# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena

Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen

Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, et al.

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

## ► To cite this version:

Albert Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena Bennett, et al. The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosystems and People, 2022, 18 (1), pp.598-608. 10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173. hal-03881238

HAL Id: hal-03881238

https://amu.hal.science/hal-03881238

Submitted on 27 Jun 2024

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, et al.

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

## To cite this version:

Albert Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena Bennett, et al. The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosystems and People, 2022, 18 (1), pp.598-608. 10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173. hal-03881238

HAL Id: hal-03881238

https://amu.hal.science/hal-03881238v1

Submitted on 27 Jun 2024

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert V. Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena M. Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Antonio J. Castro, Wolfgang Cramer, Graeme S. Cumming, María Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Carl Folke, Ruth DeFries, Stefan Gelcich, Juliane Groth, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Sander Jacobs, Johanna Hofmann, Terry P Hughes, David P.M. Lam, Jacqueline Loos, Amanda Manyani, Berta Martín-López, Megan Meacham, Hannah Moersberger, Harini Nagendra, Laura Pereira, Stephen Polasky, Michael Schoon, Lisen Schultz, Odirilwe Selomane & Marja Spierenburg

**To cite this article:** Albert V. Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena M. Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Antonio J. Castro, Wolfgang Cramer, Graeme S. Cumming, María Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Carl Folke, Ruth DeFries, Stefan Gelcich, Juliane Groth, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Sander Jacobs, Johanna Hofmann, Terry P Hughes, David P.M. Lam, Jacqueline Loos, Amanda Manyani, Berta Martín-López, Megan Meacham, Hannah Moersberger, Harini Nagendra, Laura Pereira, Stephen Polasky, Michael Schoon, Lisen Schultz, Odirilwe Selomane & Marja Spierenburg (2022) The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus, Ecosystems and People, 18:1, 598-608, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

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

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

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

Published online: 30 Oct 2022.

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

Submit your article to this journal

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

Article views: 1221

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

View related articles
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert V. Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena M. Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Antonio J. Castro, Wolfgang Cramer, Graeme S. Cumming, María Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Carl Folke, Ruth DeFries, Stefan Gelcich, Juliane Groth, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Sander Jacobs, Johanna Hofmann, Terry P Hughes, David P.M. Lam, Jacqueline Loos, Amanda Manyani, Berta Martín-López, Megan Meacham, Hannah Moersberger, Harini Nagendra, Laura Pereira, Stephen Polasky, Michael Schoon, Lisen Schultz, Odirilwe Selomane & Marja Spierenburg

**To cite this article:** Albert V. Norström, Bina Agarwal, Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Elena M. Bennett, Eduardo Brondízio, Reinette Biggs, Bruce Campbell, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Antonio J. Castro, Wolfgang Cramer, Graeme S. Cumming, María Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Carl Folke, Ruth DeFries, Stefan Gelcich, Juliane Groth, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Sander Jacobs, Johanna Hofmann, Terry P Hughes, David P.M. Lam, Jacqueline Loos, Amanda Manyani, Berta Martín-López, Megan Meacham, Hannah Moersberger, Harini Nagendra, Laura Pereira, Stephen Polasky, Michael Schoon, Lisen Schultz, Odirilwe Selomane & Marja Spierenburg (2022) The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus, Ecosystems and People, 18:1, 598-608, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

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

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

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

Published online: 30 Oct 2022.

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

Submit your article to this journal

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

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

Article views: 1221

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

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

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

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

# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert V. Norström a, b, Bina Agarwal c, Patricia Balvanera d, Brigitte Baptiste e, Elena M. Bennett f, Eduardo Brondízio g, Reinette Biggs h, i, Bruce Campbell j, Stephen R. Carpenter j, Juan Carlos Castilla k, Antonio J. Castro l, Wolfgang Cramer m, Graeme S. Cumming n, o, María Felipe-Lucia p, q, Joern Fischer r, Carl Folke b, s, t, Ruth DeFries u, Stefan Gelcich v, Juliane Groth w, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza x, Sander Jacobs y, z, Johanna Hofmann r, Terry P. Hughes n, David P.M. Lam r, aa, Jacqueline Loos r, bb, Amanda Manyani h, Berta Martín-López r, Megan Meacham b, Hannah Moersberger p, q, Harini Nagendra cc, Laura Pereira b, dd, Stephen Polasky ee, Michael Schoon ff, Lisen Schultz b, Odirilwe Selomane h and Marja Spierenburg gg

aGlobal Resilience Partnership, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; bStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; cGlobal Development Institute, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; dInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico; eUniversidad EAN, Bogotá, DC, Colombia; fDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences and Bieler School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; gDepartment of Anthropology, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA; hCentre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa; iCGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security c/o University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; jCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA; kDepartamento de Ecología and Estación Costera de Investigaciones Marinas, Las Cruces, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; lAndalusian Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of Global Change (CAESCG), Department of Biology and Geology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain; mInstitut Mediterranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie marine et continentale (IMBE), Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, Technopole Arbois-Mediterranée, Aix-en-Provence, France; nARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; oFitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; pDepartment of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany; qDepartment of Ecosystem Services, German Center for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Leipzig, Germany; rSocial-Ecological Systems Institute, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; sDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; tInstituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS) & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; uDepartment of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany; vInstitute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; wCentre for Climate Change and Sustainability, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India; xDepartment of Applied Economics, Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minneapolis, MN USA; ySchool of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA; zInstitute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands; aaGlobal Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere Program, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; bbBeijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden; ccResearch Institute for Nature and Forest, Brussels, Belgium; ddBelgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, Belgium; eeInstitute for Sustainable Development and Learning, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; ffInstitute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; ggGlobal Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

## ABSTRACT

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 6 December 2021
Accepted 30 September 2022

## EDITED BY

Christian Albert

## KEYWORDS

Ecosystem social-ecological systems; sustainability science; transformations; valuation; co-production; reflexive

## Introduction

In a time of fast-moving social and ecological change, humanity's ability to create a better future depends

on understanding the local, regional and global interactions of humans and nature (Nunn et al. 2014; Epstein et al. 2015; Folke et al. 2021). Research on social-ecological systems (SES) has helped to foster

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

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

# The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

Albert V. Norström a, b, Bina Agarwal c, Patricia Balvanera d, Brigitte Baptiste e, Elena M. Bennett f, Eduardo Brondízio g, Reinette Biggs h, i, Bruce Campbell j, Stephen R. Carpenter j, Juan Carlos Castilla k, Antonio J. Castro l, Wolfgang Cramer m, Graeme S. Cumming n, o, María Felipe-Lucia p, q, Joern Fischer r, Carl Folke b, s, t, Ruth DeFries u, Stefan Gelcich v, Juliane Groth w, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza x, Sander Jacobs y, z, Johanna Hofmann r, Terry P. Hughes n, David P.M. Lam r, aa, Jacqueline Loos r, bb, Amanda Manyani h, Berta Martín-López r, Megan Meacham b, Hannah Moersberger p, q, Harini Nagendra cc, Laura Pereira b, dd, Stephen Polasky ee, Michael Schoon ff, Lisen Schultz b, Odirilwe Selomane h and Marja Spierenburg gg

aGlobal Resilience Partnership, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; bStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; cGlobal Development Institute, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; dInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico; eUniversidad EAN, Bogotá, DC, Colombia; fDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences and Bieler School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; gDepartment of Anthropology, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA; hCentre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa; iCGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security c/o University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; jCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA; kDepartamento de Ecología and Estación Costera de Investigaciones Marinas, Las Cruces, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; lAndalusian Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of Global Change (CAESCG), Department of Biology and Geology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain; mInstitut Mediterranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie marine et continentale (IMBE), Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, Technopole Arbois-Mediterranée, Aix-en-Provence, France; nARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; oFitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; pDepartment of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany; qDepartment of Ecosystem Services, German Center for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Leipzig, Germany; rSocial-Ecological Systems Institute, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; sDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; tInstituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS) & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; uDepartment of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany; vInstitute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; wCentre for Climate Change and Sustainability, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India; xDepartment of Applied Economics, Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minneapolis, MN USA; ySchool of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA; zInstitute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands; aaGlobal Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere Program, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; bbBeijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden; ccResearch Institute for Nature and Forest, Brussels, Belgium; ddBelgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, Belgium; eeInstitute for Sustainable Development and Learning, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; ffInstitute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; ggGlobal Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

## ABSTRACT

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 6 December 2021
Accepted 30 September 2022

## EDITED BY

Christian Albert

## KEYWORDS

Ecosystem social-ecological systems; sustainability science; transformations; valuation; co-production; reflexive

## Introduction

In a time of fast-moving social and ecological change, humanity's ability to create a better future depends

on understanding the local, regional and global interactions of humans and nature (Nunn et al. 2014; Epstein et al. 2015; Folke et al. 2021). Research on social-ecological systems (SES) has helped to foster

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

this understanding, and to guide scale-appropriate action (Ostrom 2009; Reyers et al. 2018). SES research is a branch of sustainability science that focuses on integrated systems of humans and nature. While SES research perspectives are of relevance at multiple scales, the roots of diversity, innovation, and the details of solutions, are typically local and place-based. Place-based SES research that addresses the unique social-ecological dynamics of specific cities, landscapes, seascapes or coastal regions, has helped to develop new knowledge and approaches.

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, as a 10-year initiative within the International Council for Science, and transitioned to the global Future Earth network¹ in 2014 (Carpenter et al. 2012; Norström et al. 2017). PECS is a network of place-based, social-ecological research from around the world, that has brought together academics (from different disciplines) and people from various sectors (e.g. from government, business, civil society, local and Indigenous communities) to generate knowledge and catalyze change. Two international conferences in South Africa (2015) and Mexico (2017), five academic special issues (Norström et al. 2017; Seppelt et al. 2018; Martín-López et al. 2020), a series of international workshops, and a rapidly growing number of research projects, working groups, and regional nodes have positioned PECS as one of the major international SES networks of the past decade. Close connections to the growing number of other initiatives that are fostering and coordinating solution-oriented and place-based SES research have been actively nurtured (Balvanera et al. 2017a). A feature of PECS has been its comparative approach, which has magnified insights from many place-based SES research projects to inform and inspire global sustainability research and practice (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015; Fischer et al. 2015; Balvanera et al. 2017c; Castro et al. 2018; Norström et al. 2020).

While PECS has continued to grow, the world has been undergoing rapid change. Sustainability challenges have intensified, including continuing biodiversity loss, climate change, and social inequality (Hamann et al. 2018; Díaz et al. 2019; Brondizio et al. 2019; Lenton et al. 2019). At the same time, however, glimpses of a more sustainable future are also becoming more visible. For example, the Seeds of a Good Anthropocene project is collecting, curating and analyzing a growing database of local sustainability initiatives that have the potential to inspire broader change (Bennett et al. 2016). We are seeing some evidence that people's values are changing to favor environmental transformation. For example, in the western United States attitudes towards wildlife have changed in ways that may signal positive news for sustainability more broadly (Manfredo et al.

2021). Indeed, around the world, societies are exploring different types of social innovations in search of a better future, and solutions from the global south are particularly inspiring (Nagendra 2018; Carpenter et al. 2019).

Despite these bright spots of optimism, the turbulence and urgency of the current situation remains apparent. Calls for transformations that can shift human development onto more sustainable pathways, are no longer at the margins of science, policy and practice (Leach et al. 2018; Köhler et al. 2019; Dasgupta 2021). It is telling that the second decade of PECS will coincide with the UN Decade of Action, an ambitious global effort that aims to deliver strong and transformative progress across all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The SDGs were developed to be ‘integrated and indivisible’, in order to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. SES research highlights that human economies and societies are embedded parts of the Biosphere. A resilient Biosphere provides the life support systems upon which prosperity, human wellbeing and sustainable development ultimately rest. Transformations towards biosphere-based sustainability cannot be achieved by incremental change alone (Reyers et al. 2018).

In this Perspective, we reflect that SES research has deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that may be overlooked in global assessments, and that can lead to tangible action for solving the major (global) sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest that the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks and initiatives such as PECS, has contributed to these developments. This is not an exhaustive review and systematic survey of the entire SES research field. While we tap into insights from the broader place-based SES literature from the past decade, our focus is on research affiliated to PECS (i.e. stemming from past and/or ongoing PECS working groups, projects and regional networks), and our own experiences as researchers embedded in the field.

## Deepening of SES research through place-based research

The past decade has seen a phase of rapid growth of SES research, and an increased pluralism and diversity in the types of issues being addressed (Colding and Barthel 2019; de Vos et al. 2019). At the same time, SES research has had an enhanced influence on broader sustainability science, practice and policy (Fischer et al. 2015). Importantly, in addition to these advances, SES research has also deepened over
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

this understanding, and to guide scale-appropriate action (Ostrom 2009; Reyers et al. 2018). SES research is a branch of sustainability science that focuses on integrated systems of humans and nature. While SES research perspectives are of relevance at multiple scales, the roots of diversity, innovation, and the details of solutions, are typically local and place-based. Place-based SES research that addresses the unique social-ecological dynamics of specific cities, landscapes, seascapes or coastal regions, has helped to develop new knowledge and approaches.

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, as a 10-year initiative within the International Council for Science, and transitioned to the global Future Earth network¹ in 2014 (Carpenter et al. 2012; Norström et al. 2017). PECS is a network of place-based, social-ecological research from around the world, that has brought together academics (from different disciplines) and people from various sectors (e.g. from government, business, civil society, local and Indigenous communities) to generate knowledge and catalyze change. Two international conferences in South Africa (2015) and Mexico (2017), five academic special issues (Norström et al. 2017; Seppelt et al. 2018; Martín-López et al. 2020), a series of international workshops, and a rapidly growing number of research projects, working groups, and regional nodes have positioned PECS as one of the major international SES networks of the past decade. Close connections to the growing number of other initiatives that are fostering and coordinating solution-oriented and place-based SES research have been actively nurtured (Balvanera et al. 2017a). A feature of PECS has been its comparative approach, which has magnified insights from many place-based SES research projects to inform and inspire global sustainability research and practice (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015; Fischer et al. 2015; Balvanera et al. 2017c; Castro et al. 2018; Norström et al. 2020).

While PECS has continued to grow, the world has been undergoing rapid change. Sustainability challenges have intensified, including continuing biodiversity loss, climate change, and social inequality (Hamann et al. 2018; Díaz et al. 2019; Brondizio et al. 2019; Lenton et al. 2019). At the same time, however, glimpses of a more sustainable future are also becoming more visible. For example, the Seeds of a Good Anthropocene project is collecting, curating and analyzing a growing database of local sustainability initiatives that have the potential to inspire broader change (Bennett et al. 2016). We are seeing some evidence that people's values are changing to favor environmental transformation. For example, in the western United States attitudes towards wildlife have changed in ways that may signal positive news for sustainability more broadly (Manfredo et al.

2021). Indeed, around the world, societies are exploring different types of social innovations in search of a better future, and solutions from the global south are particularly inspiring (Nagendra 2018; Carpenter et al. 2019).

Despite these bright spots of optimism, the turbulence and urgency of the current situation remains apparent. Calls for transformations that can shift human development onto more sustainable pathways, are no longer at the margins of science, policy and practice (Leach et al. 2018; Köhler et al. 2019; Dasgupta 2021). It is telling that the second decade of PECS will coincide with the UN Decade of Action, an ambitious global effort that aims to deliver strong and transformative progress across all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The SDGs were developed to be ‘integrated and indivisible’, in order to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. SES research highlights that human economies and societies are embedded parts of the Biosphere. A resilient Biosphere provides the life support systems upon which prosperity, human wellbeing and sustainable development ultimately rest. Transformations towards biosphere-based sustainability cannot be achieved by incremental change alone (Reyers et al. 2018).

In this Perspective, we reflect that SES research has deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that may be overlooked in global assessments, and that can lead to tangible action for solving the major (global) sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest that the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks and initiatives such as PECS, has contributed to these developments. This is not an exhaustive review and systematic survey of the entire SES research field. While we tap into insights from the broader place-based SES literature from the past decade, our focus is on research affiliated to PECS (i.e. stemming from past and/or ongoing PECS working groups, projects and regional networks), and our own experiences as researchers embedded in the field.

## Deepening of SES research through place-based research

The past decade has seen a phase of rapid growth of SES research, and an increased pluralism and diversity in the types of issues being addressed (Colding and Barthel 2019; de Vos et al. 2019). At the same time, SES research has had an enhanced influence on broader sustainability science, practice and policy (Fischer et al. 2015). Importantly, in addition to these advances, SES research has also deepened over
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

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

**Figure 1.** Panel a shows a traditional social – ecological systems (SES) framework that highlights how SES are interdependent and linked systems of people and nature, which are nested across scales and play out against a backdrop of global change and other temporal dynamics (adapted from Fischer et al. 2015). Panel b conceptualises an SES as an iceberg. If viewed from above, only the tip of the iceberg is visible, and this represents key parameters, variables and feedbacks of an SES. However, if viewed from the side, the full extent of the SES iceberg stretches far below the surface. The subsurface dimensions of SES dynamics include hidden system feedbacks, aspects of system design, and the goals and paradigms that underpin the underlying intents that shape SES dynamics.

the past decade. To understand what is meant by this, it is useful to conceptualize SES through the metaphor of an iceberg (Figure 1). If viewed from above, only the tip of the iceberg is visible, and this represents key parameters, variables and feedbacks of an SES. However, if viewed from the side, the full extent of the SES iceberg stretches far below the surface. The subsurface dimensions of SES dynamics include hidden system feedbacks, aspects of system design, and the goals and paradigms that underpin the underlying intents that shape SES dynamics.

The iceberg metaphor has strong parallels with the leverage points framework, (Meadows 1999). This framework presents a hierarchy of leverage points (or interventions) in complex systems, that range from those that are shallow (easy to carry out, but limited in their potential to bring about transformative change) to those that are deep (difficult to carry out, but have great potential to bring about transformative change). Recently, the original Meadows framework was revisited, and the leverage points were reconceptualized into four ‘realms of leverage’ (Abson et al. 2017). These realms are (from shallow to deep) focus on: parameters (mechanistic characteristics typically targeted by policymakers, such as the number of hectares of forest preserved), feedbacks (interactions between elements of a system that drive internal dynamics, such as interactions between people and the natural landscape), design (social structure and institutions that manage feedbacks and parameters), and intent (values and worldviews of actors in the system). For example, SES research in

Southern Transylvania, Romania has provided insights on how local actors leverage change to foster sustainability, through different relations and networks across these four realms (Lam et al. 2021). At the global-level, the leverage points framework was recently used in the IPBES Global Assessment report, which applied a social – ecological systems lens to identify eight leverage points (priority points for intervention) and five levers of change (strategic actions and priority interventions), which appear to be key to societal transformation (Brondizio et al. 2019; Chan et al. 2020).

Although SES research has a long tradition in at least considering the design and intent of a system (Folke 2006), the focus on deeper realms of leverage has recently moved from the margins to the center of SES research. In the following sections we highlight some of the ways by which the growth of place-based SES research over the past decade, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments.

**Contribution 1: place-based SES research sheds light on transformational change**

Transformational change implies a fundamental shift of a SES from one regime and its associated development pathways to another (Westley et al. 2011). This includes alterations in the way that authority and resources are structured and flow through systems; the norms, values, and beliefs that underpin those structures and processes; the functions and dynamics
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

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

**Figure 1.** Panel a shows a traditional social – ecological systems (SES) framework that highlights how SES are interdependent and linked systems of people and nature, which are nested across scales and play out against a backdrop of global change and other temporal dynamics (adapted from Fischer et al. 2015). Panel b conceptualises an SES as an iceberg. If viewed from above, only the tip of the iceberg is visible, and this represents key parameters, variables and feedbacks of an SES. However, if viewed from the side, the full extent of the SES iceberg stretches far below the surface. The subsurface dimensions of SES dynamics include hidden system feedbacks, aspects of system design, and the goals and paradigms that underpin the underlying intents that shape SES dynamics.

the past decade. To understand what is meant by this, it is useful to conceptualize SES through the metaphor of an iceberg (Figure 1). If viewed from above, only the tip of the iceberg is visible, and this represents key parameters, variables and feedbacks of an SES. However, if viewed from the side, the full extent of the SES iceberg stretches far below the surface. The subsurface dimensions of SES dynamics include hidden system feedbacks, aspects of system design, and the goals and paradigms that underpin the underlying intents that shape SES dynamics.

The iceberg metaphor has strong parallels with the leverage points framework, (Meadows 1999). This framework presents a hierarchy of leverage points (or interventions) in complex systems, that range from those that are shallow (easy to carry out, but limited in their potential to bring about transformative change) to those that are deep (difficult to carry out, but have great potential to bring about transformative change). Recently, the original Meadows framework was revisited, and the leverage points were reconceptualized into four ‘realms of leverage’ (Abson et al. 2017). These realms are (from shallow to deep) focus on: parameters (mechanistic characteristics typically targeted by policymakers, such as the number of hectares of forest preserved), feedbacks (interactions between elements of a system that drive internal dynamics, such as interactions between people and the natural landscape), design (social structure and institutions that manage feedbacks and parameters), and intent (values and worldviews of actors in the system). For example, SES research in

Southern Transylvania, Romania has provided insights on how local actors leverage change to foster sustainability, through different relations and networks across these four realms (Lam et al. 2021). At the global-level, the leverage points framework was recently used in the IPBES Global Assessment report, which applied a social – ecological systems lens to identify eight leverage points (priority points for intervention) and five levers of change (strategic actions and priority interventions), which appear to be key to societal transformation (Brondizio et al. 2019; Chan et al. 2020).

Although SES research has a long tradition in at least considering the design and intent of a system (Folke 2006), the focus on deeper realms of leverage has recently moved from the margins to the center of SES research. In the following sections we highlight some of the ways by which the growth of place-based SES research over the past decade, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments.

**Contribution 1: place-based SES research sheds light on transformational change**

Transformational change implies a fundamental shift of a SES from one regime and its associated development pathways to another (Westley et al. 2011). This includes alterations in the way that authority and resources are structured and flow through systems; the norms, values, and beliefs that underpin those structures and processes; the functions and dynamics
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

of ecosystems; and the ways that all of these are connected to one another across multiple scales (Moore et al. 2014). Sustainability transformations can therefore be conceptualized as shifts from regimes associated with unsustainable pathways of development to alternative regimes in which development pathways are sustainable (Clark and Harley 2020). Place-based SES research has been instrumental in highlighting the linkages between sustainability transformations and deeper realms of leverage. For example, research from New Zealand showed how sustainability transformations were triggered by a strong sense of place (deep attachment and commitment to a place or region) among residents, and were driven by local communities rather than imposed by an external authority (Chapin et al. 2012). Recent work in Papua New Guinea provides compelling evidence that the underlying structure of social networks can influence transformative actions in response to climate change. Social networks determine who accesses information, resources, and support. People influence each other through social networks, and plan for uncertainties and change through their social relationships. In Papua New Guinea, households that were socially connected to other households who were taking transformative action (e.g. switching livelihoods), were more likely to do the same (Barnes et al. 2020).

Achieving transformations to sustainability also requires identifying and addressing barriers to change, such as inequality, power asymmetries, or environmental degradation (Moore et al. 2014; Leach et al. 2018). Place-based SES research has helped to shed light on how barriers for sustainability transformations are linked to deeper leverage realms. For example, recent research exploring the narratives of stakeholders associated with the wetland of Xochimilco in Mexico City, shows that barriers to sustainability transformations can be the cognitive or emotional capacities of residents to accommodate landscape change while still enabling the values they have come to associate with the landscape (Eakin et al. 2019). Scenario planning with communities in a traditional cultural landscape in Transylvania, Central Romania, uncovered the hidden interactions between external barriers (e.g. lack of government support) and internal barriers (e.g. stakeholder worldviews, lack of community cohesion) to taking transformative action towards sustainability (Nieto-Romero et al. 2016).

Studies of how transformational change occurs in SES have shown that local processes and initiatives can shape regional and global dynamics, through different processes such as aggregation, contagion, and social learning (Carpenter et al. 2006; Grin et al. 2010; Bennett et al. 2021). Growing evidence from place-based research suggests that large (macro-

scale) changes emerge from substantial periods of experimentation at the micro-level that lead to the formation of initiatives, experiments and innovations with transformative potential (Bennett et al. 2016). These transformative entities represent a diversity of worldviews and values, which are currently not dominant or prominent at the global scale. An emerging opportunity context (such as a crisis, or an anticipated crisis) can destabilize the existing regime and allow these initiatives, experiments and innovations to amplify their impact and to start becoming institutionalized at higher levels (Folke et al. 2005; Pereira et al. 2017a; Herrfahrdt-Pähle et al. 2020; Lam et al. 2020b). Place-based SES research can engage with such local ‘seeds’ to create transformative spaces that inspire and empower people to act toward positive sustainability pathways (Pereira et al. 2017b; Sellberg et al. 2020).

## Contribution 2: place-based SES research reveals the social dynamics shaping SES

Place-based research on social-ecological systems reveals the extent to which local human-nature interactions are often determined by social dynamics, such as norms, values technology, and social practices (Stone-Jovicich et al. 2018). Revealing the social dynamics (which connect to deeper realms of leverage) is especially evident in place-based SES research focusing on ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people (Pascual et al. 2014; Díaz et al. 2018). Approaches such as the concept of 'ecosystem service elasticity' are providing analytical and operational tools to unearth how different people access ecosystem services, and how this access is determined by dimensions of justice and power relations (Felipe-Lucia et al. 2015; Daw et al. 2016). For example, SES research conducted in southeastern Oklahoma revealed how regional conflict over access to water resources by Native American Indians (i.e. Choctaw Nation) was caused by unequal historical power relationships (Castro et al. 2016; Burch et al. 2020). In an analysis of ten SES case studies from the Global South, Zafra-Calvo et al. (2020) found that power asymmetries can severely hinder equitable and sustainable outcomes. This negative effect of power asymmetries and inequities can be lessened by considering five points which are key to much of SES research: eliciting participatory values, following a clear action-oriented purpose, providing space for marginalized actors, reconciling different cognitive models of human-nature relations, and fostering open communication and collaboration among actors. Studies from southern Africa highlight the legacies of unjust and racially discriminatory land ownership and governance systems as well as the role of factors such as property rights, skills, and
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

of ecosystems; and the ways that all of these are connected to one another across multiple scales (Moore et al. 2014). Sustainability transformations can therefore be conceptualized as shifts from regimes associated with unsustainable pathways of development to alternative regimes in which development pathways are sustainable (Clark and Harley 2020). Place-based SES research has been instrumental in highlighting the linkages between sustainability transformations and deeper realms of leverage. For example, research from New Zealand showed how sustainability transformations were triggered by a strong sense of place (deep attachment and commitment to a place or region) among residents, and were driven by local communities rather than imposed by an external authority (Chapin et al. 2012). Recent work in Papua New Guinea provides compelling evidence that the underlying structure of social networks can influence transformative actions in response to climate change. Social networks determine who accesses information, resources, and support. People influence each other through social networks, and plan for uncertainties and change through their social relationships. In Papua New Guinea, households that were socially connected to other households who were taking transformative action (e.g. switching livelihoods), were more likely to do the same (Barnes et al. 2020).

Achieving transformations to sustainability also requires identifying and addressing barriers to change, such as inequality, power asymmetries, or environmental degradation (Moore et al. 2014; Leach et al. 2018). Place-based SES research has helped to shed light on how barriers for sustainability transformations are linked to deeper leverage realms. For example, recent research exploring the narratives of stakeholders associated with the wetland of Xochimilco in Mexico City, shows that barriers to sustainability transformations can be the cognitive or emotional capacities of residents to accommodate landscape change while still enabling the values they have come to associate with the landscape (Eakin et al. 2019). Scenario planning with communities in a traditional cultural landscape in Transylvania, Central Romania, uncovered the hidden interactions between external barriers (e.g. lack of government support) and internal barriers (e.g. stakeholder worldviews, lack of community cohesion) to taking transformative action towards sustainability (Nieto-Romero et al. 2016).

Studies of how transformational change occurs in SES have shown that local processes and initiatives can shape regional and global dynamics, through different processes such as aggregation, contagion, and social learning (Carpenter et al. 2006; Grin et al. 2010; Bennett et al. 2021). Growing evidence from place-based research suggests that large (macro-

scale) changes emerge from substantial periods of experimentation at the micro-level that lead to the formation of initiatives, experiments and innovations with transformative potential (Bennett et al. 2016). These transformative entities represent a diversity of worldviews and values, which are currently not dominant or prominent at the global scale. An emerging opportunity context (such as a crisis, or an anticipated crisis) can destabilize the existing regime and allow these initiatives, experiments and innovations to amplify their impact and to start becoming institutionalized at higher levels (Folke et al. 2005; Pereira et al. 2017a; Herrfahrdt-Pähle et al. 2020; Lam et al. 2020b). Place-based SES research can engage with such local ‘seeds’ to create transformative spaces that inspire and empower people to act toward positive sustainability pathways (Pereira et al. 2017b; Sellberg et al. 2020).

## Contribution 2: place-based SES research reveals the social dynamics shaping SES

Place-based research on social-ecological systems reveals the extent to which local human-nature interactions are often determined by social dynamics, such as norms, values technology, and social practices (Stone-Jovicich et al. 2018). Revealing the social dynamics (which connect to deeper realms of leverage) is especially evident in place-based SES research focusing on ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people (Pascual et al. 2014; Díaz et al. 2018). Approaches such as the concept of 'ecosystem service elasticity' are providing analytical and operational tools to unearth how different people access ecosystem services, and how this access is determined by dimensions of justice and power relations (Felipe-Lucia et al. 2015; Daw et al. 2016). For example, SES research conducted in southeastern Oklahoma revealed how regional conflict over access to water resources by Native American Indians (i.e. Choctaw Nation) was caused by unequal historical power relationships (Castro et al. 2016; Burch et al. 2020). In an analysis of ten SES case studies from the Global South, Zafra-Calvo et al. (2020) found that power asymmetries can severely hinder equitable and sustainable outcomes. This negative effect of power asymmetries and inequities can be lessened by considering five points which are key to much of SES research: eliciting participatory values, following a clear action-oriented purpose, providing space for marginalized actors, reconciling different cognitive models of human-nature relations, and fostering open communication and collaboration among actors. Studies from southern Africa highlight the legacies of unjust and racially discriminatory land ownership and governance systems as well as the role of factors such as property rights, skills, and
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

access to financial and technical resources in deter-
mining access to ecosystem services (Biggs et al *in press*). Understanding how different actors exercise power through their discourses is one of the critical ways how place-based research has explored enabling-conditions for sustainability transitions that are linked to local realities (Gelcich et al. 2005; Martinez-Harms et al. 2018).

Power relationships at local scales are also dictated
by global dynamics (Downing et al. 2021). For exam-
ple, in the Nacimiento watershed in southern Spain,
the ‘cross-scale influence-dependence framework’
developed by Martín-López et al. (2019) revealed
how the power exerted through legislation by govern-
ment policy-makers at the regional and European
levels has led to the technological upgrading of
ancient irrigation channels. This, in turn, had
a negative impact on the supply of essential ecosys-
tem services for local farmers, such as water regula-
tion and erosion control. Inequities and power
asymmetries also influence how different individuals
and groups value nature. For example, some social
actors get more power in the decision-making
because their interests are represented by the valua-
tion output, while others remain unheard. Striking
examples of this are fracking megaprojects, where the
destructive pursuit of short-term economic profit for
the few, comes at the cost of the local economy,
quality of life and the diversity of values of nature
for the many. The decision power of affected local
communities is extremely low, resulting in protest,
conflict and despair (Phelan and Jacobs 2016).

**Contribution 3: place-based SES research**
**brings together diverse types of knowledge**

Place-based SES research typically brings together diverse types of knowledge to address real, practical issues around sustainability, through knowledge co-production. Knowledge co-production is an iterative and collaborative process involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future (Norström et al. 2020). Importantly, these processes engage with deeper realms of leverage and can be agents of sustainability transformations (Moser 2016; Turnhout et al. 2020). Successful knowledge co-production is context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented and iterative (Norström et al. 2020). Place-based SES research and its application is highly aligned with these principles, and therefore well-positioned to produce high-quality knowledge co-production (Balvanera et al. 2017c). For example, place-based SES research addresses the unique features of specific landscapes, seascapes or transitional zones (Balvanera et al. 2017b), with a strong focus on the socio-economic, political, and

biophysical elements that distinguish a place from
other areas. It is typically adapted to the local context,
which also means that the needs, interests and beliefs
of different social groups who are affected by a given
challenge are taken into account. However, the
understanding of processes, mechanisms, levers and
barriers affecting place-based initiatives in one con-
text generates knowledge applicable to other cases.
Place-based SES research often involves long-term
and frequent engagements with relevant actors
(Balvanera et al. 2017c). This facilitates the develop-
ment of trustful relationships among actors, and the
engagement of a plurality of perspectives, knowledge,
and expertise. Increasingly, this also includes consid-
eration of indigenous and local knowledge (Tengö
et al. 2017; Lam et al. 2020a; Hill et al. 2020).

Place-based SES research has also increased
awareness of the importance of bringing together
different knowledge systems. For example, citizen
science has proliferated in the last decade, becoming
an important research tool in place-based SES
research, and a critical form of public engagement
that can connect people more closely with a place,
and encourage people to participate more fully in
being stewards of those places (Crain et al. 2014;
Loos et al. 2015; Toomey et al. 2020). Similarly,
a growing body of literature is highlighting the uti-
lity of traditional and local experiential knowledge
in documenting species abundance and trends
(Beaudreau and Levin 2014; Sáenz-Arroyo and
Revollo-Fernández 2016; Lee et al. 2019). Recent
work on Canada's northern coastal SES synthesized
multiple types of knowledge sources (zooarchaeolo-
gical, historical, traditional, and western science) to
document changes in relative abundance of key spe-
cies from the Holocene to present. This generated
more accurate historical density estimates than those
derived from western science alone (Lee et al. 2019).
Another strand of research is focusing on unearth-
ing the negative consequences of applying narrow
approaches to valuing nature when trying to foster
sustainability and justice (Jacobs et al. 2016, 2018;
Zafra-Calvo et al. 2020; Martín-López 2021). The
choice of narrow valuation approaches has led to
the exclusion of certain social actors, and their
needs, interests, preferences and worldviews in rela-
tion to nature (Martín-López 2021). The need for
plural valuation has not only gained traction in the
scientific literature, but also within science-policy
platforms. For example, the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed a broad
plural valuation framework, which aims at bridging
worldviews and values held by diverse societal
actors, from financial enterprises to indigenous and
local communities (Pascual et al. 2017; Tengö et al.
2017; Díaz et al. 2018).
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

access to financial and technical resources in deter-
mining access to ecosystem services (Biggs et al *in press*). Understanding how different actors exercise
power through their discourses is one of the critical
ways how place-based research has explored
enabling-conditions for sustainability transitions
that are linked to local realities (Gelcich et al. 2005;
Martinez-Harms et al. 2018).

Power relationships at local scales are also dictated
by global dynamics (Downing et al. 2021). For exam-
ple, in the Nacimiento watershed in southern Spain,
the ‘cross-scale influence-dependence framework’
developed by Martín-López et al. (2019) revealed
how the power exerted through legislation by govern-
ment policy-makers at the regional and European
levels has led to the technological upgrading of
ancient irrigation channels. This, in turn, had
a negative impact on the supply of essential ecosys-
tem services for local farmers, such as water regula-
tion and erosion control. Inequities and power
asymmetries also influence how different individuals
and groups value nature. For example, some social
actors get more power in the decision-making
because their interests are represented by the valua-
tion output, while others remain unheard. Striking
examples of this are fracking megaprojects, where the
destructive pursuit of short-term economic profit for
the few, comes at the cost of the local economy,
quality of life and the diversity of values of nature
for the many. The decision power of affected local
communities is extremely low, resulting in protest,
conflict and despair (Phelan and Jacobs 2016).

Contribution 3: place-based SES research
brings together diverse types of knowledge

Place-based SES research typically brings together diverse types of knowledge to address real, practical issues around sustainability, through knowledge co-production. Knowledge co-production is an iterative and collaborative process involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future (Norström et al. 2020). Importantly, these processes engage with deeper realms of leverage and can be agents of sustainability transformations (Moser 2016; Turnhout et al. 2020). Successful knowledge co-production is context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented and iterative (Norström et al. 2020). Place-based SES research and its application is highly aligned with these principles, and therefore well-positioned to produce high-quality knowledge co-production (Balvanera et al. 2017c). For example, place-based SES research addresses the unique features of specific landscapes, seascapes or transitional zones (Balvanera et al. 2017b), with a strong focus on the socio-economic, political, and

biophysical elements that distinguish a place from
other areas. It is typically adapted to the local context,
which also means that the needs, interests and beliefs
of different social groups who are affected by a given
challenge are taken into account. However, the
understanding of processes, mechanisms, levers and
barriers affecting place-based initiatives in one con-
text generates knowledge applicable to other cases.
Place-based SES research often involves long-term
and frequent engagements with relevant actors
(Balvanera et al. 2017c). This facilitates the develop-
ment of trustful relationships among actors, and the
engagement of a plurality of perspectives, knowledge,
and expertise. Increasingly, this also includes consid-
eration of indigenous and local knowledge (Tengö
et al. 2017; Lam et al. 2020a; Hill et al. 2020).

Place-based SES research has also increased
awareness of the importance of bringing together
different knowledge systems. For example, citizen
science has proliferated in the last decade, becoming
an important research tool in place-based SES
research, and a critical form of public engagement
that can connect people more closely with a place,
and encourage people to participate more fully in
being stewards of those places (Crain et al. 2014;
Loos et al. 2015; Toomey et al. 2020). Similarly,
a growing body of literature is highlighting the uti-
lity of traditional and local experiential knowledge
in documenting species abundance and trends
(Beaudreau and Levin 2014; Sáenz-Arroyo and
Revollo-Fernández 2016; Lee et al. 2019). Recent
work on Canada's northern coastal SES synthesized
multiple types of knowledge sources (zooarchaeolo-
gical, historical, traditional, and western science) to
document changes in relative abundance of key spe-
cies from the Holocene to present. This generated
more accurate historical density estimates than those
derived from western science alone (Lee et al. 2019).
Another strand of research is focusing on unearth-
ing the negative consequences of applying narrow
approaches to valuing nature when trying to foster
sustainability and justice (Jacobs et al. 2016, 2018;
Zafra-Calvo et al. 2020; Martín-López 2021). The
choice of narrow valuation approaches has led to
the exclusion of certain social actors, and their
needs, interests, preferences and worldviews in rela-
tion to nature (Martín-López 2021). The need for
plural valuation has not only gained traction in the
scientific literature, but also within science-policy
platforms. For example, the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed a broad
plural valuation framework, which aims at bridging
worldviews and values held by diverse societal
actors, from financial enterprises to indigenous and
local communities (Pascual et al. 2017; Tengö et al.
2017; Díaz et al. 2018).
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Place-based SES research also draws on a diversity of methodologies from many different disciplines. A recent systematic review identified 311 methods grouped into 27 categories of methods that are commonly used in place-based SES research (de Vos et al. 2019). Many of the most common methods (such as interviews, futures analysis, participatory data collection, livelihood and vulnerability analysis) facilitate a focus on deeper SES dynamics. For example, analysis of futures (e.g. participatory and normative scenarios) is a powerful and rapidly evolving set of tools that allow to explore, identify and analyze alternative futures, for reaching societal and political sustainability goals (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015; Kanter et al. 2016; Merrie et al. 2018). This family of methods can help to unearth innovations and visions for the future, providing the basis for creating momentum, involving self-organization around new ideas, the creation and mobilization of networks of support, and experimentation in protected niches. In a similar vein, participatory research approaches foster learning among participants and can underpin processes of individual or collective behavioral change (Kansanga et al. 2021; Below et al. 2021). Recent years have also seen the emergence of new, integrative modeling approaches and analytic frameworks that are agnostic to disciplinary boundaries, that focus on uncovering SES design and intent (Martín-López et al. 2019; Thiault et al. 2020). These developments have fostered a new generation of sustainability researchers who are comfortable in using multiple conceptual frames and methodological approaches to solve real-world problems, open to accepting new approaches, and epistemologically agile in adopting multiple methods in their own work (Biggs et al. 2021).

**Contribution 4: place-based SES research encourages reflexive researchers**

Place-based SES research is often long-term, involving a deep engagement with specific places and their associated epistemologies (Robinson et al. 2016). Consequently, the researchers involved allocate a substantial time to iterative cycles of learning and reflection across all stages of the research process (Cockburn 2018; Sellberg 2018; Lam 2021). This mode of SES research has been likened to a ‘reflexive research journey’ and involves reflecting on the underlying assumptions and values of the actors involved (including the researchers themselves), and identifying positions of power and sources of inclusivity and justice. The integration of divergent disciplines, perspectives and knowledge systems can be intimidating and even lead to confrontation (Ives et al. 2020). Practicing place-based research fosters the ability to remain humble, open-minded, open to learning, open to new ways of doing

things and open to collaborations that include new types of disciplinary as well as non-academic knowledge. One example of how to adopt such new, deeply reflexive approaches has been proposed by a team of scientists in the context of transgressive, decolonial and post-normal research: they use seven Tarot ‘characters’ to challenge dominant forms of knowledge production and to enhance collective and personal reflexivity (Temper et al. 2019). Emerging novel questions and perspectives force researchers to revisit what type of science to do and how (Sellberg et al. 2021). A broad range of skills are developed (or honed) in this context, such as facilitation, conflict resolution and a focus on self-awareness and self-care. Ultimately this results in deeper, reflexive scientists.

This reflexive process often leads to the development of ameliorative strategies to sustainability challenges that go beyond shallow leverage points (i.e. small tweaks to existing institutions) (Fischer et al. 2012; Mukhovi et al. 2020). Clearly, a place-based SES research process is also a process of change, with researchers moving from curiosity-driven system observers to increasingly engaged – though of course still curious – scientists and participants. Sometimes, researchers even become agents of change (e.g. transformative space-makers), actively engaged in not only understanding systems, but also in facilitating action for change (Marshall et al. 2018; Pereira et al. 2019). Scientists can reflect on their power, to apply it consciously and in a transparent, and rethink the traditional posture of ‘the scientist’ in face of the current biodiversity crisis (Jacobs et al. 2020). A number of approaches, such as decision trees, are emerging to help scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce (Crouzat et al. 2018). Furthermore, by co-designing and co-producing research with non-academic actors, researchers can make SES research legitimate, credible and relevant (Cash et al. 2003; Chambers et al. 2021). This could contribute to countering the current trend of science being increasingly misunderstood, mistrusted, and even feared in political and popular discourse. It does, however, require careful reflection on the – sometimes highly divergent – interests of and power relations among the various non-academic actors involved (Brandt et al. 2018).

Innovative art-based methodological tools have been recently used in place-based SES research to encourage reflexivity in scientists as well as non-academic actors. For example, Muhr (2020) has used tools emerging from the scenic arts (Boal 2002) to identify social dilemmas and power relations, and foster collective and individual reflections among participants of a research on human-nature connectedness. The arts-based methods enabled the unravelling of new nuances of emotional human-nature connectedness (that
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Place-based SES research also draws on a diversity of methodologies from many different disciplines. A recent systematic review identified 311 methods grouped into 27 categories of methods that are commonly used in place-based SES research (de Vos et al. 2019). Many of the most common methods (such as interviews, futures analysis, participatory data collection, livelihood and vulnerability analysis) facilitate a focus on deeper SES dynamics. For example, analysis of futures (e.g. participatory and normative scenarios) is a powerful and rapidly evolving set of tools that allow to explore, identify and analyze alternative futures, for reaching societal and political sustainability goals (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015; Kanter et al. 2016; Merrie et al. 2018). This family of methods can help to unearth innovations and visions for the future, providing the basis for creating momentum, involving self-organization around new ideas, the creation and mobilization of networks of support, and experimentation in protected niches. In a similar vein, participatory research approaches foster learning among participants and can underpin processes of individual or collective behavioral change (Kansanga et al. 2021; Below et al. 2021). Recent years have also seen the emergence of new, integrative modeling approaches and analytic frameworks that are agnostic to disciplinary boundaries, that focus on uncovering SES design and intent (Martín-López et al. 2019; Thiault et al. 2020). These developments have fostered a new generation of sustainability researchers who are comfortable in using multiple conceptual frames and methodological approaches to solve real-world problems, open to accepting new approaches, and epistemologically agile in adopting multiple methods in their own work (Biggs et al. 2021).

**Contribution 4: place-based SES research encourages reflexive researchers**

Place-based SES research is often long-term, involving a deep engagement with specific places and their associated epistemologies (Robinson et al. 2016). Consequently, the researchers involved allocate a substantial time to iterative cycles of learning and reflection across all stages of the research process (Cockburn 2018; Sellberg 2018; Lam 2021). This mode of SES research has been likened to a ‘reflexive research journey’ and involves reflecting on the underlying assumptions and values of the actors involved (including the researchers themselves), and identifying positions of power and sources of inclusivity and justice. The integration of divergent disciplines, perspectives and knowledge systems can be intimidating and even lead to confrontation (Ives et al. 2020). Practicing place-based research fosters the ability to remain humble, open-minded, open to learning, open to new ways of doing

things and open to collaborations that include new types of disciplinary as well as non-academic knowledge. One example of how to adopt such new, deeply reflexive approaches has been proposed by a team of scientists in the context of transgressive, decolonial and post-normal research: they use seven Tarot ‘characters’ to challenge dominant forms of knowledge production and to enhance collective and personal reflexivity (Temper et al. 2019). Emerging novel questions and perspectives force researchers to revisit what type of science to do and how (Sellberg et al. 2021). A broad range of skills are developed (or honed) in this context, such as facilitation, conflict resolution and a focus on self-awareness and self-care. Ultimately this results in deeper, reflexive scientists.

This reflexive process often leads to the development of ameliorative strategies to sustainability challenges that go beyond shallow leverage points (i.e. small tweaks to existing institutions) (Fischer et al. 2012; Mukhovi et al. 2020). Clearly, a place-based SES research process is also a process of change, with researchers moving from curiosity-driven system observers to increasingly engaged – though of course still curious – scientists and participants. Sometimes, researchers even become agents of change (e.g. transformative space-makers), actively engaged in not only understanding systems, but also in facilitating action for change (Marshall et al. 2018; Pereira et al. 2019). Scientists can reflect on their power, to apply it consciously and in a transparent, and rethink the traditional posture of ‘the scientist’ in face of the current biodiversity crisis (Jacobs et al. 2020). A number of approaches, such as decision trees, are emerging to help scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce (Crouzat et al. 2018). Furthermore, by co-designing and co-producing research with non-academic actors, researchers can make SES research legitimate, credible and relevant (Cash et al. 2003; Chambers et al. 2021). This could contribute to countering the current trend of science being increasingly misunderstood, mistrusted, and even feared in political and popular discourse. It does, however, require careful reflection on the – sometimes highly divergent – interests of and power relations among the various non-academic actors involved (Brandt et al. 2018).

Innovative art-based methodological tools have been recently used in place-based SES research to encourage reflexivity in scientists as well as non-academic actors. For example, Muhr (2020) has used tools emerging from the scenic arts (Boal 2002) to identify social dilemmas and power relations, and foster collective and individual reflections among participants of a research on human-nature connectedness. The arts-based methods enabled the unravelling of new nuances of emotional human-nature connectedness (that
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

couldn't have been captured through other methods
such as interviews or questionnaires), but they also
led to the co-creation of new knowledge on partici-
pants' personal connections to nature (Muhr 2020).
Indeed, art is increasingly being acknowledged as
a natural part of social-ecological collaborations and
a powerful tool to ensure creative and reflexive thinking
(Scheffer et al. 2015). For example, the South American
Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies
(SARAS Institute) in Uruguay was founded with the
explicit intent of using art and science together to think
about sustainability (Scheffer and Mazzeo 2019).

Outlook

Place-based SES research has enabled SES science to deepen in multiple ways, and has substantially contributed to an improved understanding of the broad economic, social, and cultural dimensions required to safeguard the resilience of the biosphere. In the coming decade, we envision that PECS (and place-based SES research in general) will continue to foster biosphere stewardship – the active shaping of social-ecological change that reduces vulnerability to expected changes while transforming from undesirable pathways of development when opportunities emerge. It is a learning-based process with a clear direction and vision, engaging people to collaborate and innovate across levels and scales as integral parts of the systems they govern. Living with complexity and change requires adaptive approaches to management and decision making that can cope with high uncertainty (Polasky et al. 2011). These approaches are essential for biosphere stewardship, aligned with the place-based focus of PECS, and are therefore a high research priority for the future.

Due to its embedded and contextual nature, place-
based SES research offers conducive conditions for
research to engage with the transformative political
movements of our time, such as those that seek to
address race relations, patriarchy and colonialism.
The next ten years will also offer the opportunity to
delve more deeply into what are increasingly less
marginalized academic arguments, like how to rewire
our economic system as a fundamental requirement
for sustainability (Hickel 2020).

Challenges exist, especially related to the transfer-
ability of place-based research, and these need to be
addressed. For example, the co-production of knowl-
edge inherent to place-based SES research can limit the
transferability of its outcomes, because the credibility of
indigenous and local knowledge by national or inter-
national actors is still an issue in some arenas.
Communication barriers (different languages and dia-
lects), and differences in world views, perceptions, or
needs can also hinder transferability across sites.
Upscaling place-based research also faces several meth-
odological challenges. The development of better ways

to collect data that can facilitate comparison between
different local place-based case studies remains an
important challenge for PECS, and the broader SES
research community (Cumming et al. 2020). A more
practical challenge is to develop mechanisms, such as
insurance funds and legislative support, that provide
communities with security while they participate in
local experimentation to uncover potentially transfor-
mative solutions (Cumming et al. 2013). In addition,
the development and utilization of networks that
encourage the diffusion of effective solutions between
people and places will be critical if regional impacts are
to be achieved (Mascia and Mills 2018). Comparative
analyses of the patterns and mechanisms that make
local interventions a successful endeavor may synergis-
tically guide action at regional and global scales
(Epstein et al. 2021). Balvanera et al. (2017a) highlight
four key emerging pathways by which place-based
research can inform global sustainability, including
new institutional research settings, a global community
of practice and importantly long-term networks of
place-based research such as PECS. Through this,
place-based SES of the past and the upcoming decade
may provide evidence to safely govern the world and its
inhabitants through the Anthropocene.

Note

1. https://futureearth.org/.

Disclosure statement

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

ORCID

Albert V. Norström http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-9233

Patricia Balvanera ID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-6876

Elena M. Bennett ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3944-2925

Reinette Biggs ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0300-4149

Graeme S. Cumming ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-1326

María Felipe-Lucia ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-8169

Ruth DeFries ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3332-4621

Juliane Groth ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3733-0615

Chinwe Ifejika Speranza ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1927-7635

Sander Jacobs ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-4817

David P.M. Lam ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3604-0800

Berta Martín-López ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0135

Megan Meacham ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-967X

Harini Nagendra ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1585-0724

Laura Pereira ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4996-7234

Michael Schoon ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2477-154X

Lisen Schultz ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4763-8872

Marja Spierenburg ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0128-1900
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

couldn't have been captured through other methods
such as interviews or questionnaires), but they also
led to the co-creation of new knowledge on partici-
pants' personal connections to nature (Muhr 2020).
Indeed, art is increasingly being acknowledged as
a natural part of social-ecological collaborations and
a powerful tool to ensure creative and reflexive thinking
(Scheffer et al. 2015). For example, the South American
Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies
(SARAS Institute) in Uruguay was founded with the
explicit intent of using art and science together to think
about sustainability (Scheffer and Mazzeo 2019).

Outlook

Place-based SES research has enabled SES science to deepen in multiple ways, and has substantially contributed to an improved understanding of the broad economic, social, and cultural dimensions required to safeguard the resilience of the biosphere. In the coming decade, we envision that PECS (and place-based SES research in general) will continue to foster biosphere stewardship – the active shaping of social-ecological change that reduces vulnerability to expected changes while transforming from undesirable pathways of development when opportunities emerge. It is a learning-based process with a clear direction and vision, engaging people to collaborate and innovate across levels and scales as integral parts of the systems they govern. Living with complexity and change requires adaptive approaches to management and decision making that can cope with high uncertainty (Polasky et al. 2011). These approaches are essential for biosphere stewardship, aligned with the place-based focus of PECS, and are therefore a high research priority for the future.

Due to its embedded and contextual nature, place-
based SES research offers conducive conditions for
research to engage with the transformative political
movements of our time, such as those that seek to
address race relations, patriarchy and colonialism.
The next ten years will also offer the opportunity to
delve more deeply into what are increasingly less
marginalized academic arguments, like how to rewire
our economic system as a fundamental requirement
for sustainability (Hickel 2020).

Challenges exist, especially related to the transfer-
ability of place-based research, and these need to be
addressed. For example, the co-production of knowl-
edge inherent to place-based SES research can limit the
transferability of its outcomes, because the credibility of
indigenous and local knowledge by national or inter-
national actors is still an issue in some arenas.
Communication barriers (different languages and dia-
lects), and differences in world views, perceptions, or
needs can also hinder transferability across sites.
Upscaling place-based research also faces several meth-
odological challenges. The development of better ways

to collect data that can facilitate comparison between
different local place-based case studies remains an
important challenge for PECS, and the broader SES
research community (Cumming et al. 2020). A more
practical challenge is to develop mechanisms, such as
insurance funds and legislative support, that provide
communities with security while they participate in
local experimentation to uncover potentially transfor-
mative solutions (Cumming et al. 2013). In addition,
the development and utilization of networks that
encourage the diffusion of effective solutions between
people and places will be critical if regional impacts are
to be achieved (Mascia and Mills 2018). Comparative
analyses of the patterns and mechanisms that make
local interventions a successful endeavor may synergis-
tically guide action at regional and global scales
(Epstein et al. 2021). Balvanera et al. (2017a) highlight
four key emerging pathways by which place-based
research can inform global sustainability, including
new institutional research settings, a global community
of practice and importantly long-term networks of
place-based research such as PECS. Through this,
place-based SES of the past and the upcoming decade
may provide evidence to safely govern the world and its
inhabitants through the Anthropocene.

Note

1. https://futureearth.org/.

Disclosure statement

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

ORCID

Albert V. Norström http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-9233

Patricia Balvanera http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-6876

Elena M. Bennett http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3944-2925

Reinette Biggs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0300-4149

Graeme S. Cumming http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-1326

María Felipe-Lucia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-8169

Ruth DeFries http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3332-4621

Juliane Groth http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3733-0615

Chinwe Ifejika Speranza http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1927-7635

Sander Jacobs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-4817

David P.M. Lam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3604-0800

Berta Martín-López http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0135

Megan Meacham http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-967X

Harini Nagendra http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1585-0724

Laura Pereira http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4996-7234

Michael Schoon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2477-154X

Lisen Schultz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4763-8872

Marja Spierenburg http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0128-1900
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

## References

Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, et al. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–39. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza CI, Locatelli B, et al. 2017a. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 29:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.

Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza CI, Locatelli B, et al. 2017b. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 29:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.

Balvanera P, Daw TM, Gardner TA, Martín-López B, Norström AV, Ifejika Speranza C, Spierenburg M, Bennett EM, Farfan M, Hamann M, et al. 2017c. Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) perspective. Ecol Soc. 22(1):art14. doi:10.5751/ES-08826-220114.

Barnes ML, Wang P, Cinner JE, Graham NAJ, Guerrero AM, Jasny L, Lau J, Sutcliffe SR, Zamborain-Mason J. 2020. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 10(9):823–828. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4.

Beaudreau AH, Levin PS. 2014. Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing data-poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 24(2):244–256. doi:10.1890/13-0817.1.

Below JV, Nahuelhual L, Eleuterio AA, Laterra P. 2021. Can participatory action research foster social learning in communities struggling for land tenure? Land Use Policy. 101(December 2020):105192. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105192.

Bennett EM, Biggs R, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2021. Patchwork Earth: navigating pathways to just, thriving, and sustainable futures. One Earth. 4(2):172–176. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.004.

Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Biermann F, et al. 2016. Bright spots: seeds of a good anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 14(8):441–448. doi:10.1002/fee.1309.

Biggs R, de Vos A, Preiser R, Clements H, Maciejewski K, Schlüter M. 2021. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. London: Routledge.

Boal A. 2002. Games for actors and non-actors. 2nd ed. New York (London): Routledge.

Brandt F, Josefsson J, Spierenburg M. 2018. Power and politics in stakeholder engagement: farm dweller (in)visibility and conversions to game farming in South Africa. Ecol Soc. 23(3):art32. doi:10.5751/ES-10265-230332.

Burch C, Busch M, Higgins E, Bittner S, Perera N, Neal K, Burkett L, Castro A, Anderson C. 2020. Revisiting a water conflict in southeastern Oklahoma 6 years later: a new valuation of the willingness to pay for ecosystem services. Sustainability. 12(3):819. doi:10.3390/su12030819.

Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc. 11(1). doi:10.5751/ES-01610-110129.

Carpenter SR, Folke C, Norström A, Olsson O, Schultz L, Agarwal B, Balvanera P, Campbell B, Castilla JC, Cramer W, et al. 2012. Program on ecosystem change and society: an international research strategy for integrated social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 4(1):134–138. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.001.

Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M, Westley FR. 2019. Dancing on the volcano: social exploration in times of discontent. Ecol Soc. 24(1). doi:10.5751/ES-10839-240123.

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100 (14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Castro A, Quintas-Soriano C, Brandt J, Atkinson C, Baxter C, Burnham M, Egoh B, García-Llorente M, Julian J, Martín-López B, et al. 2018. Applying place-based social-ecological research to address water scarcity: insights for future research. Sustainability. 10 (5):1516. doi:10.3390/su10051516.

Castro AJ, Vaughn CC, Garcia-Llorente M, Julian JP, Atkinson CL. 2016. Willingness to pay for ecosystem services among stakeholder groups.

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, et al. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain. 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.

Chan KMA, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, Naidoo R, Olmsted P, Satterfield T, Selomane O, et al. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature. 2(3):693–717. doi:10.1002/pan3.10124.

Chapin FS, Mark AF, Mitchell RA, Dickinson KJM. 2012. Design principles for social-ecological transformation toward sustainability: lessons from New Zealand sense of place. Ecosphere. 3(5):art40. doi:10.1890/ES12-00009.1.

Clark WC, Harley AG. 2020. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 45(1):331–386. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621.

Cockburn J. 2018. Stewardship and collaboration in multi-functional landscapes: a transdisciplinary enquiry. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.

Colding J, Barthel S. 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc. 24(1):art2. doi:10.5751/ES-10598-240102.

Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL. 2014. Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 39(1):641–665. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609.

Crouzat E, Arpin I, Brunet L, Colloff MJ, Turkelboom F, Lavorel S. 2018. Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio. 47(1):97–105. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1.

Cumming GS, Epstein G, Anderies JM, Apetrei CI, Baggio Bodin J, Chawla S, Clements HS, Cox M, Egli L, Gurney GG, et al. 2020. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 44:26–34. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005.

Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin FS, Holling CS. 2013. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 28(6):1139–1150. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4.

Dasgupta P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury.

Daw TM, Hicks CC, Brown K, Chaigneau T, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Cheung WWL, Rosendo S, Crona B,
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

## References

Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, et al. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–39. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza CI, Locatelli B, et al. 2017a. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 29:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.

Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza CI, Locatelli B, et al. 2017b. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 29:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.

Balvanera P, Daw TM, Gardner TA, Martín-López B, Norström AV, Ifejika Speranza C, Spierenburg M, Bennett EM, Farfan M, Hamann M, et al. 2017c. Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) perspective. Ecol Soc. 22(1):art14. doi:10.5751/ES-08826-220114.

Barnes ML, Wang P, Cinner JE, Graham NAJ, Guerrero AM, Jasny L, Lau J, Sutcliffe SR, Zamborain-Mason J. 2020. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 10(9):823–828. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4.

Beaudreau AH, Levin PS. 2014. Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing data-poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 24(2):244–256. doi:10.1890/13-0817.1.

Below JV, Nahuelhual L, Eleuterio AA, Laterra P. 2021. Can participatory action research foster social learning in communities struggling for land tenure? Land Use Policy. 101(December 2020):105192. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105192.

Bennett EM, Biggs R, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2021. Patchwork Earth: navigating pathways to just, thriving, and sustainable futures. One Earth. 4(2):172–176. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.004.

Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Biermann F, et al. 2016. Bright spots: seeds of a good anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 14(8):441–448. doi:10.1002/fee.1309.

Biggs R, de Vos A, Preiser R, Clements H, Maciejewski K, Schlüter M. 2021. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. London: Routledge.

Boal A. 2002. Games for actors and non-actors. 2nd ed. New York (London): Routledge.

Brandt F, Josefsson J, Spierenburg M. 2018. Power and politics in stakeholder engagement: farm dweller (in)visibility and conversions to game farming in South Africa. Ecol Soc. 23(3):art32. doi:10.5751/ES-10265-230332.

Burch C, Busch M, Higgins E, Bittner S, Perera N, Neal K, Burkett L, Castro A, Anderson C. 2020. Revisiting a water conflict in southeastern Oklahoma 6 years later: a new valuation of the willingness to pay for ecosystem services. Sustainability. 12(3):819. doi:10.3390/su12030819.

Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc. 11(1). doi:10.5751/ES-01610-110129.

Carpenter SR, Folke C, Norström A, Olsson O, Schultz L, Agarwal B, Balvanera P, Campbell B, Castilla JC, Cramer W, et al. 2012. Program on ecosystem change and society: an international research strategy for integrated social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 4(1):134–138. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.001.

Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M, Westley FR. 2019. Dancing on the volcano: social exploration in times of discontent. Ecol Soc. 24(1). doi:10.5751/ES-10839-240123.

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100 (14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Castro A, Quintas-Soriano C, Brandt J, Atkinson C, Baxter C, Burnham M, Egoh B, García-Llorente M, Julian J, Martín-López B, et al. 2018. Applying place-based social-ecological research to address water scarcity: insights for future research. Sustainability. 10 (5):1516. doi:10.3390/su10051516.

Castro AJ, Vaughn CC, Garcia-Llorente M, Julian JP, Atkinson CL. 2016. Willingness to pay for ecosystem services among stakeholder groups.

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, et al. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain. 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.

Chan KMA, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, Naidoo R, Olmsted P, Satterfield T, Selomane O, et al. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature. 2(3):693–717. doi:10.1002/pan3.10124.

Chapin FS, Mark AF, Mitchell RA, Dickinson KJM. 2012. Design principles for social-ecological transformation toward sustainability: lessons from New Zealand sense of place. Ecosphere. 3(5):art40. doi:10.1890/ES12-00009.1.

Clark WC, Harley AG. 2020. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 45(1):331–386. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621.

Cockburn J. 2018. Stewardship and collaboration in multi-functional landscapes: a transdisciplinary enquiry. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.

Colding J, Barthel S. 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc. 24(1):art2. doi:10.5751/ES-10598-240102.

Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL. 2014. Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 39(1):641–665. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609.

Crouzat E, Arpin I, Brunet L, Colloff MJ, Turkelboom F, Lavorel S. 2018. Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio. 47(1):97–105. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1.

Cumming GS, Epstein G, Anderies JM, Apetrei CI, Baggio Bodin J, Chawla S, Clements HS, Cox M, Egli L, Gurney GG, et al. 2020. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 44:26–34. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005.

Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin FS, Holling CS. 2013. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 28(6):1139–1150. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4.

Dasgupta P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury.

Daw TM, Hicks CC, Brown K, Chaigneau T, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Cheung WWL, Rosendo S, Crona B,
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Coulthard S, Sandbrook C, et al. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecol Soc. 21(2). doi:10.5751/ES-08173-210211.

de Vos A, Biggs R, Preiser R. 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecol Soc. 24(4):1-24. doi:10.5751/ES-11236-240416.

Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, et al. 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science. 359(6373):270-272. doi:10.1126/science.aap8826.

Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. 366(6471). doi:10.1126/science.aax3100.

Downing AS, Wong GY, Dyer M, Aguiar AP, Selomane O, Jiménez Aceituno A 2021. When the whole is less than the sum of all parts - Tracking global-level impacts of national sustainability initiatives. Glob Environ Chang. 69(June). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102306.

Eakin H, Shelton RE, Siqueiros-Garcia JM, Charli-Joseph L, Manuel-Navarrete D. 2019. Loss and social-ecological transformation: pathways of change in Xochimilco, Mexico. Ecol Soc. 24(3):art15. doi:10.5751/ES-11030-240315.

Epstein G, Gurney G, Chawla S, Anderies JM, Baggio J, Unnikrishnan H, Villamayor Tomas S, Cumming GS. 2021. Drivers of compliance monitoring in forest commons. Nat Sustain. 4(5):450-456. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00673-4.

Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM, Berdej S, Dyck T, Kreitmair U, Raithwell KJ, Villamayor-Tomas S, Vogt J, Armitage D. 2015. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:34-40. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005.

Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders' power relationships matter. PLoS One. 10(7):e0132232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.

Fischer J, A Gardner T, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, Daw T, Folke C, Hill R, Hughes TP, et al. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:144-149. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002.

Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ. 2012. Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ. 10 (3):153-160. doi:10.1890/110079.

Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change. 16 (3):253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 30(1):441-473. doi:10.1146/annurev-energy.30.050504.144511.

Folke C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Galaz V, Westley F, Lamont M, Scheffer M, Österblom H, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. 2021. Our future in the anthropocene biosphere. Page *Page Ambio*. 50(4):834-869. doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8.

Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ, Watson E. 2005. Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of

marine common property rights in chile. Soc Nat Resour. 18(4):377-391. doi:10.1080/08941920590915279.

Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels F, Loorbach D. 2010. Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Page New York.

Hamann M, Berry K, Chaigneau T, Curry T, Heilmayr R, Henriksson PJG, Hentati-Sundberg J, Jina A, Lindkvist E, Lopez-Maldonado Y, et al. 2018. Inequality and the biosphere. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 43(1):61-83. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025949.

Herrfahrdt-Pähle E, Schlüter M, Olsson P, Folke C, Gelcich S, Pahl-Wostl C. 2020. Sustainability transformations: socio-political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Glob Environ Change. 63(June):102097. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102097.

Hickel J. 2020. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Lancet Planet Health. 4(9):e399-404. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0.

Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, et al. 2020. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 43(December 2019):8-20. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.

IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Page Brondizio ES, Settele J, Diaz S, and Ngo H editors. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.

Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio. 49(1):208-217. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w.

Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv. 22 (December):213-220. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.

Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Dunford R, Harrison PA, Kelemen E, Saarikoski H, Termansen M, García-Llorente M, Gómez-Baggethun E, et al. 2018. The means determine the end – pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst Serv. 29:515-528. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.

Jacobs S, Zafra-Calvo N, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Guibrunet L, Benessaiah K, Berghöfer A, Chaves-Chaparro J, Díaz S, Gomez-Baggethun E, Lele S, et al. 2020. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature – the Oaxaca statement. Glob Sustain. 3:1-7. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.2.

Kansanga MM, Bezner Kerr R, Lupafya E, Dakishoni L, Luginaah I. 2021. Does participatory farmer-to-farmer training improve the adoption of sustainable land management practices? Land Use Policy. 108(June 2020):105477. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105477.

Kanter DR, Schwoob MH, Baethgen WE, Bervejillo JE, Carriquiry M, Dobermann A, Ferraro B, Lanfranco B, Mondelli M, Penengo C, et al. 2016. Translating the sustainable development goals into action: a participatory backcasting approach for developing national agricultural transformation pathways. Glob Food Sec. 10:71-79. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.002.

Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A,
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Coulthard S, Sandbrook C, et al. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecol Soc. 21(2). doi:10.5751/ES-08173-210211.

de Vos A, Biggs R, Preiser R. 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecol Soc. 24(4):1-24. doi:10.5751/ES-11236-240416.

Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, et al. 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science. 359(6373):270-272. doi:10.1126/science.aap8826.

Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. 366(6471). doi:10.1126/science.aax3100.

Downing AS, Wong GY, Dyer M, Aguiar AP, Selomane O, Jiménez Aceituno A 2021. When the whole is less than the sum of all parts - Tracking global-level impacts of national sustainability initiatives. Glob Environ Chang. 69(June). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102306.

Eakin H, Shelton RE, Siqueiros-Garcia JM, Charli-Joseph L, Manuel-Navarrete D. 2019. Loss and social-ecological transformation: pathways of change in Xochimilco, Mexico. Ecol Soc. 24(3):art15. doi:10.5751/ES-11030-240315.

Epstein G, Gurney G, Chawla S, Anderies JM, Baggio J, Unnikrishnan H, Villamayor Tomas S, Cumming GS. 2021. Drivers of compliance monitoring in forest commons. Nat Sustain. 4(5):450-456. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00673-4.

Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM, Berdej S, Dyck T, Kreitmair U, Raithwell KJ, Villamayor-Tomas S, Vogt J, Armitage D. 2015. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:34-40. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005.

Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders' power relationships matter. PLoS One. 10(7):e0132232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.

Fischer J, A Gardner T, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, Daw T, Folke C, Hill R, Hughes TP, et al. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:144-149. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002.

Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ. 2012. Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ. 10 (3):153-160. doi:10.1890/110079.

Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change. 16 (3):253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 30(1):441-473. doi:10.1146/annurev-energy.30.050504.144511.

Folke C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Galaz V, Westley F, Lamont M, Scheffer M, Österblom H, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. 2021. Our future in the anthropocene biosphere. Page *Page Ambio*. 50(4):834-869. doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8.

Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ, Watson E. 2005. Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of

marine common property rights in chile. Soc Nat Resour. 18(4):377-391. doi:10.1080/08941920590915279.

Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels F, Loorbach D. 2010. Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Page New York.

Hamann M, Berry K, Chaigneau T, Curry T, Heilmayr R, Henriksson PJG, Hentati-Sundberg J, Jina A, Lindkvist E, Lopez-Maldonado Y, et al. 2018. Inequality and the biosphere. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 43(1):61-83. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025949.

Herrfahrdt-Pähle E, Schlüter M, Olsson P, Folke C, Gelcich S, Pahl-Wostl C. 2020. Sustainability transformations: socio-political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Glob Environ Change. 63(June):102097. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102097.

Hickel J. 2020. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Lancet Planet Health. 4(9):e399-404. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0.

Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, et al. 2020. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 43(December 2019):8-20. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.

IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Page Brondizio ES, Settele J, Diaz S, and Ngo H editors. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.

Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio. 49(1):208-217. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w.

Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv. 22 (December):213-220. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.

Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Dunford R, Harrison PA, Kelemen E, Saarikoski H, Termansen M, García-Llorente M, Gómez-Baggethun E, et al. 2018. The means determine the end – pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst Serv. 29:515-528. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.

Jacobs S, Zafra-Calvo N, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Guibrunet L, Benessaiah K, Berghöfer A, Chaves-Chaparro J, Díaz S, Gomez-Baggethun E, Lele S, et al. 2020. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature – the Oaxaca statement. Glob Sustain. 3:1-7. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.2.

Kansanga MM, Bezner Kerr R, Lupafya E, Dakishoni L, Luginaah I. 2021. Does participatory farmer-to-farmer training improve the adoption of sustainable land management practices? Land Use Policy. 108(June 2020):105477. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105477.

Kanter DR, Schwoob MH, Baethgen WE, Bervejillo JE, Carriquiry M, Dobermann A, Ferraro B, Lanfranco B, Mondelli M, Penengo C, et al. 2016. Translating the sustainable development goals into action: a participatory backcasting approach for developing national agricultural transformation pathways. Glob Food Sec. 10:71-79. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.002.

Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A,
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Boons F, et al. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 31(January):1-32. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Lam DPM. 2021. Bottom-up sustainability transformations. Lüneburg, Germany: Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.

Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B. 2020a. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: a literature review. Ecol Soc. 25(1). doi:10.5751/ES-11305-250103.

Lam DPM, Martín-López B, Horcea-Milcu AI, Lang DJ. 2021. A leverage points perspective on social networks to understand sustainability transformations: evidence from Southern Transylvania. Sustain Sci. 16(3):809-826. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00881-z.

Lam DPM, Martín-López B, Wiek A, Bennett EM, Frantze skaki N, Horcea-Milcu AI, Lang DJ. 2020b. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2(1):3. doi:10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9.

Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Cook C, Díaz S, Espindola G, Scobie M, Stafford-Smith M, Subrama nian SM. 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthro- pocene: a social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob Sustain. 1:e13. doi:10.1017/sus. 2018.12.

Lee LC, Thorley J, Watson J, Reid M, Salomon AK. 2019. Diverse knowledge systems reveal social-ecological dynamics that inform species conservation status. Conserv Lett. 12(2):1-11. doi:10.1111/conl.12613.

Lenton TM, Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rahmstorf S, Richardson K, Steffen W, Schellnhuber HJ. 2019. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature. 575 (7784):592-595. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0.

Loos J, Horcea-Milcu AI, Kirkland P, Hartel T, Osváth-Ferencz M, Fischer J. 2015. Challenges for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science in transitioning social-ecological systems. J Nat Conserv. 26:45-48. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05. 001.

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Berl REW, Bruskotter JT, Kitayama S. 2021. Social value shift in favour of biodiver- sity conservation in the United States. Nat Sustain. 4 (4):323-330. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00655-6.

Marshall F, Dolley J, Priya R. 2018. Transdisciplinary research as transformative space making for sustainability: enhancing propoor transformative agency in periurban contexts. Ecol Soc. 23(3). doi:10.5751/ES-10249- 230308.

Martinez-Harms MJ, Gelcich S, Krug RM, Maseyk FJF, Moersberger H, Rastogi A, Wambugu G, Krug CB, Spehn EM, Pascual U. 2018. Framing natural assets for advancing sustainability research: translating different perspectives into actions. Sustain Sci. 13(6):1519-1531. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0599-5.

Martín-López B. 2021. Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice. Reversing Biodiversity Loss Series of the Royal Society.

Martín-López B, Balvanera P, Manson R, Mwampamba TH, Norström A. 2020. Contributions of place-based social-ecological research to address global sustainability challenges. Glob Sustain. 3:e21. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.18.

Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Norström A, Peterson G, Plieninger T, Hicks CC, Turkelboom F, García-Llorente M, Jacobs S, et al. 2019. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. J Environ Manage. 241 (April):251-263. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.029.

Mascia MB, Mills M. 2018. When conservation goes viral: the diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conserv Lett. 11(3):1-9. doi:10.1111/conl.12442.

Meadows D. 1999. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system.

Merrie A, Keys P, Metian M, Österblom H. 2018. Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping. Futures. 95(March 2018):22-32. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.005.

Moore M, Tjornbo O, Enfors E, Knapp C, Hodbod J, Baggio JA, Norström A, Olsson P, Biggs D. 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecol Soc. 19(4):art54. doi:10.5751/ES- 06966-190454.

Moser SC. 2016. Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 20:106-115. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.007.

Muhr MM. 2020. Beyond words—the potential of arts-based research on human-nature connectedness. Ecosyst People. 16(1):249-257. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1811379.

Mukhovi S, Jacobi J, Speranza CI, Rist S, Kiteme B. 2020. Learning and adaptation in food systems: insights from four case studies in the global South. Int J Food Syst Dyn. 11(4):313-328.

Nagendra H. 2018. The global south is rich in sustainability lessons. Nature. 557(7706):485-488. doi:10.1038/d41586- 018-05210-0.

Nieto-Romero M, Milcu A, Leventon J, Mikulcak F, Fischer J. 2016. The role of scenarios in fostering collective action for sustainable development: lessons from central Romania. Land Use Policy. 50(January):156-168. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.013.

Norström AV, Balvanera P, Spierenburg M, Bouamrane M. 2017. Programme on ecosystem change and society: knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22(1):art47. doi:10.5751/ES-09010-220147.

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain. 3 (3):182-190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.

Nunn PD, Aalbersberg W, Lata S, Gwilliam M. 2014. Beyond the core: community governance for climate-change adaptation in peripheral parts of Pacific Island countries. Reg Environ Change. 14(1):221-235. doi:10.1007/s10113-013- 0486-7.

Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 325 (5939):419-422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133.

Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc. 20(4):art32. doi:10.5751/ES-07985-200432.

Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26-27:7-16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.

Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience. 64(11):1027-1036. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu146.
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Boons F, et al. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 31(January):1-32. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Lam DPM. 2021. Bottom-up sustainability transformations. Lüneburg, Germany: Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.

Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B. 2020a. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: a literature review. Ecol Soc. 25(1). doi:10.5751/ES-11305-250103.

Lam DPM, Martín-López B, Horcea-Milcu AI, Lang DJ. 2021. A leverage points perspective on social networks to understand sustainability transformations: evidence from Southern Transylvania. Sustain Sci. 16(3):809-826. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00881-z.

Lam DPM, Martín-López B, Wiek A, Bennett EM, Frantze skaki N, Horcea-Milcu AI, Lang DJ. 2020b. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2(1):3. doi:10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9.

Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Cook C, Díaz S, Espindola G, Scobie M, Stafford-Smith M, Subrama nian SM. 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthro- pocene: a social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob Sustain. 1:e13. doi:10.1017/sus. 2018.12.

Lee LC, Thorley J, Watson J, Reid M, Salomon AK. 2019. Diverse knowledge systems reveal social-ecological dynamics that inform species conservation status. Conserv Lett. 12(2):1-11. doi:10.1111/conl.12613.

Lenton TM, Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rahmstorf S, Richardson K, Steffen W, Schellnhuber HJ. 2019. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature. 575 (7784):592-595. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0.

Loos J, Horcea-Milcu AI, Kirkland P, Hartel T, Osváth-Ferencz M, Fischer J. 2015. Challenges for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science in transitioning social-ecological systems. J Nat Conserv. 26:45-48. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05. 001.

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Berl REW, Bruskotter JT, Kitayama S. 2021. Social value shift in favour of biodiver- sity conservation in the United States. Nat Sustain. 4 (4):323-330. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00655-6.

Marshall F, Dolley J, Priya R. 2018. Transdisciplinary research as transformative space making for sustainability: enhancing propoor transformative agency in periurban contexts. Ecol Soc. 23(3). doi:10.5751/ES-10249- 230308.

Martinez-Harms MJ, Gelcich S, Krug RM, Maseyk FJF, Moersberger H, Rastogi A, Wambugu G, Krug CB, Spehn EM, Pascual U. 2018. Framing natural assets for advancing sustainability research: translating different perspectives into actions. Sustain Sci. 13(6):1519-1531. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0599-5.

Martín-López B. 2021. Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice. Reversing Biodiversity Loss Series of the Royal Society.

Martín-López B, Balvanera P, Manson R, Mwampamba TH, Norström A. 2020. Contributions of place-based social-ecological research to address global sustainability challenges. Glob Sustain. 3:e21. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.18.

Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Norström A, Peterson G, Plieninger T, Hicks CC, Turkelboom F, García-Llorente M, Jacobs S, et al. 2019. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. J Environ Manage. 241 (April):251-263. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.029.

Mascia MB, Mills M. 2018. When conservation goes viral: the diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conserv Lett. 11(3):1-9. doi:10.1111/conl.12442.

Meadows D. 1999. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system.

Merrie A, Keys P, Metian M, Österblom H. 2018. Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping. Futures. 95(March 2018):22-32. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.005.

Moore M, Tjornbo O, Enfors E, Knapp C, Hodbod J, Baggio JA, Norström A, Olsson P, Biggs D. 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecol Soc. 19(4):art54. doi:10.5751/ES- 06966-190454.

Moser SC. 2016. Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 20:106-115. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.007.

Muhr MM. 2020. Beyond words—the potential of arts-based research on human-nature connectedness. Ecosyst People. 16(1):249-257. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1811379.

Mukhovi S, Jacobi J, Speranza CI, Rist S, Kiteme B. 2020. Learning and adaptation in food systems: insights from four case studies in the global South. Int J Food Syst Dyn. 11(4):313-328.

Nagendra H. 2018. The global south is rich in sustainability lessons. Nature. 557(7706):485-488. doi:10.1038/d41586- 018-05210-0.

Nieto-Romero M, Milcu A, Leventon J, Mikulcak F, Fischer J. 2016. The role of scenarios in fostering collective action for sustainable development: lessons from central Romania. Land Use Policy. 50(January):156-168. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.013.

Norström AV, Balvanera P, Spierenburg M, Bouamrane M. 2017. Programme on ecosystem change and society: knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22(1):art47. doi:10.5751/ES-09010-220147.

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain. 3 (3):182-190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.

Nunn PD, Aalbersberg W, Lata S, Gwilliam M. 2014. Beyond the core: community governance for climate-change adaptation in peripheral parts of Pacific Island countries. Reg Environ Change. 14(1):221-235. doi:10.1007/s10113-013- 0486-7.

Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 325 (5939):419-422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133.

Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc. 20(4):art32. doi:10.5751/ES-07985-200432.

Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26-27:7-16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.

Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience. 64(11):1027-1036. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu146.
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Pereira LM, Bennett EM, Biggs RO, Peterson GD, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Preiser R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Vervoort JM. 2017a. Seeds of the future in the present. Pages 327–350. In: Elmqvist T, Bai X, Frantzeskaki N, Griffith C, Maddox D, Mcphearson T, Parnell S, Romero-Lankao P, Simon D, and Watkins M editors. Urban Planet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Drimie S, Dyer M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, et al. 2019. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci. 15(1):161–178. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x.

Pereira LM, Hichert T, Hamann M, Preiser R, Biggs R. 2017b. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good anthropocene in Southern Africa. Ecol Soc. 23(1):art19. doi:10.5751/ES-09907-230119.

Phelan A, Jacobs S. 2016. Facing the true cost of fracking; social externalities and the role of integrated valuation. Ecosyst Serv. 22(November):348–358. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.006.

Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Keeler B. 2011. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol. 26(8):398–404. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007.

Reyers B, Folke C, Moore M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the anthropocene. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 43(1): annurev-environ-110615-085349. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349.

Robinson CJ, Maclean K, Hill R, Bock E, Rist P. 2016. Participatory mapping to negotiate indigenous knowledge used to assess environmental risk. Sustain Sci. 11(1):115–126. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0292-x.

Sáenz-Arroyo A, Revollo-Fernández D. 2016. Local ecological knowledge concurs with fishing statistics: an example from the abalone fishery in Baja California, Mexico. Mar Policy. 71:217–221. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.006.

Scheffer M, Bascompte J, Bjordam TK, Carpenter SR, Clarke LB, Folke C, Marquet P, Mazzeo N, Meerhoff M, Sala O, et al. 2015. Dual thinking for scientists. Ecol Soc. 20(2):1–4. doi:10.5751/ES-07434-200203.

Scheffer M, Mazzeo N. 2019. Manuscripts how to build a cross-disciplinary institute: the curious case of the South American Institute for resilience and sustainability studies. Ecol Soc. 24(2). doi:10.5751/ES-10983-240234.

Sellberg MM. 2018. Advancing resilience practice: bridging social-ecological resilience theory and sustainable development practice. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM. 2021. Towards a caring transdisciplinary research practice:

navigating science, society and self. Ecosyst People. 17(1):292–305. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1931452.

Sellberg MM, Norström AV, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2020. Using local initiatives to envision sustainable and resilient food systems in the Stockholm city-region. Glob Food Sec. 24(May 2019):100334. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100334.

Seppelt R, Verburg PH, Norström A, Cramer W, Václavik T. 2018. Focus on cross-scale feedbacks in global sustainable land management. Environ Res Lett. 13(9):090402. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aadc45.

Stone-Jovicich S, Goldstein BE, Brown K, Plummer R, Olsson P. 2018. Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research. Ecol Soc. 23(1):art41. doi:10.5751/ES-10008-230141.

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L. 2019. From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ. 164(January):106379. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379.

Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26–27:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.

Thiault L, Jupiter SD, Johnson J, Cinner J, Jarvis R, Heron S, Maina J, Marshall N, Marshall P, Claudet J. 2020. Harnessing the potential of vulnerability assessments for managing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 26(2). doi:10.5751/ES-12167-260201.

Toomey AH, Strehlau-Howay L, Manzolillo B, Thomas C. 2020. The place-making potential of citizen science: creating social-ecological connections in an urbanized world. Landsc Urban Plan. 200(April):103824. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103824.

Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 42(2018):15–21. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.

Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, Lambin E, Sendzimir J, et al. 2011. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO. 40(7):762–780. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.

Zafra-Calvo N, Balvanera P, Pascual U, Merçon J, Martín-López B, van Noordwijk M, Mwampamba TH, Lele S, Ifejika Speranza C, Arias-Arévalo P, et al. 2020. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob Environ Change. 63(April):102115. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115.
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Pereira LM, Bennett EM, Biggs RO, Peterson GD, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Preiser R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Vervoort JM. 2017a. Seeds of the future in the present. Pages 327–350. In: Elmqvist T, Bai X, Frantzeskaki N, Griffith C, Maddox D, Mcphearson T, Parnell S, Romero-Lankao P, Simon D, and Watkins M editors. Urban Planet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Drimie S, Dyer M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, et al. 2019. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci. 15(1):161–178. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x.

Pereira LM, Hichert T, Hamann M, Preiser R, Biggs R. 2017b. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good anthropocene in Southern Africa. Ecol Soc. 23(1):art19. doi:10.5751/ES-09907-230119.

Phelan A, Jacobs S. 2016. Facing the true cost of fracking; social externalities and the role of integrated valuation. Ecosyst Serv. 22(November):348–358. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.006.

Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Keeler B. 2011. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol. 26(8):398–404. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007.

Reyers B, Folke C, Moore M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the anthropocene. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 43(1): annurev-environ-110615-085349. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349.

Robinson CJ, Maclean K, Hill R, Bock E, Rist P. 2016. Participatory mapping to negotiate indigenous knowledge used to assess environmental risk. Sustain Sci. 11(1):115–126. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0292-x.

Sáenz-Arroyo A, Revollo-Fernández D. 2016. Local ecological knowledge concurs with fishing statistics: an example from the abalone fishery in Baja California, Mexico. Mar Policy. 71:217–221. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.006.

Scheffer M, Bascompte J, Bjordam TK, Carpenter SR, Clarke LB, Folke C, Marquet P, Mazzeo N, Meerhoff M, Sala O, et al. 2015. Dual thinking for scientists. Ecol Soc. 20(2):1–4. doi:10.5751/ES-07434-200203.

Scheffer M, Mazzeo N. 2019. Manuscripts how to build a cross-disciplinary institute: the curious case of the South American Institute for resilience and sustainability studies. Ecol Soc. 24(2). doi:10.5751/ES-10983-240234.

Sellberg MM. 2018. Advancing resilience practice: bridging social-ecological resilience theory and sustainable development practice. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM. 2021. Towards a caring transdisciplinary research practice:

navigating science, society and self. Ecosyst People. 17(1):292–305. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1931452.

Sellberg MM, Norström AV, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2020. Using local initiatives to envision sustainable and resilient food systems in the Stockholm city-region. Glob Food Sec. 24(May 2019):100334. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100334.

Seppelt R, Verburg PH, Norström A, Cramer W, Václavik T. 2018. Focus on cross-scale feedbacks in global sustainable land management. Environ Res Lett. 13(9):090402. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aadc45.

Stone-Jovicich S, Goldstein BE, Brown K, Plummer R, Olsson P. 2018. Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research. Ecol Soc. 23(1):art41. doi:10.5751/ES-10008-230141.

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L. 2019. From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ. 164(January):106379. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379.

Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26–27:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.

Thiault L, Jupiter SD, Johnson J, Cinner J, Jarvis R, Heron S, Maina J, Marshall N, Marshall P, Claudet J. 2020. Harnessing the potential of vulnerability assessments for managing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 26(2). doi:10.5751/ES-12167-260201.

Toomey AH, Strehlau-Howay L, Manzolillo B, Thomas C. 2020. The place-making potential of citizen science: creating social-ecological connections in an urbanized world. Landsc Urban Plan. 200(April):103824. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103824.

Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 42(2018):15–21. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.

Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, Lambin E, Sendzimir J, et al. 2011. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO. 40(7):762–780. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.

Zafra-Calvo N, Balvanera P, Pascual U, Merçon J, Martín-López B, van Noordwijk M, Mwampamba TH, Lele S, Ifejika Speranza C, Arias-Arévalo P, et al. 2020. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob Environ Change. 63(April):102115. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115.