# What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation

V J Oostvogels, B. Dumont, H J Nijland, I J M de Boer, R. Ripoll-bosch

► To cite this version:

V J Oostvogels, B. Dumont, H J Nijland, I J M de Boer, R. Ripoll-bosch. What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation. People and Nature, 2024, 10.1002/pan3.10750. hal-04809014

HAL Id: hal-04809014

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04809014v1

Submitted on 28 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation

V. J. Oostvogels<fnref n="1" /> ID

B. Dumont<fnref n="2" /> ID

H. J. Nijland<fnref n="3" /> ID

I. J. M. de Boer<fnref n="1" /> ID

R. Ripoll-Bosch<fnref n="1" /> ID

**Correspondence**

V. J. Oostvogels

Email: vincent.oostvogels@wur.nl

**Funding information**

INRAE WUR-ASG Agreenium; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: NWA.1331.19.201

Handling Editor: Rachel Carmenta

## Abstract

1. Taking into account the perspectives of local stakeholders is essential for just and effective biodiversity conservation. Plural valuation, making visible the diverse values people hold in relation to nature, has emerged as a key approach towards better inclusion of stakeholders' perspectives.

2. So far, plural valuation has mainly focused on positive values, leaving equally important negative values underexposed. To address this, a concrete proposal has been presented to also consider 'disvalues'. However, accessible frameworks to help practitioners apply this concept are arguably still lacking.

3. To address this gap, we here propose the 'Integrated Nature Futures Framework' (I-NFF), where 'integrated' indicates joint consideration of positive and negative values. The I-NFF draws on the popular Nature Futures Framework (NFF) to develop disvalue thinking in a more accessible form.

4. The I-NFF considers three perspectives ('nature', 'society' and 'culture'), based on which something can be placed on a spectrum from positive ('for nature', 'for society' and 'as culture') to negative ('against nature', 'against society' and 'in conflict with culture'), and can be represented as two mirrored triangles.

5. Using empirical data, we illustrate various purposes for which the I-NFF can be used: to inventory nature-related topics 'at play' in a given context, to depict how people frame their overall relationship with nature or to depict how people frame specific issues. This demonstrates how the I-NFF helps reveal value pluralism and trade-offs, capture the reciprocity of human-nature relationships and identify where perspectives differ and share common ground.

6. We close by discussing how the I-NFF can enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voices in biodiversity conservation, which is indispensable for a more nature- and people-positive future.

## KEYWORDS

ecosystem services and disservices, human-nature relationships, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Nature Futures Framework (NFF), nature's values and disvalues, participatory processes, plural valuation, relational values

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024 The Author(s). *People and Nature* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

<footnote n="1">¹Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Chamanelle, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Institute for Science in Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity is declining globally, which is a concern in itself and because of the many ways in which nature matters to people (Díaz et al., 2019). Decades of conservation initiatives, particularly focusing on ‘pristine’ nature but increasingly also on more human-modified ecosystems (Mace, 2014), have not been able to halt this decline. This lack of success has been attributed to a range of factors, including insufficiently ambitious conservation agreements and weak compliance mechanisms, leading to societal investments in biodiversity remaining dwarfed by those in harmful activities (Büscher & Duffy, 2022). Additionally, it is argued that conservation often targets proximate causes of biodiversity loss (Carmenta et al., 2023), influenced by powerful narratives that divert attention away from underlying drivers (Delabre et al., 2020).

Another increasingly recognised factor is that many conservation initiatives still fail to truly take into account local stakeholders' perspectives (Pascual et al., 2021). This is not only ethically problematic but also undermines conservation effectiveness by fostering opposition and conflict (Martin et al., 2020). Plural valuation, making visible the diverse values people hold in relation to nature (Jacobs et al., 2020), can aid meaningful inclusion of local perspectives (Lenzi et al., 2023). 'Values' here can be seen as representations of what people care about and consider important in relation to nature (Balvanera et al., 2022). Acknowledging that decision-making regarding nature often prioritises narrow sets of values, to the detriment of both nature and people (Balvanera et al., 2022), academic and policy interest in values and valuation has increased considerably in recent years. For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a major values assessment with a comprehensive values typology (IPBES, 2022), the importance of considering people's diverse values for nature is recognised in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022), and there has been an explosion of valuation studies (Termansen et al., 2022).

These valuation studies mainly focus on what people value positively about nature-related matters. Nevertheless, people may also value certain aspects of nature itself, certain interactions with nature or certain ways of governing nature negatively, due to perceived detriments to humans or nature. To truly understand what matters to people and show their concerns are taken seriously, these negative values should also be considered in biodiversity conservation. Therefore, Lliso et al. (2022) proposed negative counterparts to intrinsic, instrumental and relational value, the three value types typically discussed. However, accessible frameworks to help practitioners consider these negative values are arguably still lacking. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to propose a pragmatic framework for revealing both the positive and negative values people express regarding nature-related matters.

This paper is based on empirical work in the Netherlands. There we initially employed the Nature Futures Framework (NFF; nowadays in full 'the Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature, and Mother Earth'; IPBES, 2023; Pereira et al., 2020), which centres on the trifecta of intrinsic, instrumental and relational value, as a basis for coding respondents' statements (cf. Diprose et al., 2022;

Stronge et al., 2023). However, it proved difficult to capture what respondents had characterised as negative through the NFF. Hence, through an iterative, abductive process of interaction between sensitising literature and empirical data (Blumer, 1954; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), we developed the framework proposed in this paper, the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I-NFF).

The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 elaborates on the concepts and frameworks that we drew upon. Section 3 introduces the I-NFF. Section 4 provides background on our empirical work and how we used the I-NFF there. This sets the stage for Section 5, which demonstrates the value of the I-NFF by using it to present some results from our empirical work. Section 6 discusses contributions and limitations of the I-NFF, possible applications and future directions.

# 2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

We started with the trifecta of intrinsic, instrumental and relational value (Figure 1a), represented in the form of the NFF. In IPBES' values typology (IPBES, 2022), these are considered 'specific' values, judgements regarding the importance of nature. These are, in turn, seen as embedded in a wider context of broad values, knowledge systems and worldviews.

Intrinsic value is attributed to something (e.g. a specific aspect of nature) for what it is in itself, based on criteria that do not vary with context. For example, in sentientism, intrinsic value is based on sentience, meaning any sentient being has intrinsic value (Batavia & Nelson, 2017). Instrumental value is attributed to something as a means to an end. Key is substitutability: If something is valued instrumentally, it can be replaced by something else that achieves the same end (Pascual et al., 2012). Relational value has only recently begun to gain prominence as a third category (Chan et al., 2016). Relational value is non-substitutable value that emerges in specific human-nature relationships rather than from general criteria. It is thus attributed to specific individuals, species, places, etc. Relational value emerges, for example, in relationships that are seen as constitutive of 'eudaimonia' or 'the good life', a life both meaningful and satisfying. In the context of relational value, human-nature relationships are understood to also encompass human-human relationships via nature. It is important to note that things can be ascribed multiple value types at once, that different people may ascribe different value types to the same thing and that how something is valued can change over time.

We represented this trifecta through the NFF because the NFF conveys it in a very accessible and visual way. In the NFF, the three value types are cast into easily communicable metaphors (the 'value perspectives' 'nature for nature', 'nature for society' and 'nature as culture'/'one with nature'; Figure 1a). These are positioned in (typically) a triangular space, which makes it clear that the value perspectives can coexist, but when taken to the extremes, trade-offs may be inevitable.

While we turned to the NFF to make visible the values expressed by our respondents (see Section 4), originally the NFF is a tool for scenario development. IPBES developed it in response to its scenarios
and models assessment (IPBES, 2016), which concluded that existing scenarios and models predominantly emphasise negative trends, while to inspire collective action, it is also crucial to identify positive outlooks. Through the NFF, IPBES aims to catalyse the development of a global set of multiscale, participatory, nature-positive scenarios (IPBES, 2023). In this context, it is worth noting that we are not the first to use the NFF for purposes beyond scenario development (e.g. Diprose et al., 2022; Stronge et al., 2023).

Since its introduction, various representations of the NFF have appeared. We used one from Pereira et al.'s (2020) seminal paper: A

triangle where the medians from the centroid to the corners serve as axes to indicate how something, for example, a particular scenario, aligns with each of the three value perspectives (Figure 2a). Although no longer in IPBES' NFF guideline (IPBES, 2023), this representation is still widely used. Other common representations include a triangle with three overlapping circles signifying the three value perspectives, where desirable scenarios map within the triangle and undesirable scenarios outside the triangle (e.g. Durán et al., 2023); a three-dimensional axes system (e.g. Kim et al., 2023); and a triangle with axes along the sides (e.g. Dunn-Capper et al., 2023).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 How the Integrated Nature Futures Framework relates to existing concepts. (a) The trifecta of intrinsic, instrumental and relational value usually considered (e.g. IPBES, 2022) with the corresponding Nature Futures Framework value perspectives in brackets (IPBES, 2023; Pereira et al., 2020) and disvalue types (Lliso et al., 2022). (b) The resulting Integrated Nature Futures Framework categories.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 (a) Nature Futures Framework representation based on Pereira et al. (2020). (b) The Integrated Nature Futures Framework, where both positive (upper triangle) and negative (bottom triangle) values are represented.</figcaption></figure>
However, when working with the NFF, we soon experienced that the NFF does not readily allow to capture what people value negatively about nature-related matters. Some aspects can be captured. When people value something negatively because they associate it with a decrease in something they value positively, that decrease in positive value can generally be made visible. For example, when people value deer negatively for causing crop damage, the yield loss can be made visible through a lower 'nature for society' score. However, when it is not about a decrease in something people value positively but instead about something they value negatively per se, the existing NFF value perspectives are much less suitable. For example, when people value deer negatively because they believe that deer play a role in the spread of Lyme disease, it would be illogical to explain that in terms of 'nature for society', 'nature against society' would be more appropriate. This prompted us to develop a framework better suited for capturing negative values. To this end, we chose to build upon the NFF rather than abandon it. We still valued its accessibility and visual strength, and for future comparability of results, we considered it logical to connect to a widely used framework.

To incorporate negative values, we drew on Lliso et al. (2022) (Figure 1a). Having realised that the values discourse focuses mainly on the spectrum from positive value to no value they, inspired by earlier work on 'disvalues' (Rolston, 1992), proposed broadening this by exploring the notion of intrinsic, instrumental and relational disvalue. They defined intrinsic disvalue as the perception of inherent badness, regardless of any impact on humans. For example, people who view non-native species as 'unnatural' may value such 'unnaturalness' as inherently bad, regardless of any other value ascribed to these species. They then defined instrumental disvalue as something that has a negative impact on human well-being and relational disvalue as something that impairs a meaningful and satisfying life or fosters improper relationships, with substitutability again as a key factor in distinguishing the instrumental from the relational. For instance, the aspects of livestock predation that can be remedied through compensation (e.g. income loss) would be considered instrumental disvalue; those that cannot be remedied through compensation (e.g. a sense of despair from not being able to protect one's herd) would be considered relational disvalue. Instrumental disvalue closely links to the concept of ecosystem disservices (Zhang et al., 2007); relational disvalue can encompass concepts like solastalgia (Albrecht et al., 2007).

## 3 | OUR PROPOSAL: THE INTEGRATED NATURE FUTURES FRAMEWORK (I-NFF)

We propose a version of the NFF that better captures negative values. We call it the 'Integrated Nature Futures Framework' (I-NFF), where 'integrated' indicates joint consideration of positive and negative values. The I-NFF considers three perspectives based on which nature-related matters (e.g. certain aspects of nature itself, certain interactions with nature or certain ways of governing nature) can be discussed: a 'nature', 'society' and 'culture' perspective (Figure 1b). The 'nature' perspective centres on the idea that nature has intrinsic value and, from that point

of view, focuses on how things affect nature. The 'society' perspective focuses on the instrumental value things have for humans. The 'culture' perspective focuses on the relational value things have for humans. From each perspective, something can be characterised as positive ('for nature', 'for society' and 'as culture') and/or negative ('against nature', 'against society' and 'in conflict with culture'). Things may be ascribed positive value for a (perceived) association with a decrease in disvalue, and vice versa. All this can be represented as mirrored triangles with axes from the centroid to the corners (Figure 2b). The top triangle serves to indicate to what extent something is characterised as positive, the bottom triangle the extent to which it is characterised as negative.

While we derived our 'society' and 'culture' spectra directly from Lliso et al. (2022), our 'nature' spectrum differs because it does not incorporate intrinsic disvalue. The concepts of instrumental and relational disvalue were very helpful in making sense of our respondents' statements, but for intrinsic disvalue, this was much less the case. Furthermore, intrinsic disvalue is a highly contested concept (Batavia & Nelson, 2017). Instead of incorporating intrinsic disvalue, the underlying idea along the entire 'nature' spectrum is that nature has intrinsic value: benefits to nature (also conceptualisable as instrumental value to nature (Pascual et al., 2017) or services to nature (Comberti et al., 2015)) are valued positively and harm to nature (instrumental disvalue to nature, disservices to nature) is valued negatively, both based on this idea of intrinsic value. This allows to depict instances when people, based on the idea that nature has intrinsic value, criticise things they deem harmful to nature. (The 'nature' perspective can thus be considered non-anthropocentric, the other two anthropocentric.) We argue this aligns better with the entire instrumental spectrum being underpinned by the implicit assumption that meeting human needs is important, and the entire relational spectrum by the implicit assumption that the appropriateness of relationships matters—assumptions present in both Lliso et al.'s (2022) classification and the I-NFF. The I-NFF uses terms like 'for nature', 'for society', etc. rather than 'nature for nature', 'nature for society', etc., so that it can be applied not only to how people value nature itself, but also to how they value broader matters (e.g. certain interactions with nature or certain ways of governing nature).

We see various uses for the I-NFF, such as inventorying the topics at play in a given context, or gaining insight into and depicting how people frame their overall relationship with nature, or how they frame specific issues (e.g. specific conservation approaches). Section 5 illustrates this using empirical data. Therefore, the next section first provides background on our empirical work and how we used the I-NFF there.

## 4 | BACKGROUND ON OUR EMPIRICAL DATA

As part of a larger qualitative interpretative study on how farmers describe their relationship with 'biodiversity' (Oostvogels et al., unpublished data), we interviewed 15 dairy cattle farmers in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden, the Netherlands, during winter 2021–2022.

The Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden is part of the Groene Hart, an agricultural area within the densely populated Randstad
metropolis. It consists of vast peatland polders, mostly below sea level, with long, narrow grassland parcels separated by straight ditches and features an intricate network of dykes and windmills (Raap et al., 2022). Dairy farming is the dominant land use, and the area is known for its long tradition of farmer-led conservation and high participation in agri-environment management (Horlings, 1996).

To recruit farmers, we collaborated with the local agri-environment collective (Alblas & van Zeben, 2023). As we sought diverse perspectives, we applied theoretical sampling, targeting dairy farmers who are as different as possible yet representative of other dairy farmers in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden. We considered farm type (characterised by e.g. size, intensity and applied practices) and participation in biodiversity initiatives, as literature suggests these factors may influence views on biodiversity (Schmitzberger et al., 2005). The final group, all male, included conventional and organic farmers and farmers who produce under a sustainability label; farmers with varying degrees of agri-environment participation, including one who does not participate; and farmers who specialise in dairy farming as well as farmers who also engage in other activities.

We conducted the interviews face-to-face at the farms, in Dutch. The interviews lasted about 2 h and were semi-structured, starting with technical questions, continuing with questions about interactions with biodiversity, both positive and negative, and concluding with questions about desirable futures for biodiversity and dairy farming (see translated interview guide in Supporting Information). Farmers were free to use the term 'biodiversity' in their own way. We audio-recorded the interviews and transcribed the biodiversity-related parts.

During the planning phase of our research, our institution provided a self-assessment checklist to determine whether an ethics review was required. According to this, our study did not require an ethics review. We informed farmers beforehand about the study's objectives, interview process, confidentiality measures and obtained their written informed consent.

We conducted multiple coding rounds, guided by the categories of initially the NFF and later the I-NFF, while allowing subcategories to emerge from the data itself (cf. Stronge et al., 2023), using Atlas.ti 23 (ATLAS.ti, 2023). Under 'nature', we coded statements related to intrinsic value of biodiversity, under 'society' statements about instrumental impact of biodiversity or its conservation on humans, and under 'culture' statements regarding more-than-instrumental relationships with or through biodiversity.

To begin with, this helped us understand topics that matter for dairy farmers in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden in relation to biodiversity: species, practices, policies, etc. that are subjects of discussion. Section 5.1 highlights a selection of these.

During coding, we created increasingly refined farmer-by-code tables. We did this to discern patterns in how the farmers had described the relationship between their way of farming and biodiversity, the larger study's main focus. From this, patterns of arguments that the farmers had typically used together started to emerge, both

within and between interviews, eventually leading us to identify several distinct narratives. For each narrative, we established the extent to which the relationship was characterised as 'for nature,' 'for society,' etc., and depicted this in the I-NFF triangles. (This was based on our collective judgement of what best represented the data, not on a quantitative analysis.) Section 5.2 reports on the two most contrasting narratives.

To show how the I-NFF can be used in relation to specific issues, we zoomed in on the topic of 'herb-rich mixtures'. In this context, herb-rich mixtures refers to mixtures of production cultivars of grasses, legumes and herbs cultivated as cattle feed (Schippers et al., 2023). In recent years, herb-rich mixtures have been promoted in the Netherlands as an alternative to what is often called 'ryegrass monoculture', grassland consisting almost entirely of high-yielding grasses. Such grassland dominates Dutch dairy farming today but is increasingly criticised. Herb-rich mixtures are considered to offer both agronomic and biodiversity benefits compared to ryegrass monocultures. Although peat soils are generally considered less suitable for herb-rich mixtures, many farmers in our study had raised this topic, expressing divergent opinions and several were testing herb-rich mixtures. Herb-rich mixtures differ from more extensive forms of permanent grassland (Schippers et al., 2023). Such grassland typically has a higher plant species richness, with mostly autochthonous varieties that, under the right management, naturally maintain themselves. Moreover, since environmental factors strongly influence its botanical composition, such grassland often has a distinct region-specific appearance. We analysed the farmers' opinions about herb-rich mixtures in the same way as we analysed how they had described their overall relationship with biodiversity. Section 5.3 reports on two contrasting stances.

## 5 | ILLUSTRATING DIFFERENT PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE I-NFF CAN BE USED

In this section, we illustrate three purposes for which the I-NFF can be used. Our aim here is to demonstrate the utility of the I-NFF, not to report thoroughly on all results.

### 5.1 | Using the I-NFF to inventory topics at play: Key issues around 'biodiversity' in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden according to the farmers interviewed

The farmers raised various topics in relation to 'biodiversity': Table 1 provides an impression. While the focus was primarily on instrumental and relational values, farmers also discussed topics with (implicit) reference to intrinsic value ('nature'). An example on the positive side of the spectrum ('for nature') was the management of 'pests' like greylag geese (Anser anser): Farmers frequently stated that while population control is necessary, eradication would be wrong, as all
'for nature': inherent worth 'pest' species (e.g. greylag geese), 'wildlife-safe' mowing; nitrogen use efficiency gains; ...

'for society': agronomic importance soil health; agri-environment payments and sustainability premia; marketing advantage 'green' image; ...

'as culture': cultural importance waders; commitment to Meuse-Rhine-Issel cattle; Christian stewardship; social interaction around wader conservation; ...

'against nature': impact crayfish on other aquatic species; consequences of 'excessive' mowing of ditch banks; environmental impact parasiticides; ...

'against society': goose damage; feed quality loss from delayed mowing; mandatory buffer strips; ...

'in conflict with culture': distress due to goose damage; anxiety about legal uncertainty nitrogen permits; grief over conversion of farmland into 'new nature'; frustration from not being heard about wader predation; ...

<caption>TABLE 1 Using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework to inventory topics at play: Examples of key issues around 'biodiversity' in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden according to the farmers interviewed.</caption>

species 'have a place'. Farmers also (implicitly) referred to intrinsic value when discussing certain agricultural practices. For example, many mentioned taking measures to spare wildlife during mowing, indicating that, as a general rule, unnecessary animal suffering should be avoided. Similarly, efforts to reduce environmental impacts of agriculture, for example, increasing nitrogen use efficiency, were framed as also being genuinely for nature, not just for instrumental and relational reasons. On the negative side ('against nature'), some farmers expressed concerns that non-native crayfish (e.g. *Faxonius limosus*) are 'wiping out' ditch life, framing this as problematic in itself. Likewise, some farmers problematised 'excessive mowing' of ditch banks by colleagues out of genuine concern for nature:

> You can mow everything smooth and tight ... but the result is that the weeds, or yes, the 'biodiversity', the bees and the wasps and everything that flies in between, you destroy that too. You completely screw up the living conditions for those animals.

(15)

In a similar way, some farmers were critical of their own practices. For instance, several mentioned using synthetic parasiticides because they see no alternatives to protect their livestock, but feel uncomfortable doing so due to concerns about negative environmental effects.

More often, farmers discussed topics from an instrumental perspective ('society'). For example, they mentioned biodiversity playing a functional role in agriculture, often highlighting soil life, particularly earthworms (*Lumbricus* spp.). Beyond direct benefits of biodiversity, many mentioned biodiversity-related payments, noting that participation in agri-environment schemes and sustainability programmes can, under certain conditions, significantly contribute to a farm's revenue model:

> When I currently look at the agri-environment schemes, then I say: it is an economic pillar. It's profitable.

(113)

Similarly, some farmers involved in direct sales noted that a 'green' image helps market their products. However, farmers also pointed out drawbacks ('against society'). They emphasised that not all biodiversity is beneficial, noting that ragwort (*Jacobaea*

vulgaris), poisonous to livestock, is on the rise in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden and that greylag geese cause substantial crop damage:

> ... on plots with a lot of geese, we have our first cut three weeks later, so we miss three weeks of grass. And on those plots we only mow five cuts, while on the other plots usually six.

(111)

Some farmers claimed that certain biodiversity-related policies exacerbate these problems. For example, they argued that biodiversity-focused roadside management allows ragwort to spread, the creation of wetland nature reserves has worsened goose damage, and stricter environmental legislation limits hunters' ability to control geese. Beyond drawbacks of biodiversity itself, many farmers highlighted the financial costs of more biodiversity-friendly farming. They mainly referred to the opportunity cost of lower production levels; for instance, that delaying the first cut reduces the feeding value of the harvested grass. Furthermore, farmers linked biodiversity to 'unnecessarily restrictive' environmental legislation, such as the then-proposed requirement to implement unfertilised buffer strips along waterways, which would increase their manure removal costs.

Likewise, farmers discussed many topics from a relational perspective ('culture'). Positively ('as culture'), many mentioned that waders like the black-tailed godwit (*Limosa limosa*) hold special meaning for them, and that they also consider these birds to have broader cultural significance. Some farmers spoke similarly about willow polards (*Salix* spp.) and marsh marigold (*Caltha palustris*). Reflecting the interweaving of instrumental and relational value, one farmer said about the local Meuse-Rhine-Issel cattle breed:

> I think it's a wonderful breed, well-suited to our farming system. I wouldn't give it up easily because, for me, there's a sense of attachment and affection. ... It's a relationship you commit to long term.

(110)

Additionally, many farmers talked about stewardship, often explaining it in religious terms, as a biblical task to pass the earth on
in good condition. Another recurring theme was social interaction around conservation; several farmers said they greatly appreciate collaborating with volunteers on wader protection, for example. Conversely, in a negative sense ('in conflict with culture'), farmers indicated that 'harmful' biodiversity has an impact beyond financial costs. For instance, several reported distress from the thought of ragwort contaminating roughage without their notice, or frustration over recurring goose damage:

> When during mowing I see the amount of goose drop-pings that will end up in the silage, yes, that makes me very sad. ... we have been suffering from mould spots in the silage for years now, despite the fact that we have all the right conditions in place.

(11)

Farmers expressed similar anxiety about 'ever-changing' envi-ronmental policy. For example, some indicated being under severe pressure because changes in nitrogen policy had rendered the legal status of their farms unclear. Also policy-related, several farmers expressed profound unease over the conversion of farmland into na-ture reserves in parts of the Netherlands, grieving that land farmed for generations is being altered beyond recognition. On another front, several farmers said they felt unheard in conservation projects they had participated in:

> I have some experience with nature people who are mainly doing their own thing, without visiting farm-ers. ... I think, in general, that farmers are more willing to talk than conservationists or biologists.

(19)

This emerged particularly around the topic of wader predation. Farmers stated that they observe alarming amounts of predation by foxes (*Vulpes vulpes*), carrion crows (*Corvus corone*) and other species, and worry that this is a driver of decline, but that these concerns are dismissed by experts on the grounds that there is insufficient reli-able evidence.

## 5.2 | Using the I-NFF to investigate how people describe their overall relationship with nature: Two narratives on the farming-biodiversity relationship

Our empirical work centred on how farmers describe their relation-ship with 'biodiversity'. Here, we outline two contrasting ways of describing that relationship, which we call 'farming with biodiversity' and 'farming separate from biodiversity' (Figure 3).

In 'farming with biodiversity', farmers portray their way of working as harmoniously integrated with biodiversity (Figure 3a). They claim that biodiversity, through soil life, permanent grass-land, landscape elements, etc., forms the functional basis of their production system, reducing dependence on costly inputs and

ensuring resilience ('for society'). They stress not aiming for max-imum production:

> With old, diverse grassland, you have to accept a production of around 8,500 litres per year. But that doesn't mean you're performing worse, not even financially.

(13)

Alongside this, they present biodiversity payments as a nice ad-dition to their business model. Regarding their impact on biodiver-sity, they claim their system 'naturally' preserves farmland nature and minimises negative externalities ('for nature'), but also seriously reflect on potential negative impacts of their activities ('against na-ture'). They describe their approach as a 'partnership' with nature; letting the land flourish rather than seeking control ('as culture'). They explain that this partnership is of profound personal impor-tance to them, and they link biodiversity to a deep sense of con-nection with the farm, land and livestock, and through this 'whole' with predecessors and successors. However, in this narrative, bio-diversity does not only have a positive connotation. This is mainly due to biodiversity-related policies, both public and private. Farmers argue that many such policies are tailored to large-scale intensive farms, disadvantaging more ecologically conscious ones ('against so-ciety'). A common example is dairy companies assessing farms by environmental impact per unit of product rather than per hectare, which, according to these farmers, penalises more extensive sys-tems. Farmers also argue that certain environmental policies, such as the requirement to inject slurry into the soil instead of spreading it on top, directly conflict with 'caring well' for the land ('in conflict with culture').

In 'farming separate from biodiversity' (Figure 3b), farmers say they deliberately choose *not* to promote biodiversity on their land, as it would compromise production too much, which would be unde-sirable for farm economic, societal and environmental reasons. For example, one stated:

> Look, I also see that there are more animals and birds on those extensive farms. That's true. But I simply don't think you can feed the world that way.

(14)

Farmers frame their focus on efficient land use as 'rational' and 'modern'. They are sceptical of 'functional agrobiodiversity', be-lieving its benefits are greatly exaggerated ('for society'). Although they acknowledge that there is little room for nature on their land ('against nature'), they are largely positive about their biodiver-sity impact. They claim to produce with a low environmental im-pact, keeping the pressure on wider biodiversity relatively low ('for nature'). Farmers still frame farming as 'working with nature' and speak fondly of some species ('as culture'). Nevertheless, in relational terms, biodiversity mainly has a negative connotation ('in conflict with culture'). Farmers equate it with extensification,
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework to investigate how people frame their overall relationship with nature: Two narratives on the farming-biodiversity relationship (a, b).</figcaption></figure>

which they present as socially irresponsible: In a world with hunger, there is a moral obligation to fully utilise the land's production potential, they argue. On a more personal level, they indicate that the practices promoted by conservation schemes, such as temporarily inundating grassland, do not fit with how they identify as farmers. Finally, in relational terms, there is also a strong sense of not being understood: Farmers complain that society fails to see that their approach is precisely what is needed, and instead pushes all farmers to 'go organic'.

## 5.3 | Using the I-NFF in relation to specific issues: Two contrasting frames on herb-rich mixtures

Several farmers in our study expressed concern about widespread ryegrass monocultures. Some saw herb-rich mixtures as promising; others preferred more extensive forms of permanent grassland (as described in Section 4). These two groups framed herb-rich mixtures

very differently (Figure 4). The first frame stands apart from the narratives described before, the second aligns with 'farming with biodiversity'.

The first group (Figure 4a) consisted of farmers who had tested herb-rich mixtures with positive results and considered using them on a larger scale. These farmers mainly highlighted instrumental benefits: healthier, more palatable forage, better drought tolerance and reduced fertiliser needs. For example, one stated:

> Chicory (*Cichorium intybus*) is a natural dewormer. Plantain (*Plantago lanceolata*) improves health. Sainfoin (*Onobrychis viciifolia*) boosts fertility. And they produce a lot. Even during droughts, when perennial ryegrass (*Lolium perenne*) struggles.

(19)

Additionally, herb-rich mixtures would help address societal concerns, contributing to a 'licence to produce'. Also, some farmers
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 Using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework in relation to specific issues: Two contrasting frames on herb-rich mixtures (a, b).</figcaption></figure>

mentioned that herb-rich mixtures count towards the eligibility criteria for sustainability premiums. Some of these instrumental benefits also had relational aspects. For example, several farmers explained the importance of healthy, palatable forage not only from a production standpoint, but also as a matter of caring well for their cows, and stated that it is deeply satisfying to see them enjoying the herb-rich forage. Likewise, several farmers stressed the inherent importance of addressing societal concerns, beyond a licence to produce. Furthermore, one farmer explained that he likes to see himself as a frontrunner and finds fulfilment in diving into new techniques such as cultivating herb-rich mixtures. Another noted that hares (*Lepus europaeus*) seemed drawn to his herb-rich strip, and explained that it feels good to 'help' wildlife he enjoys seeing. Some farmers also mentioned benefits simply for nature's sake. For instance, they stated that herb-rich mixtures help reduce environmental impact because they require less fertiliser and that this is a good thing in itself. Some also mentioned that herb-rich mixtures benefit wildlife more generally, beyond species they have a particular preference for. In addition to these benefits, these farmers mentioned high seed costs and the need for some trial and error as the only (and surmountable) drawbacks.

The second group (Figure 4b) acknowledged some advantages over ryegrass monocultures. However, compared to the more extensive grassland types they work with, they saw strong disadvantages. For instance, they claimed that the modern cultivars in herb-rich mixtures disappear quickly, necessitating frequent over- or reseeding:

> It's a shame they use cultivars instead of local varieties. The plantain here in the polder is half the size of the plantain in those mixtures. It yields more, but it won't persist.

(18)

They primarily problematised this for instrumental reasons: the frequent over- or reseeding would be too costly and harm soil life. For some, there was also a relational aspect to this. They expressed pride in producing as independently as possible, minimising reliance on external inputs and suppliers, and indicated that constantly having to buy seed would conflict with this. Furthermore, several farmers warned against treating herb-rich mixtures as a substitute for more natural grassland. They argued that the latter has unique
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

cultural-historical significance and supports a much greater variety of life. For example, one farmer explained:

> Every few years, they plough it up and sow a 'herb-rich' mixture with only six or seven species. Obviously, only a few insects benefit. With less intensive permanent grassland, you'll get many more plant and insect species.

(16)

# 6 | DISCUSSION

## 6.1 | Contributions of the I-NFF to disvalue literature

An important contribution, especially for practical use with non-academics (e.g. for co-creation or communication purposes), is the intuitive way of conveying information. The two triangles allow for straightforward presentation of value pluralism (e.g. in relation to herb-rich mixtures, Section 5.3) and of areas of disagreement and consensus among different viewpoints (e.g. among different narratives on the farming-biodiversity relationship, Section 5.2). Furthermore, a conceptual contribution is that, through 'nature', the I-NFF highlights concerns for nature itself more explicitly. It shows how people, from a non-anthropocentric perspective, value impacts on nature. Lliso et al. (2022) do not consider this aspect as explicitly, and plural valuation frameworks in general rarely do. In contrast, how people value nature's impacts on people, often is included. IPBES, for instance, typically refers to the values of nature and its contributions to people (IPBES, 2022). The I-NFF encourages a more balanced consideration. It allows depicting, for example, the perspective of the farmer who values certain environmental legislation negatively for restricting farming activities, as well as the perspective of the environmentalist who values this legislation positively for benefiting nature deemed intrinsically important.

Regarding the 'nature' perspective, it is worth noting that non-anthropocentric perspectives actually played a relatively small role in our data (Section 5). This may be due to the specific stakeholder group; among other stakeholder groups in the Netherlands, arguments based on intrinsic value have been found to play much stronger roles (Runhaar et al., 2019). In some cases, conflict over conservation actually appeared to be rooted in different interpretations of intrinsic value (Buijs et al., 2011). This implies that it may sometimes even be necessary to distinguish within the 'nature' perspective between, for instance, ecocentric, biocentric and sentientist (Rolston, 2003) interpretations of intrinsic value.

## 6.2 | Considering the dualistic nature of the I-NFF

Although the I-NFF does not prescribe a definition of nature, and thus does not specify whether it includes humans, by considering impacts on nature ('nature') on the one hand and instrumental and

relational value for humans ('society' and 'culture') on the other, it suggests a separation between the human and the non-human. This is important. Many see a human-nature separation as a root cause behind today's societal problems and call for moving beyond this dichotomy (Cronon, 1995; Muradian & Gómez-Baggethun, 2021). Moreover, many non-western worldviews and knowledge systems do not recognise a human-nature separation (Viveiros de Castro, 2015). Therefore, those considering the I-NFF must critically assess whether the framework is appropriate for their context. In contexts where dualistic thinking prevails, the I-NFF will likely be effective in capturing and communicating people's perspectives, but potential users should decide if the framework's advantages justify reproducing a human-nature separation. In some cases, it might be more appropriate to conceptualise phenomena not as interactions between human and non-human entities but as ongoing processes and relationships, as in relational approaches (West et al., 2020). In contexts with non-dualistic worldviews, it might be better to turn to frameworks grounded in local thinking (as Stronge et al. (2023) did in their NFF work), allowing people's perspectives to retain their originality rather than being assimilated into dualistic structures.

## 6.3 | The I-NFF in the context of NFF-based scenario development

We developed the I-NFF as a pragmatic valuation framework, not primarily to contribute to IPBES' long-term project of creating a global set of NFF-based scenarios. In this sense, it differs from other NFF variants, like the Urban Nature Futures Framework (Mansur et al., 2022). Nevertheless, we believe the I-NFF may also have value for this endeavour. Specifically, it may help assess whether particular visions of the future can be considered desirable or not; in other words, whether they fall inside or outside the triangle. So far, IPBES considers a scenario desirable if it is compatible with all three value perspectives and meets certain shared sustainability goals (IPBES, 2023). However, Durán et al. (2023) argued that these general criteria are insufficient, as desirability is also highly context-specific. We imagine that place-based, participatory use of the I-NFF, by shedding light on local positive and negative values, could help fill in this context-specific aspect of desirability.

## 6.4 | Wider applications and future prospects

Regarding the purposes in Section 5, we see several areas where the I-NFF could be beneficial. Inventorying topics at play in a given context (Section 5.1) would be particularly valuable in exploratory settings, for example, at the onset of new projects, to investigate in an open-minded way nature-related topics relevant to local stakeholders. The value of the I-NFF there lies in encouraging consideration of a broad range of aspects and facilitating communication by providing intuitive 'labels' for them. Investigating how people frame their overall
relationship with nature (Section 5.2) could be used to create actor typologies to enable more tailored governance approaches (Upadhaya et al., 2021). A strong point there is that the I-NFF allows to capture perspectives regarding impacts *both ways*; this responds to calls to represent reciprocity in human-nature relationships more explicitly (Comberti et al., 2015). Investigating how people frame specific issues (Section 5.3) would be especially relevant in cases where parties strongly oppose over a particular issue. Our example is a debated agricultural practice, but the I-NFF could easily be applied to typical controversial issues such as large carnivores or trophy hunting. It might even be applied beyond biodiversity and conservation, for instance, in relation to animal husbandry practices. In this context, we hope that the I-NFF's ability to show not only disagreement but also common ground will serve as an entry point for dialogue (Aarts, 2015).

Furthermore, there are likely possibilities to refine the I-NFF. For simplicity, we have represented positive and negative values separately, but a more nuanced approach could be to depict them as a continuous spectrum from positive to no value to negative. This could be achieved by, for example, extending the axes beyond zero in the tree-dimensional coordinate system of Kim et al. (2023) (Figure 5). This would better capture Lliso et al.'s (2022) intention to 'expand the spectrum' and might also better reflect the 'gradient complexity' (Beery et al., 2023) that the same thing can be placed differently on that spectrum by different individuals (cf. Rasmussen et al., 2017). Values, after all, do not exist per se, but are subjective constructs. Personal views, including beliefs about what is true, and wider social context, play an important role in whether something represents positive or negative value for someone. For example, in a society where farmers' livelihoods rely on maximising production, biodiversity-friendly practices may represent instrumental disvalue to them, but in a society where they are paid for biodiversity, this may not be the case.

Finally, it is clear that the I-NFF needs further testing to reveal its wider applicability. A priority is to assess resonance with non-academics, as this is crucial for co-production and communication purposes. Where we used the I-NFF as an ex-post analytical framework, a logical next step would be to use it in participatory settings, for instance, allowing participants to map themselves how they value things. Additionally, it would make sense to test the I-NFF in

other areas and with different stakeholder groups to determine if it is robust enough for linking case studies and comparing results.

## 6.5 | Considering negative values for just and effective conservation

Explicit acknowledgement of negative values is not universally endorsed. For instance, the notion of ecosystem disservices has been criticised for undermining conservation efforts (Villa et al., 2014). In contrast, we, like others (Lliso et al., 2022; Pascual et al., 2021), consider acknowledging negative values essential for just and effective conservation. It can help highlight non-human costs (e.g. environmental impacts of parasiticides, Section 5.1), and is crucial for understanding human costs (e.g. financial and psychological costs of geese damage and ragwort poisoning, Section 5.1). Regarding the latter, for a long time, and to some extent still today, the conservation movement has mainly been propelled by affluent urban classes (Lele, 2021), and framed nature almost exclusively in positive terms, emphasising the intrinsic value of wilderness or the instrumental value of ecosystem services (Adams, 2004; Mace, 2014). Rural communities have had much less of a say in conservation decision-making, and the negative impacts of nature and its conservation, mainly borne by them (Green et al., 2018), have received much less attention. Although nowadays many conservation initiatives are more conscious of actively involving local stakeholders, it is still too often the case that negative impacts on local communities remain overlooked, leading to human suffering and conflict, and ultimately jeopardising the conservation objectives themselves (Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). We see explicit acknowledgement of negative values as a crucial step towards more effective collaboration between conservation professionals and local stakeholders, and towards policies that have sufficient widespread support to bring lasting ecological benefits.

However, acknowledging negative values requires extra reflection on whose values are legitimate to take into account. When an outside conservation agency frames the ancestral practices of indigenous people as 'against nature', or when agricultural conglomerates frame some environmental policy as 'against society' and 'in conflict with culture', these perspectives might not deserve a platform. In other words,

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5 Potential other representation of the Integrated Nature Futures Framework. Based on Kim et al. (2023).</figcaption></figure>
acknowledging negative values makes the political question of whose
values *should* count (Raymond et al., 2022) even more important.

7 | CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I-NFF), a pragmatic framework for revealing what people value positively and negatively about nature-related matters. The I-NFF builds on and develops the disvalues typology of Lliso et al. (2022) and draws on the Nature Futures Framework (NFF; IPBES, 2023; Pereira et al., 2020) to convey information more accessibly, operationalising it further. We grounded and tested the I-NFF with empirical data, showing how it helps reveal positive and negative values, make value pluralism and trade-offs visible, capture the reciprocity of human-nature relationships, and identify where perspectives contrast and share common ground. We invite others to test, refine or challenge the I-NFF and hope that the framework will contribute to better inclusion of stakeholder voices in biodiversity conservation.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

V.J. Oostvogels, B. Dumont, H.J. Nijland and R. Ripoll-Bosch
conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; V.J. Oostvogels
collected and analysed the data; V.J. Oostvogels and R. Ripoll-Bosch
led the writing of the manuscript. All authors critically contributed to
the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We warmly thank the interviewed farmers for their time and openness, and agri-environment collective Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden for their help in reaching out to farmers. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. This research was performed as part of a collaboration between the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment (INRAE) and the Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research, and of the 'Deltaplan Living Labs voor biodiversiteitsherstel: van Landschap naar Landelijk' (No. NWA.1331.19.201) of the Dutch Research Agenda programme 'Living labs for the restoration of rural biodiversity', (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are stored for at least 10 years on the Animal Production
Systems group network share, backed up daily by Wageningen
University and Research IT. In line with our institution's ethical guide-
lines, we cannot publicly share the data to protect participant confi-
dentiality and due to the sensitive nature of certain information.

ORCID

V. J. Oostvogels https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6767-4711

B. Dumont https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-4417

H. J. Nijland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8281-0434

I. J. M. de Boer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-7528

R. Ripoll-Bosch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1234-7015

REFERENCES

Aarts, M. N. C. (2015). *The Art of Dialogue*. Wageningen University.
https://edepot.wur.nl/364677

Adams, W. B. (2004). *Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770415

Alblas, E., & van Zeben, J. (2023). Collaborative agri-environmental governance in The Netherlands: A novel institutional arrangement to bridge social-ecological dynamics. *Ecology and Society*, *28*(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13648-280128

Albrecht, G., Sartore, G.-M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., Kelly, B., Stain, H., Tonna, A., & Pollard, G. (2007). Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. *Australasian Psychiatry*, *15*(1_suppl), S95-S98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10398560701701288

ATLAS.ti. (2023). ATLAS.Ti 7 user guide and reference. ATLAS.Ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., Lliso, B., Monroy, A. S., Guibrunet, L., 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., ... González-Jiménez, D. (2022). Chapter 1: The role of the values of nature and valuation for addressing the biodiversity crisis and navigating towards more just and sustainable futures. In P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, C. Michael, B. Baptiste, & D. González-Jiménez (Eds.), *Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6418971

Batavia, C., & Nelson, M. P. (2017). For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? *Biological Conservation*, *209*, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003

Beery, T., Stahl Olafsson, A., Gentin, S., Maurer, M., Stålhammar, S., Albert, C., Bieling, C., Buijs, A., Fagerholm, N., & Garcia-Martin, M. (2023). Disconnection from nature: Expanding our understanding of human-nature relations. *People and Nature*, *5*(2), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10451

Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? *American Sociological Review*, *19*(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165

Buijs, A. E., Arts, B. J., Elands, B. H., & Lengkeek, J. (2011). Beyond environmental frames: The social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. *Geoforum*, *42*(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.008

Büscher, B., & Duffy, R. (2022). *Biodiversity treaty: UN deal fails to address the root causes of nature's destruction*. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/biodiversity-treaty-un-deal-fails-to-address-the-root-causes-of-natures-destruction-196905

Carmenta, R., Barlow, J., Lima, M. G. B., Berenguer, E., Choiruzzad, S., Estrada-Carmona, N., França, F., Kallis, G., Killick, E., Lees, A., Martin, A., Pascual, U., Pettorelli, N., Reed, J., Rodriguez, I., Steward, A. M., Sunderland, T., Vira, B., Zaehringer, J. G., & Hicks, C. (2023). Connected conservation: Rethinking conservation for a telecoupled world. *Biological Conservation*, *282*, 110047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110047

CBD. (2022). *Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework*. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf

Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U.,
Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wyllie de Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. *Global Environmental Change*, 34, 247-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007

Cronon, W. (1995). *Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature*. W. W. Norton & Company.

Delabre, I., Boyd, E., Brockhaus, M., Carton, W., Krause, T., Newell, P., Wong, G. Y., & Zelli, F. (2020). Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance. *Global Sustainability*, 3, e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.11

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H., Chan, K. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnar, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., ... Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. *Science*, 366(6471), eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100

Diprose, G., Greenaway, A., & Moorhouse, B. (2022). Making visible more diverse nature futures through citizen science. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice*, 7(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.442

Dunn-Capper, R., Quintero-Uribe, L. C., Pereira, H. M., & Sandom, C. J. (2023). Diverse approaches to nature recovery are needed to meet the varied needs of people and nature. *Sustainability Science*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01337-w

Durán, A. P., Kuiper, J. J., Aguiar, A. P. D., Cheung, W. W., 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., Argaw Denboba, M., Harrison, P. A., Allam Harhash, K., Karlsson Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H., ... 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/s11625-023-01316-1

Green, J. M., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Makero, J., Platts, P. J., Robert, N., Schaafsma, M., Turner, R. K., & Balmford, A. (2018). Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, 14, e00385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00385

Horlings, I. (1996). *Duurzaam boeren met beleid: Innovatiegroepen in de Nederlandse landbouw [Sustainable farming with policy: Innovation groups in Dutch agriculture]*. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/146262

IPBES. (2016). The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. A. Wintle (Eds.), *The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services-summary for policymakers*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3235428

IPBES. (2022). In P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, & D. González-Jiménez (Eds.), *Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522

IPBES. (2023). *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 July 2023*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8171339

Jacobs, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Gonzalez-Jimenez, D., Guibrunet, L., Benessaiah, K., Berghöfer, A., Chaves-Chaparro, J., Díaz, S.,

Gomez-Baggethun, E., Lele, S., Martín-López, B., Masterson, V. A., Merçon, J., Moersberger, H., Muraca, B., Norström, A., O'Farrell, P., Ordonez, J. C., Prieur-Richard, A., ... Balvanera, P. (2020). Use your power for good: Plural valuation of nature-the Oaxaca statement. *Global Sustainability*, 3, e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.2

Kim, H., Peterson, G. D., Cheung, W. W., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Arneth, A., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Pereira, L., Acosta, L. A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., den Belder, E., Eddy, T. D., Johnson, J. A., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kok, M. T. J., Leadley, P., Leclère, D., Lundquist, C. J., ... Pereira, H. M. (2023). Towards a better future for biodiversity and people: Modelling nature futures. *Global Environmental Change*, 82, 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102681

Lele, S. (2021). From wildlife-ism to ecosystem-service-ism to a broader environmentalism. *Environmental Conservation*, 48(1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000466

Lenzi, D., Balvanera, P., Arias-Arévalo, P., Eser, U., Guibrunet, L., Martin, A., Muraca, B., & Pascual, U. (2023). Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: Why they matter for biodiversity conservation. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 64, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101353

Lliso, B., Lenzi, D., Muraca, B., Chan, K. M., & Pascual, U. (2022). Nature's disvalues: What are they and why do they matter? *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 56, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101173

Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? *Science*, 345(6204), 1558-1560. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704

Mansur, A. V., McDonald, R. I., Güneralp, B., Kim, H., de Oliveira, J. A. P., 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

Martin, A., Armijos, M. T., Coolsaet, B., Dawson, N., AS Edwards, G., Few, R., Gross-Camp, N., Rodriguez, I., Schroeder, H., & GL Tebboth, M. (2020). Environmental justice and transformations to sustainability. *Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development*, 62(6), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294

Muradian, R., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2021). Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? *Ecological Economics*, 185, 107038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038

Pascual, U., Adams, W. M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G. M., & Turnhout, E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. *Nature Sustainability*, 4, 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Dessane, E. B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., ... Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 26, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Verma, M., Armsworth, P., Christie, M., Cornelissen, H., Eppink, F., Farley, J., Loomis, J., Pearson, L., Perrings, C., Polasky, S., McNeely, J. A., Norgaard, R., Siddiqui, R., Simpson, R. D., ... Simpson, R. D. (2012). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In P. Kumar (Ed.), *The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489

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
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Framework. *People and Nature*, 2(4), 1172–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146

Raap, E., Brinkkemper, O., & Baas, H. (2022). *Panorama Landschap: Karakterisering van het Nederlandse Landschap in 78 regio's [Panorama landscape: Characterisation of the Dutch landscape in 78 regions]*. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. https://cultureele.rfgoed.info/download/pdf/panorama_landschap_ronc-1.pdf

Rasmussen, L. V., Christensen, A. E., Danielsen, F., Dawson, N., Martin, A., Mertz, O., Sikor, T., Thongmanivong, S., & Xaydongvanh, P. (2017). From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices. *Ambio*, 46, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0813-6

Raymond, C. M., Cebrian-Piqueras, M. A., Andersson, E., Andrade, R., Schnell, A. A., Romanelli, B. B., Filyushkina, A., Goodson, D. J., Horcea-Milcu, A., Johnson, D. N., Keller, R., Kuiper, J. J., Lo, V., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Metzger, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Salcido, E., Sellberg, M., ... Wiedermann, M. M. (2022). Inclusive conservation and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework: Tensions and prospects. *One Earth*, 5(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

Rolston, H. (1992). Disvalues in nature. *The Monist*, 75(2), 250–278. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist199275218

Rolston, H. (2003). Environmental ethics. In N. Bunnin & E. P. Tsui-James (Eds.), *The Blackwell companion to philosophy* (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

Runhaar, H., Runhaar, P., Bouwmans, M., Vink, S., Buijs, A., & Kleijn, D. (2019). The power of argument: Enhancing citizen's valuation of and attitude towards agricultural biodiversity. *International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability*, 17(3), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1619966

Schippers, W., Bax, I., & Gardenier, M. (2023). *Ontwikkelen van kruid-enrijk grasland [Developing species-rich grassland] (7th ed.)*. Bureau Groenschrift.

Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner, G., Peterseil, J., & Zechmeister, H. (2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 108(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.009

Stronge, D. C., Kannemeyer, R. L., Harmsworth, G. R., & Stevenson, B. A. (2023). Achieving soil health in Aotearoa New Zealand through a pluralistic values-based framework: Mauri ora ki te whenua, mauri ora ki te tangata. *Sustainability Science*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01269-x

Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., & Barrow, E. (2020). Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. *World Development*, 130, 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

Termansen, M., Jacobs, S., Mwampamba, T. H., Ahn, S., Castro, A., Dendoncker, N., Ghazi, H., Gundimeda, H., Huambachano, M., Lee, H., Mukherjee, N., Nemogá, G. R., Palomo, I., Pandit, R., Schaafsma, M., Ngouhouo, J., Choi, A., Filyushkina, A., Hernández-Blanco,

M., ... González-Jiménez, D. (2022). Chapter 3: The potential of valuation. In P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, C. Michael, B. Baptiste, & D. González-Jiménez (Eds.), *Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6521298

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. *Sociological Theory*, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Upadhaya, S., Arbuckle, J. G., & Schulte, L. A. (2021). Developing farmer typologies to inform conservation outreach in agricultural landscapes. *Land Use Policy*, 101, 105157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105157

Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W., Athanasiadis, I. N., & Balbi, S. (2014). The misconception of ecosystem disservices: How a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society. *Ecosystem Services*, 10, 52–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.003

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). *The relative native: Essays on indigenous conceptual worlds*. HAU Books.

West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S., & Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. *Ecosystems and People*, 16(1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. *Ecological Economics*, 64(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**Data S1:** Interview guide (English translation).

**How to cite this article:** Oostvogels, V. J., Dumont, B., Nijland, H. J., de Boer, I. J. M., & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2024). What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation. *People and Nature*, 00, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10750