Exploring the relationship between plural values of nature, human well-being, and conservation and development intervention: Why it matters and how to do it?

Globally, land and seascapes across the bioculturally diverse tropics are in transition. Impacted by the demands of distant consumers, the processes of global environmental change and numerous interventions seeking climate, conservation and development goals, these transitions have the potential to impact the relationships and plurality of values held between people and place. This paper is a Synthesis of seven empirical studies within the Special Feature (SF): ‘What is lost in transition? Capturing the impacts of conservation and development interventions on relational values and human wellbeing in the tropics’. Through two Open Forum workshops, and critical review, contributing authors explored emergent properties across the papers of the SF. Six core themes were identified and are subsumed within broad categories of: (i) the problem of reconciling scale and complexity, (ii) key challenges to be overcome for more plural understanding of social dimensions of landscape change and (iii) ways forward: the potential of an environmental justice framework, and a practical overview of methods available to do so. The Synthesis interprets disparate fields and complex academic work on relational values, human well-being and de-colonial approaches in impact appraisal. It offers a practical and actionable catalogue of methods for plural valuation in the field, and reflects on their combinations, strengths and weaknesses. The research contribution is policy relevant because it builds the case for why a more plural approach in intervention design and evaluation is essential for achieving more just and sustainable futures, and highlights some of the key actions points deemed necessary to achieve such a transition to conventional practice. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. © 2023 The Authors.

We would like to thank the many people that gave their time and perspectives to informing the various empirical analyses within the Special Feature that this Synthesis papers draws on. In addition, we honour the memory of our friend and co‐author Eleanor J. Sterling (1960‐2023), whose work is a source of inspiration for all of us to find new ways to support biocultural conservation. We are grateful to Svitlana Lavrenciuc for her work on the Figure. RC would like to thank the support of the Frank Jackson Foundation, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) grant number NE/T010401/1. This theme is also linked to new work under the ‘Voices of Recovery project’ funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/X001733/1) under the framework of the Trans‐Atlantic Platform, and with colleagues from University of East Anglia, UK, National Center for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters, Brazil and Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Universidad de Caldas, Colombia. JGZ and JCL acknowledges support from the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d programme), funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Elements of this work were undertaken whilst J.G.Z. was a visiting scholar at the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge (May 2018–April 2019), supported through Scientific Exchange funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), under Grant No. IZSEZ0_180391. BL acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt‐Foundation, the Department of Education, Language Policy and Culture of the Basque government (grant number PI2015‐1‐103 and IT1359‐19 [UPV/EHU Econometrics Research Group]), and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO through BC3 María de Maeztu excellence accreditation MDM‐2017‐0714 and through grant ECO2017‐82111‐R. ND was supported by the British Council's Newton Fund Institutional Links Program, project 275896277 ‘Advancing equity in Brazilian protected area management’ and through the Just Conservation project funded by the synthesis center CESAB of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB; www.fondationbiodiversite.fr ). EJS, EB, AS acknowledge work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers No. EF‐1427091, EF‐1427453, and 1444184 and work conducted by the Assessing Biocultural Indicators Working Group supported in part by SNAPP: Science for Nature and People Partnership, a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Support for their work also comes from Lynette and Richard Jaffe and the Jaffe Family Foundation. JCL was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant P2BEP2_191790. KM was supported by the British Council's Newton Fund Institutional Links Program, project 275896277 ‘Advancing equity in Brazilian protected area management’ CW was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) under grant ref ES/R010404/1 UP acknowledges funding partly through the Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023‐2026 (Ref. CEX2021‐001201‐M) ELY and MM acknowledge support from Global Affairs Canada (Contribution Arrangement no. 7056890), the International Climate Initiative of The German Federal Environment Ministry (IKI, grant no. 18_IV_084) and the United States' Agency for International Development's Forestry and Biodiversity Office (grant no. AID‐BFS‐IO‐17‐00005), the CGIAR's Research Programme on Forest, Trees, and Agroforestry and World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). NEC would like to thank the support from the OneCGIAR NEXUS Gains initiative—Realizing Multiple Benefits Across Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystems (Forests, Biodiversity).