Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Stakeholders’ nonmaterial desires, needs, and values often critically influence the success of conservation projects. These considerations are challenging to articulate and characterize, resulting in their limited uptake in management and policy. We devised an interview protocol designed to enhance understanding of cultural ecosystem services (CES). The protocol begins with discussion of ecosystem‐related activities (e.g., recreation, hunting) and management and then addresses CES, prompting for values encompassing concepts identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and explored in other CES research. We piloted the protocol in Hawaii and British Columbia. In each location, we interviewed 30 individuals from diverse backgrounds. We analyzed results from the 2 locations to determine the effectiveness of the interview protocol in elucidating nonmaterial values. The qualitative and spatial components of the protocol helped characterize cultural, social, and ethical values associated with ecosystems in multiple ways. Maps and situational, or vignette‐like, questions helped respondents articulate difficult‐to‐discuss values. Open‐ended prompts allowed respondents to express a diversity of ecosystem‐related values and proved sufficiently flexible for interviewees to communicate values for which the protocol did not explicitly probe. Finally, the results suggest that certain values, those mentioned frequently throughout the interview, are particularly salient for particular populations. The protocol can provide efficient, contextual, and place‐based data on the importance of particular ecosystem attributes for human well‐being. Qualitative data are complementary to quantitative and spatial assessments in the comprehensive representation of people's values pertaining to ecosystems, and this protocol may assist in incorporating values frequently overlooked in decision making processes.

In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research.

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are some of the most difficult ecosystem services (ES) to characterize and connect to specific ecosystem processes. Given their connections to human emotion, deep meaning, fulfilment and motivation, they are also crucial for human well‐being. Scholars have published hundreds of peer‐reviewed articles addressing CES in myriad ways. In this systematic review, we analyse 232 peer‐reviewed articles on CES and examine how these studies discuss the interaction between CES research and decision‐making. We describe the primary ways that scholars have addressed the relationship between CES and decision‐making, and we characterize each study with respect to how thoroughly its authors attend to the possible applications of their results. We find that 27% of papers discuss connections to decision‐making in general terms, 28% discuss specific connections to decision‐making, and the remainder mention decision‐making links briefly or not at all. We also discuss patterns based on the particular CES studied (e.g. recreation, identity); methods used; change through time; and geographical location of authors and of study sites. We end with reflections on the current state of the interface between CES (and related concepts for approaching the non‐material values associated with ecosystems) and decision‐making, and we discuss future steps to increase connections between CES and decision‐making. A freePlain Language Summarycan be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, U. Woodside, T. Satterfield, N. Hannahs, and G. C. Daily. 2014. The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai‘i. Ecology and Society 19(3): 55.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06893-190355