See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322582117

Assessing nature's contributions to people

Article  in  Science · February 2018

DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826

CITATIONS READS

371 7,942

30 authors, including:

Sandra Diaz Unai Pascual

National University of Cordoba, Argentina BC3-Basque Centre for Climate Change
301 PUBLICATIONS   33,814 CITATIONS    196 PUBLICATIONS   8,905 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marie Stenseke Berta Martín-López

University of Gothenburg Leuphana University Lüneburg
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,528 CITATIONS    238 PUBLICATIONS   9,652 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Just conservation. Linking theories and practices of justice in biodiversity conservation View project

Understanding ecological, legal and social aspects of the forest–water relation with importance for ecosystem services View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Diaz on 01 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INSIGHTS

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 18, 2018

P OLICY FORUM

BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS

Assessing nature’s contributions to people

Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments
By Sandra Díaz, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson, Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, Kai M. A. Chan,
Ivar A. Baste, Kate A. Brauman, Stephen Polasky, Andrew Church, Mark Lonsdale, Anne Larigauderie, Paul W. Leadley, Alexander P. E.
van Oudenhoven, Felice van der Plaat, Matthias Schröter, Sandra Lavorel, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Elena Bukvareva, Kirsten Davies,
Sebsebe Demissew, Gunay Erpul, Pierre Failler, Carlos A. Guerra, Chad L. Hewitt, Hans Keune, Sarah Lindley, Yoshihisa Shirayama

A
major challenge today and into the fu-
ture is to maintain or enhance benefi-
cial contributions of nature to a good
quality of life for all people. This is
among the key motivations of the In-
tergovernmental Science-Policy Plat-
form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES), a joint global effort by governments,
academia, and civil society to assess and pro-
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we
detail below, NCP as defined and put into
practice in IPBES differs from earlier work
in several important ways. First, the NCP ap-
proach recognizes the central and pervasive
role that culture plays in defining all links be-
tween people and nature. Second, use of NCP
elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the
role of indigenous and local knowledge in un-
is essential not only for advancing knowledge
but also for the political legitimacy of assess-
ment findings (3).
FROM SERVICES TO CONTRIBUTIONS
NCP are all the contributions, both positive
and negative, of living nature (diversity of
organisms, ecosystems, and their associated
ecological and evolutionary processes) to
PHOTO: DINODIA PHOTO/GETTY IMAGES

mote knowledge of Earth’s biodiversity and
ecosystems and their contribution to human
societies in order to inform policy formula-
tion. One of the more recent key elements of
the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the
notion of nature’s contributions to people
(NCP), which builds on the ecosystem ser-
vice concept popularized by the Millennium
derstanding nature’s contribution to people.
The broad remit of IPBES requires it to
engage a wide range of stakeholders, span-
ning from natural, social, humanistic, and
engineering sciences to indigenous peoples
and local communities in whose territories
lie much of the world’s biodiversity. Being an
intergovernmental body, such inclusiveness
people’s quality of life (4). Beneficial contri-
butions include, for example, food provision,
water purification, and artistic inspiration,
whereas detrimental contributions include
disease transmission and predation that
damage people or their assets. Many NCP
may be perceived as benefits or detriments
depending on the cultural, socioeconomic,

270 19 JANUARY 2018 • VOL 359 ISSUE 6373 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Published by AAAS

Nature in the form of a living root bridge
in Meghalaya, India, contributes to people
by connecting both sides of the river.
temporal, or spatial context. For example,
some carnivores are recognized—even by the
same people—as beneficial for control of wild
ungulates but as harmful because they may
attack livestock.
At first inspection, the notion of NCP does
not appear to differ much from the original
MA definition of ecosystem services (2),
which was broad and contemplated links
to many facets of well-being. However, the
detailed conceptualization and the practical
work on ecosystem services following on the
MA were dominated by knowledge from the
natural sciences and economics. The natu-
ral sciences, and ecology in particular, were
used to define “ecological production func-
tions” to determine the supply of services,
conceptualized as flows stemming from
ecosystems (stocks of natural capital) (5).
Economics was used to estimate the mone-
tary value of those ecosystem services flows
so as to identify trade-offs among them and
their impacts on well-being. Aided by ecol-
ogy and economics having readily available
tools, the ecosystem services approach de-
veloped into a vibrant research field, influ-
A complete listing of affiliations is provided in the supplemen-
tary materials. Email: sandra.diaz@unc.edu.ar;
unai.pascual@bc3research.org
SCIENCE sciencemag.org
enced policy discourse, and advanced the
sustainability agenda.
However, this predominantly stock-and-
flow framing of people-nature relationships
largely failed to engage a range of perspec-
tives from the social sciences (6), or those
of local practitioners, including indigenous
peoples. This reinforced a mutual alienation
process in which MA-inspired studies and
policies became increasingly narrow, which
in turn led to voluntary self-exclusion of dis-
ciplines, stakeholders, and worldviews. As a
consequence, the ecosystem services research
program proceeded largely without benefit-
ing from insights and tools in social sciences
and humanities. For example, the unpacking
and valuation of some “cultural ecosystem
services” not readily amenable to biophysical
or monetary metrics have lagged behind (7),
and so has their mainstreaming into policy.
In addition, as diverse disciplines and stake-
holders remained at the margins, the initial
skepticism toward the ecosystem services
framework turned into active opposition, of-
ten based on the perceived risks of commodi-
fication of nature (8) and associated social
equity concerns (9).
The need to be inclusive, both in terms of
the strands of knowledge incorporated and
representation of worldviews, interests and
values (10), required IPBES to move to using
NCP. Although still rooted in the MA ecosys-
tem services framework (fig. S1), this new ap-
proach has the potential to firmly embed and
welcome a wider set of viewpoints and stake-
holders. It should also be less likely to be
subsumed within a narrow economic (such
as market-based) approach as the mediating
factor between people and nature.
AN INCLUSIVE SYSTEM
The NCP approach explicitly recognizes
that a range of views exist. At one extreme,
humans and nature are viewed as distinct
(2); at the other, humans and nonhuman
entities are interwoven in deep relation-
ships of kinship and reciprocal obligations
(11, 12). In addition, the way NCP are copro-
duced by nature and people is understood
through different cultural lenses. For in-
stance, coproduction of food in high-diver-
sity agriculture can be framed as a process
that combines a set of biological and tech-
nological inputs aimed at maximizing coex-
istence between useful plants and animals
in order to achieve higher yields.
Alternatively, coproduction of food can be
seen as a “practice of care” (12, 13) through
social relationships and connection with
spiritual entities. Therefore, we propose two
lenses through which to view NCP: a gen-
eralizing perspective and a context-specific
perspective. Although presented here as
extremes, these two perspectives are often
Published by AAAS
blended and interwoven (14), enabling co-
construction of knowledge among disciplines
and knowledge systems (fig. S2).
Generalizing perspective
Typical of the natural sciences and econom-
ics, this perspective (represented in green
at the bottom of fig. S2) is fundamentally
analytical in purpose; it seeks a universally
applicable set of categories of flows from
nature to people. Distinction between them
is often sharp, and agency is acknowledged
only in the case of people. NCP categories
can be seen at finer or coarser resolution
but can still be organized into a single, self-
consistent system.
We identify 18 such categories for report-
ing NCP within the generalizing perspec-
tive, organized in three partially overlapping
groups: regulating, material, and nonmate-
Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 18, 2018
rial NCP (fig. S3 and table S1), defined ac-
cording to the type of contribution they make
to people’s quality of life.
Material contributions are substances, ob-
jects, or other material elements from nature
that directly sustain people’s physical exis-
tence and material assets. They are typically
physically consumed in the process of being
experienced—for example, when organisms
are transformed into food, energy, or materi-
als for ornamental purposes.
Nonmaterial contributions are nature’s ef-
fects on subjective or psychological aspects
underpinning people’s quality of life, both in-
dividually and collectively. Examples include
forests and coral reefs providing opportuni-
ties for recreation and inspiration, or par-
ticular animals and plants being the basis of
spiritual or social-cohesion experiences.
Regulating contributions are functional
and structural aspects of organisms and eco-
systems that modify environmental condi-
tions experienced by people and/or regulate
the generation of material and nonmaterial
contributions. Regulating contributions fre-
quently affect quality of life in indirect ways.
For example, people directly enjoy useful or
beautiful plants but only indirectly benefit
from the soil organisms that are essential for
the supply of nutrients to such plants.
Culture permeates through and across all
three broad NCP groups (fig. S1) rather than
being confined to an isolated category (the
“cultural ecosystem services” category in the
MA framework). In addition, the three broad
groups—rather than being independent
compartments, as typically framed within
the ecosystem services approach—explicitly
overlap. We distinguish them for practical
reporting reasons, acknowledging that many
of the 18 NCP categories do not fit squarely
into a single group (fig. S3). For example,
food is primarily a material NCP because
calories and nutrients are essential for physi-
19 JANUARY 2018 • VOL 359 ISSUE 6373 27 1
INSIGHTS | P O L I C Y F O RU M
cal sustenance. However, food is full of sym-
bolic meaning well beyond physical survival.
Indeed, nonmaterial and material contribu-
tions are often interlinked in most, if not all,
cultural contexts (7).
Context-specifc perspective
This is the perspective typical, but not ex-
clusive, of local and indigenous knowledge
systems (represented in blue at the top of
fig. S2). In local and indigenous knowledge
systems, the production of knowledge typi-
cally does not explicitly seek to extend or vali-
date itself beyond specific geographical and
cultural contexts (14). Indeed, the context-
specific perspective on NCP often tends to
resist the scientific goal of attaining a univer-
sally applicable schema.
Although subdivision into internally con-
sistent systems of categories is common in
many local knowledge systems, a universally
applicable classification—such as the one
proposed in the generalizing perspective on
NCP (table S1)—is not currently available and
may be inappropriate because of cultural in-
commensurability and resistance to univer-
sal perspectives on human-nature relations.
The context-specific perspective may instead
present NCP as bundles that follow from dis-
tinct lived experiences such as fishing, farm-
ing, or hunting or from places, organisms, or
entities of key spiritual significance, such as
sacred trees, animals, or landscapes (11, 13).
Providing space for context-specific per-
spectives recognizes that there are multiple
ways of understanding and categorizing re-
lationships between people and nature and
avoids leaving these perspectives out of the
picture or forcing them into the 18 general-
izing NCP categories. The NCP approach
thus facilitates respectful cooperation across
knowledge systems in the co-construction of
knowledge for sustainability.
NURTURING A PARADIGM SHIFT
The NCP concept extends beyond the
highly influential yet often contested no-
tion of ecosystem services, incorporating
a number of interdisciplinary insights and
tools. Most of them were called for during
the past decade (9, 10, 12, 14) but only now
are enshrined explicitly in an environmen-
tal assessment framework.
The implementation of the NCP approach
and its reporting categories (tables S1 and S2)
is still in its infancy and is expected to be fully
fledged only in the IPBES Global Assessment,
but the NCP approach is already changing as-
sessment procedures and their outcomes. For
example, the ongoing IPBES regional assess-
ments include an unprecedented effort to tap
indigenous and local knowledge, from the
literature and also from dialogues with indig-
enous and local knowledge-holders, to which
272 19 JANUARY 2018 • VOL 359 ISSUE 6373
they contributed information presented in
their own narratives. In the Europe and Cen-
tral Asia assessment, these narratives (15)
revealed complex interactions between detri-
mental (predation on livestock) and benefi-
cial NCP (carcass removal or protection by
shepherd/guard dogs) that were not consid-
ered in previous national ecosystem assess-
ments. This kind of evidence also enhanced
the confidence about the status and trends
of other NCP in cases in which the evidence
based on published literature was scarce
(such as for NCP “Supporting identities”).
In this regional assessment, it was relatively
easy to fit most narratives into the 18 catego-
ries of the generalizing perspective on NCP.
In assessing pollinators, pollination, and
food production (16), the dialogue with
local and indigenous knowledge-holders
highlighted some NCP that were defined
as practices of care gifted to people, such
as fostering pollinator nesting resources
in forests, totemic relationships requiring
reciprocal obligations between people and
“The NCP approach aims at
… products that are … more
likely to be incorporated into
policy and practice.”
pollinators, and traditional governance
that depends on ongoing presence of bees
and butterflies in the landscape (table S2)
(13). These context-specific NCP do not fit
easily in the 18 generalizing NCP categories.
Nevertheless, these knowledge sources un-
derpinned innovative strategic responses
highlighted in the main messages to pol-
icy-makers that were agreed on among all
the member countries of IPBES (16): to
strengthen traditional governance and ten-
ure systems that support pollinators, which
are critical in many places where these
systems are being eroded through rapid
industrialization.
These examples illustrate how the inter-
weaving of epistemologically diverse lines
of evidence (14) about specific subjects can
result in richer solutions for people and na-
ture, even within the context of large-scale
assessments. But regardless of the outcomes
of the assessments, the consideration of dif-
ferent knowledge systems—and the fact that
generalizing, context-specific, and mixed
perspectives are considered as equally use-
ful—matters in terms of making IPBES pro-
cedures and outcomes more equitable. This
should help overcome existing power asym-
metries between western science and in-
digenous and local knowledge, and among
Published by AAAS
different disciplines within western science,
in the science-policy interface. The NCP ap-
proach aims at coming up with products
that are better and also more legitimate and
therefore more likely to be incorporated into
policy and practice.
In addition to assessments, environ-
mental governance and associated policies
would likely increase their effectiveness
and social legitimacy by drawing on the
NCP approach. This is because it facilitates
much more than previous framings the
connection with rights-based approaches
to conservation and sustainable use of na-
ture and their implications for quality of
life. The presence of multiple worldviews
and diverse ways of expressing them in the
wording of the Convention on Biological
Diversity’s strategic plan for biodiversity
and specific objectives, such as the Aichi
Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 18, 2018
Targets, further illustrates how important
inclusive framings are to the broad political
legitimacy of these international objectives
and their implementation instruments. j
RE FERENCES AND NOT ES
1. S. Díaz et al., Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1 (2015).
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Washington, DC
(Island Press, 2005).
3. E. S. Brondizio, F.-M. L. Tourneau. Science 352, 1272
(2016).
4. IPBES Plenary 5 Decision IPBES-5/1: Implementation of
the First Work Programme of the Platform, page 23; www.
ipbes.net/event/ipbes-5-plenary.
5. S. Polasky, K. Segerson. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1, 409
(2009).
6. R. B. Norgaard, Ecol. Econ. 69, 1219 (2010).
7. K. M. A. Chan et al., Bioscience 62, 744 (2012).
8. S. Lele et al., Conserv. Soc. 11, 343 (2013).
9. U. Pascual et al., BioScience 64, 1027 (2014).
10. U. Pascual et al., Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 26, 7 (2017).
11. F. Berkes, Sacred Ecology (Routledge, ed. 3, 2012).
12. C. Comberti et al., Glob. Environ. Change 34, 247 (2015).
13. R. Hill et al., in Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production:
A Global Assessment, S. G. Potts et al., Eds. (IPBES, 2016).
14. M. Tengö et al. Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17 (2017).
15. M. Roué, Z. Molnár, Eds., Knowing Our Lands and
Resources: Indigenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services in Europe and Central Asia.
Knowledges of Nature 9 (UNESCO, 2017).
16. IPBES, Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment
Report of the IPBES on Pollinators, Pollination and Food
Production, S. G. Potts et al., Eds. (Secretariat of IPBES,
2016).
ACKNOWL EDGMENTS
We acknowledge the following experts participating in IPBES
assessments: C. Anderson, P. Balvanera, B. Baptiste, N. Bennas, F.
Berkes, M. Carneiro da Cunha, C. Chenu, M.-C. Cornier-Salem, B.
Czúcz, P. Elias, B. Erasmus, S. Fennessy, J. Fisher, C. Fürst, S. Jacobs,
O. Osano, D. Pacheco, M. Potts, S. Preston, A. Purvis, A. Rajwanshi,
J. Rice, M. Rosales-Benites, C. S. Seixas, M. Solan, J. Tassin, W.
Townsend, G. von Maltitz, T. Yahara, C.-Y. Yao, and Y.-C. Youn. We
thank C. Broshi, M. Colloff, H. T. Ngo, and D. Singer for useful input
during the development of this work; V. Falczuk for help with the
bibliography; and Y. Estrada for preparing the figures. S.D. was
partially supported by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, and
Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. U.P. was sup-
ported by the Basque Foundation for Science, IKERBASQUE.
SUPP LEMENTARY MATE RIA LS
www.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/suppl/DC1
10.1126/science.aap8826
sciencemag.org SCIENCE
 www.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/suppl/DC1

Supplementary Material for

Assessing nature’s contributions to people

Sandra Díaz,* Unai Pascual,* Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson,
Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, Kai M. A. Chan, Ivar A. Baste, Kate A. Brauman, Stephen
Polasky, Andrew Church, Mark Lonsdale, Anne Larigauderie, Paul W. Leadley,
Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Felice van der Plaat, Matthias Schröter, Sandra
Lavorel, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Elena Bukvareva, Kirsten Davies, Sebsebe
Demissew, Gunay Erpul, Pierre Failler, Carlos A. Guerra, Chad L. Hewitt, Hans Keune,
Sarah Lindley, Yoshihisa Shirayama
*Corresponding author. Email: sandra.diaz@unc.edu.ar (S.D.); unai.pascual@bc3research.org (U.P.)

Published 19 January 2018, Science 359, 270 (2017)

DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826

This PDF file includes:

Supplementary Text
Figs. S1 to S3
Tables S1 and S2
References
 Supplementary Materials for

Assessing nature’s contributions to people

Supplementary Text

Sandra Díaz1,2*, Unai Pascual3,4,5*, Marie Stenseke6, Berta Martín-López7, Robert T. Watson8,
Zsolt Molnár9, Rosemary Hill10, Kai M. A. Chan11, Ivar A. Baste12, Kate A. Brauman13, Stephen
Polasky14, Andrew Church15, Mark Lonsdale16, Anne Larigauderie17, Paul W. Leadley18, Alexander
P. E. van Oudenhoven19, Felice van der Plaat17, Matthias Schröter20,21, Sandra Lavorel22, Yildiz
Aumeeruddy-Thomas23, Elena Bukvareva24, Kirsten Davies25, Sebsebe Demissew26, Gunay
Erpul27, Pierre Failler28, Carlos A. Guerra21,29, Chad L. Hewitt30, Hans Keune31,32, Sarah Lindley33,
Yoshihisa Shirayama34

1
Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Instituto Multidisciplinario de
Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Casilla de Correo 495, 5000,
Córdoba, Argentina.

2
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales,
Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología, Córdoba, Argentina.

3
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Sede Building 1, 1st floor, Scientific Campus of the
University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Leioa 48940, Bilbao, Spain.
4
Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, María Díaz Haro, 3, 48013 Bilbao, Spain.
5
University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, 16-21 Silver St., Cambridge CB3 9EP,
UK.
6
Unit for Human Geography, Department of Economy and Society, School of Economics Business
and Law, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 625, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden.
7
Leuphana University, Faculty of Sustainability, Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary
Sustainability Research, Lüneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany.
8
Tyndall Center Department of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK.
9
MTA Centre for Ecological Research Institute of Ecology and Botany, H-2163 Vácrátót,
Hungary.
10
CSIRO Land and Water and James Cook University Division of Tropical Environments &
Societies, Box 12139 Earlville BC, Cairns, Queensland, 4870 Australia.
11
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 2202
Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
12
The Folgefonn-Centre, Skålafjøro 17, 5470 Rosendal, Norway.
13
Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota. 1954 Buford Ave, Suite 325, St Paul, MN
55108, USA.
14
Department of Applied Economics/Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University
of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 USA.
15
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton.
16
Monash University and Charles Darwin University.
17
IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
18
ESE Laboratory, Univ. Paris-Saclay / CNRS / AgroParisTech, 91400 Orsay, France.
19
Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC, Leiden,
The Netherlands.
20
UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Services,
Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany.
21
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz
5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
22
Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS - Université Grenoble Alpes, CS 40700, 38058 Grenoble
Cedex 9, France.
23
CNRS, Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, UMR5175, Biocultural Interactions
(IBC) team, 1919, route de Mende, F-34293, Montpellier cedex 5, France.
24
Biodiversity Conservation Center, ul. Vavilova, 41, office 2, Moscow, 117312, Russia.
25
Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
26
Department of Plant Biology & Biodiversity Management, College of Natural Sciences, Addis
Ababa University, P.O. Box 3434, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
27
Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 06110
Diskapi-Ankara, Turkey.
28
Blue Governance Research Group, Portsmouth business School, Universtiy of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, PO3 1DE, UK.
29
Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108, Halle
(Saale), Germany.
30
School of Science and Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240
New Zealand.
31
Belgian Biodiversity Platform - Research Institute Nature & Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25,
1070 Brussels, Belgium.
32
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610
Wilrijk, Belgium.
33
Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of
Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
34
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), 2-15 Natsushima Cho,
Yokosuka City, Kanagawa 237-0061, Japan.
Supplementary figures

Fig. S1. Evolution of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) and other major categories in the
IPBES conceptual framework (1) with respect to the concepts of ecosystem services and human
wellbeing as defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2). Categories in grey are part of
the frameworks but not the main focus of this paper. The element “nature’s benefit to people” was
adopted by IPBES Second Plenary, and further developed into NCP by IPBES Fifth Plenary in order
to fully capture the fact that the concept includes all contributions to people, both positive (benefits)
and negative (detriments). Concepts pointed by arrow heads replace or include concepts near arrow
tails. Concepts in dotted-line boxes are no longer used: following the present view of the MA
community (3, 4), supporting ecosystem services are now components of nature or (to a lesser extent)
regulating NCP. Cultural ecosystem services was defined as a separate ecosystem service category
in the MA; IPBES instead recognizes that culture mediates the relationship between people and all
NCP. For more details of NCP according to the generalizing and conceptual perspectives, see
Figure S2 and Figure S3.

MA (2005) IPBES (2013) IPBES (2017)

Nature Nature
Biodiversity and Biodiversity and
ecosystems ecosystems
Ecosystems

Mother Earth… Mother Earth…

Ecosystem Nature’s benefits Nature’s contributions

services (ES) to people to people (NCP)
Context-specific
Supporting Nature’s gifts
perspective
Cultural contex t

Regulating
Regulating
ES Regulating NCP

Cultural Non-material NCP

Cultural
ES

Material NCP
Provisioning
Provisioning
ES Generalizing
perspective

Good quality of life Good quality of life

Human Human
Human wellbeing wellbeing wellbeing

Living in harmony Living in harmony

with nature… with nature…
Fig. S2: Two perspectives on nature’s contributions to people (NCP). NCP is a key element of
the IPBES conceptual framework (1) (shown in simplified version on the right). NCP can be seen
through the generalizing (green, bottom), or through the context-specific perspectives (blue, top). In
the generalizing perspective, 18 NCP are distinguished and organized in three broad groups –
material, non-material and regulating– of general applicability (represented by the white-line figure
overlapping the landscape at the bottom, shown in full in Figure S3). In the context-specific
perspective such universally applicable categories are largely not meaningful; the white-line figure
overlapping the landscape at the top (a simplification of the Warlpiri perspective on nature-human
relationships) represents only one of very many possible framings of NCP; see Table S2 for
explanation and examples. Note that between the generalizing and context-specific perspectives
there are gradual transitions, rather than sharp distinctions. Depending on the context, a stakeholder
can report a specific NCP as part of any of the 18 NCP in the generalizing perspective, as part of a
bundle of context-specific NCP (see examples in Table S2) or as transitional between the two.

Context-specific perspective

Good quality of life

Nature’s Anthropogenic
Direct drivers
contributions assets
to people Natural drivers
(NCP) Institutions and Anthropogenic
governance and other drivers
indirect drivers

Nature

Generalizing perspective
Fig. S3. Mapping of the 18 NCP reporting categories used in IPBES assessments onto three
broad groups distinguished within the generalizing perspective (see main text and Figure S1
and Figure S2). Most NCP straddle across groups to some degree. To indicate this, the NCP in the
material and non-material groups extend into their respective columns. The non-material dimension
of regulating NCP is not as widely recognized across cultures; therefore they are represented
as encroaching only slightly beyond their column in the Figure. Maintenance of options (NCP
18), conveys the various dimensions of the potential opportunities offered by nature, and thus
spans all three NCP groups. NCP 18 includes things such as the maintenance into the future of
all current and future NCP, embodying the capacity of nature for supporting the resilience of
ecosystems and their ability to transform to novel states and derived NCP (5-7). Explanation and
examples of all NCP are given in Table S1.

Material NCP Non-material NCP Regulating NCP

1. Habitat creation and maintenance

2. Pollination and dispersal of seeds and
other propagules
3. Regulation of air quality
4. Regulation of climate
5. Regulation of ocean acidification
6. Regulation of freshwater quantity,
location and timing
7. Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality
8. Formation, protection and decontamination
of soils and sediments
9. Regulation of hazards and extreme events
10. Regulation of detrimental organisms
and biological processes
11. Energy
12. Food and feed
13. Materials, companionship and labor
14. Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
15. Learning and inspiration
16. Physical and psychological experiences
17. Supporting identities
18. Maintenance of options
Supplementary tables

Table S1. Reporting categories of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) used in IPBES
assessments according to the generalizing perspective

The 18 NCP reporting categories recommended for IPBES assessments, according to the
generalizing perspective (see main text and Figure 2). The NCP listed here are in some cases
sharply-defined contributions, and in some others represent bundles of similar contributions.
Beyond IPBES, this list of NCP is meant to be indicative, not exhaustive. The explanations,
examples and references are also illustrative. The order of NCP in the table does not denote
importance or priority. The placing of each of the 18 reporting categories in the broad groups of
material, non-material and/or regulating NCP is shown in Figure S2. The NCP are provided,
depending on the case, by particular organisms, by ecosystems, or by particular mixtures of
organisms, assembled naturally (e.g. the assemblage of pollinators in a landscape) or artificially
(e.g. a planted grove, or a plant mixture on a green roof). Note that these contributions can be
positive or negative according to the cultural and socio-economic context of the stakeholders, or
even perceived as benefits or decrements by same stakeholder group according to the spatial or
temporal context (8-11).

Reporting categories of nature’s Brief explanation and some examples

contributions to people

1 Habitat creation and maintenance
The formation and continued production, by ecosystems or
organisms within them, of ecological conditions necessary or
favorable for living beings of direct or indirect importance to
humans. E.g. growing sites for plants (12), nesting, feeding,
and mating sites for animals, resting and overwintering areas
for migratory mammals, birds and butterflies (12, 13),
roosting places for agricultural pests and disease vectors (14),
nurseries for juvenile stages of fish (15-18), habitat creation at
different soil depths by invertebrates (19)

2 Pollination and dispersal of seeds and
other propagules
3 Regulation of air quality
Facilitation by animals of movement of pollen among flowers
(20-22), and dispersal of seeds, larvae or spores of organisms
beneficial or harmful to humans (20, 23-28)
Regulation (by impediment or facilitation) by ecosystems, of
CO2/O2 balance, O3, sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulates, aerosols,
allergens (29-34)
Filtration, fixation, degradation or storage of pollutants that
directly affect human health or infrastructure (35-38)

4 Regulation of climate Climate regulation by ecosystems (including regulation of

global warming) through:
• Positive or negative effects on emissions of greenhouse
gases (e.g. biological carbon storage and sequestration;
methane emissions from wetlands) (32, 39-41)

5 Regulation of ocean acidification
6 Regulation of freshwater quantity,
location and timing (59)
7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal
water quality
8 Formation, protection and
decontamination of soils and
sediments
9 Regulation of hazards and extreme
events
10 Regulation of detrimental organisms
and biological processes
• Positive or negative effects on biophysical feedbacks from
vegetation cover to atmosphere, such as those involving
albedo, surface roughness, long-wave radiation,
evapotranspiration (including moisture-recycling) and cloud
formation (42-46)
• Direct and indirect processes involving biogenic volatile
organic compounds (BVOC), and regulation of aerosols and
aerosol precursors by terrestrial plants and phytoplankton (46-
55)
Regulation, by photosynthetic organisms (on land or in water),
of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and so seawater pH, which
affects associated calcification processes by many marine
organisms important to humans (such as corals) (56-58)
Regulation, by ecosystems, of the quantity, location and
timing of the flow of surface and groundwater used for
drinking, irrigation, transport, hydropower, and as the support
of non-material contributions (NCP 15, 16, 17) (60-62)
Regulation of flow to water-dependent natural habitats that in
turn positively or negatively affect people downstream,
including via flooding (wetlands including ponds, rivers,
lakes, swamps) (63-67)
Modification of groundwater levels, which can ameliorate
dryland salinization in unirrigated landscapes (68-71)
Regulation – through filtration of particles, pathogens, excess
nutrients, and other chemicals – by ecosystems or particular
organisms, of the quality of water used directly (e.g. drinking,
swimming) or indirectly (e.g. aquatic foods, irrigated food and
fiber crops, freshwater and coastal habitats of heritage value)
(60, 72-76)
Formation and long-term maintenance of soil structure and
processes by plants and soil organisms. Includes: physical
protection of soil and sediments from erosion (77, 78), and
supply of organic matter and nutrients by vegetation;
processes that underlie the continued fertility of soils
important to humans (e.g. decomposition and nutrient cycling)
(79-81); filtration, fixation, attenuation or storage of chemical
and biological pollutants (pathogens, toxics, excess nutrients)
in soils and sediments (81-85)
Amelioration, by ecosystems, of the impacts on humans or
their infrastructure caused by e.g. floods, wind, storms,
hurricanes, heat waves, tsunamis, high noise levels, fires,
seawater intrusion, tidal waves (86-90)
Reduction or increase, by ecosystems or particular organisms,
of hazards like landslides, avalanches (91-94)
Regulation, by organisms, of pests, pathogens, predators or
competitors that affect humans (materially and non-
materially), or plants or animals of importance for humans.
Also the direct detrimental effect of organisms on humans or
their plants, animals or infrastructure. These include e.g.:
 • Control by predators or parasites of the population size of
animals important to humans, such as attacks by large
carnivores (95-98), or infestation by liver fluke, on game or
livestock) (99, 100)
• Regulation (by impediment or facilitation) of the abundance
or distribution of potentially harmful organisms (e.g.
venomous, toxic, allergenic, predators, parasites, competitors,
pathogens, agricultural weeds and pests, disease vectors and
reservoirs) over the landscape or seascape (101-107)
• Removal, by scavengers, of animal carcasses and
human corpses (e.g. vultures in Zoroastrian and some
Tibetan Buddhist traditions) (108-111)
• Biological impairment and degradation of infrastructure (e.g.
damage by pigeons, bats, termites, strangling figs to buildings)
(112-114)
• Direct physical damage to crops, forest plantations,
livestock, poultry and fisheries by mammals, birds and reptiles
(96, 97)
• Damage caused by invertebrates as pests of
agriculture, horticulture, forest, and stored products, and
by affecting health of domestic animals (115-117)
• Direct damage caused by organisms to humans by e.g.
frightening, hurting, killing, or transmitting diseases (96)
• Regulation of the human immune system by a diverse
environmental microbiota (118)
11 Energy Production of biomass-based fuels, such as biofuel crops,
animal waste, fuelwood, agricultural residue pellets, peat
(119-123)

12 Food and feed Production of food from wild , managed, or domesticated

organisms, such as fish, bushmeat and edible invertebrates,
beef, poultry, game, dairy products, edible crops, wild plants,
mushrooms, honey (22, 124-138)
Production of feed (forage and fodder) for domesticated
animals (e.g. livestock, work and support animals, pets) or for
aquaculture, from the same sources (127, 128, 130, 139, 140)

13 Materials, companionship and labor Production of materials derived from organisms in cultivated
or wild ecosystems, for construction, clothing, printing,
ornamental purposes (e.g. wood, peat, fibers, waxes, paper,
resins, dyes, pearls, shells, coral branches) (119, 128, 141-
146)
Live organisms being directly used for decoration (i.e.
ornamental plants, birds, fish in households and public
spaces), company (e.g. pets), transport, and labor (including
herding, searching, guidance, guarding) (141, 147-157)

14 Medicinal, biochemical and genetic Production of materials derived from organisms (plants,
resources animals, fungi, microbes) used for medicinal, veterinary and
pharmacological (e.g. poisonous, psychoactive) purposes.
Production of genes and genetic information used for plant
and animal breeding and biotechnology (12, 158-164)
15 Learning and inspiration Provision, by landscapes, seascapes, habitats or organisms, of
opportunities for the development of the capabilities that
allow humans to prosper through education, acquisition of
knowledge and development of skills for well-being,
information, and inspiration for art and technological design
(e.g. biomimicry) (165-174)

16 Physical and psychological Provision, by landscapes, seascapes, habitats or organisms, of

experiences opportunities for physically and psychologically beneficial
activities, healing, relaxation, recreation, leisure, tourism and
aesthetic enjoyment based on the close contact with nature
(e.g. hiking, recreational hunting and fishing, birdwatching,
snorkeling, diving, gardening) (175-187)

17 Supporting identities Landscapes, seascapes, habitats or organisms being the basis

for religious, spiritual, and social-cohesion experiences:
• Provisioning of opportunities by nature for people to
develop a sense of place, belonging, rootedness or
connectedness, associated with different entities of the living
world (e. g. cultural, sacred and heritage landscapes, sounds,
scents and sights associated with childhood experiences,
iconic animals, trees or flowers) (187-198)
• Basis for narratives, rituals and celebrations provided by
landscapes, seascapes, habitats, species or organisms (13, 21,
169, 188, 189, 191, 199)
• Source of satisfaction derived from knowing that a parti-
cular landscape, seascape, habitat or species exists (200, 201)

18 Maintenance of options (202) Capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or genotypes to keep

options open in order to support a good quality of life.
Examples include:

• Benefits (including those of future generations) associated

with the continued existence of a wide variety of species,
populations and genotypes. This includes their contributions
to the resilience and resistance of ecosystem properties in the
face of environmental change and variability (6, 7, 203-206)

• Future benefits (or threats) derived from keeping options

open for yet unknown discoveries and unanticipated uses of
particular organisms or ecosystems that already exist (e.g. new
medicines or materials) (5)

• Future benefits (or threats) that may be anticipated from on-

going biological evolution (e.g. adaptation to a warmer
climate, to emergent diseases, development of resistance to
antibiotics and other control agents by pathogens and weeds)
(5, 207)
Table S2: Two examples of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) reporting categories,
according to the context-specific perspective

In addressing NCP within the context of knowledge systems other than physical, natural and
economic sciences, the 18 generalizing categories of Table S1 are often not applicable. This is
typical, but not exclusive (e.g. (208) of the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples and local
communities. Instead different categories or more holistic relationships through practices are
recognized. In some cases, relationships between nature and people are highly reciprocal, with
NCP arising from practices of mutual care (13, 209-211). The two examples below are illustration
of the diverse ways in which NCP are framed in different cultural contexts. Note that this
perspective and the generalizing perspective are not mutually exclusive; they often blend and
interweave (212-215).
Example 1 - Categories used to recognize context-specific NCP in the IPBES Pollination
Assessment (21)
In the IPBES Pollination Assessment, engagement with ILK-holders led to part of NCP being
framed as “gifts” to both people and biota, through “practices” that link people and pollinators in
ongoing reciprocal relationships. ILK-holders explained how pollination processes are understood,
celebrated and managed holistically through fostering fertility, fecundity, spirituality and diversity;
see (21) for full referencing.
How NCP is The categories Examples/description
framed to suit used for analysis
this context of NCP in this
context
Practices (for Practices of Kawaiwete people in the southern Amazon perceive that the
and with valuing diversity spiritual entity who protects stingless bees will inflict “bee illness”
pollinators) and fostering on those who do not show respect and observe silence when
gifted to biocultural collecting honey; they identify 37 stingless bee species and protect
indigenous diversity 28 forest tree species used for nesting as well as 19 other plant
peoples and species used for food by these bees.
local Landscape Seven practices were identified:
communities management
practices i. Taboos that protect pollinators and pollinator resources;
ii. Kinship relationships that protect pollinators and
pollination resources;
iii. Mental maps and animal behaviour knowledge as
management practices;
iv. Fire management to enhance pollination resources;
v. Manipulation of pollination resources in different seasons
and landscape patches;
vi. Biotemporal indicators for management actions;
vii. Providing pollinator nesting resources.
Diversified Four types of diversified farming systems that influence
farming systems agrobiodiversity, pollinators and pollination were identified:
i. Shifting cultivation (e.g. Milpa systems in central
America);
ii. Home gardens (e.g. Mesoamerican home gardens contain
some 811 cultivated species);
iii. Commodity agroforestry (e.g. shade coffee systems
provide habitat for bird pollinators);
iv. Farming of semi-domesticated and domesticated bees.
Example 2 - How Warlpiri understand nature’s contributions to people ((191)

For the Warlpiri people, nature’s contributions to people are understood in terms of Ngurra-kurlu, roughly
translated as “from country” or “country within people”. In Aboriginal English, a person’s land, sea, sky,
rivers, sites, seasons, plants and animals; place of heritage, belonging and spirituality; is called “country”
(216). The term Ngurra-kurlu reflects the fundamental Warlpiri perspective of reciprocity between people
and country. In this context, people and country are one body Palka. The image embedded in the first
column represents Ngurra-kurlu, Warlpiri people's understanding of how country contributes to people and
vice-versa (painting by Daniel Rockman Jupurrurla, from Ref. (191), reproduced under the Creative
Commons license).

How NCP are The categories Examples/description

framed to suit this used for analysis
context in this context

Ngurra-kurlu Law The Law provides the guidelines, the knowledge, beliefs,
meaning “from practices, rules and regulations. “The law is a serious thing
country”. “This and it needs to be followed…Wawirri (red kangaroo) is a
ngurra-kurlu is symbol of the Law. Men cooking a kangaroo is a serious
palka: he got his thing”
own heart, he’s got
his own kidney, he’s Skin “Skin” groups connect people with each other and with
got his own liver. If nature through obligations and responsibilities; for example
you take one of them different skin groups have responsibility for Emu
away, his whole dreaming, Emu song lines, Emu ceremony and thereby the
body will drop” Emu.

Ceremony Many types of ceremony are needed for ngurra-kurlu to

function properly – public and secret rituals of women and
men separately; atonement and reconciliation ceremonies;
initiation. Ceremony supports the healthy functioning of
people and country.

Language Language encodes the unique Warlpiri worldview

“language is like a tree, it makes you stand firm in
country”. There is skin language, land language, ceremony
language, law language. People change their language to
show respect, to show the messages of sacred objects and
designs.
Country Country is in the middle of the Ngurra-kurlu template and
links everything; it is home.
References and Notes for supplementary material:

1. S. Díaz et al., Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 1 (2015).

2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC (Island Press,
2005).
3. S. R. Carpenter et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
106, 1305 (2009).
4. W. V. Reid, H. A. Mooney, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19, 40 (2016).
5. D. P. Faith et al., Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 66 (2010/05/01/, 2010).
6. S. Lavorel et al., Global Change Biology 21, 12 (2015).
7. M. J. Colloff et al., Environmental Science & Policy 68, 87 (Feb, 2017).
8. J. Shapiro, A. Báldi, Ecosystem Services 7, 201 (2014).
9. F. Villa et al., Ecosystem Services 10, 52 (2014).
10. M. E. Saunders, G. W. Luck, Conservation Biology 30, 1363 (2016).
11. L. V. Rasmussen et al., AMBIO 46, 173 (2017).
12. N. Turner, Ancient pathways, ancestral knowledge: ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous
peoples of northwestern North America. (McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2014).
13. F. Berkes, Sacred ecology. (Routledge, New York, ed. Third Edition, 2012).
14. F. Waldner et al., ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 4, 2379 (2015).
15. C. H. L. Schönberg, J. Fromont, Hydrobiologia 687, 143 (2012).
16. C. Liquete et al., Ecological Indicators 63, 249 (2016).
17. T. A. B. Staveley et al., Ecography 40, 936 (2016).
18. M. S. Thomsen et al., Marine and Freshwater Research 67, 144 (2016).
19. T. S. Ransom, Oecologia 165, 745 (March 01, 2011).
20. A. M. Ellis et al., Plos One 10 (Jan 9, 2015).
21. R. Hill, P. Kwapong, G. Nates-Parra, S. Breslow, D. Buchori, B. Howlett, G. LeBuhn, M.M. Maués, J.J.
Quezada-Euán, and S. SaeedHill, R., P. Kwapong, G. Nates-Parra, S. Breslow, D. Buchori, B. Howlett,
G. LeBuhn, M.M. Maués, J.J. Quezada-Euán, and S. Saeed, in Pollinators, pollination and food
production: a global assessment, S. G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H. T. Ngo, Eds. (2016).
22. S. G. Potts et al., Nature 540, 220 (2016).
23. M. Galetti et al., Biotropica 40, 386 (May, 2008).
24. G. O'Farrill et al., Integr Zool 8, 4 (Mar, 2013).
25. H. S. Young et al., in Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol 47, D. J. Futuyma, Ed.
(2016), vol. 47, pp. 333-358.
26. L. Culot et al., Scientific Reports 7 (Aug 9, 2017).
27. J. P. González-Varo et al., Oikos 126, 1600-1606 (2017).
28. S. J. Tol et al., Scientific Reports 7 (Jun 30, 2017).
29. D. J. Nowak et al., Urban forestry & urban greening 4, 115 (2006).
30. J. Lelieveld et al., Nature 452, 737 (2008).
31. A. Arneth et al., Nature Geosci 3, 525 (2010).
32. P. Ciais, in Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Platner, Eds.
(Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 465-570..
33. J. Sospedra et al., Continental Shelf Research 97, 32 (2015).
34. R. N. McInnes et al., Science of the Total Environment 599, 483 (Dec 1, 2017).
35. K. V. Abhijith et al., Atmospheric Environment 162, 71 (Aug, 2017).
36. J. Klingberg et al., Science of the Total Environment 599, 1728 (Dec 1, 2017).
37. D. Obrist et al., Nature 547, 201 (Jul 13, 2017).
38. Y. Ren et al., Environmental Pollution 230, 849 (2017-Jul-19, 2017).
39. A. Mosier et al., Nature 350, 330 (Mar 28, 1991).
40. S. Zimov, N. Zimov, Plos One 9, (Apr 2, 2014).
41. C. Le Quere et al., Earth System Science Data 8, 605 (Nov 14, 2016).
42. T. Nakai et al., Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 59, 155 (June, 2003).
43. F. S. Chapin et al., Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6, 313 (2008).
44. U. Poeschl et al., Science 329, 1513 (Sep 17, 2010).
45. R. Ringgaard et al., Journal of Hydrology 517, 677 (Sep 19, 2014).
46. J. Houspanossian et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 232, 118 (Jan 15, 2017).
47. A. Lana et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 25, (Jan 29, 2011).
48. P. K. Quinn, T. S. Bates, Nature 480, 51 (12/01/print, 2011).
49. N. Unger, Nature Climate Change 4, 907 (Oct, 2014).
50. A. M. Bryan et al., Atmospheric Environment 120, 217 (Nov, 2015).
51. A. Arneth et al., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16, 5243 (2016, 2016).
52. J. Bai et al., Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 73, 29 (Mar, 2016).
53. S. Hantson et al., Atmospheric Environment 155, 35 (Apr, 2017).
54. S. H. Svendsen et al., Science of the Total Environment 573, 131 (Dec 15, 2016).
55. C. Zhu et al., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16, 7497 (2016, 2016).
56. L. Cao, K. Caldeira, Geophysical Research Letters 35, (Oct 15, 2008).
57. P. S. Lavery et al., PloS one 8, e73748 (2013).
58. M. T. McCulloch et al., Nature Communications 8 (May 30, 2017).
59. Hydrological NCP are conceived fundamentally as regulating NCP because the primary impact of
ecosystems on water is the modification of its flows not the creation or breakdown of water molecules
(60). The breakdown of water by photosynthesis and the production of water by respiration and decay of
living organisms is insignificant, amounting to roughly 0.0001% of all the water on Earth.
60. K. A. Brauman et al., Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 67 (2007).
61. K. A. Brauman, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 2, 345 (2015).
62. D. C. Le Maitre et al., AoB Plants 7, plv043 (2015).
63. P. Collen, R. J. Gibson, Reviews in fish biology and fisheries 10, 439 (2000).
64. J. B. Zedler, S. Kercher, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 39 (2005).
65. M. A. Palmer et al., Ecological Engineering 65, 62 (2014).
66. J. Sturck et al., Ecological Indicators 38, 198 (2014).
67. S. J. Dadson et al., Proceedings of the Royal Society A 473, (2017).
68. D. C. Le Maitre et al., “Review of information on interactions between vegetation and groundwater”
(Water Research Commission, 1999)..
69. D. J. Pannell, M. A. Ewing, Agricultural Water Management 80, 41 (2006).
70. D. N. Lerner, B. Harris, Land use policy 26, S265 (2009).
71. V. A. Marchesini et al., Ecohydrology 10, (Jun, 2017).
72. J. D. Madsen et al., Hydrobiologia 444, 71 (2001).
73. J. T. A. Verhoeven et al., Trends in ecology & evolution 21, 96 (2006).
74. B. L. Keeler et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 18619 (2012).
75. M. G. Dosskey et al., JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46, 261 (2010).
76. B. J. Cardinale et al., Nature 472, 86 (2011).
77. B. Fu et al., Ecological Complexity 8, 284 (2011).
78. C. A. Guerra et al., Landscape Ecology 31, 271 (February 01, 2016).
79. B. B. Ghaley et al., International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
10, 177 (2014).
80. T. B. Falkowski et al., Ecological Engineering 92, 210 (Jul, 2016).
81. D. H. Wall et al., Nature 528, 69 (2015).
82. P. Jeffries et al., Biology and Fertility of Soils 37, 1 (Jan, 2003).
83. J. E. D. O'Donnell, Journal of Coastal Research 33, 435 (2016).
84. M. G. A. van der Heijden et al., Ecology Letters 11, 296 (Mar, 2008).
85. J. Vangronsveld et al., Environmental Science and Pollution Research 16, 765 (Nov, 2009).
86. L. Bravo de Guenni et al., in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005), pp. 441-454.
87. M. D. Spalding et al., Ocean & Coastal Management 90, 50 (2014).
88. D. E. Marois, W. J. Mitsch, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services &
Management 11, 71 (2015).
89. F. Saleh, M. P. Weinstein, Journal of environmental management 183, 1088 (2016).
90. L. F. Ow, S. Ghosh, Applied Acoustics 120, 15 (May, 2017).
91. A. Stokes et al., Plant and Soil 278, 107 (Dec, 2005).
92. J. R. Greenwood et al., Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering 160,
51 (Jan, 2007).
93. S. Notaro, A. Paletto, Journal of Forest Economics 18, 318 (2012/12/01/, 2012).
94. C. Moos et al., Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 17, 291 (Feb 28, 2017).
95. F. B. L. Palmeira et al., Biological Conservation 141, 118 (Jan, 2008).
96. M. N. Peterson et al., Conservation Letters 3, 74 (Apr, 2010).
97. P. J. Nyhus, in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol 41, A. Gadgil, T. P. Gadgil, Eds.
(2016), vol. 41, pp. 143-171.
98. N. Becker, Y. Farja, Environmental Management 59, 175 (Feb, 2017).
99. W. B. Karesh et al., Lancet 380, 1936 (Dec 1, 2012).
100. C. Carmona, J. F. Tort, Journal of Helminthology 91, 99 (Mar, 2017).
101. R. L. Naylor, P. R. Ehrlich, in Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems
G. Daily, Ed. (Island Press, 1997).
102. R. Garni et al., Infection Genetics and Evolution 28, 725 (Dec, 2014).
103. D. E. Pearson, R. M. Callaway, Ecology Letters 9, 443 (Apr, 2006).
104. V. Andreo et al., Journal of Mammalogy 93, 1559 (Dec, 2012).
105. D. S. Karp, G. C. Daily, Ecology 95, 1065 (Apr, 2014).
106. L. A. Lacey et al., Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 132, 1 (Nov, 2015).
107. G. S. Begg et al., Crop Protection 97, 145 (Jul, 2017).
108. G. Y. Abay et al., European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, 759 (August 01, 2011).
109. M. Moleón et al., Bioscience 64, 394 (2014).
110. D. Ćirović et al., Biological Conservation 199, 51 (2016).
111. Z. Morales‐Reyes et al., Conservation Letters.
112. M. A. Di Giovine, The Heritage-scape: UNESCO, World Heritage, and Tourism. (Lexington Books,
2009), pp. 519.
113. M. R. K. Zeale et al., Plos One 11, (Jan 15, 2016).
114. D. H. R. Spennemann et al., International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 35, 2 (2017,
2017).
115. M. N. Sallam, “Insect Damage - Information on post harvest operations” (FAO, 1999).
116. E. C. Oerke, The Journal of Agricultural Science 144, 31 (2005).
117. FAO, “Global animal disease intelligence report” (2015).
118. I. Hanski et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8334 (May 22, 2012, 2012).
119. H. Yamamoto, 6 global bioenergy resources and utilization technologies. E. J. Moniz, Ed., Climate
Change and Energy Pathways for the Mediterranean, Workshop Proceedings (2008), vol. 15, pp. 101-
111.
120. K. Kamimura et al., Biomass & Bioenergy 36, 107 (Jan, 2012).
121. A. Gasparatos et al., Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 142, 111.
122. A. Cole et al., Energy & Environmental Science 9, 1828 (2016).
123. R. J. Lawton et al., Algal Research 24, 486 (2017).
124. E. Boa, “Wild edible fungi - A global overview of their use and importance to people” (FAO, 2004).
125. K. Norris et al., in Ecosystem Services-Book, R. E. Hester, R. M. Harrison, Eds. (2010), vol. 30, pp. 52-
69.
126. C. J. E. Schulp et al., Ecological Economics 105, 292 (2014).
127. FAO, “The state of world fisheries and aquaculture” (2016).
128. FAO, “The state of food and agriculture” (2016).
129. A. Mueller et al., Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2, 121 (2016, 2016).
130. C. L. R. Payne et al., Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2, 269 (2016, 2016).
131. R. Hill et al., in Pollinators, pollination and food production: a global assessment, S. G. Potts et al., Eds.
(2016). pp. 275-359.
132. A. A. Ayantunde et al., Environment Development and Sustainability 16, 1097 (Oct, 2014).
133. W. K. Tessema et al., Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34, 75 (Jan, 2014).
134. W. A. Chaves et al., Biological Conservation 212, 240 (Aug, 2017).
135. J. N. Kittinger et al., Science 356, 912 (Jun 2, 2017).
136. D. Rowland et al., Environmental Conservation 44, 102 (Jun, 2017).
137. C. A. Stafford et al., Biodiversity and Conservation 26, 1877 (Jul, 2017).
138. N. Van Vliet et al., Ethnobiology and Conservation 6, (Apr 20, 2017).
139. M.-J. Sanchez-Muros et al., Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 16 (Feb 15, 2014).
140. M. Henry et al., Animal Feed Science and Technology 203, 1 (May, 2015).
141. FAO. (Rome, 2010).
142. T. S. Saheb et al., Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 35, 95 (2011, 2011).
143. J. A. Albert et al., Marine Policy 62, 244 (Dec, 2015).
144. M. Auliya et al., Biodiversity and Conservation 25, 2581 (Dec, 2016).
145. N. D'Cruze, D. W. Macdonald, Nature Conservation-Bulgaria, 47 (2016, 2016).
146. ITTO, “Biennail Report and Assessment of the World Timber Situation 2015-2016” (Internatioanl
Tropical Timber Organization, 2016).
147. B. Z. Hull, Journal of Macromarketing 28, 275 (Sep, 2008).
148. K. Dehnen-Schmutz et al., Diversity and Distributions 13, 527 (Sep, 2007).
149. G. Cruz-Garcia et al., Economic Botany 69, 291 (Dec, 2015).
150. G. Larson, D. Q. Fuller, in Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol 45, D. J.
Futuyma, Ed. (2014), vol. 45, pp. 115-136.
151. C. J. C. Phillips, Animal Trade, 1 (2015, 2015).
152. J. D. C. Linnell, N. Lescureux, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research: Trondheim.
153. T. H. Ng et al., PloS one 11, e0161130 (2016).
154. T. A. Militz, S. Foale, Fish and Fisheries 18, 596 (May, 2017).
155. S. Prakash et al., Marine Policy 77, 120 (Mar, 2017).
156. A. L. Rhyne et al., Peerj 5, (Jan 26, 2017).
157. W. M. Silva Souto et al., Tropical Conservation Science 10, 1 (2017, 2017).
158. R. Schultes et al., Plants of the Gods: Their Sacred, Healing, and Hallucinogenic Powers. (Inner
Traditions, 20001).
159. T. Goeschl, T. Swanson, Environmental & Resource Economics 22, 477 (Aug, 2002).
160. B. Hunt, A. C. J. Vincent, AMBIO 35, 57 (Mar, 2006).
161. Y. Demunshi, A. Chugh, Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 3015 (Oct, 2010).
162. M. Ruiz Muller, Genetic Resources as Natural Information Implications for the Convention on
Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol Introduction. Genetic Resources as Natural Information:
Implications for the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol (2015), pp. 1-12.
163. A. Bari et al., Climatic Change 134, 667 (Feb, 2016).
164. J. W. Blunt et al., Natural Product Reports 34, 235 (2017).
165. D. A. Posey, Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. (Intermediate technology publications, 1999).
166. N. J. Turner, F. Berkes, Human Ecology 34, 495 (2006).
167. F. Berkes, N. J. Turner, Human Ecology 34, 479 (2006).
168. K. M. A. Chan et al., Ecological Economics 74, 8 (Feb, 2012).
169. D. Santos-Fita et al., Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11, (Sep 29, 2015).
170. R. Fish et al., Ecosystem Services 21, 208 (2016/10/01/, 2016).
171. E. Mocior, M. Kruse, Ecological Indicators 60, 137 (2016/01/01/, 2016).
172. M. Fisch, Science Technology & Human Values 42, 795 (Sep, 2017).
173. F. Baino, M. Ferraris, International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology 34, 235 (2017).
174. R. K. Gould, N. K. Lincoln, Ecosystem Services 25, 117 (2017).
175. R. Kaplan, S. Kaplan, The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. (CUP Archive, 1989).
176. D. Addison Posey, Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. (Intermediate technology publications,
1999).
177. B. Martín-López et al., Conservation Biology 22, 624 (2008).
178. B. Verschuuren, Sacred natural sites: Conserving nature and culture. (Routledge, 2010).
179. M. Barua, Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 1427 (2011).
180. A. Balmford et al., PLoS biology 13, e1002074 (2015).
181. P. H. Gobster et al., Landscape ecology 22, 959 (2007).
182. C. Maller et al., Health promotion international 21, 45 (2006).
183. L. E. Keniger et al., International journal of environmental research and public health 10, 913 (2013).
184. P. A. Sandifer et al., Ecosystem Services 12, 1 (2015).
185. E. Oteros-Rozas et al., Ecological Indicators, (2017).
186. B. T. van Zanten et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201614158 (2016).
187. A. Hausmann et al., Environmental Conservation 43, 117 (2015).
188. K. H. Basso, Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western Apache. (UNM
Press, 1996).
189. C. Swanwick et al., Built environment 29, 94 (2003).
190. A. Garibaldi, N. Turner, Ecology and Society 9, (2004).
191. W. J. Pawu-Kurlpurlurnu et al., “Ngurra-kurlu: A way of working with Warlpiri people” (Desert
Knowledge CRC, 2008).
192. J. Maas et al., Health & place 15, 586 (2009).
193. T. Plieninger et al., Land use policy 33, 118 (2013).
194. C. Rutte, Biological Conservation 144, 2387 (Oct, 2011).
195. G. N. Bratman et al., Landscape and Urban Planning 138, 41 (Jun, 2015).
196. S. C. Klain et al., Ecological Economics 107, 310.
197. M. Agnoletti, A. Santoro, Journal of Forest Research 20, 438 (Oct, 2015).
198. C. E. Planning, “The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection: Workshop
background report” (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2016).
199. S. O. Jimoh et al., Journal of Human Ecology 39, 209 (Sep, 2012).
200. M. García-Llorente et al., Environmental Science & Policy 19, 136 (2012).
201. G. M. Mace et al., Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27, 19 (Jan, 2012).
202. Note this is different from option/bequest value which is the value of knowing that any given NCP will
be available for future enjoyment.
203. S. C. Anderson et al., Ecological Applications 25, 559 (Mar, 2015).
204. D. E. Schindler et al., Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, 257 (Jun, 2015).
205. M. Berbés-Blázquez et al., Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19, 134 (2016).
206. J. M. Bullock et al., Journal of Ecology 105, 880 (Jul, 2017).
207. A. P. Hendry et al. (The Royal Society, 2017).
208. B. Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theor. (Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2005).
209. S. Jackson, L. R. Palmer, Progress in Human Geography 39, 122 (2015).
210. C. Comberti et al., Global Environmental Change 34, 247 (2015).
211. J. von Heland, C. Folke, Global Environmental Change 24, 251 (1//, 2014).
212. C. J. Idrobo, F. Berkes, Human Ecology 40, 405 (2012/06/01, 2012).
213. E. J. Sterling et al., Nature Ecology & Evolution, (2017/10/23, 2017).
214. M. Berger-González et al., Qualitative Health Research 26, 77 (2016).
215. B. Chilisa, Sustainability Science 12, 813 (Sep, 2017).
216. Australian Museum’s glossary of Indigenous Australian terms https://australianmuseum.net.au/glossary-
indigenous-australia-term.
 Assessing nature's contributions to people
Sandra Díaz, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson, Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, Kai M. A.
Chan, Ivar A. Baste, Kate A. Brauman, Stephen Polasky, Andrew Church, Mark Lonsdale, Anne Larigauderie, Paul W.
Leadley, Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Felice van der Plaat, Matthias Schröter, Sandra Lavorel, Yildiz
Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Elena Bukvareva, Kirsten Davies, Sebsebe Demissew, Gunay Erpul, Pierre Failler, Carlos A. Guerra,
Chad L. Hewitt, Hans Keune, Sarah Lindley and Yoshihisa Shirayama

Science 359 (6373), 270-272.

DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 18, 2018

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270

SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/01/18/359.6373.270.DC1
MATERIALS

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.

View publication stats