Differences in ecosystem service (ES) priorities often lead to conflicts between stakeholders. While differences in priorities have often been described, the sociocultural factors, including differences in cultural worldview, which drive them have not. We propose that the cultural theory of risk and its ‘grid‐group’ typology, which classifies people as individualists, hierarchists, egalitarians and fatalists, can provide a conceptual framework for doing this. We examined the relationship between ES prioritisation by stakeholders and underlying cultural (cultural worldviews, and related environmental nature and risk perceptions), sociocultural (region, stakeholder group, political party preference) and socio‐demographic factors. This was achieved by applying multivariate statistics to data from a survey with 321 respondents, conducted across 14 stakeholder groups in three German regions. Results show that most stakeholders prioritised many services but gave the highest priority to services linked to their stakeholder group. We identified four ‘ES priority bundles’: cultural services, open‐land provisioning services, environmental protection services and forest provisioning services. Each ES priority bundle was consistently associated with particular cultural worldviews, perceptions of nature and sociocultural factors, meaning that we could identify ‘cultural types’. Two of these associations were particularly strong: Prioritisation of open‐land provisioning ES was high for the agriculture stakeholder group, associated with individualism, a perception of nature as durable but unpredictable, and support for economic liberal, conservative political parties. In contrast, those who prioritised environmental protection tended to hold egalitarian cultural worldviews and perceive nature as tolerant and sensitive. They also often belonged to the research and nature conservation stakeholder groups, with a mostly left‐leaning political party preference. The identification of cultural types of stakeholder with consistent ES priorities and cultural worldviews may provide a useful construct in the future ES research. Furthermore, it may allow communications regarding ES to be tailored to improve their effectiveness, potentially aiding the promotion of sustainable management strategies. A freePlain Language Summarycan be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

In 2010, there was a bold commitment to take action in halting global biodiversity loss by 2020. Now, half way through the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic plan 2011–2020, the success of the mission is under discussion. With the Twelfth Conference of the Parties attesting a lack of action, attention is now focused on the science–policy interface. This article offers a critical examination of the current debate on the science–policy interface and its implications for biodiversity research. The aim is to demonstrate the need for a social–ecological perspective. First, we argue that there is not only a lack of action but also a lack of knowledge. Second, we present social–ecological systems as a common framework for biodiversity research. Third, we explain the potential of transdisciplinarity in biodiversity research. We finish by calling for a decisive turning point to consider the hybrid notions of biodiversity in science, politics and conservation activities.

Research aimed at contributing to the further development of integrated water resources management needs to tackle complex challenges at the interface of nature and society. A case study in the Cuvelai-Etosha Basin in Namibia has shown how semi-arid conditions coinciding with high population density and urbanisation present a risk to people’s livelihoods and ecosystem health. In order to increase water security and promote sustainable water management, there is a requirement for problem-oriented research approaches combined with a new way of thinking about water in order to generate evidence-based, adapted solutions. Transdisciplinary research in particular addresses this issue by focusing on the problems that arise when society interacts with nature. This article presents the implementation of a transdisciplinary research approach in the above-mentioned case study. The concept of social-ecological systems (SES) plays a key role in operationalising the transdisciplinary research process. Application of the SES concept helps to outline the problem by defining the epistemic object, as well as structure the research process itself in terms of formulating research questions and developing the research design. It is argued here that the SES concept is not merely useful, but also necessary for guiding transdisciplinary sustainability research and implementation. The study from Namibia clearly demonstrates that the introduction of technological innovations such as rainwater and floodwater harvesting plants requires a social-ecological perspective. In particular this means considering questions around knowledge, practices and institutions related to water resources management and includes various societal innovations alongside technologies on the agenda.

Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the interdependencies between society and nature. Despite several years of conceptual discussions, some challenges of the ES concept are far from being resolved. In particular, the usefulness of the concept for nature protection is questioned, and a strong critique is expressed concerning its contribution towards the neoliberal commodification of nature. This paper argues that these challenges can be addressed by dealing more carefully with ES as a boundary concept between different disciplines and between science and society. ES are neither about nature nor about human wellbeing, but about the mutual dependencies between nature and human wellbeing. These mutual interdependencies, however, create tensions and contradictions that manifest themselves in the boundary negotiations between different scientific disciplines and between science and society. This paper shows that approaches from Social Ecology can address these boundary negotiations and the power relations involved more explicitly. Finally, this implies the urgent need for more inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration in ES research. We conclude (1) that the social–ecological nature of ES must be elaborated more carefully while explicitly focussing on the interdependencies between nature and society; (2) to better implement inter- and transdisciplinary methods into ES research; and (3) that such ES research can—and to some extent already does—substantially enhance international research programmes such as Future Earth.

Demographic change is supposed to be the most important indirect driver for changing biodiversity. In this article, a systematic review of 148 studies was conducted to examine the scientific evidence for this relationship and to identify potential gaps in research. We explored the spatial distribution of studies, the categories addressed with respect to biodiversity and demographic change, and the ways in which their relationships were conceptualised (spatially and temporally) and valued. The majority of studies were carried out in Africa, Europe and North America. Our analysis confirms the trend that demographic phenomena were mostly found to negatively influence biodiversity. However, a considerable number of studies also point towards impacts that were context dependent, either positive or negative under certain circumstances. In addition to that we identified significant gaps in research. In particular, there is a lack of addressing (1) other demographic aspects such as population decline, age structure or gender differences, (2) spatial variability of, e.g. human population growth, (3) long-term effects of demographic processes, and (4) the context dependency (e.g. regulations/law enforcement, type of human activities, and choice of scale or proxy). We conclude there is evidence that the relationship between biodiversity and demographic change is much more complex than expected and so far represented in research. Thus, we call for a social–ecological biodiversity research that particularly focusses on the functional relation between biodiversity and human activities, namely the different types, context, and interdependent dynamics (spatial and temporal) of this complex relation.

Biosphere reserves seek to reconcile nature conservation with local development goals, for example by delineating buffer zones of sustainable resource use around core areas with primary conservation objectives. Here we evaluate buffer zone effectiveness in reducing deforestation within the Lore Lindu Biosphere Reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Socio-economic and remote-sensing data were combined in an integrated approach. We applied a systematic qualitative social research design and carried out in-depth interviews with local, sub-national, and national authorities. Data collected through the interviews were used to interpret satellite images: (1) spatially, that is, forest cover change in the buffer zone versus the core area and, (2) over time, that is, forest cover change as a response to changing management regimes and socio-economic processes in the region. For this purpose a time series of LANDSAT scenes from 1972 to 2007 was used to classify homogeneous areas of forest cover to detect deforestation. According to the satellite image analysis, the buffer zone in Lore Lindu was ineffective at reducing forest cover clearing in the core area between 1972 and 2007. Since management establishment in 1998, the deforestation rate within the core area even increased fourfold. The gathered data suggest that there are three main institutional drivers to account for this ineffectiveness: (1) Low awareness of boundary demarcation among the villagers due to the lack of participation during management and boundary establishment, (2) The fall of the national president Suharto in 1998, which subsequently triggered deforestation activities in the core area, as the park was perceived to be the local branch of the national, suppressive regime, and (3) The lack of implementation of the biosphere reserve concept at the national level, which leads to unclear responsibilities in the buffer zone as the legal backing for any cooperation in the buffer zone is lacking. Although it appears that the forest status in Lore Lindu is still good compared to other regions in Indonesia, attention must be given to the protection of the core area. We thus conclude that the biosphere reserve concept needs to be strengthened in Indonesia. Its implementation at the national level, including adoption of clearly defined regulations, would substantially contribute to reducing negative impacts on biosphere reserve management through, for example, carefully designed awareness raising programs