Valuations of nature and its contributions to people in South America’s Southern Cone: taking stock and looking forward

ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER B.; TAMBURINI, DANIELA M.; BALDO, JORGE L.; BARBE, IAN; CABROL, DIEGO A.; CARLOS BEZERRA, JOANA; CORDIER, JAVIER M.; CUSSEL, CRISTINA; DODINO, SAMANTA; ESTIGARRIBIA, LUCRECIA; ESTRADA PACHECO, RAYEN; HARRIS, SABRINA; HUAIS, PABLO Y.; OSPINA, JUAN C.; RAYA REY, ANDREA; RODRÍGUEZ-PLANES, LUCÍA I.; ROJO, VERÓNICA; SAGO HERRADOR, EMILIA; SÁNCHEZ DÍAZ, EUGENIA; TOMBA, ANA; VALLEJOS, ADRIANA B.; VILLAGRA, L. ALEJANDRO; ARZAMENDIA, YANINA; BALZARINI, MÓNICA; CÁCERES, DANIEL M.; GARNERO, GABRIEL; NORI, JAVIER; VALENZUELA, ALEJANDRO E.J.; DÍAZ, SANDRA

Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

elsevier

Año: 2025

2530-0644

Sustainability sciences and policies are striving to achieve biodiversity conservation and social well-being. Academics and managers have developed concepts like ecosystem services (ES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) to bridge disciplines and knowledge systems to more fully account for nature’s multiple values in research and decisions. However, there is consensus on the need to enhance plural valuations of nature and their uptake in theory and practice. Consequently, we assessed the status and trends of ES/NCP research in South America’s Southern Cone. Delimiting our geographic focus allowed better interpretation of findings for the science-society interface (e.g., social actors, public policies, funding, capacities). We found a critical mass of empirical studies since about 2015 with three epistemic communities coexisting. While ‘economic utilitarian’ and ‘value-pluralist’ perspectives have become well represented in the last decade, ‘biodiversity and ecosystem function’ studies continue to predominate. Coverage is heterogeneous; some ecoregions (e.g., Serra do Mar, Valdivian Rainforest) are more studied. Research has predominantly addressed Regulating ES/NCP, been conducted at local and regional scales, and employed field sampling of biophysical indicators. Furthermore, societal engagement is low, mostly based on social actors as study subjects. Likewise, we found weak insertion in governance frameworks, considering both the number of studies with an explicit policy-orientation and those funded or supported by governmental management agencies or public policy structures. Based on these trends, we reflect on existing and needed capacities to promote more plural approaches to conservation and development. There is a general gap in abilities to institutionalize science-society platforms, including enhancing negotiation, social networking, and practical management skills. By mapping these opportunities and challenges, we seek to open pathways forward for science and capacity-building that integrates biodiversity with just and sustainable development.