# Stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes: a multinational analysis using storylines and the Nature Futures Framework

Parinaz Rashidi, Sopan Patil, Jan Kuiper, Thora Tenbrink, Jacques-Aristide Perrin, Joël Robin, Sandra Brucet, Pieter Lemmens, Mariana Meerhoff,

Thomas Mehner, et al.

► To cite this version:

Parinaz Rashidi, Sopan Patil, Jan Kuiper, Thora Tenbrink, Jacques-Aristide Perrin, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes: a multinational analysis using storylines and the Nature Futures Framework. Ecosystems and People, 2025, 21 (1), 10.1080/26395916.2025.2570728. hal-05344656

HAL Id: hal-05344656

https://hal.science/hal-05344656v1

Submitted on 5 Nov 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes: a multinational analysis using storylines and the Nature Futures Framework

Parinaz Rashidi, Sopan D. Patil, Jan J. Kuiper, Thora Tenbrink, Jacques-Aristide Perrin, Joël Robin, Sandra Brucet, Pieter Lemmens, Mariana Meerhoff, Thomas Mehner, Lluís Benejam, Beat Oertli, Meryem Beklioğlu, Thomas A. Davidson, Aurélie Boissezon, Jeremy Biggs, Pascale Nicolet, Penny Williams, Robby Wijns & Isabel Rosa

**To cite this article:** Parinaz Rashidi, Sopan D. Patil, Jan J. Kuiper, Thora Tenbrink, Jacques-Aristide Perrin, Joël Robin, Sandra Brucet, Pieter Lemmens, Mariana Meerhoff, Thomas Mehner, Lluís Benejam, Beat Oertli, Meryem Beklioğlu, Thomas A. Davidson, Aurélie Boissezon, Jeremy Biggs, Pascale Nicolet, Penny Williams, Robby Wijns & Isabel Rosa (2025) Stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes: a multinational analysis using storylines and the Nature Futures Framework, Ecosystems and People, 21:1, 2570728, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2025.2570728

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2025.2570728

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

View supplementary material

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Published online: 03 Nov 2025.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

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

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

# Stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes: a multinational analysis using storylines and the Nature Futures Framework

Parinaz Rashidi<sup>a,b</sup>, Sopan D. Patil<sup>b,a</sup>, Jan J. Kuiper<sup>b,c</sup>, Thora Tenbrink<sup>d</sup>, Jacques-Aristide Perrin<sup>e</sup>, Joël Robin<sup>e</sup>, Sandra Brucet<sup>f,g</sup>, Pieter Lemmens<sup>h,i</sup>, Mariana Meerhoff<sup>f</sup>, Thomas Mehner<sup>k</sup>, Lluís Benejam<sup>f</sup>, Beat Oertli<sup>l</sup>, Meryem Beklioğlu<sup>m</sup>, Thomas A. Davidson<sup>n</sup>, Aurélie Boissezon<sup>l</sup>, Jeremy Biggs<sup>o</sup>, Pascale Nicolet<sup>o</sup>, Penny Williams<sup>o</sup>, Robby Wijns<sup>h</sup> and Isabel Rosa<sup>a</sup>

<sup>a</sup>School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK; <sup>b</sup>Department Theoretical and Computational Ecology (TCE), Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; <sup>c</sup>Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; <sup>d</sup>School of Arts, Culture and Language, Bangor University, Bangor, UK; <sup>e</sup>ISARA, Agroecology and Environment Research Unit, Lyon, France; <sup>f</sup>Aquatic Ecology Group, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain; <sup>g</sup>ICREA, Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies, Barcelona, Spain; <sup>h</sup>Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium; <sup>i</sup>Evolutionary and Integrative Ecology, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany; <sup>j</sup>Departamento de Ecología y Gestión Ambiental, Centro Universitario Regional del Este (CURE), Universidad de la República, Maldonado, Uruguay; <sup>k</sup>Fish Biology, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany; <sup>l</sup>HEPIA, HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Jussy-Geneva, Switzerland; <sup>m</sup>Limnology Laboratory, Biological Sciences Department, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey; <sup>n</sup>Department of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Silkeborg, Denmark; <sup>o</sup>Freshwater Habitats Trust, Bury Knowle House, Headington, UK

## ABSTRACT

Ponds and pondscapes are crucial habitats for biodiversity and provide significant ecosystem services and socio-cultural benefits. However, effective management of these habitats requires an in-depth evaluation of how stakeholders perceive them and interact with them. This study aims to explore stakeholder relationships with their local ponds and pondscapes to better understand their interactions, expectations, concerns, and perspectives, ultimately informing more effective conservation and management strategies. Using stakeholder storylines and the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), we analyzed data gathered from participatory workshops in eight countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Uruguay). Thematic analysis was performed to identify key themes regarding stakeholders' interactions, conservation expectations, climate change concerns, and management preferences related to local ponds and pondscapes across different countries. In addition, descriptive analysis was used to assess the different values that stakeholders assigned to ponds, including their ecological, cultural, and socio-economic significance. Our findings reveal a multifaceted relationship between stakeholders and pondscapes, deeply influenced by local socio-ecological contexts, including cultural heritage, biodiversity, recreation, and climate change concerns. Despite regional differences, stakeholders universally acknowledged the urgent need for sustainable conservation practices, envisioning future pondscapes that are resilient to climate change, rich in biodiversity, and capable of supporting diverse ecological and societal functions. Our study underscores the importance of integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives into pondscapes management to foster more context-sensitive and sustainable conservation efforts that safeguard these vital habitats worldwide.

## KEY POLICY HIGHLIGHTS

* Ponds and pondscapes are vital yet overlooked. Stakeholders across eight countries emphasised the ecological, social, and cultural importance of ponds, but also pointed out that these habitats remain neglected in current environmental policies.

* Local voices matter for effective conservation. Engaging with landowners, NGOs, farmers, and officials revealed diverse priorities, which can inform more inclusive and locally tailored management approaches.

* Climate change is already impacting ponds. Observations of drying, biodiversity loss, and declining water quality align with scientific evidence, underscoring the urgency of climate-resilient strategies.

* People want thriving, connected pond networks. Stakeholders envisioned future pondscapes that are biodiverse, interconnected, and integrated into planning as sustainable water and biodiversity infrastructure.

* Policy should reflect multiple ways people value nature. Participants often expressed overlapping ecological, cultural, and livelihood values - supporting policies that embrace this value pluralism.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 14 February 2024
Accepted 27 September 2025

## EDITED BY

Laura Pereira

## KEYWORDS

Ponds; pondscapes;
stakeholder engagement;
Nature Futures Framework
(NFF); storylines; climate
change; thematic analysis

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

# 1. Introduction

Ponds are typically defined as small water bodies ranging from 1 m² up to approximately 2–5 hectares and can either be permanent or seasonal, naturally occurring or artificially constructed (Richardson et al. 2022; Vo et al. 2023). While often grouped with wetlands or lakes, ponds possess distinctive morphological and chemical attributes that enable them to provide a variety of ecosystem services, including flood mitigation, water purification, and climate resilience (Biggs et al. 2017; Hill et al. 2021; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Ponds are also integral to local livelihoods and social well-being by offering spaces for recreation (e.g. fishing, walking, birdwatching), education, and cultural enrichment (Giampaoli et al. 2014; Sousa et al. 2016; Feng and Nassauer 2022; Ryfisch et al. 2023).

Ponds and pondscapes – networks of ponds and their surrounding terrestrial habitats – are increasingly recognized as valuable Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), yet they remain underutilized in environmental policies and management strategies (Boothby 1999; Hill et al. 2018; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023; Ryfisch et al. 2023). Despite evidence showing that ponds often host greater densities of endangered and rare species than larger water bodies (Biggs et al. 2005, 2017; Williams et al. 2010; Lukács et al. 2013), smaller freshwater ecosystems tend to be overlooked in national and international conservation frameworks (Biggs et al. 2017; Vo et al. 2023). This oversight partly stems from the assumption that ponds are less significant in providing Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) compared to more expansive wetlands or lakes (Hill et al. 2021; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023).

Successful implementation of ponds as NBS requires not only good ecological understanding but also a nuanced consideration of social, political, and economic contexts (Raymond et al. 2013; Orenstein and Groner 2014; Eggermont et al. 2015; Scholte et al. 2015; Masao et al. 2022). Addressing these complexities calls for robust stakeholder engagement in the management of ponds and pondscapes, involving diverse actors such as environmental NGOs, public authorities, businesses, landowners, and local communities (Calhoun et al. 2014; Ureta et al. 2021; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Participatory techniques, such as workshops, deepen stakeholder involvement, fostering collaborative learning and enabling the exploration of alternative scenarios to address complex issues (Rouillard et al. 2022).

A promising tool for integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives is the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), which was developed under the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (IPBES 2023). The NFF conceptualizes human-nature relationships through three broad value perspectives: (1) Nature for Nature (NN), which focuses

on conserving nature's intrinsic qualities and existential values, such as biodiversity and the preservation of natural processes; (2) Nature for Society (NS), which emphasizes its benefits to human well-being, like climate regulation and agricultural support; and (3) Nature as Culture/One with Nature (NC), which underscores the interconnectedness of humans and nature, valuing symbolic species, sacred landscapes, and traditional knowledge (Pereira et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2023) (Figure 1). The NFF enables researchers and stakeholders to explore how different cultural, ecological, and societal values intersect and can inform future scenario development and strategic planning (Kramer et al. 2023). So far, NFF has been applied to biodiversity management, forest scenarios, water modeling, and creative storytelling for future narratives (Lembi et al. 2020; Palacios-Abrantes et al. 2022; Kuiper et al. 2022; Durán et al. 2023; Kramer et al. 2023; Oostvogels et al. 2024).

In this study, our aim was to investigate how stakeholders perceive their local ponds and pondscapes, specifically examining their interactions, expectations, and concerns to gain insights that can support more effective conservation and management strategies. We analyzed the data gathered from participatory stakeholder workshops conducted across eight countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Uruguay) to explore how stakeholders perceive their local ponds and pondscapes. Pond and pondscape management has traditionally been influenced by a narrow group of stakeholders (Boix et al. 2012). As Dunn-Capper et al. (2023) highlight, the NFF can be employed in a pluralistic manner to assess the diverse needs and perspectives of both people and nature. In alignment with this, we engaged stakeholders from multiple disciplines to elicit their preferences and visions for their pondscapes. By adopting NFF perspectives, we were able to explore how stakeholders currently value nature and assess the perceived impacts of existing policies and societal attitudes across different regions.

# 2. Materials and methods

This section outlines the participatory method utilised in this study, which involved workshops as a means of participation. Additionally, it highlights the elicitation techniques employed for data collection and analysis.

## 2.1. Workshops

Under the PONDERFUL project (https://ponderful.eu/), stakeholder workshops were conducted in person in eight countries – United Kingdom, Spain,
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** The Nature Futures Framework captures diverse relationships between people and nature, represented by three perspectives: Nature as Culture (blue), Nature for Society (green), and Nature for Nature (orange) (Source: Kramer et al. 2023).</figcaption></figure>

Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, and Uruguay – between October 2021 and March 2022. These workshops adhered to a uniform structure and protocols. The project seeks to integrate ponds from three distinct bioclimatic regions, with the Uruguayan demonstration site offering a unique opportunity to assess the project's framework in the southern hemisphere (Table 1, Figures 2 and 3).

Grouping stakeholders by nationality allow us to explore how cultural and regional contexts influence perceptions of ponds and pondscapes. While we do not claim that these stakeholders represent their entire country, this approach helps identify broad trends and differences in perspectives across regions. Comparing perceptions between countries provides valuable insights into how diverse ecological, social, and policy contexts shape stakeholder views. Workshop participants were primarily comprised of stakeholders actively involved in decisions regarding pondscape management, including choices about establishing ponds, selecting pond types, and implementing management practices. Participants included pond landowners, government officials, pond researchers, and representatives from non-governmental organizations (Table 2). Additionally, the stakeholders in our study have been identified based on their roles, responsibilities, and influence concerning pond creation, management, and use. These roles are categorized across several dimensions. First, stakeholders are classified by their impact and stance on ponds, such as whether their activities might negatively impact ponds, whether they are generally opposed to pond creation or management, or

whether they directly withdraw natural resources from pond areas. Second, they are categorized by their access to resources, such as their ability to access the land where ponds are located. Third, stakeholders are identified based on their capacity to provide information or resources, such as offering knowledge or expertise that is critical for pond management or obtaining financing necessary for pond creation or management. Fourth, they are classified by their decision-making power, such as their ability to influence the decision to create a pond, decide on the type of pond to be created, or manage the pond once it is established. Finally, stakeholders are identified by their ownership and control over the land, including whether they own the land where a pond is currently located or where a pond could potentially be created. This categorization likely stems from surveys, stakeholder mapping, or consultations with various groups, including landowners, community members, environmental experts, and policy-makers, and helps capture the diverse and overlapping roles that these stakeholders play in pond management.

The workshops, lasting 4 to 6 hours, depending on local circumstances and the COVID-19 restrictions established by the hosting organizations, began with an introduction to the PONDERFUL project. Participants were introduced to the NFF triangle concept and then invited to provide their responses at once on paper, which enabled us to gather their perspectives on ponds using targeted questions and the NFF framework.

When designing the workshop process, it is essential to consider the needs and knowledge of stake-
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Table 1. Summary of the pondscapes studied.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Name of the pondscape</th><th>DemoSite</th><th>Bioclimatic zone</th><th>Land use</th><th>Area</th><th>Nb of ponds</th><th>Pond sizes (m²)</th><th>Pond depth (m)</th><th>Pond age</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bois de Jussy</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Continental</td><td>Woodland</td><td>7 km²</td><td>25</td><td>100 to 4000</td><td>0.4 to 2</td><td>5 to 50</td></tr><tr><td>Rhône Verbois</td><td></td><td></td><td>Grass/arable, partly urbanized</td><td>16 km²</td><td>40</td><td>50 to 20 000</td><td>0.4 to 4</td><td>5 to 50</td></tr><tr><td>Schöneiche</td><td>Germany</td><td>Continental</td><td>Agriculture</td><td>16 km²</td><td>12</td><td>100 to 20 000</td><td>0.1 to 0.5</td><td>10 to 10 000</td></tr><tr><td>Dikkuyruk</td><td>Turkey</td><td>Central-Anatolian arid-cold steppe climate</td><td>UrbanizationPeri-urban</td><td>0.58 km²</td><td>4</td><td>4000 to 80 000</td><td>0.2 to 1.32</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Gölbasi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.26 km²</td><td>23</td><td>100 - 10 000 m2</td><td>2 to 6</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Imrahor</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2.51 km²</td><td>12</td><td>225 to 57 000</td><td>2 to 6</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Pinkhill Meadows</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Atlantic</td><td>Floodplain</td><td>0.1 km²</td><td>50-60</td><td>2.0 to 3000</td><td>0 to 2.5</td><td>up to 30</td></tr><tr><td>Water Friendly Farming (WFF)</td><td></td><td></td><td>Farmland</td><td>30 km²</td><td>120</td><td>c.100 to 5000</td><td>0 to 2.5</td><td>up to 500 years</td></tr><tr><td>Albera</td><td>Spain</td><td>Mediterranean-ean</td><td>Mediterranean scrub</td><td>25 km²</td><td>23</td><td>450 to 62 000</td><td>0.5 to 1.5</td><td>6 to hundreds of years</td></tr><tr><td>Gete Vallei</td><td>Belgium</td><td>Atlantic</td><td>Grassland/arable land</td><td>>10 km²</td><td>16</td><td>100-150</td><td>0.5 to 1</td><td>1- >100</td></tr><tr><td>Pikh-endonk</td><td></td><td></td><td>Grassland</td><td>0.1 km²</td><td>12</td><td>100-150</td><td>0.5 to 1</td><td>1- >50</td></tr><tr><td>Tommelen</td><td></td><td></td><td>Nature reserve</td><td>0.12 km²</td><td>22</td><td>100-150</td><td>0.5 to 1</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Sierra de Caracoles</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Subtropical/temperate</td><td>arable/extensive grazing cattle</td><td></td><td>NA</td><td>400 to 5000</td><td>0.4 to 2</td><td>10+</td></tr><tr><td>La Pedfera</td><td></td><td>humid</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lystrup</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Continental</td><td>Suburban/arable</td><td>8 -30 km²</td><td>14+</td><td>100 to 1500</td><td>0.4 to 2</td><td>5 to 100</td></tr><tr><td>Fyn</td><td></td><td></td><td>Pasture/arable</td><td>8-250 km²</td><td>30+</td><td>100 to 1500</td><td>0.4 to 2</td><td>40 to 1000</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Source: Perrin and Robin 2023).

holders who own, work with, research, or benefit from the pondscapes. A total of 242 stakeholders associated with the studied pondscapes were identified. Of these, 119 were excluded as they were neither contacted nor considered critical for decision-making. Collaboration was established with the remaining 123 stakeholders, and 95 of them agreed to participate in the workshops.

As shown in Table 2, many stakeholders had academic backgrounds in biology or ecology. These individuals, representing organizations such as multi-level public agencies, civil society groups, farming communities, and academic institutions, held various roles related to the management and stewardship of ponds and pondscapes. The involvement of stakeholders from such diverse fields enabled us to capture various perspectives and priorities.

At the start of the workshop session, participants were asked to write a brief text narrative in response to the following questions:

* How do you interact with the pondscape?

* How do you believe it might change due to climate change?

* What are your perspectives on the conservation efforts in your pondscape?

* How do you imagine the near future of your pondscapes?”

Narratives are a particular kind of data that are distinct from the abstracted variables that dominate most quantitative approaches to social science (Polletta et al. 2011). A narrative refers to any cohesive and coherent story with an identifiable beginning, middle, and end (Hinyard and Kreuter 2007). Narratives are powerful tools for presenting, in a simple way, information embodying possibly complex relations, and they are an effective way to elicit tacit knowledge (Dettori 2011).

After completing their written responses in their native languages, stakeholders who were particularly eager to share their contributions read their narratives aloud, prompting brief discussions. All narratives were collected in their original languages and later translated into English for analysis, with the exception of the workshops conducted in the United Kingdom and Denmark, where English was the working language. The languages used in each national workshop are noteworthy: Spanish (Spain and Uruguay), German (Germany), French (Switzerland), Dutch (Belgium), Turkish (Turkey), and English (United Kingdom and Denmark).

Following the narrative writing exercise, participants in the workshop were invited to articulate their perspectives regarding the importance of their pondscape within the NFF triangle (refer to Figure 1). We inquired, 'How do you interpret the
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Examples of pondscapes from different countries involved in the study: (a) Schöneiche (Germany), (b) Bois de Jussy (Switzerland), (c) Albera/Temporary Mediterranean Ponds (Spain), (d) Tamalan (Belgium), (e) Lystrup (Denmark), (f) Pinkhill Meadows (United Kingdom), (g) Atlantic coast (Uruguay).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Distribution of stratified sampling sites (green), targeted case studies (yellow), and DEMO sites (red) across partner countries in Europe and CELAC (Cuenca-Cambronero et al., 2021).</figcaption></figure>

*significance of your pondscape within the NFF?*

A large piece of paper with the NFF triangle printed on it was displayed on the wall, and each participant was asked to place a sticky note at their preferred location within the triangle.

## 2.2. Data analysis

Stakeholder responses to our questions were imported and coded using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), specifically NVivo. The data analysis employed Braun
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Table 2. Stakeholder profiles in workshop attendees by country.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Pondscapes</th><th>No. of Stakeholders</th><th>Stakeholder Entity</th><th>Category</th><th>Role/Relation to Ponds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>Bois de Jussy - Geneva Rhône de Verbois - Geneva</td><td>9</td><td>State of Geneva<br>ProNatura<br>Conservatory and Botanic Garden<br>Natural History Museum<br>Local Environmental Consultancies</td><td>Government<br>NGO<br>Research<br>Research<br>Consultancy<br>(Private)</td><td>Owns and manages nature reserves; responsible for nature and agriculture.<br>Owns and manages nature reserves.<br>Provides scientific knowledge on biodiversity trends.<br>Contributes to biodiversity research.<br>Develop and implement nature reserve management plans.</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Pond area Schöneiche - Berlin</td><td>5</td><td>Hydropower Industry (Geneva)<br>Water Authorities<br>Municipal Council<br>Local NGOs<br>Land and Pond Owners<br>Interested Citizens</td><td>Private Sector<br>Government<br>Government<br>NGO<br>Private Citizens<br>Public<br>Government<br>NGO</td><td>Operates hydroelectric plants; finances restoration projects.<br>Water management responsibilities.<br>Local governance and land use.<br>Environmental protection and education.<br>Own/manage pond landscapes.<br>Local participants in stewardship efforts.<br>Decision-making, regulation, and management.<br>Advocate for ecological protection.<br>Provide scientific insight and assessment.</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td>Lake Mogan - Ankara Golbasi Duzlugu - Ankara</td><td>10</td><td>State Administrators (National/Local)<br>Local Environmental NGOs<br>Academics<br>Anglers and Farmers</td><td>Resource Users<br>Government<br>Private Utility<br>NGO</td><td>Use land and water; low influence and hard to reach.<br>Landowner and water manager.<br>Site owner and operator.<br>Pond biodiversity and monitoring.<br>Provides pond management services.<br>Scientific research and monitoring.<br>Cofunder and environmental oversight.</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Pinkhill Meadows Complex - Oxford</td><td>14</td><td>Regional Water Authority<br>Thames Water<br>Freshwater Habitats Trust<br>James Gillies Consultancy<br>University of Oxford<br>Environment Agency<br>Anglian Water<br>Syngenta Ltd<br>Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust<br>Local Contractors<br>Universities of York and Sheffield</td><td>Consultancy<br>Research<br>Government<br>Private Utility<br>Private Sector<br>NGO</td><td>Cofunder; promotes sustainable water use.<br>Cofunder; links to agricultural impacts.<br>Works at the interface of farming and conservation.<br>Field work, implementation, site maintenance.<br>Lead monitoring and research efforts.<br>Coordinates conservation strategies.<br>Manages protected pond habitats.</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Water Friendly Farming - Leicester</td><td>included above</td><td>Catalan Government<br>Albera Natural Park<br>Municipalities</td><td>Private Sector<br>Research<br>Government<br>Government<br>Agriculture<br>NGO</td><td>Local environmental policy and coordination.<br>Vineyard owners; indirectly affect pond areas.<br>Run conservation and land stewardship programs.<br>Federal/regional conservation authority.<br>Scientific input and monitoring.</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Albera Temporary Mediterranean Ponds - Figueres</td><td>21</td><td>Cellars (Gutina, Espolla Cooperative)<br>IAEDEN, Catalan Herpetology Society<br>Agency for Nature and Forests (ANB)<br>Research Institute for Nature and Forests (INBO)</td><td>NGO<br>Community/NGO<br>Agriculture<br>Government</td><td>Implements conservation and mobilizes volunteers.<br>Volunteer teams responsible for site maintenance.<br>Key land users, especially in Gete-vallei.<br>Local stakeholder managing the Tommelen pondscape.</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>Pikhakendonk, Gete Vallei, Tommelen</td><td>11</td><td>Natuurpunt<br>Local Management Teams<br>Local Farmers<br>Municipality of Hasselt</td><td>NGO<br>Community/NGO<br>Agriculture<br>Government</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Table 2. (Continued).</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Pondscapes</th><th>No. of Stakeholders</th><th>Stakeholder Entity</th><th>Category</th><th>Role/Relation to Ponds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>Atlantic Coast - Maldonado</td><td>14</td><td>Farmers<br>Ministry of Livestock, Forestry & Fisheries<br>(MGAP)<br>Ministry of Environment<br>State Water Works<br>Municipal Managers and Policy Makers<br>National Institute for Agricultural Research<br>Nature Conservation NGOs<br>Danish EPA<br>Amphi Consult<br>Aarhus University<br>Landowners</td><td>Resource Users<br>Government<br>Government<br>Government<br>Government<br>Research<br>NGO<br>Government<br>Consultancy<br>Research<br>Private Citizens</td><td>Use adjacent land; impact water systems.<br>Technical and regulatory support.<br>Environmental oversight and protection.<br>Manages watershed used for drinking water.<br>Local regulation and environmental coordination.<br>Scientific and agricultural research.<br>Biodiversity conservation and awareness.<br>Oversees nature and agriculture regulation.<br>Ecological assessments and consulting services.<br>Academic monitoring and ecological strategy.<br>Owners of land surrounding the ponds.</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Lystrup - Aarhus Fyn Islands - Odense</td><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Source: Perrin J-A & Robin J. 2023; Vo et al. 2023).

and Clarke's (2006) six-step thematic analysis process, which involves: (1) familiarizing oneself with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the final results.

Our research study follows a qualitative method (generally inductive) of analysis that aligns with the interpretivism (constructivism) epistemology and subjectivism ontology. Themes or patterns in the data can be identified and analyzed through an inductive or 'bottom-up' approach (Frith and Gleeson 2004) or a theoretical deductive or 'top-down' approach (Boyatzis 1998; Hayes 2013). It is crucial to note that researchers cannot completely detach themselves from their epistemological and theoretical commitments, meaning that the data has not been coded in an epistemological vacuum (Braun and Clarke 2006). We adopted a hybrid approach of deduction and induction (Yukhymenko et al. 2014), where categories were developed based on predefined criteria based on the four questions asked, i.e. how do they interact with the pondscape, how climate change might affect the pondscape, what are their perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscales, and how do they envision the near future of the pondscape. Themes were then inductively produced by grouping similar codes.

Coding, which involves systematically categorizing segments of text from interview transcripts to identify key themes and patterns (Stolz and Ozoliņš 2018), was facilitated by NVivo. NVivo supports the development of codes, themes, and categories and is advantageous for coding, theory building, and data analysis, enhancing the understanding of research problems (DeNardo and Lopez Levers 2002; Bazeley and Jackson 2013). The primary benefit of NVivo is its ability to replace the traditional paper and pen technique with efficient data management and analysis tools.

In the initial analysis stage, the storyline transcripts were read line by line to create codes by categorizing text segments and identifying key themes and patterns. These codes were then grouped into themes, which were subsequently organized into predefined categories (Figure 4).

It is essential to highlight that 10 of the 95 stakeholder narratives we received were omitted from the analysis because their responses were unrelated to the research questions posed to them.

Evaluation of the NFF perspectives employed a deductive approach, categorizing stakeholders by nationality to compare perceptions across countries. This method integrates cultural, social, political, and ecological contexts, ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives. However, limitations in stakeholder and pond selection necessitate a cautious interpretation of the results. Cross-country comparisons highlight
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

shared challenges, successful practices, and distinct needs, fostering mutual learning and informing regional or global strategies. While the findings offer preliminary insights into alignment with NFF principles, they should be regarded as exploratory rather than conclusive due to data constraints.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Stakeholder storyline analysis

The thematic analysis of stakeholder responses from eight countries – Spain, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Uruguay, Turkey, Denmark, and the United Kingdom – revealed diverse interactions, expectations, and perceptions of pondscapes (Table 3). Below, we summarise the stakeholder narratives for our guiding questions. Additional details about stakeholder responses can be found in the supplementary material.

### 3.1.1. What interactions do stakeholders have with the pondscape?

Stakeholders across the case studies reported a diversity of interactions with their local pondscapes, ranging from professional engagement to personal leisure, and in some instances, very limited contact. Many participants interact with pondscapes as part of their professional or work-related activities. For example, a stakeholder from Spain explained, 'I have to visit several ponds regularly for my job, so I know them well'. Similarly, in Uruguay, some stakeholders (particularly those in agriculture) rely on ponds for practical purposes, such as watering livestock or crops, integrating ponds into their agricultural and production use of the landscape. One Uruguayan farmer noted that the pond on his property is 'essential for our cattle, especially in the dry season'. These examples highlight how, for

certain stakeholders, pondscapes are an important facet of their work and livelihood.

At the same time, personal and recreational interactions with pondscapes are common. In several European contexts (e.g. Denmark and the UK), stakeholders described ponds as valued spaces for leisure. A participant from the UK shared, 'My family often spends Sunday afternoons at the pond – it's a peaceful escape for us'. Such leisure-oriented use of pondscapes – walking, picnicking, nature-watching – underscores the pond's role in everyday quality of life. In some cases, the cultural or historical significance of ponds further enriches this personal connection. For instance, stakeholders in Belgium pointed out that certain ponds have been part of the community for generations, making them local heritage sites that people feel attached to beyond their recreational use.

On the other hand, a few stakeholders have minimal interaction with nearby pondscapes. Even in regions dotted with ponds, not everyone engages with these features. As one Spanish interviewee admitted, 'I don't really use the ponds at all'. Such lack of interaction was often attributed either to limited public access or simply to the pondscAPE not being part of one's routine or interests. These cases serve as a reminder that stakeholder engagement with pondscapes can be uneven – while some individuals are deeply involved either professionally or personally, others remain distant from these natural resources.

### 3.1.2. How might climate change affect the pondscape?

Thematic analysis of stakeholder narratives revealed that climate change is perceived to impact pondscapes through increasing water-related stress, such as shorter hydroperiods, prolonged droughts, and declining water availability, as well as through escalating ecological consequences, including biodiversity

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Thematic analysis in NVivo flowchart.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Table 3.** The thematic analysis of stakeholder interactions, expectations, concerns, and perspectives regarding ponds and pondscapes across various countries.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Category</th><th>Theme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Spain</td><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Professional Interaction<br>Personal and Leisure Interaction<br>Minimal Interaction<br>Work-Related Interaction</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect it?</td><td>Shorter Hydroperiods and Water Scarcity<br>Ecological Impact and Adaptation</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Biodiversity Conservation<br>Cultural and Historical Significance<br>Recreational and Educational Use</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Increased Frequency and Severity of Droughts<br>Landscape Fragmentation and Urbanization<br>Changes in Water Quality and Ecosystem Functionality<br>Management and Financial Costs</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Conservation and Management Challenges<br>Public Engagement and Historical Significance<br>Future Preparedness and Ecological Enhancement<br>Complexity and Multifunctionality of Pondscapes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Belgium</td><td>How would they like the pondscape to look in the near future?</td><td>Water Management and Climate Resilience<br>Connectivity and Biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Recreational and Educational Use<br>Conservation and Restoration Projects</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect it?</td><td>Water Management Challenges<br>Water Management and Infrastructure</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Environmental Concerns and Conservation<br>Public Awareness and Education</td></tr><tr><td>How they would like the pondscape to look like in the future?</td><td>Water Management and Retention<br>Balancing Conservation and Recreation<br>Policy and Landscape Planning</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Uruguay</td><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Professional and Educational Engagement<br>Agricultural and Production Use<br>Biodiversity and Recreational Value</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Water Quality and Eutrophication<br>Water Availability and Management<br>Ecosystem and Biodiversity Impact</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity<br>Agricultural and Production Role<br>Management and Environmental Concerns</td></tr><tr><td>How would they like the pondscape to look in the future?</td><td>Improved Management and Oversizing<br>Sustainable Integration and Ecological Considerations</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Ecological and Environmental Interaction<br>Personal and Recreational Interaction<br>Policy and Management Interaction</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Germany</td><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Ecological Disruption<br>Hydrological Changes</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Protection and Awareness<br>Environmental Challenges</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Recreational and Personal Enjoyment<br>Professional and Ecological Monitoring</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Ecological Awareness and Urban Planning<br>Changes in Pond Dynamics and Hydrology<br>Impact on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services<br>Emissions and Environmental Impact</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Concerns About Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health<br>Importance of Pond Management and Conservation<br>Role of Ponds in Environmental and Ecological Stability</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Turkey</td><td>How would they like the pondscape to look in the future?</td><td>Expansion and Increase of Pondscapes<br>Enhancing Biodiversity and Natural Beauty</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Leisure and Personal Enjoyment<br>Ecological and Conservation Efforts<br>Historical and Cultural Significance</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Impact on Pond Conditions and Management<br>Alteration of Ecosystem Dynamics<br>Specific Vulnerabilities of Ponds</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Professional and Conservation Activities<br>Personal and Recreational Use<br>Advocacy and Policy Development</td></tr><tr><td>How would they like the pondscape to look in the future?</td><td>Environmental and Ecological Changes<br>Reduced Human-Nature Interaction<br>Monitoring and Long-Term Planning</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Denmark</td><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Conservation and Environmental Management<br>Personal Connection and Aesthetic Appreciation<br>Public Use and Biodiversity Conflict</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Agricultural and Natural Balance</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Conservation and Environmental Management<br>Personal Connection and Aesthetic Appreciation<br>Public Use and Biodiversity Conflict<br>Agricultural and Natural Balance</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Leisure and Personal Enjoyment<br>Ecological and Conservation Efforts<br>Historical and Cultural Significance</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Switzerland</td><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Impact on Pond Conditions and Management<br>Alteration of Ecosystem Dynamics<br>Specific Vulnerabilities of Ponds</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Professional and Conservation Activities<br>Personal and Recreational Use<br>Advocacy and Policy Development<br>Environmental and Ecological Changes<br>Reduced Human-Nature Interaction<br>Monitoring and Long-Term Planning</td></tr><tr><td>How do they interact with the pondscape?</td><td>Conservation and Environmental Management<br>Personal Connection and Aesthetic Appreciation<br>Public Use and Biodiversity Conflict<br>Agricultural and Natural Balance</td></tr><tr><td>How might climate change affect pondscape?</td><td>Conservation and Environmental Management<br>Personal Connection and Aesthetic Appreciation<br>Public Use and Biodiversity Conflict<br>Agricultural and Natural Balance</td></tr><tr><td>What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?</td><td>Conservation and Environmental Management<br>Personal Connection and Aesthetic Appreciation<br>Public Use and Biodiversity Conflict<br>Agricultural and Natural Balance</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

loss, disruption of ecosystem functioning, and a growing need for adaptive management and restoration. A unifying theme was the expectation of *more frequent and intense droughts*, leading to shorter hydroperiods and water scarcity in ponds. In Spain, for example, participants have already observed ponds drying up earlier in the season. As one Spanish stakeholder recalled, ‘*Last summer the pond completely dried out by August, which never used to happen before*’. Such experiences fuel worries that rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns will threaten the very existence of some ponds. Stakeholders in Belgium and Turkey likewise mentioned hydrological changes, noting that prolonged dry spells and irregular rainfall could drastically alter pond dynamics.

Another prevalent concern is the effect of climate change on water quality and ecosystem health. In Uruguay, where ponds play a role in agriculture, a stakeholder explained that hotter temperatures and prolonged low water levels are causing issues like algal blooms and eutrophication: ‘*When water levels drop and heat rises, the pond just turns green with algae*’. This deterioration of water quality is seen as a threat to both agricultural use and biodiversity. Similarly, stakeholders in Denmark and the UK emphasized the impact on biodiversity and ecosystem functionality – as ponds shrink or suffer from poor water quality, they can no longer support the same plant and animal life. There is a fear that some species unique to these pond ecosystems will decline or disappear if conditions continue to worsen.

Across the case studies, stakeholders also highlighted management and adaptation challenges in the face of climate change. Many voiced uncertainty about how to maintain ponds under changing conditions. For instance, a conservation manager in Switzerland stressed that without proactive measures, traditional pond management may no longer suffice: ‘*If we don’t start planning for these changes now, many ponds could be lost in the next decades*’. Others mentioned the rising financial and logistical costs of upkeep, such as needing to deepen ponds or create shade to counteract evaporation. This indicates a growing recognition that climate change will not only impact the ecology of pondscapes but also demand new strategies and resources to preserve them.

### 3.1.3. What are stakeholder perspectives on the conservation efforts in their pondscapes?

Stakeholders' views on current conservation and management efforts in their pondscapes revealed both appreciation for ongoing initiatives and frustration at various challenges. In several countries, participants acknowledged that protecting pondscapes is

important, but it is also challenging. A common sentiment was that current efforts suffer from resource and coordination challenges. For example, one Belgian stakeholder lamented the limited support for pond conservation, stating, ‘*There’s just not enough funding or personnel to maintain all our ponds properly*’. Such management challenges – including insufficient funds, patchy oversight, and lack of clear responsibility – were noted as hindrances to effective conservation in multiple contexts (e.g. Spain, Belgium, Uruguay).

Another theme in stakeholders' perspectives is the need for greater public awareness and engagement in pondscape conservation. Especially in Germany and Turkey, participants felt that local communities are not sufficiently involved or informed. As a German interviewee observed, ‘*Many people around here still don’t realize how important these ponds are. We need better education and outreach*’. This view reflects a broader concern that without public support, conservation efforts may falter. In some cases, stakeholders pointed to successful community-based initiatives (such as local cleanup days or educational programs) as models to build on, underscoring that increasing public engagement is both a challenge and a priority.

Stakeholders also discussed the complex trade-offs and conflicts inherent in pondscape management. Because pondscapes serve multiple functions (ecological, recreational, agricultural), conservation efforts must navigate competing interests. In Switzerland, for instance, a conservation volunteer described tensions between recreational use and biodiversity goals: ‘*On nice weekends the ponds are full of visitors, which is great, but it disturbs the wildlife – it’s a real balancing act for us*’. Similarly, in Uruguay, stakeholders noted that farmers’ reliance on ponds for irrigation or livestock can conflict with ecological conservation objectives. Despite these challenges, many participants expressed a strong personal and cultural connection to their pondscapes, which fuels their commitment to conservation. A Belgian resident, reflecting on a historic local pond, said, ‘*This pond has been part of our community for centuries. We feel it’s our duty to protect it for future generations*’. Such personal attachment and sense of stewardship were often cited as motivators to overcome the obstacles facing pondscape conservation efforts.

### 3.1.4. How would they like the pondscape to look in the near future?

When asked about their vision for the future, stakeholders across the countries shared aspirations for healthier, more resilient pondscapes that serve both people and nature. A recurring hope was to see pondscapes that are better managed and climate-resilient. Participants in Belgium and Germany, for
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

example, envisioned improvements in water management to ensure ponds retain water year-round despite climate pressures. One German water manager expressed optimism, saying 'We can design ponds to hold water longer - in the future I want our ponds to withstand summer droughts'. Alongside climate resilience, stakeholders frequently mentioned the desire for enhanced biodiversity. They imagined future ponds teeming with plant and animal life, more so than today. 'I'd love to see the pond full of frogs, dragonflies, birds - just alive and thriving', said a nature enthusiast from Denmark, encapsulating the widespread wish to restore and boost pond biodiversity.

Another common future vision is the expansion and connectivity of pondscapes. Rather than having isolated pockets of water, stakeholders in countries like Denmark and Uruguay suggested creating networks of ponds. In Denmark, a respondent argued for establishing additional ponds and even reconnecting wetlands, noting that 'more ponds in the landscape would increase its beauty and help wildlife move around'. This idea of connectivity ties into the concept of pondscapes as part of green infrastructure and ecological networks, ensuring that species can disperse and ecosystems remain robust. Stakeholders also mentioned integrating pondscapes into urban and regional planning. For instance, some UK and Swiss participants hoped that local authorities would prioritize ponds in development plans - preserving

existing ponds and even constructing new ones as natural water retention features and community amenities.

Overall, stakeholders' future aspirations combine practical measures with idealistic goals: they want pondscapes that are sustainable, multi-functional, and valued by society. Whether it is through better management, community involvement, or policy support, there was a clear call among participants for actions that would realize the vision of vibrant pondscapes in the near future. As one Uruguayan stakeholder succinctly put it, 'Our pondscapes could be a centerpiece of the community - productive, sustainable, and beautiful - if we care for it the right way'. This forward-looking optimism, tempered with calls for concrete improvements, underscores the strong connection people have with their pondscapes and their desire to see them thrive for years to come.

## 3.2. How do stakeholders perceive their pondscapes through the prism of the NFF triangle?

Our analysis of the NFF triangles revealed a notable difference in the perspectives among stakeholders from European countries (Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, and United Kingdom) compared to those from non-European countries (Uruguay and Turkey) (Figure 5). European stakeholders predominantly emphasized the intrinsic value of nature (i.e. Nature for

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Nature Futures Framework diagrams with stakeholder preferences for each country.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Nature), as reflected in their focus on biodiversity, conservation, and ecological health. Their narratives support this intrinsic valuation, highlighting activities such as professional conservation, water management, and ecological monitoring. However, in Uruguay and Turkey, the stated values shift toward ‘Nature for Society’, emphasizing the practical benefits of pondscapes, such as their contributions to agriculture, water availability, and human well-being. These societal-focused values are mirrored in the narratives that prioritize the functional roles of ponds over purely ecological considerations. Interestingly, the ‘Nature as Culture’ perspective remains largely absent from stakeholders’ stated values but does appear indirectly in narratives that touch upon cultural, historical, and recreational engagements, especially in countries like Belgium and United Kingdom. This discrepancy suggests that while stakeholders articulate clear preferences within the NFF framework, their narratives reveal a more nuanced and overlapping interplay of values shaped by their socio-ecological contexts.

# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. Stakeholder narratives

Our findings illustrate that stakeholder perspectives on pondscapes are highly context-dependent and shaped by local socio-ecological conditions. Across the eight countries, participants emphasised different aspects of ponds – from biodiversity and recreation to agriculture and cultural heritage – reflecting how local experiences and needs influence what people value in these ecosystems. This diversity of viewpoints underscores the importance of tailoring pond management strategies to regional contexts, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Indeed, previous research has shown that people value ecosystem services differently depending on their cultural and environmental contexts (Paletto et al. 2014). A given benefit (e.g. water supply or biodiversity) may be prioritised in one community but not in another, due to variations in local ecology, livelihoods, and cultural values (Paletto et al. 2014). Recognising these differences and integrating local knowledge into conservation planning can increase public buy-in and reduce conflicts (Paletto et al. 2014).

Our application of a cross-national narrative methodology – a relatively underutilized approach in pondscape research – offers a methodological advance by highlighting how conservation priorities are shaped through lived experience rather than pre-defined categories. This approach uncovered both shared themes and local specificities in stakeholder perspectives, reinforcing the need for context-

sensitive conservation planning (Sayer et al. 2012; Perrone et al. 2023). A key point of convergence across narratives was the urgent need to protect ponds, which emerged as a powerful shared concern. Such consensus is more than symbolic; it provides a practical basis for initiating collaborative action. When a common vision is clearly articulated and embedded into planning processes, participatory governance tends to yield more equitable and effective outcomes (Perrone et al. 2023). The widespread acknowledgement of ponds’ ecological and social value in our study suggests strong potential for building coalitions among diverse stakeholders. Notably, stakeholders moved beyond general calls for cooperation to propose specific, actionable initiatives such as citizen science schemes, volunteer monitoring, and local stewardship groups (see Results). These grassroots strategies are consistent with broader findings that bottom-up participation enhances both data robustness and stakeholder engagement (Eggermont et al. 2015; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Such practices also resonate with participatory governance models that emphasize co-production, iterative learning, and mutual accountability as pillars of long-term sustainability (Reed 2008; Shirk et al. 2012). Our findings thus lend empirical support to calls for socio-ecological integration in freshwater management, demonstrating how stakeholder participation can be effectively translated into operational structures.

Another prominent theme in the narratives is concern about the impacts of climate change on pondscapes. Stakeholders from different countries described observable changes and future threats, including water scarcity, extended droughts, biodiversity loss, and habitat degradation. These on-the-ground observations are consistent with scientific studies predicting that small water bodies will face heightened stress under climate change (Gozlan et al. 2019; Oertli and Parris 2019; Meerhoff et al. 2022). For example, Oertli and Parris (2019) have documented shifts in pond hydrology and ecology in response to changing precipitation patterns. Stakeholders in our workshops expressed many of the same concerns highlighted by scientists, such as changes in species composition and more frequent drought events. This congruence between local knowledge and academic research is significant. It suggests that stakeholder perceptions can serve as early warnings of ecological change and should be taken seriously in environmental planning and management. Local users often notice subtle changes, such as fewer amphibians or lower water levels, that may precede formal scientific assessments. By validating these concerns against the literature, we demonstrate that stakeholder input is not merely anecdotal but aligns with broader evidence of climate threats to freshwater ecosystems.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

Proactively incorporating stakeholder-identified issues (e.g. establishing drought-resilient pond designs or biodiversity monitoring programs) could enhance climate adaptation strategies for pondscapes. Moreover, the strong community attachment to ponds – several participants spoke of ponds as part of their cultural heritage and identity – can be a powerful motivator for climate action. Individuals who feel a personal connection to their local environment are more likely to support and participate in conservation measures (Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Our discussion, therefore, highlights that bridging scientific findings with stakeholder experiences can lead to more robust, community-supported responses to climate change at the pondscape level.

Importantly, the narratives revealed not just challenges but also a shared aspirational vision for the future of pondscapes. Stakeholders across countries imagined futures where ponds are healthier, more connected, and resilient – in essence, pond networks that simultaneously support biodiversity and human well-being. They spoke of restoring ‘ghost ponds’ and creating new ponds, improving water quality and retention, and enhancing habitat connectivity (see Results). Such visions resonate with the concept of pondscapes as nature-based solutions, which has gained attention in recent literature (Alderton et al. 2017; Staccione et al. 2021; Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023; Sayer et al. 2023). Ponds and pond networks are increasingly seen as cost-effective natural solutions for climate adaptation, water regulation, and biodiversity conservation (Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Yet, as recent reviews note, ponds remain underutilized in policy and planning, often overshadowed by larger wetlands (Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). By voicing desires for more ponds and better-managed ponds, stakeholders in our study are effectively advocating for greater adoption of pond Nature-based Solutions (NBS). They identified both opportunities and obstacles for this: for instance, the idea of integrating ponds into urban plans and agricultural landscapes for multifunctional benefits, versus the reality of limited funding and awareness. This aligns with Cuenca-Cambronero et al. (2023), who emphasised that while ponds can deliver a wide range of Nature’s Contributions to People (from flood mitigation to recreation), an enabling social and policy context is needed to realise their full potential (Cuenca-Cambronero et al. 2023). Our study contributes to this discussion by providing on-ground evidence of public interest in such NBS approaches. The novel contribution here is that we capture a demand signal from stakeholders themselves for improving and expanding pondscapes, rather than this agenda being driven only by scientists or policymakers. This underscores the value of engaging

communities in envisioning positive environmental futures. Their buy-in and ideas can significantly shape the feasibility of implementing NBS at the local level.

## 4.2. NFF triangle analysis

Applying the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), which aims to capture multiple ways people relate to nature (Lembi et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2020; Kuiper et al. 2022; Durán et al. 2023; IPBES 2023; Kramer et al. 2023; Oostvogels et al. 2024), in our analysis allowed us to systematically compare how stakeholders in different regions value nature in their pondscapes. This cross-cultural values assessment is one of the first of its kind for small water bodies, yielding insights that both corroborate and extend prior research. Consistent with Vo et al. (2023), we found a clear dichotomy between the priorities of European and Uruguayan stakeholders. European participants predominantly endorsed ‘Nature for Nature’ values, emphasizing biodiversity conservation and the intrinsic worth of ponds as habitats. This corresponds to Vo et al.’s finding that, in European sites, ecological and biodiversity benefits (e.g. habitat provision) were ranked highest by stakeholders (Vo et al. 2023). It reflects a conservation ethos also noted in broader European conservation policy, where protecting biodiversity for its own sake is a key objective. By contrast, stakeholders in Uruguay placed more weight on ‘Nature for Society’ values, focusing on utilitarian benefits like water supply for livestock and agriculture. Vo et al. (2023) similarly reported that Uruguayan pond users prioritize provisioning services (e.g. water for farming) above biodiversity. This divergence is understandable given context: many Uruguayan ponds are man-made and embedded in agricultural settings, so their value is often judged by their direct contributions to livelihoods. Our study thus reinforces the influence of socio-economic context on environmental values: regions where ponds are critical for human use naturally see higher anthropocentric valuation, whereas regions with stronger conservation cultures favour intrinsic natural values (Vo et al. 2023). Recognizing this pattern is important for managers and policymakers. It suggests that conservation messages and interventions should be framed differently depending on the audience – for instance, highlighting biodiversity and heritage in Europe, versus emphasizing sustainable use and co-benefits in Uruguay – to align with what stakeholders care about.

Interestingly, our results for Turkey deviated from the above pattern, offering a novel insight. Unlike Vo et al. (2023), who grouped Turkish sites with the European trend of favouring ecological values, our Turkish stakeholders leaned more towards Nature
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

for Society considerations. In other words, Turkish participants in our workshops assigned relatively greater importance to the human-use aspects of ponds than expected from previous studies. This discrepancy may be due to methodological differences – we used narrative-based NFF positioning, whereas Vo et al. employed an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) survey. It reflects how the framing of questions and the methods used influenced the responses. The key point is that there is no universal hierarchy of values; even within the same broad cultural sphere, local factors or approach variations can shift stakeholders’ value orientations. This finding underscores a broader lesson echoed in scenario planning literature: diverse landscapes and communities will require multiple visions and pathways for sustainable interactions between nature and people (Harmáčková et al. 2022). One framework or value set cannot simply be transplanted everywhere (Harmáčková et al. 2023). Harmáčková et al. (2025) and Lazurko (2023) emphasise that scenario processes must be co-designed with diverse stakeholders to reflect plural value perspectives and maintain relevance across sociocultural contexts. Their findings highlight how the composition of scenario teams influences which values are represented, underscoring the importance of inclusive and participatory approaches. Our evidence from Turkey exemplifies that need – it reminds practitioners that they should verify assumptions about stakeholder values through direct engagement, rather than relying solely on regional generalisations.

The NFF analysis also revealed how stakeholders negotiate trade-offs among value perspectives. Notably, several participants positioned themselves between the pure corners of the NFF triangle, indicating an appreciation for multiple value domains. For example, some European stakeholders, while primarily conservation-oriented, also acknowledged the cultural and social values of ponds. Likewise, a few Uruguay participants balanced utilitarian views with concerns for biodiversity. Such overlapping positions suggest that stakeholders are capable of embracing value pluralism – they do not see ecological and social values as mutually exclusive, but rather seek a balance. This resonates with recent discussions in the literature that call for integrating a broader range of values in environmental decision-making. Global assessments (e.g. the IPBES Values Assessment) have highlighted that current policies undervalue certain types of nature's contributions (especially cultural and relational values). In response, the IPBES recommends adopting more inclusive valuation frameworks to improve sustainability outcomes. However, while the assessment emphasises the need for integrating a broader range of values, research on effective

strategies to achieve this balance is still in its early stages (Harmáčková et al. 2023; Horcea-Milcu et al. 2023).

Our findings provide a practical example: community members themselves often hold mixed values and may be open to strategies that deliver multiple benefits. For instance, a stakeholder who values a pond for both its bird habitat (Nature for Nature) and as a community gathering spot (Nature as Culture) would likely support a conservation plan that combines habitat restoration with recreational access. Engaging stakeholders in dialogue using framworks like NFF can make these trade-offs explicit and facilitate mutual understanding. It encourages stakeholders to articulate why they care about nature and to see where others are coming from. We observed that Nature as Culture – values related to spiritual, identity, or heritage connections with nature – seldom appeared in isolation in our study. No participant identified exclusively with Nature as Culture; those who valued it also concurrently valued nature's ecological or utilitarian aspects. This echoes findings by Mansur et al. (2022) in urban ecosystem scenarios, where cultural values tended to co-occur with other priorities rather than stand alone. It suggests that while cultural connections to ponds are present (e.g. traditional uses, aesthetic enjoyment), they are often intertwined with either conservation or practical use values. The co-occurrence of values observed in our study supports the view that value perspectives are not mutually exclusive – a key feature of the Nature Futures Framework (Kim et al. 2023). This strengthens the argument for employing futures-oriented methods, which can help surface and disentangle relational or culturally embedded values that may remain implicit or sidelined in conventional assessments (Murali et al. 2024).

Crucially, following a call by IPBES plenary to 'discuss the opportunities and limits of, as well as test, as appropriate, the NFF' (Decision IPBES-9/1), our use of the NFF with stakeholders demonstrates the framework's practical utility in a participatory setting. The NFF was originally developed to enrich global scenario modelling with diverse value perspectives, and it has been applied in expert-driven contexts like continental-scale scenario planning (D'Alessio et al. 2025). Our study is among the first to operationalise the NFF at a local community level, particularly in the context of freshwater ecosystems, using it as a conversation tool for stakeholders to express their values. We show that even non-expert participants can grasp the NFF's value categories and use them to reflect on their relationship with nature (after brief explanation and support during the workshops). The outcome – a visual 'values map' of each group – enabled a transparent discussion of why
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

certain values dominate in some contexts. This is a compelling example of bridging global frameworks with local knowledge. It illustrates how abstract concepts, such as 'Nature for Nature vs. Nature for Society', can be made tangible and relevant to local stakeholders, thereby fostering deeper engagement in scenario thinking. In line with Palacios-Abrantes et al. (2022), who advocated the NFF as a tool for adaptive decision-making under climate change, we found that the framework indeed spurred stakeholders to consider alternative futures and the value trade-offs those futures entail. By grounding future visions in explicit value choices, communities can better debate and decide on their preferred pathways. In short, our application of the NFF showcases its versatility: beyond theoretical scenario exercises, it can serve as a participatory planning aid to capture and reconcile stakeholder values in real-world conservation settings.

### 4.3. Study limitations and future research

While our study provides rich insights, it also has limitations that suggest caution in interpretation and avenues for future work. First, our research design did not control for specific pond characteristics – participants were reflecting on their local pondscapes, which vary widely (natural vs. artificial ponds, urban vs. rural settings, etc.). This heterogeneity is both a strength (capturing real-world diversity) and a limitation, as it prevents direct, standardised comparisons. Future studies could select more uniform case studies or stratify by pond type to see if certain patterns (e.g. value orientations) hold constant when ecological differences are minimised. Similarly, we had a broad mix of stakeholder types (from officials to farmers to NGO volunteers) in each country, and we did not segregate responses by demographic factors such as age, gender, or profession. It is possible that within a single country or community, different stakeholder sub-groups have divergent perspectives that our aggregate analysis might mask. For instance, a local business owner and a member of a conservation NGO might both be 'stakeholders' in the same pondscape, but value it very differently. A more fine-grained analysis by stakeholder category or social background could reveal intra-community conflicts or synergies that are important for management. Including under-represented voices is also critical – despite our efforts at inclusivity, some perspectives (e.g. youth or Indigenous viewpoints) may be missing or under-sampled. Ensuring a truly representative stakeholder sample remains a challenge for follow-up research and participatory projects.

Another consideration is the workshop format and dynamics. We employed a participatory storytelling

approach, incorporating group discussions, which can introduce biases such as peer influence or reluctance to express minority opinions. The interactive process, while valuable for exchanging ideas, means that some individual nuances might be lost in the pursuit of consensus or due to time constraints. In our case, participants could adjust their NFF triangle positions after discussion, leading to more considered final responses. However, doing so in public (with sticky notes on a board) might have caused some to second-guess or moderate their true feelings. Future research could combine our approach with confidential surveys or one-on-one interviews to verify whether the group outputs align with private individual views. Additionally, our study was cross-sectional – a snapshot in time. Stakeholder attitudes can change, especially if management interventions or major environmental shifts occur. A longitudinal study tracking the same communities could explore how implementing some of the stakeholders' recommended actions (e.g. creating new ponds, conducting education campaigns) might influence perceptions and values over time.

Despite these caveats, we suggest that what some might call 'biases' in stakeholder perspectives are, in fact, valuable local knowledge. Stakeholders inevitably focus on issues most relevant to them – a farmer might concentrate on water availability, a birdwatcher on species sightings – but these focuses highlight what each group considers most urgent or worth caring about. Instead of seeing such partiality as a problem, researchers and decision-makers can use it as insight. Local priorities, even if limited, point to opportunities for engagement and policy development. Our multinational approach demonstrates that combining these local insights can create a mosaic of strategies: one community's solution (e.g. Belgium's community pond clean-up days) could inspire others; another's challenge (e.g. Uruguay's pond usage conflicts) serves as a warning to be discussed elsewhere. Embracing stakeholder stories enriches the evidence base with lived experiences, supporting the growing realisation that successful ecosystem management must combine scientific data with social knowledge and values (Han and Luo 2024). We thus recommend that future research and practice continue in this transdisciplinary spirit. For example, first, it is worth noting that the NFF exclusively addresses perspectives related to nature values and doesn't encompass other individual and societal values, such as those linked to social justice, economic development, or technological solutions to environmental challenges, as highlighted by Blair et al. (2023). These additional dimensions could be incorporated into the NFF, transforming it from a triangle with three nature value perspectives
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

into a polygon with multiple dimensions (Alexander et al. 2023). Secondly, integrating stakeholder-driven scenarios with quantitative models could be a fruitful path. Co-creating models where stakeholders' visions adjust parameters or management options would marry qualitative and quantitative foresight, potentially yielding more robust and accepted conservation plans.

In conclusion to the discussion, our study's novelty lies in its fusion of methods and scales – operationalising a globally informed framework – the NFF – through intimate engagement with local stakeholders across multiple countries, demonstrating its potential for comparative application in freshwater social-ecological systems. It allowed us to unveil patterns (and exceptions) in how people relate to pond ecosystems, providing actionable knowledge for the community of practice working on nature-based solutions and participatory conservation. Our work demonstrates that stakeholders are not merely passive beneficiaries of ecosystem services but active narrators shaping the future of their landscapes. We hope these insights will guide both local pond restoration projects and international efforts (such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy and scenarios for IPBES) by emphasising that context is important – and that within each pond's story, the people who know and care for it are essential authors.

## 5. Conclusion

Using the stakeholder's storyline and the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), we examined how stakeholders interact with, value, and perceive local ponds and pondscapes. This study highlights the diverse values, priorities, and concerns associated with ponds across different countries, emphasizing the necessity of tailored management strategies that address stakeholders' specific needs and preferences. Our findings underscore the importance of robust stakeholder participation in the sustainable management and conservation of ponds and pondscapes. This involves continuous ecosystem monitoring, public awareness campaigns, and initiatives to conserve biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services, and improve community well-being. Importantly, this research also demonstrates the practical applicability of the NFF, showcasing its potential as a tool for exploring present-day nature values and informing future conservation planning.

## Acknowledgement

This research has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 869296—The PONDERFUL

Project. Parinaz Rashidi acknowledges funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) Large-Scale Research Infrastructures (LSRI) programme for the LTER-LIFE (http://www.lter-life.nl) infrastructure (grant 184.036.014). Jan J. Kuiper was supported by the PLURALAKES project, funded by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS (grant no. 2024-00994) and the EU's Horizon Europe program through the 2023 Joint Transnational Call of the European Partnership Water4All (grant no. 101060874).

## Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

## Funding

This research has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement [No 869296]—The PONDERFUL Project. JJK was supported by the PLURALAKES project, funded by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS [grant no. 2024-00994] and the EU's Horizon Europe program through the 2023 Joint Transnational Call of the European Partnership Water4All [grant no. 101060874].

## ORCID

Parinaz Rashidi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0898-0942

Sopan D. Patil http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8575-5220

Jan J. Kuiper http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6655-9355

## Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

## Ethical considerations

This research followed all ethical guidelines regarding the participation of human subjects. Participants were informed that the participatory workshop would be recorded and that all collected data would be used exclusively for PONDERFUL-related research purposes. The data will be securely stored and processed in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Participants were also informed that any results derived from PONDERFUL would only be presented in an aggregated format, ensuring that neither individuals nor their organizations can be identified. If a non-anonymized quotation is considered for publication or any other medium, explicit consent will be sought beforehand. By signing the participation list, participants confirm their voluntary involvement in the workshop and acknowledge that any information they provide may be used solely for PONDERFUL research purposes. Additionally, as previously stated, no personal data beyond nationality (for regional representation) and gender was collected. This ethical approach ensures participant anonymity while enabling meaningful stakeholder engagement in the research process.
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

## References

Alderton E, Sayer CD, Davies R, Lambert SJ, Axmacher JC. 2017. Buried alive: aquatic plants survive in ‘ghost ponds’ under agricultural fields. Biol Conserv. 212:105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.004

Alexander P, Henry R, Rabin S, Arneth A, Rounsevell M. 2023. Mapping the shared socio-economic pathways onto the Nature Futures Framework at the global scale. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01415-z

Bazeley P, Jackson K. 2013. Perspectives: qualitative computing and NVivo. Qualitative Data Anal NVivo. 1–46.

Biggs J, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M. 2017. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia. 793(1):3–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-3007-0

Biggs J, Williams P, Whitfield M, Nicolet P, Weatherby A. 2005. 15 years of pond assessment in Britain: results and lessons learned from the work of Pond Conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 15(6):693–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.745

Blair KJ, Moran D, Alexander P. 2023. Worldviews, values and perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector. Agric Hum Values. 41(1):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10469-9

Boix D et al. 2012. Pond research and management in Europe: “Small is beautiful”. Hydrobiologia. 689(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1015-2

Boothby J. 1999. Framing a strategy for pond landscape conservation: aims, objectives and issues. Landscape Res. 24(1):67–83.

Boyatzis RE. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Phychol. 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Calhoun AJK, Jansujwicz JS, Bell KP, Hunter ML. 2014. Improving management of small natural features on private lands by negotiating the science-policy boundary for Maine vernal pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 111(30):11002–11006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323606111

Cuenca-Cambronero M et al. 2021. Studying pond ecosystems for climate change mitigation: H2020 PONDERFUL project. Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) Europe Chapter Annual Meeting—Abstracts Book; pp. 62–63, Fig. 1. (SWS Europe 2021 Abstracts Book, PDF).

Cuenca-Cambronero M et al. 2023. Challenges and opportunities in the use of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions. Hydrobiologia. 850(15):3257–3271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-023-05149-y

D’Alessio A et al. 2025. Narratives for positive nature futures in Europe. Environ Manage. 75(5):1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02123-3

DeNardo AM, Lopez Levers L. 2002. Using NVivo to analyze qualitative data. 14th Annual Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Conference; Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University.

Dettori G. 2011. Supporting knowledge flow in web-based environments by means of narrative. In: Trentin G, editor. Technology and knowledge flow. Hull, UK: Chandos Publishing; p 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-646-3.50003-4

Dunn-Capper R, Quintero-Uribe LC, Pereira HM, Sandom CJ. 2023. Diverse approaches to nature recovery are needed to meet the varied needs of people and nature. Sustain Sci. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01337-w

Durán AP et al. 2023. Bringing the Nature Futures Framework to life: creating a set of illustrative narratives of nature futures. Sustainability Sci. 1–20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-023-01337-w

Eggermont H et al. 2015. Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA Ecol Perspectives Sci Soc. 24(4):243–248. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9

Feng Y, Nassauer J. 2022. Community experiences of landscape-based stormwater management practices: a review. Ambio. 51(8):1837–1854.

Frith H, Gleeson K. 2004. Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance. Psychol Men Masc. 5(1):40.

Giampaoli S et al. 2014. Regulations concerning natural swimming ponds in Europe: considerations on public health issues. J Water Health. 12(3):564–572.

Gozlan RE, Karimov BK, Zadereev E, Kuznetsova D, Brucet S. 2019. Status, trends, and future dynamics of freshwater ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia. Inland Waters. 9(1):78–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2018.1510271

Han S, Luo A. 2024. Unravelling stakeholder narratives on nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction. Sustain Sci. 19(5):1677–1691. https://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01541-2

Harmáčková Z et al. 2022. Linking multiple values of nature with future impacts: value-based participatory scenario development for sustainable landscape governance. Sustain Sci. 17(3):849–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00953-8

Harmáčková ZV et al. 2023. The role of values in future scenarios: what types of values underpin (un) sustainable and (un) just futures? Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 64:101343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101343

Harmáčková ZV et al. 2025. Value archetypes in future scenarios: the role of scenario co-designers. Ecol Soc. 30(3): https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol30/iss3/art4/

Hayes N. 2013. Theory-led thematic analysis: social identification in small companies. In: Hayes N, editor. Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Psychology Press; pp 93–114.

Hill MJ et al. 2018. New policy directions for global pond conservation. Conserv Lett. 11(5):e12447.

Hill MJ et al. 2021. Pond ecology and conservation: research priorities and knowledge gaps. Ecosphere. 12(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3853

Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW. 2007. Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Educ Behav. 34(5):777–792.

Horcea-Milcu A-I, Koessler A-K, Martin A, Rode J, Moreno Soares T. 2023. Modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 64:101357. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

S1877343523001045?casa_token=16vE
YgU1wdcAAAAA:4Y6C77R0fEChTXQP_
k87ap5yl51SsrQAMO2Nt67aJzcFERH3_
sRVOklacm89X94gU1Rz9F6Je3I

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. Bonn, Germany. IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8171339

Kim HJ et al. 2023. Towards a better future for biodiversity and people: modelling nature futures. Global Environ Change. 82:102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2023.102681

Kramer L et al. 2023. New paths for modelling freshwater nature futures. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01341-0

Kuiper JJ et al. 2022. Exploring desirable nature futures for Nationaal Park Hollandse Duinen. E&P. 18(1):329-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2065360

Lazurko A. 2023. Complexity, ambiguity, and the boundaries of the future: toward a reflexive scenario practice in sustainability science.

Lembi RC et al. 2020. Urban expansion in the Atlantic Forest: applying the Nature Futures Framework to develop a conceptual model and future scenarios. Biota Neotrop. 20:e20190904.

Lukács BA, Sramkó G, Molnár VA. 2013. Plant diversity and conservation value of continental temporary pools. Biol Conserv. 158:393-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio con.2012.08.024

Mansur AV et al. 2022. Nature futures for the urban century: integrating multiple values into urban management. Environ Sci Policy. 131:46-56. https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901122000193

Masao CA et al. 2022. Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People Nat. 4(3):711-729. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10310

Meerhoff M et al. 2022. Feedback between climate change and eutrophication: revisiting the allied attack concept and how to strike back. Inland Waters. 12(2):187-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2022.2029317

Murali R et al. 2024. Assessing multiple values of nature in national biodiversity strategies and action plans. People Nat. 6(3):1355-1365. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10645

Oertli B, Parris KM. 2019. Review: toward management of urban ponds for freshwater biodiversity. Ecosphere. 10 (7). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2810

Oostvogels VJ, Dumont B, Nijland HJ, de Boer IJM, Ripoll-Bosch R. 2024. What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation. People Nat. 6(6):2633-2646. https://bes journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10750

Orenstein DE, Groner E. 2014. In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. Ecosystem Serv. 8:185-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.004

Palacios-Abrantes J et al. 2022. Managing biodiversity in the Anthropocene: discussing the Nature Futures Framework as a tool for adaptive decision-making for nature under climate change. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01200-4

Paletto A, Giacovelli G, Grilli G, Balest J, De Meo I. 2014. Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy. J For Sci. 60(11):472-483. https://www.research.unipd.it/bit stream/11577/3199220/2/85-2014%2520Palletto.pdf

Pereira LM et al. 2020. Developing multiscale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nat. 2(4):1172-1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146

Perrin J-A, Robin J. 2023. Nature-based solutions and nature's contributions to people: two evocative terms at the institutional level requiring closer examination at local scale. Case study research in Europe on landscapes of ponds. [unpublished manuscript].

Perrone D et al. 2023. Stakeholder integration predicts better outcomes from groundwater sustainability policy. Nat Commun. 14(1):3793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39363-y

Polletta F, Chen PCB, Gardner BG, Motes A. 2011. The sociology of storytelling. Ann Rev Psychol Sociol. 37 (1):109-130.

Raymond CM et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience. 63 (7):536-546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7

Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv. 141 (10):2417-2431. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708002693?casa_token=g_af8o8FiHoAAAAA:X4JtYxXvTQvGUjoUykAupzOgDS4Gx11CQYIwNQ9QCKYfU-XjqB1YzmiFverzeQ13IOORM7hfWOE

Richardson DC et al. 2022. A functional definition to distinguish ponds from lakes and wetlands. Sci Rep. 12 (1):10472. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14569-0

Rouillard J, Neverre N, Rinaudo JD. 2022. Initiating collective action for the management of deep confined aquifer systems: application of a participatory scenario approach in France. Hydrogeol J. 30(1):21-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02420-1

Ryfisch S, Seeger I, McDonald H, Lago M, Blicharska M. 2023. Opportunities and limitations for nature-based solutions in EU policies - assessed with a focus on ponds and pondscapes. Land Use Policy. 135:106957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106957

Sayer C et al. 2012. The role of pond management for biodiversity conservation in an agricultural landscape. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 22(5):626-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2254

Sayer CD, Biggs J, Greaves HM, Williams P. 2023. Guide to the restoration, creation and management of ponds bringing ponds to life about the guide guide to the restoration, creation and management of ponds.

Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH. 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ. 114:67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007

Shirk JL et al. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc. 17(2): https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269051?casa_token=3O8hNZQp2hYAAAAA%3Af7_FtrBbsgy8oIS0p3t1AUgyxkAIGqUKpvpVNcZgeKLCJ
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

L9_pJqYZ6Ix4u5Ya8oTP5WzL5dBw02yyuLJSuun9m8_
G5TT__wnOoXbc9EdOQLKVaF4JdBI&seq=1

Sousa E, Quintino V, Palhas J, Maria Rodrigues A, Teixeira J. 2016. Can environmental education actions change public attitudes? An example using the pond habitat and associated biodiversity. PLOS ONE. 11(5): e0154440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154440

Staccione A, Broccoli D, Mazzoli P, Bagli S, Mysiak J. 2021. Natural water retention ponds for water management in agriculture: a potential scenario in northern Italy. J Environ Manag. 292:112849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112849

Stolz SA, Ozoliņš JT. 2018. A narrative approach exploring philosophy in education and educational research. Educ Stud. 44(5):578-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1388215

Ureta J, Motallebi M, Vassalos M, Alhassan M, Ureta JC. 2021. Valuing stakeholder preferences for environmental benefits of stormwater ponds: evidence from choice experiment. J Environ Manag. 293:112828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112828

Vo HT et al. 2023. Socio-economic or environmental benefits from pondscapes? Deriving stakeholder preferences using analytic hierarchy process and compositional data analysis. J Environ Manag. 342:118298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118298

Williams P et al. 2010. Ponds report from 2007.

Yukhymenko MA, Brown SW, Lawless KA, Brodowinska K, Mullin G. 2014. Thematic analysis of teacher instructional practices and student responses in middle school classrooms with problem-based learning environment. Global Educ Rev. 1(3):93-110.