narrative. 18 The Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) cover the key dimensions of biodiversity spanning six classes (Species populations, Species Traits, Genetic Composition, Community Composition, Ecosystem Structure, and Ecosystem Function) (Pereira et al., 2013). In addition, a new framework is being developed for Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EESVs) that provides a flexible means for measuring change in a wide range of material, non-material and cultural services that biodiversity and ecosystems provide (Balvanera et al., 2022). Both the EBVs and EESVs will include data products that can inform a wide range of policy frameworks, including the CBD, SDGs, and other multilateral environmental agreements. 48 Annex I: References Aguiar, A., Collste, D., Harmáčková, Z., Pereira, L., Selomane, O., Galafassi, D., Vuuren, van D. & Van der Leeuw, S. (2020). Co-designing global target-seeking scenarios: A cross-scale participatory process for capturing multiple perspectives on pathways to sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102198 Aguiar, A., Cornell, S., Remy, M., & Schmidt, F. (2021). SHAPE - Report on the first phase of the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7432337 Aguiar, A., Cornell, S., Cortes-Calderon, S., & Remy, M. (2022). SHAPE - Report on the Second Multi-Stakeholder Workshop. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7432489 Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Cord, A. F., Drakou, E. G., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Karp, D. S., Martin-Lopez, B., Mwampamba, T. H., & Schröter, M. (2022). Essential Ecosystem Service Variables for monitoring progress towards sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 54, 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101152 Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R., Veríssimo, D., & Carina, W. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93-108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006. Berghöfer, U., Rode, J., Jax, K., Förster, J., Berghöfer, A., & Wittmer, H. (2022). ‘Societal Relationships with Nature’: A framework for understanding nature-related conflicts and multiple values. People and Nature, 4(2), 534-548. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10305 Bina, O., Baptista, M. D., Pereira, M. M., Inch, A., Falanga, R., Alegría, V., Caquimbo-Salazar, S., Duarte, D. H. S., Mercado, G., Valenta, A. T., Vásquez, A., & Verellen, T. (2024). Exploring desired urban futures: the transformative potential of a nature-based approach. Futures, 159, 103362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103362. Braun, B., & Castree, N. (Eds.) (2005). Remaking reality: nature at the millenium. Routledge. Brown, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2021). How can social–ecological system models simulate the emergence of social–ecological crises? People and Nature, 3(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10167 Caillon, S., Cullman, G., Verschuuren, B. & Sterling, E. (2017). Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: Including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecology and Society, 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746-220427 Camacho-Villa, T. C., Martinez-Cruz, T. E., Ramírez-López, A., Hoil-Tzuc, M., & Terán-Contreras, S. (2021). Mayan traditional knowledge on weather forecasting: who contributes to whom in coping with climate change? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.618453 Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Díaz, S., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 CBD (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Decision UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02en.pdf CBD (2021). ‘1st Draft of The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’. Open ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Third meeting. Online, 23 August – 3 September 2021. Item 4 of the provisional agenda. UNEP/CBD/WG2020/3/3 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sharp, R. P., Weil, C., Bennett, E. M., Pascual, U., Arkema, K. K., Brauman, K.A.,Bryant, B.P., Guerry, A.S., Haddad, N.M., Hamann, M., Hamel, P., Johnson, J.A., Mandle, L., Pereira, H.M.,, Polasky, S., Ruckelsaus, M., Shaw, M.R., Silver, J.M., … Daily, G. C. (2019). Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science, 366(6462), 255–258. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aaw3372 49 Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2020). Soft Systems Methodology. Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. M. Reynolds and S. Holwell. London, Springer London: 201-253. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_5 Cheung, W. W. L. (2019). Chapter 1 - Predicting the future ocean: pathways to global ocean sustainability. In A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, W. W. L. Cheung, & Y. Ota (Eds.), Predicting Future Oceans (pp. 3-15). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817945-1.00001-0 Cheung, W. W. L., & Oyinlola, M.A. (2019). Dynamic Integrated Marine Climate, Biodiversity, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Seafood Market Model (DIVERSE). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 27(3), 125p. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0387414 Cheok, J., van Velden, J., Fulton, E. A., Gordon, I. J., Lyons, I., Peterson, G. D., Wren L., & Hill, R. (2025). Framings in Indigenous futures thinking: barriers, opportunities, and innovations. Sustainability Science, 20, 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01615-1 Cork, S., Alexandra, C., Alvarez-Romero, J. G., Benette, E. M., Berbes-Blazquez, M., Bohensky, E., Bok, B., Costanza, R., Hashimoto, S., Hill, R., Inayatullah, S., Kok, K., Kuiper, J. J., Moglia, M., Pereira, L., Peterson, G., Weeks, R., & Wyborn, C. (2023). Exploring alternative futures in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 25-54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-095011 Cronon, W. (Ed.) (1996). Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. WW Norton & Company. Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R. D., Stickler, C., & Holt, T. V. (2005). An Exploratory Framework for the Empirical Measurement of Resilience. Ecosystems, 8, 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. University of Chicago Press. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M.A., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K., Baste, I., Brauman, K., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P., Van Oudenhoven, A., Van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270-272. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aap8826 Dacks, R., Ticktin, T., Mawyer, A., Caillon, S., Claudet, J., Fabre, P., Jupiter, S.D., McCarter, J., Mejia, M., Pascua, P., Sterling, E. & Wongbusarakum, S. (2019). Developing biocultural indicators for resource management. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.38 Dietze, M. C., Fox, A., Beck-Johnson, L. M., Betancourt, J. L., Hooten, M. B., Jarnevich, C. S., Keitt, T. H., Kenney, M. A., Laney, C. M., Larsen, L. G., Loescher, H. W., Lunch, C. K., Pijanowski, B. C., Randerson, J. T., Read, E. K., Tredennick, A. T., Vargas, R., Weathers, K. C., & White, E. P. (2018). Iterative near-term ecological forecasting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(7), 1424-1432. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710231115 dos Santos, N. B., & Gould, R. K. (2018). Can relational values be developed and changed? Investigating relational values in the environmental education literature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 124-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.019 Durán, A. P., Kuiper, J. J., Aguiar, A. P. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Diaw, M. C., Halouani, G., Hashimoto, S., Gasalla, M. A., Peterson, G. D., Schoolenberg, M. A., Abbasov, R., Acosta, L. A., Armenteras, D., Davila, F., Denboba, M. A., Harrison, P. A., Harhash, K. A., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H., Lundquist, C. J., , Miller, B. W., Okayasu, S., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sathyapalan, J., Saysel, A. K., Yu, D., & Pereira, L. M. (2023). Bringing the Nature Futures Framework to life: creating a set of illustrative narratives of nature futures. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-02301316-1 Epstein, J. (2007). Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. pp. 352. 50 Ferguson, S. M., Phillips, P. E. M., Roth, B. L., Wess, J., & Neumaier, J. F. (2013). Direct-Pathway Striatal Neurons Regulate the Retention of Decision-Making Strategies. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 11668–11676. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4783-12.2013 Ferrier, S., Jetz, W., & Scharlemann, J. (2017). Biodiversity Modelling as Part of an Observation System. In M. Walters & R. J. Scholes (Eds.), The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks (pp. 239-257). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-272887_10 Figueiredo, J., & Pereira, H. M. (2011). Regime shifts in a socio-ecological model of farmland abandonment. Landscape Ecology, 26, 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9605-3 Fonte, S. J., Vanek, S. J., Oyarzun, P., Parsa, S., Quintero, D. C., Rao, I. M., & Lavelle, P. (2012). Chapter Four - Pathways to Agroecological Intensification of Soil Fertility Management by Smallholder Farmers in the Andean Highlands. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, 116, 125-184. Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394277-7.00004-X Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020). Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A complement to the fifth edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook. Moreton-in-Marsh, England: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at: www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15, 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2012.044032 Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6 Gasalla, M. A., Tittensor, D. P., Kok, K., Archer, E., Borokini, I., Halouani, G., Matias, D.M., Mbiba, M., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Pacheco, P., Fabricius, C., & Kieling, D. (2022). Chapter 5: Future scenarios of sustainable use of wild species. In: Thematic Assessment Report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Fromentin, J.M., Emery, M., Donaldson, J., Danner, M.C., Hallosserie, A., and Kieling, D. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6451922 GEO BON (2020). Essential Biodiversity Variables 2020 Initiative (EBV2020) for Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Conservation. https://geobon.org/essential-biodiversity-variables-2020-initiativeebv2020-for-post-2020-global-biodiversity-conservation/ Harrison, P. A., Harmáčková,, Z. V., Aloe Karabulut, A., Brotons, L., Cantele, M., Claudet, J., Dunford, R. W., Guisan, A., Holman, I. P., Jacobs, S., Kok, K., Lobanova, A., Morán-Ordóñez, A., Pedde, S., Rixen, C., Santos-Martín, F., Schlaepfer, M. A., Solidoro, C., Sonrel, A., & Hauck, J. (2019). Synthesizing plausible futures for biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia using scenario archetypes. Ecology and Society, 24(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10818240227 Head, L. (2016). Hope and grief in the Anthropocene: Re-conceptualising human–nature relations. Routledge. Hebinck, A., Diercks, G., von Wirth, T., Beers, P. J., Barsties, L., Buchel, S., Greer, R., van Steenbergen, F., & Loorbach, D. (2022). An actionable understanding of societal transitions: the Xcurve framework. Sustainability Science, 17, 1009-1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01084w Hofbauer, J. (2022). Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) (January 15, 2022). C. Binder, M. Nowak, J. A Hofbauer, & P. Janig (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4084700 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4084700 Inam, A., Adamowski, J., Halbe, J., & Prasher, S. (2015). Using causal loop diagrams for the initialization of stakeholder engagement in soil salinity management in agricultural watersheds in developing countries: A case study in the Rechna Doab watershed, Pakistan. Journal of Environmental Management, 152: 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.052 51 IPCC (2018). Glossary, IPCC SR1.5. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/sr15_glossary.pdf IPBES (2015). Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3 (d)). IPBES/4/INF/13. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. IPBES (2016a). The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ferrier, S., Ninan, K. N., Leadley, P., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akçakaya, H. R., Brotons, L., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Harhash, K. A., Kabubo-Mariara, J., Obersteiner, C. W. W. L., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Pichs-Madruga, R., Ravindranath, N., Rondinini, C. & Wintle, B. A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 348 pages. IPBES (2016b). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Ferrier, S., Ninan, K. N., Leadley, P., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akçakaya, H. R., Brotons, L., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Harhash, K. A., KabuboMariara, J., Obersteiner, C. W. W. L., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Pichs-Madruga, R., Ravindranath, N., Rondinini, C. & Wintle, B. A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 32 pages. IPBES (2018a). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa. Archer, E., Dziba, L., Mulongoy, K. J., Maoela, M. A., & Walters, M. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 492 pages. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236178 IPBES (2018b). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas. Rice, J., Seixas, C. S., Zaccagnini, M. E., Bedoya-Gaitán, M., & Valderrama N. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 656 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236252 IPBES (2018c). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific. Karki, M., Senaratna Sellamuttu, S., Okayasu, S., & Suzuki, W. (eds). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 612 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237373 IPBES (2018d). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Fischer, M., Rounsevell, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A., Mader, A., Church, A., Elbakidze, M., Elias, V., Hahn, T., Harrison, P. A., Hauck, J., Martín-López, B., Ring, I., Sandström, C., Sousa Pinto, I,., Visconti, P., Zimmermann, N.E., & Christie, M. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 48 pages https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237428 IPBES (2019a). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., & Ngo, H. T. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 IPBES (2019b). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio E. S., Ngo, H. T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y. J., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Willis, K. J., & Zayas, C. N. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. IPBES (2021b). Report of the Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshop on scenarios and the Nature Futures Framework. Online, 28-30 September 2021 and 19 October 2021. https://www.ipbes.net/ilk-dialogue-reports IPBES (2022a). Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., González-Jiménez, D., 52 Anderson, C. B., Athayde, S., Barton, D. N., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., Kumar, R., Lazos, E., Martin, A., Mwampamba, T. H., Nakangu, B., O’Farrell, P., Raymond, C. M., Subramanian, S.M., Termansen, M., Van Noordwijk, M., & Vatn, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392 IPBES (2022b). IPBES youth workshop 2022 under the 2030 IPBES rolling work programme. Report of the IPBES youth workshop in 2022. Document No. IPBES/TF/CBG/WSP/2022/2. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 8 pages. IPBES (2024). Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Transformative Change Assessment). O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L., & Agrawal, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382215 IPBES (2025). Wilfredo Vidal Alangui, W., Ballard, M., Bayate, R.C., Cariño, J., Cariño, J., Corcino, A., Delgado, B., De Vera, D., Moy Dhamai, B., Febria, C., Gilmore, E., Huambachano, M. Indrawan, M., Kammwamba, A. Z., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kinoc, Z., Kitnova, D., Kitma, A., Kolahi, M., Karim, P., Literal, M., Lundquist, C., Hernández Márquez, Y., Masadule, O., Mathew, A., Mohammed, R. S., Mulenkei, L, Nursey-Bray, M., Nutti Pilflyky, K., Ocen, I., Pichs-Madruga, R., Poskitt, S., Quesnot, T., Rana, S., Regpala, M. E., Ringham, S., Roskruge, N. R., Schmitt, T., Shulbaeva, P., Tauli, J. C., & Trakansuphakon, N. (eds). Report of the Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshop on Scenarios of the future. 23-26 May 2025, Subic Bay, the Philippines. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. Johansen, T., Westgaard, J. I., Seliussen, B. B., Nedreaas, K., Dahle, G., Glover, K. A., Kvalsund, R., & Aglen, A. (2018). “Real-time” genetic monitoring of a commercial fishery on the doorstep of an MPA reveals unique insights into the interaction between coastal and migratory forms of the Atlantic cod, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75( 3), 1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx224 Kim, H., Rosa, I. M. D., Alkemade, R., Leadley, P., Hurtt, G., Popp, A., van Vuuren, D. P., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Baisero, D., Caton, E., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Chini, L., De Palma, A., Di Fulvio, F., Di Marco, M., Espinoza, F., Ferrier, S., Fujimori, S., … & Pereira, H. M. (2018). A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(11), 4537-4562. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4537-2018 Kim, H., Peterson, G. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, A., Arneth, A., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Pereira, L., Acosta, L.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Den Belder, E., Eddy, T., Johnson, J. A., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kok, M. T. J., Leadley, P., Leclere, D., Lundquist, C. J., Rondinini, C., Scholes, R. J., Schoolenberg, M. A., Shin, Y.-J., Stehfest, E., Stephenson, F., Visconti, P., van Vuuren, D., Wabnitz, C. C. C., José Alava, J., Cuadros-Casanova, I., Davies, K. K., Gasalla, M. A., Halouani, G., Harfoot, M., Hashimoto, S., Hickler, T., Hirsch, T., Kolomytsev, G., Miller, B. W., Ohashi, H., Gabriela Palomo, M., Popp, A., Paco Remme, R., Saito, O., Rashid Sumalia, U., Willcock, S. & Pereira, H. M. (2023). Towards a better future for biodiversity and people: modelling the Nature Futures. Global Environmental Change, 82, 102681. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102681 Kim (2022). Enhancing the use of scenario-based biodiversity information in conservation policy and practice. PhD Dissertation. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenburg. Halle (Salle). Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown. Kok, K. (2009). The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.003 Kuiper, J. J., van Wijk, D., Mooij, W. M., Remme, R. P., Peterson, G. D., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Mooij, C. J., Leltz, G. M., & Pereira, L. M. (2022). Exploring desirable nature futures for National Park Hollandse Duinen. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2065360 Larsson, R., Lockne, E., Lopez Malaga, C., & Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. (2025) Developing Global Indicators for Relational Nature Values. Searching for Concepts, Indicators and Data. Wageningen 53 University: Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University and SLAAK: Futures Research, Modelling and Simulation Team; Wageningen and Stockholm. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. Harvard University Press. Lim, M., Lynch, A. J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Balint, L., Basher, Z., Chan, I., Jaureguiberry, P., Mohamed, A. A. A., Mwampamba, T. H., Palomo, I., Pliscoff, P., Salimov, R. A., Samakov, A., Selomane, O., Shrestha, U. B., & Sidorovich, A. A. (2017). Early-career experts essential for planetary sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.004 Lundquist, C. J., Pereira, H., Alkemade, R., den Belder, E., Carvalho Ribeira, S., Davies, K., Greenway, A., Hauck, J., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim., H., King, N., Lazarova, T., Pereira, L., Peterson, G., Ravera, F., van den Brink, T., Argumendo, A., Arida, C., Armenteras, D., … & Zulfikar, D. (2017). Visions for nature and nature's contributions to people for the 21st century. NIWA Science and Technology Series, 83, 1–123. Auckland, New Zealand: NIWA. Mansur, A. V., McDonald, R. I., Güneralp, B., Kim, H., Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Callaghan, C. T., Hamel, P., Kuiper, J. J., Wolff, M., Liebelt, V., Martins, I. S., Elmqvist, T., & Pereira, H. M. (2022). Nature futures for the urban century: Integrating multiple values into urban management. Environmental Science & Policy, 131, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.01.013 Marques, A., Martins, I. S., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Theurl, M. C., Eisenmenger, N., Huijbregts, M.A., Wood, R., Stadler, K., Bruckner, M., Canelas, J., Hilbers, J.P., Tukker, A., Erb, K. & Pereira, H. M. (2019). Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(4), 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3 Martin, A., O'Farrell, P., Kumar, R., Eser, U., Faith, D. P., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Harmáčková, Z., Horcea-Milcu, A. I., Merçon, J., Quaas, M., Rode, J., Rozzi, R., Sitas, N., Yoshida, Y., Ochieng, T. N., Koessler, A. K., Lutti, N., Mannetti, L., & Arroyo-Robles, G. (2022). Chapter 5: The role of diverse values of nature in visioning and transforming towards just and sustainable futures. In: Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Christie, M., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Baptiste, B., & González-Jiménez, D. (eds). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522326 Maury, O., Campling, L., Arrizabalaga, H., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Merino, G., Squires, D., Cheung, W., Goujon, M., Guivarch, C., Lefort, S., Marsac, F., Monteagudo, P., Murtugudde, R., Österblom, H., Pulvenis, J. F., Ye, Y., & van Ruijven, B.J. (2017). From shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs): Building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. Global Environmental Change, 45, 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.007 McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D. M., & Bai, X. (2016). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.004 Moon, K., Guerrero, A. M., Adams, V. M., Biggs, D., Blackman, D. A., Craven, L., Dickinson, H., & Ross, H. (2019). Mental models for conservation research and practice. Conservation Letters, 0(0), e12642. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12642 Muiderman, K., Gupta, A., Vervoort, J. & Biermann, F. (2020). Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present. WIREs Climate Change, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.673 Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, M. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1890/080023 Obermeister, N. (2019). Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multi-scale models and scenarios. Sustainability Science, 14, 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-06168 O’Connor, L. M. J., Pollock, L. J., Renaud, J., Verhagen, W., Verburg, P. H., Lavorel, S., Maiorano, L. & Thuiller, W. (2021). Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in Europe. Science, 372(6544), 856–860. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4896 54 O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., Mathur, R., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climate Change, 122, 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., van Ruijven, B. J., van Vuuren, D. P., Birkmann, J., Kok, K., Levy, M., & Solecki, W. (2017). The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004 Okayasu, S., Kuiper, J. J., Halouani, G., Kim, H., Miller, B. W., Durán, A. P., Vermeer, A., Schoolenberg, M., Hashimoto, S., & Lundquist, C. (2025). Catalyzing change: a literature review on the implementation of the Nature Futures Framework. Sustainability Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01682-y Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y., Amankwah, E., Asah, S., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 PBL (2019a). Report on the workshop ‘From visions to scenarios for nature and nature’s contributions to people for the 21st century’. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/from-visions-to-scenarios-for-nature-andnature%E2%80%99s-contributions-to-people-for-the-21st-century-workshop-report PBL (2019b). Report on the workshop ‘Global Modelling of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/workshop_report_global_modelling_of_bes.pdf PBL (2020). Report on the Workshop ‘New Narratives for Nature: operationalizing the IPBES Nature Futures Scenarios’. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/report-on-the-workshop-new-narratives-for-natureoperationalizing-the-ipbes-nature-futures-scenarios Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G. N., Jongman, R. H. G., Scholes, R. J., Bruford, M. W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S. H. M., Cardoso, A. C., Coops, N. C., Dulloo, E., Faith, D. P., Freyhof, J., Gregory, R. D., Heip, C., Höft, R., Hurtt, G., Jetz, W., . . . Wegmann, M. (2013). Essential Biodiversity Variables. Science, 339(6117), 277-278. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1229931 Pereira, L. M., Hichert, T., Hamann, M., Preiser, R., & Biggs, R. (2018). Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119 Pereira, L. M., Davies, K. K., den Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Sathyapalan, J., Schoolenberg, M., Alkemade, R., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Greenaway, A., Hauck, J., King, N., Lazarova, T., . . . Lundquist, C. J. (2020). Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature, 2(4), 1172-1195. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146 Pereira, L. M., Morrow, D. R., Aquila, V., Beckage, B., Beckbesinger, S., Beukes, L., Buck, H. J., Carlson, C. J., Geden, O., Jones, A. P., Keller, D. P., Mach, K. J., Mashigo, M., Moreno-Cruz, J. B., Visioni, D., Nicholson, S. & Trisos., C. H. (2021a). From fAIrplay to climate wars: making climate change scenarios more dynamic, creative, and integrative. Ecology and Society, 26(4):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12856-260430 Pereira, L., Kuiper, J. J., Selomane, O., Aguiar, A. P. D., Asrar, G. R., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Calvin, K., Hedden, S., Hsu, A., Jabbour, J., King, N., Köberle, A. C., Lucas, P., Nel, J., Norström, A. V., Peterson, P., Sitas, N., Trisos, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Vervoort, J., & Ward, J. (2021b). Advancing a toolkit of diverse futures approaches for global environmental assessments. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 191-204, https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1901783 Pereira, L. M., Ortuño Crespo, Juri, S., Keys, P., Lübker, H., Merrie, A., Superchi, E., Terry, N., Chibwe, B., Palacios-Abrantes, J., Yasuhara, M., Obaidullah, F., Carmine G., Bandeira, S., Amon, D. J., Halouani, G., Johnson, D. E., Shannon, L. J., Jouffray, J.- B., Wabnitz, C. C. C., & Fulton, B. (2022a). The living infinite. Vector. The Living Infinite (vector-bsfa.com) Pereira, L. M., Ortuño Crespo, G., Merrie, A., & Homewood, C. (2022b). Operationalising the Nature Futures Framework in the High Seas. Nereus Workshop report, Stockholm. 55 Piccolo, J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007 Popp, A., Calvin, K., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Stehfest, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Dietrich, J. P., Doelmann, J. C., Gusti, M., Hasegawa, T., Kyle, P., Obersteiner, M., Tabeau, A., Takahashi, K., Valin, H., Waldhoff, S., Weindl, L., Wise, M., Kriegler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Riahi, K., Fricko, O., & van Vuuren, D.P. (2017). Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 42, 331-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002 Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., … Ngo, H. T. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report synopsis on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES and IPCC, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158 Rana, S., Ávila-García, D., Dib, V., Familia, L., Gerhardinger, L. C., Martin, E., Martins, P. I., Pompeu, J., Selomane, O., Tauli, J. I., Tran, D. H. T., Valle, M., von Below, J., & Pereira, L. M. (2020). The voices of youth in envisioning positive futures for nature and people. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 326-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1821095 Reumers, L., Bekker, M., Hilderink, H., Jansen, M., Helderman J.- K., & Ruwaard, D. (2022). Qualitative modelling of social determinants of health using group model building: the case of debt, poverty, and health. International Journal for Equity in Health, 21, 1, 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01676-7 Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., Kc, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J., . . . & Tavoni, M. (2017). The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153-168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 Rieb, J. T., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Armsworth, P. R., Böhning-Gaese, K., Bonn, A., Cumming, G. S., Eigenbrod, F., Grimm, V., Jackson, B. M., Marques, A., Pattanayak, S. K., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G. D., Ricketts, T. H., Robinson, B. E., Schröter, M., Schulte, L. A., Seppelt, R., . . . & Bennett, E. M. (2017). When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services: Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models. BioScience, 67(9), 820-833. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix075 Robin, L., Sörlin, S., & Warde, P. (2013). The future of nature. New Haven/London. Rosa, I. M. D., Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akcakaya, H. R., den Belder, E., Fazel, A. M., Fujimori, S., Harfoot, M., Harhash, K. A., Harrison, P. A., Hauck, J., Hendriks, R. J. J., Hernández, G., Jetz, W., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., Kim, H., King, N., . . . & van Vuuren, D. (2017). Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1(10), 1416-1419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9 Rosa, I. M. D., Purvis, A., Alkemade, R., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Ferrier, S., Guerra, C. A., Hurtt, G., Kim, H., Leadley, P., Martins, I. S., Popp, A., Schipper, A. M., van Vuuren, D., & Pereira, H. M. (2020). Challenges in producing policy-relevant global scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00886. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00886 Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Schiefer, D., & Van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132, 579-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5 Schmitt, T.M., Aminian-Biquet, J., Blinova, P., Jimenez, Y. G., Sinav, L., Vašková, H., Lorda Dumont, A. S., Kien, P. T., Mathur, V., Mwale, B., Soriano, D. F., Anantaprayoon, N., Arimiyaw, A. W., Koech, S., Choque, K. C., Kim, H. J., Kuiper, J. J., Pereira, L. M., & Miller, B. W. (2025). The perspective of youth: envisioning transformative pathways and desirable futures for people and nature. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01693-9 Schröter, M., Başak, E., Christie, M., Church, A., Keune, H., Osipova, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., SieversGlotzbach, S., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Balvanera, P., González, D., Jacobs, S., Molnár, Z., Pascual, U., & Martín-López, B. (2020). Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 56 Schweizer, V. J., & Kriegler, E. (2012) Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environmental Research Letter, 7044011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044011 Schweizer, V. J., & O’Neill, B. C. (2014) Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations. Climatic Change, 122, 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0908-z Seppelt, R., Arndt, C., Beckmann, M., Martin, E. A., & Hertel, T. W. (2020). Deciphering the biodiversity–production mutualism in the global food security debate. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(11), 1011–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.012 Sharpe, B., Hodgson, A., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., & Fazey, I. (2016). Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388210247 Sietz, D., & van Dijk, H. (2015). Land-based adaptation to global change: What drives soil and water conservation in western Africa? Global Environmental Change, 33, 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.05.001 Sitas, N., Harmáčková, Z. V., Anticamara, J. A., Arneth, A., Badola, R., Biggs, R., Blanchard, R., Brotons, L., Cantele, M., Coetzer, K., DasGupta, R., den Belder, E., Ghosh, S., Guisan, A., Gundimeda, H., Hamann, M., Harrison, P. A., Hashimoto, S., . . . & Valle, M. (2019). Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments. Ecology and Society, 24(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11039-240335 Soergel, B., Kriegler, E., Weindl, I., Rauner, S. Dirnaichner, A., Ruhe, C., Hofmann, M., Bauer, N., Bertram, C., Bodirsky, B. L., Leimbach, M., Leininger, J., Levesque, A., Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Wingens, C., Baumstark, L., Beier, F., Dietrich, J. P., . . . & Popp, A. (2021). A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nature Climate Change, 11, 656–664 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3 Stave, K., Zimmermann, N., & Kim, H. (2024). Qualitative aspects of system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 40(4), e1793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1793 Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell, J., Albert, A., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., Blair, M., Boseto, D., Burrows, K., Bynum, N., Caillon, S., Caselle, J. E., Claudet, J., Cullman, G., Dacks, R., … Jupiter, S. D. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6 Sterling, E. J., Mandle, L., Aini, J., Simon, A., Caselle, J. E., Cheng, S. H., Dacks, R., Darling, E. S., Filardi, C., Jupiter, S. D., Mawyer, A., Mejia, M., Winifereti, N., Parks, J., Tanguay, J., & McCarter, J. (2020). Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs. Sustainability Science, 15(4), 1129-1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00822-w Sterman, J. D. (2001). System Dynamics Modeling: Tools for Learning in a Complex World. California Management Review, 43(4), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166098 Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 UNEP (2021). Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022, UNEP/EA.5/Res.5, United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39864/NATUREBASED%20SOLUTIONS%20FOR%20SUPPORTING%20SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT. %20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y van Vuuren, D. P., & Carter, T. R. (2014). Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change research and assessment: reconciling the new with the old. Climatic Change, 122(3), 415-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0974-2 van Vuuren, D. P., Riahi, K., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Emmerling, J., Fujimori, S., Kc, S., Kriegler, E., & O’Neill, B. (2017). The Shared Socio-economic Pathways: Trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 42, 148-152. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.009 van Vuuren, D. P., Zimm, C., Busch, S., Kriegler, E., Leininger, J., Messner, D., Nakicenoveic, N., Rockstrom, J., Riahi, K., Sperling, F., Bosetti, V., Cornell, S., Gaffney, O., Lucas, P.L., Popp, A., 57 Ruhe, C., von Schiller, A., Schmidt, J. O., Soergel, B. (2022). Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050. One Earth, 5(2), 142-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.01.003 Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4), 379-401. https://doi.org/10.1002 Wiek, A., & Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9, 497512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6 Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Archer Van Garderen, E. R. M., & Campbell, B. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002 Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Le Grange, L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2, 119-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3