# Intertwined people-nature relations are central to nature-based adaptation to climate change

Bruno Locatelli, Sandra Lavorel, Matthew J Colloff, Emilie Crouzat, Enora Bruley, Giacomo Fedele, Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, Tobias Plieninger, Erik Andersson, Mick Abbott, et al.

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

## To cite this version:

Bruno Locatelli, Sandra Lavorel, Matthew J Colloff, Emilie Crouzat, Enora Bruley, et al. "Intertwined people-nature relations are central to nature-based adaptation to climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2025, 380 (1917), pp.20230213. 10.1098/rstb.2023.0213". [hal-05168783](https://hal.science/hal-05168783v1)

HAL Id: hal-05168783

https://hal.science/hal-05168783v1

Submitted on 18 Jul 2025

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

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

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS B

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb

Research

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

Check for
updates

**Cite this article:** Locatelli B *et al*. 2025

Intertwined people–nature relations are central
to nature-based adaptation to climate change.

*Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B* **380**: 20230213.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0213

Received: 11 January 2024

Accepted: 19 September 2024

One contribution of 19 to a discussion meeting
issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery:
building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a
biodiverse future'.

**Subject Areas:**

environmental science

**Keywords:**

social-ecological system, archetype, framing, co-
production, ecosystem services, pathway

**Author for correspondence:**

Bruno Locatelli

e-mail: bruno.locatelli@cirad.fr

Electronic supplementary material is available
online at https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9 figshare.c.7560275.

Intertwined people–nature relations are
central to nature-based adaptation to
climate change

Bruno Locatelli<fnref n="1" />, Sandra Lavorel<fnref n="2" />, Matthew J. Colloff<fnref n="3" />, Emilie Crouzat<fnref n="4" />, Enora Bruley<fnref n="5" />, Giacomo Fedele<fnref n="6" />, Adrienne Grêt-Regamey<fnref n="7" />, Tobias Plieninger<fnref n="8" />,<fnref n="9" />, Erik Andersson<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" />,<fnref n="12" />, Mick Abbott<fnref n="13" />, James Butler<fnref n="14" />, Tahia Devisscher<fnref n="15" />, Houria Djoudi<fnref n="16" />, Titouan Dubo<fnref n="2" />, Alberto González-García<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="17" />, Paulina G. Karim<fnref n="18" />, Claudia Múnera-Roldán<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="19" />, Margot Neyret<fnref n="2" />, Fabien Quétier<fnref n="20" />, Nicolas Salliou<fnref n="7" /> and Gretchen Walters<fnref n="21" />

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

Adaptation to climate change is a social-ecological process: it is not
solely a result of natural processes or human decisions but emerges
from multiple relations within social systems, within ecological systems
and between them. We propose a novel analytical framework to evaluate
social-ecological relations in nature-based adaptation, encompassing social
(people-people), ecological (nature-nature) and social-ecological (people-
nature) relations. Applying this framework to 25 case studies, we analyse
the associations among these relations and identify archetypes of social-

<footnote n="1">¹Forests and Societies, Cirad, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier 34398, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Grenoble 38058, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Université Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, LESSEM, Saint-Martin-d'Hères 38058, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Conservation International, Arlington County, VA 22202, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems, ETH Zürich, Zürich 8092, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Kassel 34125, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen 37073, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm 10691, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potschefstroom 2531, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Cawthron Institute, Nelson 7010, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16000, Indonesia</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷IRD, CNRS, Grenoble INP, IGE, Univ. Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble 38058, France</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸College of Environmental Studies and Oceanography, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹CSIRO Environment, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Rewilding Europe, Wild Quarters, Monseigneur Suyslaan 4, 6564 BV, Heilig Landstichting, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Faculty of Geosciences and the Environment, Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote>DL BL, 0000-0003-2983-1644; SL, 0000-0002-7300-2811; MJC, 0000-0002-3765-0627; EC, 0000-0001-5765-6543; EB, 0000-0003-3416-1868; GF, 0000-0001-9238-1020; AG-R, 0000-0001-8156-9503; TP, 0000-0003-1478-2587; EA, 0000-0003-2716-5502; JB, 0000-0001-8333-947X; TD, 0000-0002-0971-665X; HD, 0000-0002-5140-4270; TD, 0000-0002-8546-0561; AG-G, 0000-0002-1969-3818; CM-R, 0000-0003-0601-2312; MN, 0000-0001-9435-1634; FQ, 0000-0002-3767-0353; NS, 0000-0003-3960-2175</footnote>
ecological adaptation. Our findings revealed that adaptation actions with more people-nature relations mobilize more social and ecological relations. We identified four archetypes, with distinct modes of adaptation along a gradient of people-nature interaction scores, summarized as: (i) nature control; (ii) biodiversity-based; (iii) ecosystem services-based; and (iv) integrated approaches. This study contributes to a nuanced understanding of nature-based adaptation, highlighting the importance of integrating diverse relations across social and ecological systems. Our findings offer valuable insights for informing the design and implementation of adaptation strategies and policies.

This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.

# 1. Introduction

Climate change induces transformations in ecological processes but also in the way people interact among themselves and with nature [1]. Climate change can have profound effects on ecosystem functioning and ecological interactions, including species distributions, phenology and food webs [2,3], with implications for wildlife and human societies (e.g. [1,4]). For example, climate-related disasters and changes in the availability of natural resources affect livelihoods and how people interact through competition or cooperation over those resources [5,6].

There are ways of shaping or enabling social and ecological interactions to achieve desirable, place-specific outcomes for nature and people, and particularly social-ecological adaptation to climate change [7,8]. This is particularly true for nature-based adaptation (also known as nature-based solutions to adaptation or ecosystem-based adaptation), which is about harnessing biodiversity and ecosystem services and enhancing them to address the challenges of adaptation to climate change [9–11]. Nature-based adaptation involves using ecosystem services and ecological processes to help people adapt to the impacts of climate change, while improving ecosystem resistance and resilience or facilitating ecosystem transformations towards a state that is both desirable and adapted to a changing climate [12–14].

Adapting to climate change involves people collaborating, sharing and co-creating new knowledge or developing alternative livelihoods to address the specific vulnerabilities of different social groups [15–17]. People can manage, restore and protect ecosystems to ensure the supply of ecosystem services that reduce climate impacts; for example, planting or protecting mangroves can shelter coastal settlements from storms, managing wetlands can reduce floods and droughts, and urban parks can cool cities during heatwaves [18,19]. Ecosystem properties also matter for adaptation: for example, the redundancy of functions between species and the dispersal of organisms and genes within a landscape influence ecosystem resistance, resilience and transformation [12,13].

Adaptation to climate change is a social-ecological process that is not solely a result of natural processes or human decisions but emerges from multiple relations within social systems, within ecological systems and between them [20]. Adapting to climate change requires a nuanced understanding of how social-ecological relations can be shaped to achieve desired outcomes for people and nature. Successful adaptation pathways involve leveraging these relations to achieve positive outcomes for people and nature [21,22]. The need for rapid and extensive adaptation calls for transformations in people-nature relations, as well as in social relations [23,24].

This perspective on social-ecological relations in adaptation to climate change is aligned to the perspectives of several epistemic communities applying systemic approaches in sustainability sciences. Systems thinking considers the role of system components, for example humans and non-humans, and the relations among them in determining system behaviour or dynamics [25,26]. The concepts of social-ecological systems and coupled human-natural systems have proven useful for analysing the intertwined dynamics of social and ecological changes, including adaptation to climate change [27]. Social-ecological systems are sometimes studied as complex adaptive systems, which have the distinctive characteristic of being determined more by the relations among components than by the components themselves [28]. Relational ontologies, such as those found in various indigenous knowledge systems and in sustainability science, prioritize relations as foundational to understanding reality [29]. Another example is social-ecological network analysis, which emphasizes the interactions and relations between social and ecological entities within coupled systems [30].

Some epistemic communities have focused on relations either among people or between people and nature (see examples in table 1). For instance, the concept of co-production is applied with two different perspectives in the literature. First, the concept has been used to describe collaborations between people within and across communities (people-people (PP) relations), such as decision-makers, Indigenous peoples and local communities, scientists, and other people who have a role in creating knowledge or designing solutions to sustainability or adaptation problems [35,36,47,49]. The participation of diverse people and the recognition of their multiple knowledge and worldviews are essential for developing adaptive strategies that are context-specific and culturally sensitive [50,51]. The second perspective describes the co-production of ecosystem services, which are not delivered to humans by nature alone but rather result from interactions between people and nature (PN) [48,52–55]. This perspective has been applied to adaptation and the co-production of ‘adaptation services’ (i.e. ecosystem properties and services that matter for adaptation) [12,56,57].

There are two gaps in the literature on social-ecological relations in adaptation to climate change. One relates to the disconnect between the literature on social relations (PP) and relations between people and nature (PN) [58]. Another is the absence of a perspective integrating ecological relations (or NN for nature-nature) together with other relations. These NN relations are ecological interactions between biotic or abiotic elements that help moderate climate impacts on social-ecological
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Different concepts and approaches studying social–ecological relations (PP: people–people, NN: nature–nature, PN: people–nature).</caption><thead><tr><th>relations</th><th>outcomes</th><th>concepts and approaches</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>social–ecological (all PP, PN, NN relations)</td><td>system dynamics and resilience; social–ecological adaptation to climate change</td><td>social–ecological systems [31]; complex adaptive systems [28]; actor–network theoryz [32]; relational ontologies [29]; social–ecological networks [30]; assemblage theory [33]; regenerative approaches [34]</td></tr><tr><td>among people (PP relations)</td><td>knowledge; solutions; governance; societal change; norms and rules</td><td>social co-production of knowledge, societal change and actions for sustainability [35,36]; social learning [37]; participatory action research [38]; transdisciplinary co-creation [39]; co-management, adaptive co-management and collaborative governance [40]</td></tr><tr><td>between people and nature (PN relations)</td><td>human well-being; ecosystem services (and their flows or uses); ecosystem management, protection or restoration</td><td>people–nature relational approaches, such as disconnection [41], reconnection [42], reciprocity [43], care [44]; biophilia [45]; more-than-human (non-human agency, co-designing with non-humans) [46,47]; co-production of ecosystem services by people and nature [48];</td></tr></tbody></table>

systems and help systems to adapt to climate change [12]. There is a need to adopt an integrated perspective on social–ecological relations in adaptation [59]: relevant concepts and methods are available on ecological adaptation, social adaptation, ecosystem management and ecosystem services but these have not been brought together [60–62]. To address these gaps, we adopt a social–ecological perspective that includes a comprehensive range of relations, i.e. PP relations and PN, as well as NN (table 1). As a new framing of adaptation, this can help shape adaptation science, design and implementation of adaptation initiatives and policies and improve their monitoring and evaluation.

To adapt to climate change, societies need to build on, strengthen and transform interdependent relations among people (PP), between people and nature (PN), and among non-human entities and ecological processes (NN). Many positive associations have been proposed between the three types of relations. For example, the supply of ecosystem services that help people adapt to climate change (PN) relies on ecological functions and ecosystem capacity for resistance, resilience and transformation (NN) [12]. People need to collaborate (PP) to manage ecosystems for protecting or restoring key ecological relations or keystone species (NN) and to ensure the supply of these ecosystem services (PN) [63]. People’s interrelations (PP) also result in governance arrangements, including the governance of PN relations [64]. Reconnecting people to nature (PN) can build social cohesion needed for collective adaptive actions (PP) [42,65]. There is also a growing body of research in the field of environmental psychology that suggests an association between the way people relate to other people (PP) and to non-human entities (PN), based on potential associations between prosocial behaviour and environmental concern [66–68].

Our objective in this article is to identify associations and archetypes of social–ecological relations in nature-based adaptation (PP, NN and PN relations) from an assessment of 25 case studies distributed globally. Archetypes in sustainability science are representative configurations or patterns of behaviours, system dynamics or PN interactions [69]. They help identify common patterns and general lessons learned across cases, without erasing particularities [70].

We hypothesize that adaptation actions that mobilize more relations between people and nature (PN) also mobilize more social relations (PP) and ecological relations (NN). We also hypothesize that archetypes are mainly differentiated by their consideration of PN relations. Although all PP, NN and PN relations matter for adaptation, PN relations can be seen as levers to ensure that the mobilization of PP and NN relations helps achieve social–ecological adaptation. For example, actions that reconnect people with nature or keep people connected with nature have been identified as leverage points to transform modern society towards sustainability [42].

## 2. Analytical framework

The analytical framework was developed from key literature and discussions during a workshop in March 2023 bringing together 21 researchers at Sainte-Croix (Drôme, France). From the literature (cited in the introduction of this article), workshop participants identified the key social–ecological relations that can be mobilized to adapt to climate change. By ‘mobilized’, we refer to adaptation actions that build on existing relations or change them to facilitate adaptation. By ‘relation’, we refer to the connections, interactions, or associations between the elements of a social–ecological system. Following Kramer & De Smit [71], we consider both the relations between an element and other elements and the relations between element and the whole. The former type of relations includes direct interactions, for example the predation of one animal by another or the use of natural resources by humans. The latter type includes the influence of system elements on system properties (such as species diversity, landscape connectivity or collective action) and *vice versa* (such as institutions incentivizing individuals to act).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Analytical framework to assess social-ecological relations in the nature-based adaptation to climate change.</figcaption></figure>

Based on the literature and workshop discussions, participants identified 18 relations, 6 in each of the 3 groups (PP, NN and PN) (figure 1; details and examples in electronic supplementary material S1). We use the sequence PP, NN and PN—in that order—because adaptation actions were initiated by people (PP) who mobilized and managed specific ecological NN relations, depending on their PN relations.

Six types of PP relations are considered, based on previous research on the collaborative co-production of knowledge, action and societal change [35]. The first three focus on people's participation in an adaptation process, while the last three refer to underlying contextual drivers or outcomes of social relations. 'Capacity' (PP1) considers how adaptation actions build on or increase people's capacities to collaborate through capacity building, technology or skills transfer, or multi-directional learning. 'Diversity' (PP2) focuses on relations that ensure that the world views, knowledge systems and values of diverse people are recognized in decision-making [72–74]. 'Reframing' (PP3) is about how relations help to reframe problems, imagine new solutions, open new political debates and shift narratives [35]. 'Equity' (PP4) concerns relations that lead to distributive equity, e.g. whether rights, benefits or costs are fairly distributed among people. 'Power' (PP5) considers whether relations among participants in an adaptation process enable the engagement and empowerment of marginalized or powerless actors [35]. 'Institutions' (PP6) refers to whether institutions (including policies) support adaptation, are strengthened, or are created for governance of adaptation and collective action [75,76].

The six NN relations consider various processes and properties underpinning ecological adaptive and transformative capacity [12]. The first three types focus on components of diversity, and the latter three on ecological mechanisms. 'Taxonomic' (NN1) refers to the diversity, complementarity and redundancy of biota at different levels, such as genotypes, species, life forms, habitats, communities and novel biota (e.g. genetic diversity in crops). 'Functional' (NN2) focuses on the diversity, complementarity and redundancy of functions within and across functional groups (e.g. herbivores, carnivores, scavengers). 'Response' (NN3) deals with the diversity of responses of species or individuals to climate variations (e.g. diverse cultivated species that have different responses to droughts). 'Disturbance' (NN4) considers ecological properties that regulate disturbance regimes in the ecosystem or in the surroundings (e.g. low flammability or fire-tolerance of plant species, or water infiltration into soils to mitigate downstream floods). 'Stabilization' (NN5) refers to strengthening stabilizing feedbacks, buffers, stocks and reservoirs (e.g. water storage in aquifers or species with banks of propagules) or decreasing amplifying feedbacks (e.g. feedback between fire occurrence and fire-tolerant invasive species). 'Connectivity' (NN6) relates to flows and interactions across landscapes (e.g. corridors to facilitate the movement of plants or animals to adapt to a changing climate).

The six types of PN relations are based on metaphors of how humans relate to nature [77]. These PN relations are associated with different values of nature; for example, instrumental (i.e. values of nature as means to achieve human ends), relational (i.e. values that derive from interactions between people and nature or among people in or about nature) and intrinsic (i.e. values inherent to nature) [78]. The first three types belong to a 'nature for people' framing, with a focus on instrumental values, whereas the last three refer to a 'people and nature' framing, with a focus on relational and intrinsic values [79]. Adaptation actions can mobilize these different relations to build adaptive capacity. 'Services' (PN1) describes the production metaphor—a utilitarian view focused on instrumental values, whereby nature produces ecosystem services that contribute to quality of life [19]. 'Management' (PN2) considers that nature-based adaptation includes managing sustainably, restoring and protecting ecosystems to ensure the supply of ecosystem services [80]. 'Flow' (PN3) considers that nature-based adaptation includes managing landscapes and human activities to ensure that ecosystem services reach beneficiaries (e.g. physical access of people to nature, experiential connections between people and nature, transformation and transportation of nature's benefits) [42,48]. 'Concern' (PN4) is about moral duty and concern for nature, including emotional connections with nature [42], feelings about places or other species [81] and intrinsic values of nature [78]. 'Web-of-life' (PN5) considers the strong web-of-life interconnections among species, including humans, and the embeddedness of humans within ecological systems [77]. 'Spirituality' (PN6) includes spiritual dimensions, for example, the connections among land, family, ancestors and the spiritual realm [82,83].
<table><caption>**Table 2.** List of case studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>id</th><th>country</th><th>location</th><th>details</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>01</td><td>AU</td><td>Australia</td><td>Murray-Darling Basin</td><td>re-allocating water from irrigation to the environment and adapting to water scarcity</td></tr><tr><td>02</td><td>BO</td><td>Bolivia</td><td>Chiquitania Region</td><td>managing wildfires in the Bolivian Amazonia in a context of climate change</td></tr><tr><td>03</td><td>CO</td><td>Colombia</td><td>Alto Fragua National Park</td><td>future-oriented conservation and adaptation in a national park</td></tr><tr><td>04</td><td>ES1</td><td>Spain</td><td>Barcelona City</td><td>resilience thinking in Barcelona's green plan</td></tr><tr><td>05</td><td>ES2</td><td>Spain</td><td>Extremadura Region</td><td>community-based wildfire management through fostering productive fuelbreaks</td></tr><tr><td>06</td><td>FR1</td><td>France</td><td>Alps Region</td><td>'Alpages Sentinelles', a transdisciplinary R&amp;D network on adaptation to climate change in mountain pastures</td></tr><tr><td>07</td><td>FR2</td><td>France</td><td>Alps Region</td><td>'Sem' les Alpes': producing seeds of local grass species for restoring degraded areas</td></tr><tr><td>08</td><td>FR3</td><td>France</td><td>Drôme Valley</td><td>nature-based climate adaptation for the Drôme Valley</td></tr><tr><td>09</td><td>FR4</td><td>France</td><td>Grenoble City</td><td>a 'Canopy Plan' for limiting heatwave impacts in the Grenoble urban area</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>FR5</td><td>France</td><td>Haute-Loire Department</td><td>innovative water governance with land commons</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>FR6</td><td>France</td><td>Pays de la Meije, Alps</td><td>mountainpaths: ecosystem-based adaptation pathways in a mountain region</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>MG1</td><td>Madagascar</td><td>Antananarivo Region</td><td>soil mining and adaptation in the hinterlands of Antananarivo</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>MG2</td><td>Madagascar</td><td>Eastern Madagascar</td><td>adaptation of smallholder farmers in forested agricultural landscapes of eastern Madagascar</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>ML1</td><td>Mali</td><td>Lake Faguibine</td><td>new forest-based livelihoods assumed by women adapting to the disappearance of a lake</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>ML2</td><td>Mali</td><td>Lake Faguibine</td><td>attempts to restore water flows in order to replenish a dried lake</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>PE1</td><td>Peru</td><td>Andean Mountains</td><td>pine plantations for adapting to droughts</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>PE2</td><td>Peru</td><td>Ayacucho Region</td><td>rainwater harvesting for facing drought</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>PE3</td><td>Peru</td><td>Lima Region</td><td>ancestral pre-Inca practices of aquifer recharge ('amunas')</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>PG</td><td>Papua New Guinea</td><td>Bismarck Sea</td><td>climate-resilient development pathways for seascapes</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>SB</td><td>Solomon Islands</td><td>Solomon Islands</td><td>empowering communities to design and implement climate adaptation pathways</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>SE1</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Lapland Region</td><td>landscape-scale rewilding initiatives with adaptation as a co-benefit</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>SE2</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Öland Island</td><td>building capacity for collective actions to adapt to a changing climate-water management on Öland</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>SE3</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Stockholm City</td><td>promoting multifunctionality in multifunctional mosaic landscapes undergoing rapid urbanization</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>TW</td><td>Taiwan</td><td>Xinshe, Hualien County</td><td>integrated landscape-seascape approach for socio-ecological revitalization</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>ZA</td><td>South Africa</td><td>Garden Route National Park</td><td>futures orientation and adaptation in the management of a park</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3. Material and methods

We applied case study synthesis methods, widely used for comparing and contrasting multiple cases [84]. These methods typically involve selecting case studies, defining a set of variables to describe them, gathering data to score these variables (sometimes with expert judgment) and analysing the resulting scores using statistical techniques. This approach has been applied for several purposes, such as identifying archetypes of social-ecological systems [69], evaluating adaptation efforts [85] or assessing communities at risk of wildfire [86].

We selected 25 case studies of adaptation actions that fulfilled three criteria (table 2; details in electronic supplementary material S2). First, the selected cases were about place-based collective processes aiming for, or resulting in, adaptation to climate change, either in planned or autonomous ways. Second, the adaptation actions applied social-ecological approaches that considered both people and nature (e.g. reducing vulnerability of ecosystems and human communities or harnessing the contributions of ecosystems to adaptation for people). Third, the cases had been the subject of engagement (research, planning, implementation or evaluation) by at least one co-author of this article (called the 'case experts' hereafter, which numbered between 1 and 3 per case study) and were also documented in scientific publications or reports. Eleven pilot case studies were presented by participants at a workshop in March 2023 and used to test and refine the framework. An additional 14 case studies were then identified through our networks to increase the diversity of geographical locations and settings (urban, rural and coastal or marine). Case study experts were 17 scientists from different disciplines (including ecology, geography, economics, sociology and political sciences), working on social-ecological systems with interdisciplinary approaches and familiar with the literature cited in this article. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we accepted the potential bias in our opportunistic selection of case studies, choosing those familiar to the workshop participants and their networks.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Scatterplots representing the associations between PP, NP and NN relation scores across the case studies. Regression lines are drawn only where the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero. Colours refer to the cluster in which a case has the highest membership (figure 4).</figcaption></figure>

To assess each of the 25 cases, experts first wrote a narrative description of their cases (including context, stakeholders, ecosystems and their services, climate vulnerability, nature's values, justice issues, etc.). This description was needed for understanding the assessment but was not directly analysed. Case experts then completed a questionnaire template (SM1), which included 2 questions for each of the 18 relations of the analytical framework: (i) To what extent has an adaptation action mobilized the relation for adaptation? (ii) In what ways was such relation mobilized? The answers to the first question were given ordinal scores (0 = not at all, 1 = to some extent, 2 = much or very much), whereas the answers to the second were narrative. Narratives and questionnaires were completed after the workshop, between May and June 2023. The experts discussed the responses with the lead authors of this article (BL and SL) between September and November 2023 and, if there were disagreements on scores, discussions and deliberations led to a consensus between study experts and lead authors and an adjustment of the scores, as done in previous research with cases coded for prototype development (e.g. [87]). All interactions after the March 2023 workshop took place online. Despite some degree of unavoidable subjectivity in the scores, our iterative approach with several discussions between case study experts and lead authors, as well as between the two lead authors, helped align perspectives and ensure coherence across case studies. The process based on consensus may enhance the validity of the scoring owing to the combined expertise and discussion [88].

Statistical analyses involved three steps. First, we assessed Spearman rank correlations between PP, NN and PN relation scores (i.e. the sums of scores of the corresponding relations, which measured how many relations were mobilized and to what extent). Second, we applied factor analysis to test whether the six relation scores within each PP, NN and PN group could be reduced to fewer factors. Factor analysis is often undertaken to identify a few unobservable factors from the original data, which can be used for further analyses, such as clustering [86]. Factor analysis with ordinal data assumes that unobserved continuous variables (latent variables) underlie the ordinal variables. As a result, the factors are generally treated as continuous [89,90]. We performed factor analysis from a Spearman correlation matrix (given the ordinal nature of the data) with the *fa* function in the *psych* R package [91], using two factors for each PP, NN and PN group, the *minimum rank* factoring method, and *oblimin* oblique rotation. Third, we used the six factors to cluster the case studies and identify archetypes (or typical configurations) of social-ecological relations in adaptation. Clusters, which are empirical groupings based on observable similarities within a specific dataset, can help identify configurations that resemble archetypes [69]. We applied fuzzy *k*-means clustering using the *FKM* function in the *fclust* package in R, with the *silhouette* cluster validity index to select the number of clusters [52]. With fuzzy clustering, one case study can belong to more than one cluster, which reflects the common situation where some case studies can be intermediate between two or more archetypes [69]. Case studies with membership greater than 0.50 in a cluster were associated with this cluster, whereas other cases were associated with all clusters to which membership was between 0.25 and 0.50. We represented the clustering results in a principal component biplot (as a dimension reduction technique to transform the six factors into the two dimensions of the graph).

## 4. Results

The correlation analysis (figure 2) showed that a higher score for relations between PN was significantly associated with greater scores for PP relations and NN relations. However, a higher score for people's interrelations (PP) was not significantly associated with a greater score for NN relations.

The three-factor analyses, conducted separately on each group of relations (PP, NN and PN), showed that our case studies could be described by two factors in each group (which explained 50–66% of the variance) (figure 3; electronic supplementary material S3). This analysis resulted in six factors, which we labelled based on the relations most correlated with them. The first factor, correlated with PP1 (capacity), PP2 (diversity) and PP3 (reframing), was labelled 'PP_CoCreation' because it emphasized collaboration among stakeholders with diverse perspectives, leveraging their capacities to collectively reframe problems. The second factor was labelled 'PP_InclusGovern' (for inclusive governance) because it referred to a governance approach that ensures distributive equity (PP4), addresses power imbalances (PP5) and strengthens institutions (PP6). For NN, a first factor 'NN Processes' focused on ecological functions and mechanisms that drive ecosystem resilience or transformation and the supply of ecosystem services (NN4: disturbance; NN5: stabilization; NN6: connectivity). The other factor was
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Factor analysis outputs showing the major loadings on each of the six factors (in italic text). All loadings with an absolute value above a cut-off point of 0.25 are represented as a path.</figcaption></figure>

labelled 'NN_Diversity' because it was related to the diversity of ecosystem components and their properties (NN1: taxonomic; NN2: functional; NN3: response). For PN, a factor was correlated with PN1 (services) and PN3 (flow) and was labelled 'PN_Utilitarian' because it focused on the provision and flow of ecosystem services for human benefits. The final factor, labelled 'PN_Holistic', was correlated with non-instrumental relations between people and nature and intrinsic or relational values (PN4: concern; PN5: web-of-life; PN6: spirituality), as well as ecosystem management (PN2).

The cluster analysis based on six factors identified four groups, or archetypes, with distinct mobilized social-ecological interactions (figure 4). The case studies in the different clusters were clearly separated in the PN-PP scatterplot (figure 2 left), which showed they differed mostly according to their PN relation scores (low for cluster 1, medium for 2 and 3 and high for 4) and PP relation scores (low for 1, medium for 2, high for 3 and 4). The different clusters were not as clearly separated in the other scatterplots (figure 2 centre and right) because NN relation scores did not discriminate between them.

In the cluster named 'Controlling nature for adaptation', the case studies barely mobilized biodiversity, people-nature and people-people relations. Only ecological mechanisms were mobilized, particularly for water regulation and disaster risk reduction. These case studies were top-down adaptation projects; for example, one project that was supported by international organizations aimed to refill a dry lake in Mali using hydrological engineering and ecosystem management (ML2), and in another program in Peru (PE1), authorities decided to plant fast-growing tree species to improve water availability during dry seasons, despite the concerns of local communities and scientists about the high water consumption of these trees [92]. In these case studies, decisions were made by a few people without considering the knowledge or world views of other stakeholders (thus low PP scores). These cases proposed practical solutions to single problems of local relevance (e.g. water availability) and mobilized only the ecological mechanisms of relevance to the problems, without considering trade-offs or broader issues. They focused on specific instrumental values, such as the role of ecosystems in regulating water for human uses.

Case studies in the 'Biodiversity-based adaptation' cluster mobilized various people-nature relations (either utilitarian or more holistic), but not strongly. Key relations were related to ecological diversity, although people's relations were also moderately considered. The case studies were typically nature-based adaptation projects that focused on biodiversity and its different values, instrumental or not. For example, urban projects emphasized the diversity of planted tree species that resist climate change impacts or the diversity and complementarity of ecological structures at the landscape scale (FR4 in Grenoble or SE3 in Stockholm). Two mountain projects mobilized the taxonomic and functional diversity of grassland species to facilitate adaptation (FR1 and FR6). Although some of these cases faced challenges for involving diverse stakeholders and were driven by authorities and experts or scientists, their proposed interventions were not only practical but also addressed governance issues.

In the 'Ecosystem services for adaptation' cluster, the key relations between people and nature were related to ecosystem services, thus mostly with utilitarian values. These case studies had a strong focus on people's interrelations and ecological mechanisms for the production of material and regulating contributions to adaptation. These cases were locally driven initiatives for natural resource management (e.g. water managed on land commons in FR5, trees for charcoal production, local livelihoods and adaptation in ML1) and risk management (e.g. wildfires in ES2 and BO, partly in this cluster). They were also about local communities designing climate-resilient pathways, based on managing multiple ecosystem services for livelihoods (PG and SB). In addition to practical interventions, these cases also addressed governance issues (e.g. collaborative governance of water and common lands in FR5) and power or equity (e.g. inclusive decision-making processes in PG or inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge in ES2).

A few case studies that considered both ecosystem services and biodiversity were located between clusters 2 and 3. For example, a case in Madagascar aimed at improving ecosystem services and biodiversity for the resilience of smallholders in tropical forests (MG2) and another in France promoted the use of diverse local seeds for restoring grasslands and controlling soil erosion in mountains (FR2).

The 'Integrated approaches to adaptation' cluster typically mobilized all types of relations and strongly considered holistic relations between people and nature, in addition to utilitarian values. Examples included a pioneering and transformative territory-based project in France, with co-management arrangements and integrated, inclusive processes of planning and governance (FR3), a landscape-level initiative to promote socio-ecological revitalization in Taiwan following principles of the Satoyama Initiative including ecological, social, cultural, spiritual and economic benefits (TW), and a project that restored ancestral practices of water management in Peru, combining management interventions with cultural, social and environmental practices (PE2). Cases in this cluster stood out from the others by their inclusive and power-sensitive processes that recognized local and Indigenous worldviews, various non-instrumental values (e.g. sense of place in SE2) and multiple types of connections between people and nature (e.g. spirituality in PE2 or TW). They often considered cultural, social and environmental practices (e.g. rituals in PE2) and combined interventions related to governance and personal beliefs or behaviours (e.g. shifts in attitudes in SE1).
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Clustering results. The scatterplot (left) is a principal component analysis biplot showing the 25 case studies (circles, whose colours indicate clusters with membership above 0.25), the four cluster centroids (stars), the four envelopes drawn around the cases belonging to only one cluster and the centroid, and the six factors (arrows with labels). The bottom-right plot shows the mean values of the six factors in the clusters.</figcaption></figure>

# 5. Discussion

In this study, we have analysed social-ecological relations in 25 case studies of nature-based adaptation globally. We found that the mobilization of ecological and social relations is significantly associated with the mobilization of PN relations. We also found that adaptation archetypes are differentiated based on how they mobilize PN relations and social relations.

## (a) Method strengths and limitations

Our analytical framework proved useful in assessing a diversity of social-ecological relations. Some overlaps were apparent during the application of the framework (e.g. between NN4 ‘Disturbance’ and NN5 ‘Stabilization’) but some degree of overlap is acceptable given the relatedness of the topics considered in some pairs of relations. With factor analysis, the number of variables was reduced in an internally consistent way, as indicated by the high factor loadings of relations on their respective factors, confirming the relevance of the relations considered.

Scoring the relations involved a degree of subjectivity, but discussions between experts and lead authors of this paper were effective in addressing disagreements and reaching consensus, thus ensuring score consistency. The limitations of this assessment based on consensus are the lack of independent verification and the possibility of ‘groupthink’ (particularly given that all case experts were researchers, and despite their coming from diverse disciplinary backgrounds). Further research could analyse the views of more diverse experts on the cases, not only the opinions of academics.

Expert judgement was the only practical method available to assess such a diverse set of relations, given that there were no empirical data for most relations considered in the framework. To advance our understanding of social-ecological relations in nature-based adaptation, further research could develop methods for empirical data collection on relations. Another limitation of our analysis was the possible bias in the case study selection, which calls for further research with a more diverse and comprehensive set of case studies.

## (b) Archetypes

Our cluster analysis identified archetypes of adaptation based on social-ecological relations, which is a novel approach compared to previous archetype development. Archetypes of social-ecological systems have often been built from system state variables rather than variables describing relations between system elements. For example, many archetype analyses have used variables describing social systems (e.g. population density) or ecological systems (e.g. water availability) and the trends in these variables [93–95]. A few prototype analyses were based on social relations; for example, power relationships [87], conflicts [96] or social learning [97]. When PN relations were considered, they were often limited to ecosystem services (i.e. from nature to people) and human impacts (i.e. from people to nature) [98,99]. Other types of PN relations, like the intangible ones we included, have rarely been considered (but see the different views of nature considered in the archetypes developed by [87]).

Our consideration of PP, NN and PN relations has enabled us to identify new types of archetypes of social-ecological systems from cases of nature-based adaptation. These four archetypes correspond to different framings of PN relations, depending on how adaptation is designed and implemented. We label our adaptation framings by drawing inspiration from the nature conservation framings proposed by Georgina Mace (‘nature for itself’, ‘nature despite people’, ‘nature for people’,
'people and nature') [79]. The nature control archetype frames 'adaptation despite people' because social-ecological relations are poorly mobilized, whereas the integrated approach archetype represents a framing of 'people and nature adapting together'. The two other archetypes are about 'people adapting from or with nature' but the framing is clearly more anthropocentric in the ecosystem services archetype (a framing of 'people adapting from nature') than for the biodiversity-based archetype (a framing of 'people adapting with nature').

Further analyses of larger sets of cases deliberately selected to represent the global diversity of social and ecological contexts are needed to confirm the applicability of the archetypes in other contexts and to possibly identify other archetypes. These analyses could also try to explain why different archetypes occur, depending on particular contextual conditions, on how adaptation actions are designed, and on the values, rules and knowledge of participants [100,101].

### (c) Central role of people-nature relations and values of nature

The association between PN relation scores and the scores for the other two groups of relations (which were not directly associated) suggests a central role of PN relations in nature-based adaptation. This role is also highlighted by the differentiation of the four archetypes along a gradient of PN relation scores. On one side of this gradient, relations are poorly mobilized by the nature control archetype, with its focus on ecological mechanisms and a low consideration of social relations. On the other side, the integrated approach archetype mobilizes a diversity of PN relations, as well as many natural and social relations.

The mobilization of social relations is a second discriminant of archetypes. The biodiversity-based archetype weakly mobilizes social relations and focuses on biodiversity to ensure multiple benefits from resilient ecosystems. The ecosystem services archetype is problem-focused and builds strongly on social relations and considers issues of power and equity, in part because the adaptation actions are locally driven to respond to locally relevant problems.

Surprisingly, the ecological relation scores do not discriminate between archetypes. What makes a difference is the type of ecological relations mobilized—between relations related to mechanisms (prioritized in nature control and ecosystem services archetypes) and those related to diversity (prioritized in the biodiversity-based archetype).

As PN relations discriminate archetypes, they probably have a central role in the design, implementation and outcomes of nature-based adaptation [22]. The narrative descriptions of cases in the integrated approach archetype show adaptation cases that maintain relations or reconnect people with nature in multiple ways, including material, experiential, cognitive, emotional and philosophical [42]. Whereas all four archetypes consider material relations, the integrated approach archetype is particularly strong in mobilizing non-tangible relations (i.e. cognitive, emotional and philosophical), which are generally considered as deep leverage points for adaptation [102–104]. There is a need for further research to explore the transformative potential of cases in the four archetypes. For example, we need to assess adaptation outcomes to understand how adaptation cases and their mobilized relations contribute to adaptability or transformability.

Values of nature are central to relations between people and nature and they thus differ according to the archetypes of nature-based adaptation [105]. How social-ecological systems adapt to climate change thus depends on the values people ascribe to nature—for example instrumental, relational and intrinsic values [78]—or broader deeply held values, i.e. individual and collective moral and ethical framings that motivate priorities and guide actions [106]. The narrative descriptions of cases showed that, whereas the nature control archetypes focused on instrumental values, the other archetypes mobilized more diverse values. This was particularly clear for the cases with integrated approaches, which mobilized relational values such as sense of place or intrinsic values related to spirituality. However, despite the archetypal differences, adaptation cases are often based on a constellation of values and not purely on intrinsic, instrumental, or relational values, as shown in previous research [97,107]. As literature on values emphasizes that shifts towards holistic values could foster progress towards sustainability [108], further research is needed to better understand to the effects of prioritizing values of coexistence with nature over utilitarian values of nature for adaptation to climate change.

### (d) Implications for transformative adaptation

Our analysis of social-ecological relations in adaptation has implications for adaptation practice. We found that the three types of relations (PP, NN and PN) are intertwined, which means that the design of nature-based adaptation should consider all three together. For example, rather than employing instrumental and engineering approaches for working with nature, our findings show that it is possible to implement integrated approaches that devote attention to the intricate web of interrelations between climate change, ecological processes and human actions and the social-ecological relational nature of adaptation [8]. Considering the multiple relations at play in adaptation practice can help planners and policymakers identify potential synergies, conflicts and trade-offs that will lead to more informed decision-making and transformative solutions [23,109]. The need for a systemic understanding is not a new conclusion *per se*, but our results also suggest a way to overcome the apparent inertia to act on it. Further development and active use of *relational approaches* seem key to moving towards adaptation planning and practice grounded in holistic understandings and collaborative approaches [110–112].

**Ethics.** This work did not require ethical approval from a human subject or animal welfare committee.

**Data accessibility.** Data are provided in the online supplementary material [113].

**Declaration of AI use.** We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

**Authors' contributions.** B.L.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; S.L.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; M.J.C.: investigation, writing—review and editing; E.C.: investigation, writing—review and editing; E.B.: investigation, writing—review and editing;
G.F.: investigation, writing—review and editing; A.G.-R.: investigation, writing—review and editing; T.P.: investigation, writing—review and editing; E.A.: investigation, writing—review and editing; M.A.: investigation, writing—review and editing; J.B.: investigation, writing—review and editing; T.D.: investigation, writing—review and editing; H.D.: investigation, writing—review and editing; T.D.: investigation, writing—review and editing; A.G.G.: investigation, writing—review and editing; P.G.K.: investigation, writing—review and editing; C.M.-R.: investigation, writing—review and editing; M.N.: investigation, writing—review and editing; F.Q.: investigation, writing—review and editing; N.S.: investigation, writing—review and editing; G.W.: investigation, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

**Conflict of interest declaration.** We declare we have no competing interests.

**Funding.** This work is part of the PEPR research programs FOREST and SOLU-BIOD with government funding managed by the French 'Agence Nationale de la Recherche' under the France 2030 program (references ANR-24-PEFO and ANR-22-EXSO). E.A., S.L. and T.P. acknowledge the Biodiversa+ project RECONNECT, funded by Biodiversa+, the European Biodiversity Partnership under the 2021–2022 BiodivProtect joint call for research proposals, co-funded by the European Commission (GA N°101052342) and with the funding organisations Formas (2022-01708), Research Council of Finland, Bundersministerium für Bildung und Forschung, DFG Deutsche Forschungsgemeinshaft (511751806), ANR Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-22-EBIP-0009-06) and Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). A.G.-R. and N.S. acknowledge support by the Future Cities Lab Global at ETH Zurich funded by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme and ETH Zurich (ETHZ), with additional contributions from the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). The workshop was funded by the international project 'N-Transform' at OSUG ('Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers de Grenoble', Grenoble-Alpes University).

**Acknowledgements.** This paper is a contribution from the Transformative Adaptation Research Alliance (TARA, https://research.csiro.au/tara/), an international network of researchers and practitioners dedicated to the development and implementation of novel approaches to transformative adaptation to global change. This paper is also a contribution from the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS, a Future Earth core project) and its working group on 'Nature-based transformations: Evolving human-nature interactions under changing climate' (https://pecs-science.org/nature-based-transformations/). Concerning case study contributions, G.W. thanks Alain Châteauneuf, the commune of Chanaleilles and rights-holders of their land commons for sharing their work on water governance (FR5).

## References

1. IPCC. 2022 *Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. contribution of working group ii to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change*. (ed. HO Pörtner). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (doi:10.1017/9781009325844)

2. Fontúrbel FE, Nespolo RF, Amico GC, Watson DM. 2021 Climate change can disrupt ecological interactions in mysterious ways: using ecological generalists to forecast community-wide effects. *Clim. Change Ecol.* **2**, 100044. (doi:10.1016/j.ecochq.2021.100044)

3. Scheffers BR et al. 2016 The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. *Science* **354**, aaf7671. (doi:10.1126/science.aaf7671)

4. Cissé G et al. 2022 Health, wellbeing, and the changing structure of communities. In *Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change* (ed. HO pörtner), pp. 1041–1170. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (doi:10.1017/9781009325844.009)

5. Fazey I, Gamarra JG, Fischer J, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Christie M. 2010 Adaptation strategies for reducing vulnerability to future environmental change. *Front. Ecol. Environ.* **8**, 414–422. (doi:10.1890/080215)

6. Pecl GT et al. 2017 Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. *Science* **355**, eaai9214. (doi:10.1126/science.aai9214)

7. Berkes F, Jolly D. 2002 Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian Western Arctic community. *Conserv. Ecol.* **5**, 18. (doi:10.5751/ES-00342-050218)

8. Salgueiro-Otero D, Ojea E. 2020 A better understanding of social-ecological systems is needed for adapting fisheries to climate change. *Mar. Policy* **122**, 104123. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104123)

9. Colls A, Ash N, Ikkala N. 2009 *Ecosystem-based adaptation: a natural response to climate change*. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. See https://www.loc.gov/item/2023691042/.

10. Seddon N, Turner B, Berry P, Chausson A, Girardin CAJ. 2019 Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **9**, 84–87. (doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0405-0)

11. Chausson A et al. 2020 Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. *Glob. Chang. Biol.* **26**, 6134–6155. (doi:10.1111/gcb.15310)

12. Lavorel S et al. 2015 Ecological mechanisms underpinning climate adaptation services. *Glob. Chang. Biol.* **21**, 12–31. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12689)

13. Peterson St-Laurent G, Oakes LE, Cross M, Hagerman S. 2021 R–R–T (resistance–resilience–transformation) typology reveals differential conservation approaches across ecosystems and time. *Commun. Biol.* **4**, 39. (doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01556-2)

14. Lavorel S, Colloff MJ, Locatelli B, Gorddard R, Prober SM, Gabillet M, Devaux C, Laforgue D, Peyrache-Gadeau V. 2019 Mustering the power of ecosystems for adaptation to climate change. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **92**, 87–97. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.010)

15. Korhonen-Kurki K, Bor S, Faehnle M, Kosenius AK, Kuusela S, Käyhkö J, Pekkonen M, Saarikoski H, Keskinen M. 2022 Empirical insights into knowledge-weaving processes in strategic environmental research. *J. Environ. Policy. Plann.* **24**, 733–748. (doi:10.1080/1523908X.2022.2044296)

16. Wamsler C. 2017 Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake? *Environ. Sci. Policy* **75**, 148–157. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.016)

17. Wannewitz M, Garschagen M. 2023 Collective adaptation to climate change. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **61**, 101248. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101248)

18. Colloff MJ, Wise RM, Palomo I, Lavorel S, Pascual U. 2020 Nature's contribution to adaptation: insights from examples of the transformation of social-ecological systems. *Ecos. Peop.* **16**, 137–150. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1754919)

19. Pramova E, Locatelli B, Djoudi H, Somorin OA. 2012 Forests and trees for social adaptation to climate variability and change. *WIREs Clim. Change* **3**, 581–596. (doi:10.1002/wcc.195)

20. Barnes ML, Bodin Ö, Guerrero AM, McAllister RRJ, Alexander SM, Robins G. 2017 The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecological systems. *Ecol. Soc.* **22**. (doi:10.5751/ES-09769-220416)

21. Bruley E, Locatelli B, Colloff MJ, Salliou N, Métris T, Lavorel S. 2021 Actions and leverage points for ecosystem-based adaptation pathways in the Aps. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **124**, 567–579. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.023)

22. Welden EA, Chausson A, Melanidis MS. 2021 Leveraging nature-based solutions for transformation: reconnecting people and nature. *People Nat.* **3**, 966–977. (doi:10.1002/pan3.10212)
23. Colloff MJ et al. 2021 Adapting transformation and transforming adaptation to climate change using a pathways approach. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **124**, 163–174. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.014)

24. O'Brien K. 2021 You matter more than you think: quantum social change for a thriving world. Oslo, Norway: cCHANGE Press.

25. Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G. 2017 Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. *J. Clean. Prod.* **148**, 866–881. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.002)

26. Schoon M, Van Der S. 2015 The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives: insights into the human-nature relationship. *Nat. Sci. Soc.* **23**, 166–174. (doi:10.1051/nss/2015034)

27. Fischer J 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)

28. Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A, Folke C. 2018 Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems. *Ecol. Soc.* **23**, 46. (doi:10.5751/ES-10558-230446)

29. West S, Haider LJ, Stålhammar S, Woroniecki S. 2020 A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. *Ecosyst. People* **16**, 304–325. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417)

30. Bodin O et al. 2019 Improving network approaches to the study of complex social-ecological interdependencies. *Nat. Sustain.* **2**, 551–559. (doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0308-0)

31. Biggs R et al. 2021 What are social-ecological systems and social-ecological systems research? In *The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems* (eds R Biggs, A de Vos, R Preiser, H Clements, K Maciejewski, M Schlüter), pp. 3–26. New York, NY: Routledge. (doi:10.4324/9781003021339-2)

32. Latour B. 2007 *Reassembling the social – an introduction to actor-network-theory*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

33. Turker KA, Murphy JT. 2021 Assembling community economies. *Prog. Hum. Geogr.* **45**, 49–69. (doi:10.1177/0309132519884630)

34. Gordon E, Davila F, Riedy C. 2022 Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture. *Agric. Human Values* **39**, 809–826. (doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10276-0)

35. Chambers JM et al. 2021 Six modes of co-production for sustainability. *Nat. Sustain.* **4**, 983–996. (doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x)

36. Wyborn C, Datta A, Montana J, Ryan M, Leith P, Chaffin B, Miller C, van Kerkhoff L. 2019 Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. *Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.* **44**, 319–346. (doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103)

37. Galan J, Galiana F, Kotze DJ, Lynch K, Torreggiani D, Pedroli B. 2023 Landscape adaptation to climate change: local networks, social learning and co-creation processes for adaptive planning. *Glob. Environ. Change* **7**, 102627. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102627)

38. Mapfumo P, Adjie-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE. 2013 Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. *Env. Dev.* **5**, 6–22. (doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2012.11.001)

39. Jacobi J et al. 2022 Transdisciplinary co-creation increases the utilization of knowledge from sustainable development research. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **129**, 107–115. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.017)

40. Armitage DR et al. 2009 Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. *Front. Ecol. Environ.* **7**, 95–102. (doi:10.1890/070089)

41. Beery T et al. 2023 Disconnection from nature: expanding our understanding of human-nature relations. *People Nat.* **5**, 470–488. (doi:10.1002/pan3.10451)

42. Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klielecki K, Fischer J. 2018 Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. *Sustain. Sci.* **13**, 1389–1397. (doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9)

43. Ojeda J, Salomon AK, Rowe JK, Ban NC. 2022 Reciprocal contributions between people and nature: a conceptual intervention. *Bioscience* **72**, 952–962. (doi:10.1093/biosci/biac053)

44. Jax K et al. 2018 Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature's contributions to human well-being. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **35**, 22–29. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009)

45. Wilson E. 1984 *The human bond with other species*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

46. Dürbeck G, Schaumann C, Sullivan HI. 2015 Human and non-human agencies in the anthropocene. *Ecozon* @ **6**, 118. (doi:10.37536/ECOZONA.2015.6.1.642)

47. Miller CA, Wyborn C. 2020 Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **113**, 88–95. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016)

48. Bruley E, Locatelli B, Lavorel S. 2021 Nature's contributions to people: coproducing quality of life from multifunctional landscapes. *Ecol. Soc.* **26**, 12. (doi:10.5751/ES-12031-260112)

49. Bremer S, Meisch S. 2017 Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. *WIREs Clim. Change* **8**, e482. (doi:10.1002/wcc.482)

50. Miner K, Canavera L, Gonet J, Luis K, Maddox M, McCarney P, Bridge G, Schimel D, Rattlingleaf J. 2023 The co-production of knowledge for climate science. *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **13**, 307–308. (doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01633-4)

51. Norström AV et al. 2020 Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. *Nat. Sustain.* **3**, 182–190. (doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2)

52. Ferraro MB, Giordani P, Serafini A. 2019 fclust: an R package for fuzzy clustering. *R. J.* **11**, 198. (doi:10.32614/RJ-2019-017)

53. Kachler J, Isaac R, Martín-López B, Bonn A, Felipe-Lucia MR. 2023 Co-production of nature's contributions to people: what evidence is out there? *People and Nature* **5**, 1119–1134. (doi:10.1002/pan3.10493)

54. Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U. 2016 Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. *Adv. Ecol. Res.* **54**, 245–283. (doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003)

55. Torralba M, Oteros-Rozas E, Moreno G, Plieninger T. 2018 Exploring the role of management in the coproduction of ecosystem services from Spanish wooded rangelands. *Rangeland Ecol. Manage.* **71**, 549–559. (doi:10.1016/j.rama.2017.09.001)

56. Colloff MJ, Lavorel S, Wise RM, Dunlop M, Overton IC, Williams KJ. 2016 Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. *Ecol. Appl.* **26**, 1003–1017. (doi:10.1890/15-0848)

57. Lavorel S, Locatelli B, Colloff MJ, Bruley E. 2020 Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change. *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B* **375**, 20190119. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0119)

58. Locatelli B, Bennett EM, Colloff MJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Gorddard R, Palomo I, Lavorel S. 2024 People working with nature: a theoretical perspective on the co-production of nature's contributions to people. *Ecos. and Peop.* **20**, 2359061. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2024.2359061)

59. Thonicke K, Bahn M, Lavorel S, Bardgett RD, Erb K, Giamberini M, Reichstein M, Vollan B, Rammig A. 2020 Advancing the understanding of adaptive capacity of social-ecological systems to absorb climate extremes. *Earths. Future* **8**, (doi:10.1029/2019EF001221)

60. Mastrángelo ME et al. 2019 Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. *Nat. Sustain.* **2**, 1115–1121. (doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1)

61. Norström AV et al. 2022 The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. *Ecosyst. People* **18**, 598–608. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173)

62. Schlüter M, Biggs R, Clements H, de Vos A, Maciejewski K, Preiser R. 2021 Synthesis and emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research methods. In *The routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems* (eds R Biggs, A de Vos, R Preiser, H Clements, K Maciejewski, M Schlüter), pp. 453–479. London, UK: Routledge. (doi:10.4324/9781003021339-33)
63. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004 Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. *Environ. Manage.* **34**, 75–90. (doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7)

64. Isaac R, Kachler J, Winkler KJ, Albrecht E, Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B. 2022 Governance to manage the complexity of nature's contributions to people co-production. *Adv. Ecol. Res.* **66**, 293–321. (doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2022.04.009)

65. Chan KMA *et al.* 2016 Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA* **113**, 1462–1465. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113)

66. Lengieza ML, Aviste R, Richardson M. 2023 The human-nature relationship as a tangible target for pro-environmental behaviour—guidance from interpersonal relationships. *Sustainability* **15**, 12175. (doi:10.3390/su151612175)

67. Paul ES. 2000 Empathy with animals and with humans: are they linked? *Anthrozoös* **13**, 194–202. (doi:10.2752/089279300786999699)

68. Van Doesum NJ *et al.* 2021 Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe. *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA* **118**, e2023846118. (doi:10.1073/pnas.2023846118)

69. Sietz D, Frey U, Roggero M, Gong Y, Magliocca N, Tan R, Janssen P, Václavik T. 2019 Archetype analysis in sustainability research: methodological portfolio and analytical frontiers. *Ecol. Soc.* **24**, 34. (doi:10.5751/ES-11103-240334)

70. Eisenack K. 2012 Archetypes of adaptation to climate change. In *Human-nature interactions in the anthropocene: potentials of social-ecological systems analysis* (eds M Glaser, G Krause, BMW Ratter, M Welp), pp. 107–123. New York, NY: Routledge.

71. Kramer NJ, De Smit J. 2012 *Systems thinking: concepts and notions*. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

72. Loos J *et al.* 2023 An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services. *Ambio* **52**, 477–488. (doi:10.1007/s13280-022-01812-1)

73. Pascual U *et al.* 2023 Diverse values of nature for sustainability. *Nature* **620**, 813–823. (doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9)

74. Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. 2014 Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. *Ambio* **43**, 579–591. (doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3)

75. Agrawal A. 2008 *The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change*. Washington, DC: The World Bank. (doi:10.1596/28274)

76. Berkhout F. 2012 Adaptation to climate change by organizations. *Clim. Change* **3**, 91–106. (doi:10.1002/wcc.154)

77. Raymond CM *et al.* 2013 Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. *Bioscience* **63**, 536–546. (doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7)

78. Pascual U *et al.* 2017 Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **26**, 7–16. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006)

79. Mace GM. 2014 Whose conservation? *Science* **345**, 1558–1560. (doi:10.1126/science.1254704)

80. Fedele G, Locatelli B, Djoudi H. 2017 Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience. *Ecosyst. Serv.* **28**, 43–54. (doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.011)

81. Pramova E *et al.* 2022 Sensing, feeling, thinking: relating to nature with the body, heart and mind. *People Nat.* **4**, 351–364. (doi:10.1002/pan3.10286)

82. Irvine KN, Hoesly D, Bell-Williams R, Warber SL. 2019 Biodiversity and spiritual well-being. In *Biodiversity and health in the face of climate change* (ed. MR Marselle), pp. 213–247. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. (doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02318-8_10)

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

84. Khan S, VanWynsberghe R. 2008 Cultivating the under-mined: cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. *Forum. Qual. Soc. Res.* **9**, 34.

85. Magnan AK *et al.* 2023 Status of global coastal adaptation. *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **13**, 1213–1221. (doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01834-x)

86. Paveglio TB, Nielsen-Pincus M, Abrams J, Moseley C. 2017 Advancing characterization of social diversity in the wildland-urban interface: an indicator approach for wildfire management. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* **160**, 115–126. (doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.013)

87. Aggarwal RM, Anderies JM. 2023 Understanding how governance emerges in social-ecological systems: insights from archetype analysis. *Ecol. Soc.* **28**. (doi:10.5751/ES-14061-280202)

88. Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F, Kuhnert PM, Low-Choy S, Mcbride M, Mengersen K. 2012 Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. *Conserv. Biol.* **26**, 29–38. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x)

89. Bartholomew DJ. 1983 Latent variable models for ordered categorical data. *J. Econom.* **22**, 229–243. (doi:10.1016/0304-4076(83)90101-X)

90. Agresti A. 2010 *Analysis of ordinal categorical data*. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. (doi:10.1002/9780470594001)

91. Revelle W. 2023 psych R package v. 2.3.9. Evanston, IL. See https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.

92. Bonnesoeur V, Locatelli B, Guariguata MR, Ochoa-Tocachi BF, Vanacker V, Mao Z, Stokes A, Mathez-Stiefel SL. 2019 Impacts of forests and forestation on hydrological services in the Andes: a systematic review. *For. Ecol. Manage.* **433**, 569–584. (doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.11.033)

93. Sietz D, Ordoñez JC, Kok MTJ, Janssen P, Hilderink HBM, Tittonell P, Van Dijk H. 2017 Nested archetypes of vulnerability in African drylands: where lies potential for sustainable agricultural intensification? *Environ. Res. Lett.* **12**, 095006. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa768b)

94. Neudert R, Salzer A, Allahverdiyeva N, Etzold J, Beckmann V. 2019 Archetypes of common village pasture problems in the South Caucasus. *Ecol. Soc.* **24**, 5. (doi:10.5751/ES-10921-240305)

95. Rocha J, Malmborg K, Gordon L, Brauman K, DeClerck F. 2020 Mapping social-ecological systems archetypes. *Environ. Res. Lett.* **15**, 034017. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab666e)

96. Magliocca NR, Khuc QV, Ellicott EA, de Bremond A. 2019 Archetypical pathways of direct and indirect land-use change caused by Cambodia's economic land concessions. *Ecol. Soc.* **24**, 25. (doi:10.5751/ES-10954-240225)

97. Dabard CH, Mann C, Martín-López B. 2024 An archetype analysis of sustainability innovations in biosphere reserves: insights for assessing transformative potential. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **153**, 103674. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103674)

98. Pacheco-Romero M, Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Alcaraz-Segura D, Cabello J. 2021 Integrating inductive and deductive analysis to identify and characterize archetypical social-ecological systems and their changes. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* **215**, 104199. (doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104199)

99. Yang Y, Bao W, de Sherbinin A. 2023 Mapping fine-resolution nested social-ecological system archetypes to reveal archetypical human-environmental interactions. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* **239**, 104863. (doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104863)

100. Colloff MJ *et al.* 2017 An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **68**, 87–96. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007)

101. Oberlack C *et al.* 2019 Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. *Ecol. Soc.* **24**, 26. (doi:10.5751/ES-10747-240226)

102. Abson DJ *et al.* 2017 Leverage points for sustainability transformation. *Ambio* **46**, 30–39. (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y)

103. Richardson M, Dobson J, Abson DJ, Lumber R, Hunt A, Young R, Moorhouse B. 2020 Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points perspective. *Ecosyst. People* **16**, 387–401. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296)

104. Riechers M, Balázsi Á, García-Llorente M, Loos J. 2021 Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. *Ecosyst. People* **17**, 215–221. (doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1912830)

105. O'Brien KL, Wolf J. 2010 A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. *Clim. Change* **1**, 232–242. (doi:10.1002/wcc.30)

106. Schwartz SH *et al.* 2012 Refining the theory of basic individual values. *J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.* **103**, 663–688. (doi:10.1037/a0029393)
107. Ortiz-Przychodzka S, Benavides-Frías C, Raymond CM, Díaz-Reviriego I, Hanspach J. 2023 Rethinking economic practices and values as assemblages of more-than-human relations. *Ecol. Econ.* **211**, 107866. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107866)

108. Horcea-Milcu AI, Koessler AK, Martin A, Rode J, Moreno Soares T. 2023 Modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **64**, 101357. (doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101357)

109. Palomo I et al. 2021 Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. *One Earth* **4**, 730–741. (doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.013)

110. Garcia CA et al. 2022 Strategy games to improve environmental policymaking. *Nat. Sustain.* **5**, 464–471. (doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00881-0)

111. Rammig A, Bahn M, Vera C, Knoke T, Paul C, Vollan B, Thonicke K. 2020 Adaptive capacity of coupled social-ecological systems to absorb climate extremes. In *Climate extremes and their implications for impact and risk assessment* (eds J Sillmann, S Sippel, S Russo), pp. 257–278. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

112. Andersson E et al. 2021 A context-sensitive systems approach for understanding and enabling ecosystem service realisation in cities. *Ecol. Soc.* **26**, 35. (doi:10.5751/ES-12411-260235)

113. Locatelli B, Lavorel S, Colloff M, Crouzat E, Bruley E, Fedele G et al. 2024 Supplementary material from: Intertwined people-nature relations are central to nature-based adaptation to climate change. Figshare. (doi:10.6084/m9 figshare.c.7560275)