Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being^1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis³ 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 ever⁴. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)⁵ and the UN Sustainable Development Goals⁶, 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 nature⁷. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change⁸, pandemic emergence⁹ and socio-environmental injustices¹⁰. 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.

Many Japanese and European landscapes harbor biocultural diversity that has been shaped by human agency over centuries. However, these landscapes are threatened by widespread land abandonment, land-use changes, and urbanization. The aim of this study is to use a “solution scanning” method to identify place-based food networks in Europe and Japan that reinforce linkages between biological and cultural diversity in landscapes. In our analysis of 26 European and 13 Japanese cases, we find that place-based food networks are typically located in heterogeneous landscapes, are driven by civil society (and less by markets), and act at a local scale. Regional identity is the most frequently addressed societal issue. Scenery, rural tourism, and nature conservation are more important motivations in Europe, and physical well-being and revitalization of local economies are more relevant in Japan. European models are typically associated with achieving biodiversity conservation and socio-cultural tradition outcomes, and Japanese models more with public health and nutrition outcomes. We discuss the potential for transfer of approaches from Japan to Europe (e.g., models that tackle the aging of rural societies), and from Europe to Japan (e.g., models that build explicit connections between food production and biodiversity conservation). We conclude with a list of recommended policy measures, e.g., the creation of a flexible legal framework that protects the interests of and reduces political constraints for collaborative efforts to biocultural diversity in landscapes.

Communities in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes are aging and depopulating. While longstanding interdependence of humans and nature in such areas holds crucial hints for sustainable development, they continue to be undervalued by existing economic frameworks. We suspect omission of non-material nature’s contributions to people (NCPs) as a possible reason for this undervaluation and focus on the intangible aspects of human–nature relationships: people’s direct and emotional attachment to their land and interrelationships between close-knit human communities and a thriving natural environment. Field observations on Sado Island, Japan, and literature reviews informed our hypothesis that perceived nature, conceptual human–nature relationships, place attachment, and social relationships contribute to subjective wellbeing. Structural equation modeling of island-wide questionnaire responses confirmed our hypothesis. Nature contributes to wellbeing by enhancing place attachment and social relationships; ecocentrism contributes to greater values of perceived nature. Free-response comments elucidated how local foods and close interpersonal relationships enhance residents’ happiness and good quality of life, as well as how aging and depopulation impact their sense of loneliness. These results lend empirical support to the understanding of human–nature interdependency in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. In assessing their value to local residents and society at large, greater consideration should be given to intangible aspects of human–nature relationships and quality of life.

US Midwestern farmers are direct actors in managing nitrogen fertilizers and key to remediating water quality problems in agricultural landscapes. As farmers’ relationships with nature offer insights into their decisions and conservation practices, surveys and interviews with farmers in two Illinois watersheds explored their human–nature relationship perspectives and linkages to conservation practices. While domineering “Master” perspectives theorized as a cause of human-induced environmental problems were found, farmers spoke of obligations to the land and closeness to nature, emphasizing ecologically oriented partnership and stewardship ideals as motivating their conservation efforts. However, production-oriented pressures of the agricultural industry and livelihood and humanitarian considerations complicated farmers’ human–nature relationships and limited their efforts to act upon personal perspectives. Multiple, confounded human–nature relationships are influenced by factors beyond local landscapes with implications for natural resource decision-making, conservation practices, and environmental outcomes.