Diverse values of nature for sustainability

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being<jats:sup>1,2</jats:sup>, addressing the global biodiversity crisis<jats:sup>3</jats:sup> still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever<jats:sup>4</jats:sup>. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)<jats:sup>5</jats:sup> and the UN Sustainable Development Goals<jats:sup>6</jats:sup>, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature<jats:sup>7</jats:sup>. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change<jats:sup>8</jats:sup>, pandemic emergence<jats:sup>9</jats:sup> and socio-environmental injustices<jats:sup>10</jats:sup>. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions<jats:sup>7,11</jats:sup>. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.</jats:p>

section_content: Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1, 2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature's diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature's values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7. Arguably, a 'values crisis' underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change 8, pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature's diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7, 11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter-and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures. 

Over millennia and around the world, people have developed myriad ways of understanding and relating to nature and its many values 7. Although acknowledged in some policy realms, a lot of work remains to consider this diversity in practice (for example, GBF Target 14 regarding "full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes … across all levels of government and … sectors" 5 ). We assessed diverse evidence sources to synthesize how nature's values are expressed by people and to clarify how nature's values are considered in decisions, including what and whose values are involved or affected. We also introduce a typology that comprises four interrelated meanings of value or its 'layers' 12 (Fig. 1 ). 

The typology's first layer, 'worldviews', encompass the ways people conceive and interact with the world, expressed through 'knowledge systems' (bodies of knowledge, practices and beliefs associated with culture and language) 13. In the literature, worldviews are frequently classified as anthropocentric (prioritizing human interests) or biocentric and ecocentric (emphasizing living beings or nature's processes as a whole). Pluricentric is also used in the typology to encompass those worldviews with no single 'centre' (focusing on several intertwined relationships among humans, other-than-human beings, nature's components and systemic processes). Next, the second layer, 'broad values' entail the moral principles and life goals held and expressed by individuals, groups and through the institutions (norms and rules) that guide people's interactions with nature and with each other. Certain broad values such as justice, stewardship, unity and responsibility are frequently found to align with sustainability 14. 'Specific values', the typology's third layer, refer to how judgements regarding the importance of nature and its contributions to people are justified in 'specific' contexts. It is well established that nature's specific values can be instrumental (nature as a means to a desired human end) 15 or intrinsic (value of nature, considered and expressed by people, as an end in itself) 16. For example, whereas many philosophers interpret intrinsic value in ways that do not relate to the valuer's well-being, economists tend to view intrinsic values as partly connected to a person's well-being, but separate from their own use (a non-use value). The relational category of specific values captures how people express the importance of meaningful relationships between people and nature and among people through nature such as reciprocity and care 17. Finally, the fourth layer, 'value indicators' are quantitative measures and qualitative descriptors used to denote nature and peoplenature relationships and nature's contributions to people (NCP) 18, typically in biophysical, monetary or socio-cultural terms 12. 

Cutting across these layers, life frames depict how individuals, institutions or policies might prioritize subsets of values depending on how people-nature relationships are framed 12, 19. For example, 'living from' nature emphasizes instrumental values such as nature's capacity to provide resources for sustaining livelihoods. 'Living in' nature focuses on how people recognize nature's importance as settings for their lives, practices and cultures, particularly supporting relational values.
section_name: Diverse values of nature for sustainability

section_content: This plurality of values is found around the world. For example, in postindustrial societies with high levels of material security 20, we see increasing endorsement of relational and intrinsic values such as seeing wildlife as part of one's social community and deserving of rights 21. In the Global South, where lower levels of livelihood security may favour instrumental values 20, relational value expressions are also prevalent, such as spirituality and cultural identity 22, 23. Similarly, Indigenous and local knowledge are embodied in different philosophies of good living around the world underpinned by relational values as the basis for collective people-nature well-being 12, including through concepts such as Buen vivir in South America 24, Ubuntu in sub-Saharan Africa 25 and Satoyama in Japan 26, among others. 

The typology of values facilitates more comprehensive identification of nature's values in complex decision-making contexts. We demonstrate this use to analyse the restoration of India's Chilika Lagoon (Supplementary Information, Section C). Designated a Ramsar site in 1981, Chilika was listed on the convention's Montreux Record in 1993, due to ecological degradation from human actions (such as aquaculture, development infrastructure) that also harmed numerous stakeholders, including conservationists, traditional fishers, aquaculturists and farmers. In 2001, Chilika became the only Asian wetland to be 'delisted' as an area of concern after a successful restoration effort shifted decision-making from a narrow focus on extractive activities, for instance, those linked to aquaculture's instrumental values, or strict conservation, including those linked to biodiversity's intrinsic values, to a plural-values perspective that balances these with people's important connections to the wetland such as relational values connected to the cultural identify of being fishers. Integrating such specific value types into decisions geared towards wetland restoration required monitoring biophysical indicators (water flow, fish diversity), frames (metaphorically shown as light beams) illustrate how some sets of values might be given prominence in the different ways people relate to nature (here a watershed feeding into an estuarine wetland) 7, 12. 

economic and financial aspects through monetary measures (income growth and distribution), and socio-cultural descriptors (veneration of religious sites, relationships between fishers and dolphins). A specific decision-making authority was created for the wetland that accounted for diverse stakeholders' worldviews (in this case, conservationists' bio-or ecocentric worldview, as well as fishers' anthropocentric and pluricentric perspectives) to better align actions with broad values underpinning key human-nature relations, exemplified here in the symbiotic relationships between fishers and Irrawaddy dolphins. Identifying these many-value layers and types within the values typology can facilitate their integration into decisions, ultimately enhancing legitimacy, such as through recognition justice, and reconciling value clashes, as can arise between fishers, aquaculturists and environmental managers. 

This case also illustrates the potential challenges and approaches to accounting for the many values held by different stakeholders in decisions. For example, the wetland's specific values are directly 'comparable' when they can be accounted for with the same indicators (for example, monetary metrics for cost-benefit analyses of tourism development projects, in which investment costs are compared with the market and non-market economic effects on people and the wetland). Other specific values can be 'compatible' when they share common features such as being measured in spatial units, allowing them to be addressed together, despite using different indicators (for example, spatially overlaying bundles of the wetland's contributions to people proxied with biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural indicators). However, some values are simply 'incommensurable', being neither comparable nor compatible with others 27. For instance, a wetland could be solely managed for fisheries and commercial tourism to enhance some stakeholder's instrumental values, such as economic benefits or nutritional yield, but erode other intrinsic values, such as keystone species' habitat, and relational values, including fishers' cultural identity. Without a common or compatible denominator, decisions cannot rely on standard trade-off analyses (for example, cost-benefit analysis, multicriteria decision aid); rather, they should treat these values in 'parallel'. 

The challenge of incommensurability does not indicate that any particular value by definition should have higher priority than others in decision-making. It does mean that procedures need to recognize values that would otherwise be excluded or lost and ensure reasoned prioritization. Societies create principles to handle such difficult evaluations. For example, several countries have institutionalized the precautionary principle for situations when the consequences of decisions are largely unknown. Similarly, dealing with incommensurability demands further development of agreed principles, which may in turn require deliberative approaches 12 to help decision makers choose among alternative policy options. This can complement evidence based on 'social' preferences (that is, aggregated individual preferences) although it is well understood in social-choice research that aggregation of individual preferences to guide fair societal choices faces dilemmas 28. The challenges compound when different value types need to be weighed against each other and aggregated. Yet, as participatory processes can be manipulated, power asymmetries should be addressed.
section_name: Article

section_content: Valuation generates information that can be used to make nature's values more visible to decision makers, such as a scarcity indicator to protect natural assets that are at the risk of being over-exploited ('living from' nature). Valuation can also be used to reveal the need to protect the ecological systems on which humanity depends ('living with' nature), and to recognize other ways humanity relates to nature ('living in' and 'living as' nature). At present, more than 50 well-established valuation methods from disciplines including anthropology, political science, economics and conservation biology are available to elicit the diverse values people hold for nature 29. Several method classifications exist, notably those from environmental economics 30, on which we expand to assess valuation methods grouped into four cross-disciplinary 'method families', based on the source of information about values:

(1) nature-based valuation gathers information about the importance of nature and NCP through direct and indirect observation of nature (for example, spatial ecosystem services mapping) 31, (2) statement-based valuation obtains information from people's expressions of their values (such as stated preference surveys 32, deliberative processes 33 ), (3) behaviour-based valuation identifies how people value nature by observing what they do in relation to nature (such as hedonic pricing 34, livelihood dependence 35 ) and ( 4 ) integrated valuation brings together different types of value assessed with diverse information sources (for example, multicriteria decision aid) 36 and also seeks to understand how values, behaviour and environmental outcomes interact in dynamic ways (for example, integrated modelling) 37. Whereas the valuation field has advanced substantially regarding the first three method families, it has not yet reached maturity regarding its integration potential to understand the dynamic interactions and feedbacks between peoples' values, behaviours and the impact on biophysical indicators 38. 

This classification system highlights the diversity of valuation methods across different disciplines and traditions, including those from Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). Although academic understanding of IPLC valuation methods is limited, existing documentation underscores the important role of worldviews and broad values, including social norms and cultural and spiritual beliefs, in these valuation procedures 29. IPLC valuation practice can take a different form from the aforementioned categories, often being based on a communal process informed by Indigenous and local knowledge and long-held traditions, and guided by principles such as belonging, stewardship, responsibility and oneness with nature. Bringing together valuation methods associated with diverse worldviews is desirable, but requires giving equal footing to IPLC valuation, and accepting the limitations of knowledge integration 39. 

The availability of information influences the valuation method to be used. Likewise, the choice of a valuation method itself influences the information made available for decision-making, such as whether the focus is on instrumental, relational or intrinsic values, what evidence it is based on and the role of those participating in the valuation 40. Furthermore, the application of any valuation method to real-world decision-making is conditioned by trade-offs between relevance (salience to the decision's context), robustness (reliability and representation 41, 42 ) and resources (the time, financial, technical and human resources required to design and apply valuation). Therefore, method choice reflects different trade-offs among these '3Rs'; increasing the relevance and robustness of valuation typically requires more resources and determines to a large extent the feasibility of applying any given method 29. 

The number of peer-reviewed valuation studies around the world has increased on average by about 10% annually over the last three decades 29. Nature-based valuation methods are the most commonly applied, followed by statement-based, behaviour-based and integrated valuation methods. Instrumental values are elicited more often than intrinsic and relational values. The ultimate goal of valuation varies, but three main purposes are observed: improving the state of nature, for instance, by assessing changes in ecosystem structure 43 ; enhancing people's quality of life, including assessing changes in the provision of NCP 44 ; or generating more socially just outcomes by considering and assessing the various dimensions of justice as a broad value. Three widely recognized dimensions of justice include: (1) recognition justice, acknowledging and respecting different worldviews, knowledge systems and values, (2) procedural justice making decisions that are legitimate and inclusive for those holding different values, and (3) distributive justice, ensuring the fair distribution of NCP 45. Valuation Article to guide decisions that improve the state of nature is prevalent in the literature, whereas a focus on distributive justice is rare (Fig. 2 ). 

Valuations have been mostly undertaken in Europe, the Americas and Asia and the Pacific, and to a lesser extent in Africa and Central Asia. Studies have predominantly targeted forests, cultivated areas and inland water bodies (Fig. 2 ). Only 10% of valuation studies have been conducted in marine environments (coastal and deep sea) even though oceans cover more than 70% of the planet's surface. Valuations have mainly been performed at subnational scales, rather than national and global scales, which reflects the scale of most decision-making. Very few studies deal with cross-regional or cross-national decision-making or explicitly reference IPLC rights and territories (Fig. 2 ). The global pattern suggests that the two main factors that increase the amount of valuation studies in a region are the level of threat to biodiversity and environmental quality, and availability of human and financial resources to conduct valuation 29. 

The evidence also indicates that most (62%) valuation studies, especially nature-based valuations, do not involve stakeholder participation in the valuation 22. Furthermore, despite calls for increased use of valuation in policymaking, less than 5% of published peer-reviewed valuation studies document uptake of values information into decisions, a figure that has not increased over the past three decades 46. Policy documents from many countries also show limited use of the suite of available valuation methods; only a few methods with certain value perspectives dominate valuation practice. For instance, when countries monitor the values of biodiversity (Aichi Target 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity), their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans generally use biophysical and to a lesser extent monetary indicators 12, 46. Despite the general perception that policymaking favours economic approaches to the valuation of nature 47, during the last three decades, peer-reviewed economic valuation studies have not documented uptake more often than other (non-economic) approaches 46. 

Key barriers to valuation uptake in decision-making are partly due to a perceived lack of robustness and reliability of methods and also insufficient financial and technical resources to commission valuation and integrate it into decision-making processes and management actions 22. Other barriers include a lack of relevance of valuation results to political jurisdictions, administrative levels, sectoral interests or different stakeholders, and the lag between delivery of study results relative to decision time frames 46. Even when valuation is commissioned and well communicated in environmental impact assessments, it may be ignored or used to justify decisions to mitigate rather than avoid From 48,781 peer-reviewed studies reported with explicit geo-referenced information (depicted in the map), a stratified random sample of those published between 2010 and 2020 provided 1,163 studies applying specific valuation methods. a, Global distribution of valuation studies. b, Characterization of nature valuation studies reported. c, Habitats in which valuation was applied. These were reviewed in depth and used to develop the figure's statistical graphics 7, 29. 

negative effects 48. Additionally, powerful stakeholders can hinder the representation of diverse values in decisions by, for example, blocking people's direct representation of their own voices or selectively using valuation methods to only partially represent their values 7. Whereas guidance exists for improving participation and representation 49, only 12% of assessed valuation studies explicitly consider design choices to improve stakeholder inclusion (for example, efforts to avoid excluding or marginalizing certain values) 22 (Supplementary Information Section B, no. 10). 

To increase the likelihood of uptake across the range of valuation approaches and contexts, valuation can be adapted and timed to suit policymaking needs regarding particular purposes and decision-support opportunities 46. In particular, valuation can be tailored to support different stages of policymaking (often understood as a cycle in which learning from one policy feeds back into the design of the next; Fig. 3 ). These include: (1) aiding agenda setting and support commitment to agreed goals; (2) providing technical assistance for policy formulation by, for example, agreeing on the alternatives under consideration, or the design of economic incentives, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES); (3) supporting decisions for policy adoption and assessing cost-effectiveness of alternatives for policy action; (4) facilitating adjustments to implementation measures or budget allocations; and (5) helping undertake retrospective policy evaluation (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Information Section C) 46.
section_name: Valuation methods are diverse and spreading, but uptake remains limited

section_content: A review of impact evaluation studies on protected areas and an in-depth qualitative examination of case studies from around the world show that when local values such as stewardship are integrated, decision-making delivers more just and sustainable outcomes, especially when these values have been traditionally marginalized 12, 46. Studies have established that community involvement improves management effectiveness (based on an analysis of more than 8,000 assessments from more than 3,000 global protected areas 50 ), and that local empowerment and recognition of local values, especially for Indigenous communities, enhances win-wins between ecological and social outcomes of protected areas (demonstrated in a meta-analysis of 171 peer-reviewed studies 51 and a systematic review of 169 publications 52, Article as well as in-depth case studies of our review (Supplementary Information Section B, no. 16). Studies also demonstrate that acknowledging nature's many values can help PES programs avoid eroding inherent motivations for conservation or enhance existing pro-environmental behaviours, improving outcomes for people and nature 53. Similarly, in agroecosystems, being able to recognize a comprehensive suite of small landholder values (including women's) is key to codesigning initiatives that effectively conserve on-farm agro-biodiversity, ensure food security and sovereignty, and maintain place-based livelihoods 46, 54. Further evidence from contextual analysis of case studies (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 16, 17 and 18) in protected areas, PES programs and major infrastructure projects, such as mining and dams, suggests that power asymmetries among actors involved in or affected by policy decisions can disrupt the representation of the diverse values at stake, especially at the local level 46. Developers that articulate instrumental values for large development and infrastructure projects often have more discursive and structural power than those local stakeholders negatively affected by these initiatives. For instance, dams are often proposed to enhance market-based instrumental values (such as electricity to urban consumers, irrigation water for agriculture, jobs), whereas the instrumental values of those damaged by the project (such as loss of other farming and fishing livelihoods) are excluded, as are many relational values (such as cultural identity, place attachment) 46, 55. Similarly, the diverse ways that IPLCs conceive and relate to nature's many values are often underrepresented or enter too late into the decision process, such as in the design of protected areas and PES programs 56, 57. 

Studies incorporating detailed case analysis across all continents have revealed that power asymmetries resulting in imbalanced representation of values in decisions have important consequences for people and nature. For instance, disregarding smallholders' diverse values in the design of sustainability certification programs can lead programs to not account for the barriers these stakeholders face, compromising the intended positive social and environmental benefits 58 (Supplementary Information Section B, no. 15). Likewise, ignoring or marginalizing locally held values in the design and implementation of conservation programs can leave a legacy of mistrust and create conflicts with local communities 59, 60, jeopardizing program outcomes over time (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 16, 17). These failures can be avoided or better addressed when policies align with a more comprehensive suite of local values. This further implies that power asymmetries must be addressed head-on in the design and development of programs by recognizing the diversity (and potential incommensurability) of values held across all actors and ensuring participatory parity. Doing so can ultimately lead to more equitable distribution of projects' costs and benefits in both conservation and development contexts 46.
section_name: Engaging diverse values improves decision outcomes

section_content: Navigating towards more just and sustainable futures entails imagining what this transformation might look like, a process that needs creative and analytical input. Scenario planning integrates thinking across several disciplines and can reveal important insights about values integration into policymaking. Only half of the 460 scenarios reviewed (Supplementary Information Section B, no. 23) mention or explicitly incorporate values. Where scenarios were codeveloped with stakeholders, most (94%) of these were underpinned by instrumental values 14. The scenarios considered most likely to achieve more just and sustainable futures, however, typically consider instrumental, relational and intrinsic values, and especially emphasize these values regarding NCP 14, although generally scenarios are not codeveloped by taking into account value trade-offs. 

Beyond the unsustainable 'business-as-usual' pathway (typically used as a basis for comparison), we identify at least four well-established sustainability pathways 7, 14. The 'green economy' pathway stresses the importance of reforming economic institutions, technologies and performance metrics, while prioritizing instrumental values 4, 61. 'Nature protection' centres around protecting biodiversity for its own sake and expanding protected area networks 62, highlighting intrinsic values (while also acknowledging instrumental values). 'Earth stewardship' emphasizes local sovereignty, solidarity and the promotion of biocultural practices 63, underscoring relational values (and also acknowledging intrinsic values). Socially and ecologically sustainable 'degrowth' focuses on reducing overconsumption and overproduction, and redistributing wealth 64, 65, engaging instrumental, intrinsic and relational values. All these sustainability pathways are founded on broad values associated with intergenerational justice and respect for biophysical limits 14 (Fig. 4 ).
section_name: The diversity of values underpins many pathways towards sustainability

section_content: Achieving more just and sustainable futures calls for reforming societal structures to address asymmetric power relations underpinning the allocation of property rights, including legal decisions about who holds rights to degrade or be protected from environmental harm and who or what is a subject of rights (for example, a river, Mother Earth and so on). These reforms need to be complemented by the use of policy instruments to internalize negative environmental externalities that arise from the rift between private and public values, reducing overconsumption and overproduction, and by applying indicators of progress that include social and ecological sustainability criteria 4. Achieving these actions also implies confronting the contradictions evidenced by the historical and current prioritization of a narrow suite of nature's values. For example, governments and private enterprises frequently make decisions grounded in market-based instrumental values. Similarly, conservation policies have frequently prioritized nature's intrinsic values, despite increasing advocacy regarding the instrumental and relational values held by those living within and around protected areas who rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods 12, 66. As a consequence, a system-wide strategy is needed across technological, economic and social domains, including profound changes that address the worldviews and broad values that underlie the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss 8, 67. We identify four values-centred leverage points, ranging from short-term, easier to achieve actions to longer-term, harder to achieve efforts that, in combination, can catalyse system-wide transformative changes (Fig. 5 ). 

The first leverage point involves improved valuation by identifying more diverse values of nature 12 and ensuring there are methods and procedures to describe, record and report them 22, 46. Such recognition and accounting is still not widely done, but is an essential step for harnessing knowledge(s) and motivations to protect nature, including mobilizing a more inclusive set of specific values of nature and sustainability-aligned broad values 14. Yet, although enhancing recognition of nature's values and undertaking valuation are necessary, these efforts alone are insufficient to ensure pro-environmental decisions and behaviour 14. Therefore, the second leverage point involves enabling value information generated through valuation approaches to be embedded into decision-making 46, 68. Actions here may include using existing legal and economic policy measures (for example, green taxes) to make production and consumption decisions more sustainable or establishing guidelines for planning decisions that require consideration for the many values of nature. Whereas many theories explain causal relationships between values and behaviour, broader contexts partially determine people's capacity and ability to act on their values 69. Hence, interventions should be tailored accordingly, as illustrated by choice of transport mode being affected by availability of public transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, integrating values into policy decisions is more likely to occur when valuation is tailored for a specific policy purpose 46, 70. For instance, at a national level, development of standardized, high spatial resolution ecosystem accounts 71 can provide the biophysical indicators to inform policy design. Some countries (for example, Portugal, Germany) already use biophysical indicators of conservation effort to then redistribute tax revenues (known as ecological fiscal transfers) to local and regional administrations as compensation for lost revenue and extra costs due to establishing and managing protected areas 72. Likewise, using valuation as part of incentives for pro-environmental behaviour in production and consumption practices (including certification, tax rebates, PES and so on) offers opportunities for strengthening people's sustainability-aligned values. In addition, embedding valuation into environmental and social safeguards (including land tenure rights, equitable access and benefits sharing and procedural justice) can promote conservation in IPLC territories 52, 57. To enable the conditions for embedding valuation into decisions, it is particularly important to implement inclusive and legitimate processes that meaningfully represent stakeholders' values 46. 

The third leverage point involves reconfiguration of societal structures, especially with regard to the decision-making architecture to normalize and scale-up the incorporation of diverse values in decisions. This requires reforms to core legal, economic and political institutions (for example, property rights, trade rules, parliamentary systems) in ways that change what and whose values gain decision-making power in society 73. Moderating the impetus towards short-term political decisions tied to electoral cycles (for example, instituting procedural rules that protect the interests of future generations) would also be an important structural reform. Another would be to enhance businesses' capacity to care for nature's values by broadening responsibility beyond shareholder interests (for example, instituting rules that preclude biodiversity loss throughout value chains). Similarly, reforming and complementing macroeconomic indicators (for example, gross domestic product) to include values that encompass social and ecological well-being could change both the design and intent of the economic system 4. In the context of IPLCs, institutional reforms to secure territorial property rights and recognize the rights of natural entities (for example, rivers) have demonstrated potential to be highly transformative 68, 74. Similarly, embracing rights-based approaches would legitimize many IPLCs' customary rules that already recognize and embed diverse values and valuation in their conservation decisions. All such institutional changes across sectors would alter predominant societal rules to better ensure recognition for diverse worldviews and broad values of nature. In turn, these actions could support broader reforms towards comanagement regimes and foster further institutional changes throughout political and economic systems, helping to overcome current resistance to the worldviews and values held by IPLCs. For example, revisiting the wetland case study (Supplementary Information Section C), the Chilika Development Authority was created to implement socially legitimate wetland restoration by ensuring dialogue that embraces the many values of its diverse stakeholder representatives. 

Whereas the first three leverage points act on largely existing values, the fourth leverage point involves modifying underlying social norms and goals to reflect the links between justice and sustainability. Examples of fundamental changes in social norms include how a society views 'progress' or a 'good life' in terms of relationships with nature 14. These tasks are complex, but inherently transformative. They accompany many institutional reforms contemplated in the previous leverage point (for example, changing macroeconomic indicators of 'progress' beyond gross domestic product) and could powerfully go beyond the goal of some sectors to continue increasing material and energy consumption in already affluent societies. Whereas environmental responsibility norms can be nurtured throughout the lever, strategies for wider socialization can aid larger-scale sustainability outcomes. For instance, empowering civil society's role through new participative fora such as citizen assemblies could be a way to form new shared values or surface latent sustainability-aligned values, fostering a counter-force to dominant ways of conceiving the values of nature and shifting current hegemonic societal norms through more open dialogue 75. 

Transformative change is, thus, a multifaceted process involving engagement of the four values-centred leverage points. Fortunately, opportunities for synergies arise, as leverage points are not static categories; instead, there are interdependencies along the lever's action gradient. Leverage points may be activated in a cumulative way (from left to right across the lever), such as when a policy change (for example, introducing a green tax) triggers a change in social norms over time (for example, recycling). Values-centred leverage points can also be triggered in the opposite direction (cascading down the lever). For example, in Europe a deep leverage point involved a shift in vision about the role of agriculture, driven by the wider societal goal of sustainability and epitomized through a political agreement underpinning the European Common Agricultural Policy. In the early 1990s, this involved a change from supporting the agricultural sector to ensure self-sufficiency to recognizing the need for mitigating the negative externalities harming wildlife and people's health (a new social norm and goal). Since that time, a series of reforms and the associated political effort has increased the environmental components of the agricultural policy framework (the third leverage point). First, policy instruments and tools were implemented towards compliance with minimum environmental standards to justify income support to farmers. More recently, the reform has introduced environmentally targeted payments for adopting sustainable agricultural practices (the second leverage point) 76. The designs of these policy instruments are being aided by the valuation of the externalities for which different methods and decision-support tools are used (for example, shadow pricing, choice experiments and cost-benefit analysis) 77, 78. This example illustrates how shifting societal norms and goals can trigger the activation of all other values-centred leverage points. Clearly, power relations must be confronted, such as between citizens and agri-business, that ultimately influence whose and which values get priority in decisions.
section_name: Transformative change involves leveraging nature's values

section_content: The transformative changes needed to achieve ambitious biodiversity and development goals require confronting the status quo and associated vested interests tightly tied to current institutions (norms and legal rules), including the allocation of property rights over nature. Such transformation also demands recognizing and integrating the diverse values of nature into political, economic and other day-to-day decision-making that informs environmental management. Given the current allocation of property rights in predominant political systems, the primacy of market-based instrumental values in many decisions is at the core of underlying direct and indirect drivers of today's global biodiversity crisis 67. These market-based values need to be balanced with the relational, intrinsic and non-market instrumental values that are also part-and-parcel of the reasons nature matters to people. Achieving more just and sustainable futures entails mobilizing and nurturing broad values and new societal norms and goals to trigger changes in the current institutional fabric of society. Fortunately, by using an inclusive typology of nature's values and the extensive portfolio of existing valuation methods, decision-making can be better informed to reflect nature's many values. Furthermore, value-centred leverage points can be triggered to achieve tangible, multiscale outcomes. 

Nature's values are expressed in and shaped by worldviews and knowledge systems, but also by power relations that underpin institutional structures in societies 79. Thus, enabling solutions to the global biodiversity crisis implies identifying and navigating these issues of values diversity and associated potential conflicts. To scope the limitations and opportunities with respect to better integration of nature's many values, we have contextualized our findings in light of real-world policymaking needs such as implementing the GBF's new targets. Specifically, we propose (1) using an inclusive typology of values, (2) accessing the extensive portfolio of available valuation methods, and (3) engaging a of leverage points that can be acted on for transformative change. To ignore the diversity of nature's values in science and policy would be to continue to sell nature short to the detriment of all life on Earth.
section_name: Conclusion

section_content: Any methods, additional references, Nature Portfolio reporting summaries, source data, extended data, supplementary information, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code availability are available at https://doi. org/10. 1038/s41586-023-06406-9.
section_name: Online content

section_content: This paper's findings are supported by reviews undertaken for the IPBES Values Assessment 11. These literature reviews came from 15 different disciplines, including social sciences, life sciences, the humanities and interdisciplinary mixed approaches. Review protocols were developed collaboratively by the author team and refined through two open review calls, three Indigenous and local knowledge dialogues and several stakeholder workshops. Different analytical approaches appropriate to different academic perspectives and knowledge traditions reflect various understandings of what makes evidence relevant (contextually appropriate or salient to the issue) and robust (reliable and valid information). Findings are, consequently, presented using qualitative and quantitative approaches. 

In total, 29 different assessment protocols (Supplementary Information Sections A and B) were used, focused on five broad topics of nature's values and valuation: (1) the diverse conceptualizations of the values of nature, (2) the ways values can be elicited and made visible through valuation methods and approaches, (3) how values and valuation can be integrated into decision-making processes, (4) the outcomes from such decisions on nature and people, and (5) the role that values play in future sustainability pathways. The reviews encompassed many evidence sources identified using diverse strategies including keyword searches, and natural language processing of 48,781 peer-reviewed papers on nature valuation. The evidence reviewed in depth included 1,163 valuation studies, 1,270 study-site units reporting on values-based outcomes for 217 case studies, 838 documents from the 'grey literature' of environmental and development policy (for example, reports from governmental, non-governmental organizations and valuation initiatives), 26 specific contributions from Indigenous and local knowledge holders and experts, 460 futures scenarios, 37 policy instruments, 217 country-specific datasets (for example, Aichi target 2 progress and UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting implementation) and 134 valuesbased behavioural theories (Supplementary Information Section B). This evidence was analysed in depth following quantitative and/or qualitative approaches, which were supported by discipline-specific standards. Most evidence sources were in English (96%) and covered 1981-2020, with a greater focus on 2000-2020. Most assessed information was from Western Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia (73%); a smaller share was produced in Asia Pacific (8%), Latin America and the Caribbean (5%), Africa (4%) and Eastern Europe (1%), and 5% had no clear origin. 

Assessment protocols followed five general strategies: (1) comprehensive structured reviews using search strings and search terms that defined the review's scope, the different filtering iterations, as well as defined parameters for the selection of the documents to review (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 4, 9, 10, 19, 29); (2) semistructured reviews relying partially on expert-based search criteria (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24);

(3) non-structured reviews, fully based on expert criteria (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 25, 27); (4) invited contributions from external experts and stakeholders through sources such as reports, news articles and art (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 8, 18); and (5) combinations of the above (Supplementary Information Section B, nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26, 28). A diversity of analytics was applied among the 29 reviews, ranging from artificial intelligence-based automated text analysis to in-depth expert assessment of case studies. Furthermore, mixed-methods were used to systematize evidence, including quantitative (for example, frequency, correlation, cluster, geographical analyses) and qualitative approaches (for example, content analysis, analysis of constructs, identification of archetypes). Both inductive (for example, generalization and synthesis) and deductive (for example, hypothesis testing) approaches were applied to evaluate evidence. All protocols, data analyses and results were subjected to formal IPBES assessment procedures. Limitations concerning the accessibility to academic and particularly non-academic literature in diverse languages and the heterogeneous analytical approaches appropriate across disciplines were recognized and explicitly addressed.
section_name: Methods

section_content: April 2023
section_name: nature portfolio | reporting summary

section_content: All manuscripts should comply with the ICMJE guidelines for publication of clinical research and a completed CONSORT checklist must be included with all submissions. 

Clinical trial registration Provide the trial registration number from ClinicalTrials. gov or an equivalent agency.
section_name: Clinical data Policy information about clinical studies

section_content: Note where the full trial protocol can be accessed OR if not available, explain why.
section_name: Study protocol

section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: We are grateful to the IPBES, whose 139-member states commissioned the Values Assessment and approved its Summary for Policymakers. We are also grateful for the contributions to the assessment's review editors: S. Anderson, S. Baker, J. Camilo Cardenas, J. Cariño, K. Chan, J. Farley, C. Okereke, L. Pereira, E. Raez, H. Vessuri and R. Watson ; the members of the management committee: B. Vila, A. Diáz-de-Leoń, C. Diaw, M. Avdibegovic, J. Marton-Lefevre and R. Allahverdiyev, and the more than 200 contributing authors who provided specific input to the full report. We express our gratitude to IPBES Executive Secretary A. Larigauderie and IPBES Chair A. M. Hernández for their strategic vision and continued advice. We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Values Assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions, including non-earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments. All donors are listed on the IPBES website www. ipbes. net/donors. U. P. acknowledges BC3 's Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023-2026 (reference no. CEX2021-001201-M ) provided by grant no. MCIN/AEI/10. 13039/501100011033.
section_name: Acknowledgements

section_name: Data availability

section_content: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.
section_name: Data availability

section_content: Describe the settings and locales of data collection, noting the time periods of recruitment and data collection.
section_name: Data collection

section_name: Ethics and inclusion statement

section_content: Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4. 0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4. 0/. © The Author(s) 2023 1 Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain. 2 Ikerbasque Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain. 3 Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Morelia, México. 5 Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego (ICPA-UNTDF), Ushuaia, Argentina. 

6

section_content: The authors were experts who contributed to the IPBES Values Assessment, selected by IPBES following its formal rules and procedures, following an open call for nominations with consideration for balancing gender, geographical region and expertise to the extent possible. All the experts had specific roles in the production of the Values Assessment in accordance to the IPBES guide on the production of assessments (https://www. ipbes. net/documents/policies-procedures).
section_name: Ethics and inclusion statement

section_content: Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. 

Author contributions U. P. led the writing (original draft) of the manuscript and the revisions.
section_name: Reporting summary

section_content: The authors declare no competing interests.
section_name: Competing interests

section_content: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi. org/10. 1038/s41586-023-06406-9. 

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Unai Pascual. Peer review information Nature thanks Shonil Bhagwat, Giulia Sajeva, Thomas Thornton and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available. Reprints and permissions information is available at http://www. nature. com/reprints.
section_name: Additional information Supplementary information

section_content: Nature Portfolio wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency in reporting. For further information on Nature Portfolio policies, see our Editorial Policies and the Editorial Policy Checklist.
section_name: Reporting Summary

section_content: For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
section_name: Statistics

section_content: The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly

The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
section_name: n/a Confirmed

section_content: A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e. g. means) or other basic estimates (e. g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e. g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e. g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e. g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable. 

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e. g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.
section_name: A description of all covariates tested

section_content: Policy information about availability of computer code Data collection The description of the protocols for the literature reviews undertaken are available in the supplementary information with appropriate DOIs
section_name: Software and code

section_content: The paper does not rely on any specific algorithm or data software. as it is mainly based on the assessment of the existing literature on the topics covered. 

For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors and reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e. g. GitHub). See the Nature Portfolio guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.
section_name: Data analysis

section_content: All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable:

-Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets -A description of any restrictions on data availability -For clinical datasets or third party data, please ensure that the statement adheres to our policy All the data used is described in the supplementary information. The supplementary information includes hyperlinks and persistent identifiers (e. g. DOI or accession number) for the data and can be accessed through Zenodo
section_name: Data Policy information about availability of data

section_content: The paper does not involve reserach with human participants or human data.
section_name: Reporting on sex and gender

section_content: The social categorizations are general and they do not refer to ethnicity, race, culture, gender or religion.
section_name: Reporting on race, ethnicity, or other socially relevant groupings

section_content: See above
section_name: Population characteristics

section_content: The study is not experimental so no recruitment approaches need to be described.
section_name: Recruitment

section_content: IPBES official rules of procedure were used to conduct the Values Assessment from which the information for the paper was used. 

Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.
section_name: Ethics oversight

section_content: Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.
section_name: Field-specific reporting

section_content: For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature. com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat. pdf
section_name: Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences

section_content: All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
section_name: Life sciences study design

section_content: Describe how sample size was determined, detailing any statistical methods used to predetermine sample size OR if no sample-size calculation was performed, describe how sample sizes were chosen and provide a rationale for why these sample sizes are sufficient. 

Data exclusions Describe any data exclusions. If no data were excluded from the analyses, state so OR if data were excluded, describe the exclusions and the rationale behind them, indicating whether exclusion criteria were pre-established.
section_name: Sample size

section_content: Describe the measures taken to verify the reproducibility of the experimental findings. If all attempts at replication were successful, confirm this OR if there are any findings that were not replicated or cannot be reproduced, note this and describe why. 

Randomization Describe how samples/organisms/participants were allocated into experimental groups. If allocation was not random, describe how covariates were controlled OR if this is not relevant to your study, explain why.
section_name: Replication

section_content: Describe whether the investigators were blinded to group allocation during data collection and/or analysis. If blinding was not possible, describe why OR explain why blinding was not relevant to your study.
section_name: Blinding

section_content: All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
section_name: Behavioural & social sciences study design

section_content: The study assesses the literature both theoretical and empirical about the role of nature's values for sustainability
section_name: Study description

section_content: Literature on 39 different topics (all described in the supp. information)
section_name: Research sample

section_content: Each of the 39 reviews had their own sampling strategy (see supp. information for details)
section_name: Sampling strategy

section_content: Each of the 39 reviews had their own data collection strategy (see supp. information for details)
section_name: Data collection

section_content: Study conducted between 2018-2022.
section_name: Timing

section_content: No general exclusion strategies were applied. Each literature review relies on data exclusion and inclusion strategies (see supp. information)
section_name: Data exclusions

section_content: THi sis not an experimental study. Participation (or lack thereof) is not an issue.
section_name: Non-participation

section_content: No general randomization strategy applied for literature reivews.
section_name: Randomization

section_content: April 2023

Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences study design

All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
section_name: nature portfolio | reporting summary

section_content: Briefly describe the study. For quantitative data include treatment factors and interactions, design structure (e. g. factorial, nested, hierarchical), nature and number of experimental units and replicates.
section_name: Study description

section_name: Research sample

section_content: Note the sampling procedure. Describe the statistical methods that were used to predetermine sample size OR if no sample-size calculation was performed, describe how sample sizes were chosen and provide a rationale for why these sample sizes are sufficient.
section_name: Sampling strategy

section_content: Describe the data collection procedure, including who recorded the data and how. 

Timing and spatial scale Indicate the start and stop dates of data collection, noting the frequency and periodicity of sampling and providing a rationale for these choices. If there is a gap between collection periods, state the dates for each sample cohort. Specify the spatial scale from which the data are taken
section_name: Data collection

section_content: If no data were excluded from the analyses, state so OR if data were excluded, describe the exclusions and the rationale behind them, indicating whether exclusion criteria were pre-established.
section_name: Data exclusions

section_content: Describe the measures taken to verify the reproducibility of experimental findings. For each experiment, note whether any attempts to repeat the experiment failed OR state that all attempts to repeat the experiment were successful.
section_name: Reproducibility

section_content: Describe how samples/organisms/participants were allocated into groups. If allocation was not random, describe how covariates were controlled. If this is not relevant to your study, explain why.
section_name: Randomization

section_content: Describe the extent of blinding used during data acquisition and analysis. If blinding was not possible, describe why OR explain why blinding was not relevant to your study.
section_name: Blinding

section_content: Yes No
section_name: Did the study involve field work?

section_name: Field work, collection and transport

section_content: Describe the study conditions for field work, providing relevant parameters (e. g. temperature, rainfall).
section_name: Field conditions

section_content: State the location of the sampling or experiment, providing relevant parameters (e. g. latitude and longitude, elevation, water depth). 

Access & import/export Describe the efforts you have made to access habitats and to collect and import/export your samples in a responsible manner and in compliance with local, national and international laws, noting any permits that were obtained (give the name of the issuing authority, the date of issue, and any identifying information).
section_name: Location

section_content: Describe any disturbance caused by the study and how it was minimized.
section_name: Disturbance

section_content: We require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies. Here, indicate whether each material, system or method listed is relevant to your study.
section_name: Reporting for specific materials, systems and methods

section_content: Describe the validation of each primary antibody for the species and application, noting any validation statements on the manufacturer's website, relevant citations, antibody profiles in online databases, or data provided in the manuscript.
section_name: Validation

section_content: Policy information about cell lines and Sex and Gender in Research

Cell line source(s)

State the source of each cell line used and the sex of all primary cell lines and cells derived from human participants or vertebrate models.
section_name: Eukaryotic cell lines

section_content: Describe the authentication procedures for each cell line used OR declare that none of the cell lines used were authenticated.
section_name: Authentication

section_content: Confirm that all cell lines tested negative for mycoplasma contamination OR describe the results of the testing for mycoplasma contamination OR declare that the cell lines were not tested for mycoplasma contamination.
section_name: Mycoplasma contamination

section_content: Name any commonly misidentified cell lines used in the study and provide a rationale for their use.
section_name: Commonly misidentified lines (See ICLAC register)

section_name: Palaeontology and Archaeology

section_content: Provide provenance information for specimens and describe permits that were obtained for the work (including the name of the issuing authority, the date of issue, and any identifying information). Permits should encompass collection and, where applicable, export.
section_name: Specimen provenance

section_content: Indicate where the specimens have been deposited to permit free access by other researchers.
section_name: Specimen deposition

section_content: If new dates are provided, describe how they were obtained (e. g. collection, storage, sample pretreatment and measurement), where they were obtained (i. e. lab name), the calibration program and the protocol for quality assurance OR state that no new dates are provided. 

Tick this box to confirm that the raw and calibrated dates are available in the paper or in Supplementary Information.
section_name: Dating methods

section_content: Identify the organization(s) that approved or provided guidance on the study protocol, OR state that no ethical approval or guidance was required and explain why not. 

Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.
section_name: Ethics oversight

section_content: Policy information about studies involving animals; ARRIVE guidelines recommended for reporting animal research, and Sex and Gender in Research
section_name: Animals and other research organisms

section_content: For laboratory animals, report species, strain and age OR state that the study did not involve laboratory animals. Field-collected samples For laboratory work with field-collected samples, describe all relevant parameters such as housing, maintenance, temperature, photoperiod and end-of-experiment protocol OR state that the study did not involve samples collected from the field.
section_name: Laboratory animals

section_name: Wild animals

section_content: Describe how you pre-defined primary and secondary outcome measures and how you assessed these measures.
section_name: Outcomes

section_name: Dual use research of concern

section_content: Report on the source of all seed stocks or other plant material used. If applicable, state the seed stock centre and catalogue number. If plant specimens were collected from the field, describe the collection location, date and sampling procedures.
section_name: Plants Seed stocks

section_content: Describe the methods by which all novel plant genotypes were produced. This includes those generated by transgenic approaches, gene editing, chemical/radiation-based mutagenesis and hybridization. For transgenic lines, describe the transformation method, the number of independent lines analyzed and the generation upon which experiments were performed. For gene-edited lines, describe the editor used, the endogenous sequence targeted for editing, the targeting guide RNA sequence (if applicable) and how the editor was applied.
section_name: Novel plant genotypes

section_content: Describe any authentication procedures for each seed stock used or novel genotype generated. Describe any experiments used to assess the effect of a mutation and, where applicable, how potential secondary effects (e. g. second site T-DNA insertions, mosiacism, off-target gene editing) were examined.
section_name: Authentication

section_content: Provide a list of all files available in the database submission. 

Genome browser session (e. g. UCSC)

Provide a link to an anonymized genome browser session for "Initial submission" and "Revised version" documents only, to enable peer review. Write "no longer applicable" for "Final submission" documents.
section_name: Files in database submission

section_content: Replicates Describe the experimental replicates, specifying number, type and replicate agreement.
section_name: Methodology

section_content: Describe the sequencing depth for each experiment, providing the total number of reads, uniquely mapped reads, length of reads and whether they were paired-or single-end.
section_name: Sequencing depth

section_content: Describe the antibodies used for the ChIP-seq experiments; as applicable, provide supplier name, catalog number, clone name, and lot number. 

Peak calling parameters Specify the command line program and parameters used for read mapping and peak calling, including the ChIP, control and index files used.
section_name: Antibodies

section_content: Describe the methods used to ensure data quality in full detail, including how many peaks are at FDR 5% and above 5-fold enrichment.
section_name: Data quality

section_content: Describe the software used to collect and analyze the ChIP-seq data. For custom code that has been deposited into a community repository, provide accession details.
section_name: Software

section_content: Confirm that:

The axis labels state the marker and fluorochrome used (e. g. CD4-FITC). 

The axis scales are clearly visible. Include numbers along axes only for bottom left plot of group (a 'group' is an analysis of identical markers). 

All plots are contour plots with outliers or pseudocolor plots. 

A numerical value for number of cells or percentage (with statistics) is provided.
section_name: Flow Cytometry Plots

section_content: Describe the sample preparation, detailing the biological source of the cells and any tissue processing steps used.
section_name: Methodology Sample preparation

section_content: Identify the instrument used for data collection, specifying make and model number.
section_name: Instrument

section_content: Describe the software used to collect and analyze the flow cytometry data. For custom code that has been deposited into a community repository, provide accession details.
section_name: Software

section_content: Describe the abundance of the relevant cell populations within post-sort fractions, providing details on the purity of the samples and how it was determined.
section_name: Cell population abundance

section_content: Describe the gating strategy used for all relevant experiments, specifying the preliminary FSC/SSC gates of the starting cell population, indicating where boundaries between "positive" and "negative" staining cell populations are defined. 

Tick this box to confirm that a figure exemplifying the gating strategy is provided in the Supplementary Information. Behavioral performance measures State number and/or type of variables recorded (e. g. correct button press, response time) and what statistics were used to establish that the subjects were performing the task as expected (e. g. mean, range, and/or standard deviation across subjects).
section_name: Gating strategy

section_name: Magnetic resonance imaging

section_content: Specify: functional, structural, diffusion, perfusion.
section_name: Acquisition Imaging type(s)

section_name: Field strength

section_content: Sequence & imaging parameters Specify the pulse sequence type (gradient echo, spin echo, etc. ), imaging type (EPI, spiral, etc. ), field of view, matrix size, slice thickness, orientation and TE/TR/flip angle.
section_name: Specify in Tesla

section_content: State whether a whole brain scan was used OR define the area of acquisition, describing how the region was determined.
section_name: Area of acquisition

section_content: Define your software and/or method and criteria for volume censoring, and state the extent of such censoring.
section_name: Volume censoring

section_content: Specify type (mass univariate, multivariate, RSA, predictive, etc. ) and describe essential details of the model at the first and second levels (e. g. fixed, random or mixed effects; drift or auto-correlation).
section_name: Statistical modeling & inference Model type and settings

section_content: Define precise effect in terms of the task or stimulus conditions instead of psychological concepts and indicate whether ANOVA or factorial designs were used.
section_name: Effect(s) tested

section_content: Statistic type for inference
section_name: Specify type of analysis: Whole brain ROI-based Both

section_content: Report the dependent variable and connectivity measure, specifying weighted graph or binarized graph, subject-or group-level, and the global and/or node summaries used (e. g. clustering coefficient, efficiency, etc. ). 

Multivariate modeling and predictive analysis Specify independent variables, features extraction and dimension reduction, model, training and evaluation metrics.
section_name: Graph analysis