The ‘relational turn’ in sustainability sciences (West et al., 2020) focused attention on how people not only live from nature (i.e., prioritizing it as a means to an end, or its instrumental value) or consider it important in and of itself (i.e., as a means unto itself, or its intrinsic value), but also relate to it in ways like living in, with, and as nature (i.e., highlighting it as a means for individual and social relationships, or its relational value) (Pascual et al., 2023). This paradigm shift is evidenced in environmental scholarship (Himes et al., 2024) and policies (e.g., Escazú Agreement on Environmental Information, Participation, and Justice in Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL, 2022); Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) (CBD, 2022)). Consequently, academics and managers now strive to develop more inclusive tools and strategies that overcome two major legacies: prioritizing monistic ecological approaches for conservation or economic strategies for development, and making decisions at the expense of local perspectives and needs (IPBES, 2022; Raymond et al., 2023).

Therefore, there is a need to (1) diagnose how nature is being conceived and addressed in research and policy; and (2) consider what capacities can better integrate it with society (IPBES, 2022). For example, the KMGBF Target 3 calls on countries to protect 30% of their lands and seas by 2030 (the so-called ‘30 × 30 target’), and explicitly requires that this ostensibly mainstream conservation goal must be achieved by incorporating Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs), recognizing their rights and territories, and integrating their worldviews, knowledge systems, and values (CBD, 2022). However, National Biodiversity Strategies & Action Plans (NBSAPs) have not fully reflected nature’s multiple values (Murali et al., 2024), and efforts to approve a new plural-values monitoring program failed to achieve consensus at the CBD’s 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), despite advances in other areas of social engagement (Anderson, 2025).

For several decades, efforts have sought to value nature beyond ecology. In the 1980s, North American ecologists proposed ‘ecosystem services’ (ES) as a metaphor to express in what they perceived as the economics-based language of decision-makers how ecosystem functions (e.g., decomposition, nutrient cycling, primary production) are at the basis of human physical and social continuity (Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983). Subsequently, ecological economics worked to operationalize ES, concentrating initially on economic valuations, but including vigorous debates around appropriate conceptual frameworks and methods (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997; TEEB, 2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) globalized and politicized ES and focused on a broader conceptualization of well-being. In the 2010s, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) deepened these efforts and explicitly linked them to decision-making (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010). Via IPBES’ participatory processes to ensure academic rigor and political legitimacy, a wider range of disciplines and ways of knowing were engaged, including Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), and produced a more inclusive conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015). The notion of ‘nature’s contributions to people’ (NCP, Díaz et al., 2018) was proposed to cover all contributions, both positive and negative, of nature to the well-being of people as individuals, members of societies, or humankind as a whole, encompassing ES and analogous categories, but reframing the human-nature relationship beyond Western-centric or narrowly economic discourses.

In this process, Craig et al. (2019) identified ‘neoclassical economic utilitarian’ and ‘value-pluralist’ as two ES-related epistemic communities that highlight tensions between focusing on nature’s instrumental values (measured with biophysical and monetary indicators) versus emphasizing its relational values (using sociocultural indicators) (Anderson et al., 2022). Arguably, ecological studies constitute a third school of thought; while the original ES metaphor clearly drew upon the authors’ Western, capitalist milieu (Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983; Craig et al., 2019), these studies are embedded in the tradition of ‘biodiversity and ecosystem function’ (BEF) research that consolidated in the 1990s to spotlight how biodiversity matters to ecosystem structure and dynamics, particularly in light of biodiversity loss (e.g., Jones and Lawton, 1995). Ostensibly, BEF becomes biodiversity and ecosystem services by intention (e.g., to raise awareness of biodiversity’s importance to society), more than methodology (i.e., still largely focused on biophysical processes).

Now, to be more effective and ethical, environmental research and policy are challenged to more reflexively navigate these deeper levels of value plurality (e.g., onto-epistemic heterogeneity, Hakkarainen et al., 2020). In response, the Nature’s Contributions to Argentina (CONATURAR) Network, dedicated to integrating biodiversity with just and sustainable development, assessed the literature to determine: (1) temporal trends in ES/NCP studies; (2) the ways biodiversity and ES/NCP are conceived in these studies; and (3) the relationship of ES/NCP studies to society. While rooted in ecology, we expected to find a shift towards more plural approaches in response to global trends (Craig et al., 2019). We also predicted that studies would focus mostly on Regulating ES/NCP and ecosystems, rather than specific species or taxonomic groups. Furthermore, we anticipated that the link with society would be weak, mostly engaging social actors as research subjects and having little integration to governance (Balvanera et al., 2012; Castro-Díaz et al., 2022; IPBES, 2022). We delimited our search to the Southern Cone, encompassing all of continental Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, and overlapping ecoregions with Bolivia and Brazil (Fig. S1), to ground interpretations in specific socio-political contexts. Finally, we reflected on the relevance of our findings for advancing more plural approaches to people-nature research and practice vis-à-vis the science-society interface (Box 1) and capacity-building (Box 2).

We used the Scopus database from 1970 to 2023 to determine status and trends in ES/NCP research (see Appendix I). Scopus provides detailed publication-level data (e.g., author affiliations, abstracts, funding sources) and, despite being weighted towards English, includes regional journals in Spanish and Portuguese. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA; Page et al., 2021), we established criteria to identify, screen, determine eligibility, and include peer-reviewed documents (journals, books, chapters) in our analysis (Table S1, Fig. S2). Search terms were: “ecosystem service,” “nature’s contribution*” or “NCP” (n = 60,996 publications). We filtered for publications from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Malvinas/Falklands, Paraguay, and Uruguay (n = 4,004) and screened these titles, abstracts, and keywords to determine geographic and conceptual eligibility.

We screened all studies from the Southern Cone, defined as all of Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay and the portions of Bolivia and Brazil with shared ecoregions, based on Olson et al. (2001) and Spalding et al. (2007) (n = 1,746). For Brazil, these pertained to the southern Atlantic Rainforest, encompassing Serra do Mar Coastal Forest, Araucaria Moist Forest, and Alto Paraná Atlantic Forest, and Uruguayan Savanna; for Bolivia, we included Central Andean Puna, Central Andean Dry Puna, Southern Andean Yungas, Bolivian Montane Dry Forest, and Dry Chaco (Fig. S1). Studies without a geographic location (reviews, perspectives, essays) were included if they made reference to the study area, and broad-scale studies had to have at least one data point from the delimited ecoregions.

Documents were coded as (1) unrelated (e.g., used NCP for topics like ‘non-collagen proteins’ or ‘net community production’); (2) justification/framing (used ES/NCP only as the reason or context for the study); (3) relevance (only mentioning that the findings are relevant for ES/NCP); and (4) empirical (explicitly addressing ES/NCP). Only empirical studies were evaluated (n = 434). Screening team members were trained in online sessions that established protocol and criteria. Quality control was conducted by randomly checking 10% of the cases to detect systematic problems that could be addressed with the team. Finally, coordinators checked the final database for consistency. These publications were downloaded in PDF. The review was accompanied by online workshops and feedback sessions to consistently apply and resolve discrepancies.

Navigating towards greater plurality in sustainability sciences and practice will require increasing dialogue between approaches and traditions, rather than ossifying into disjunct knowledge silos. Instead of aiming for consensus or imposing new static recipes, we propose that researchers and practitioners should avail themselves to a toolbox of concepts and methods based on building six capacity domains that relate to abilities to (1) recognize and understand diverse values and (2) integrate and articulate them in institutions (Box 2).

The ability to motivate others to consider inclusive approaches to conservation and sustainability applies to a suite of social actors, ranging from researchers and authorities to urbanites and businesses. We found that Southern Cone ES/NCP research has studied human-dominated systems (e.g., cities, agricultural habitats) and addressed important direct drivers of change (e.g., LULC). Furthermore, while much effort has been devoted to quantifying negative outcomes of decisions (i.e., loss of ES/NCP due to LULC), there was also attention to positive LULC for restoration, particularly agroforestry. Furthermore, research has identified factors that influence landowner motivation to participate in payment for ES programs (PES), but only one study looked at the contextual reasons (e.g., program design) why farmers engage with rural extension initiatives (Schröter et al., 2015). Future work in this domain could enhance consideration of indirect drivers, like consumption patterns and governance systems, and non-economic motivations for pro-environmental behavior (Appendix III.A).

The analytical skills displayed in these studies were mostly related to field sampling and modeling/mapping (Fig. S3, Appendix III.B). There is existing capacity to provide knowledge based on spatially-explicit tools that quantify ecosystem dynamics (e.g., due to LULC). Plus, there are well-developed PES monetary valuation methods. Besides filling knowledge gaps for particular ecoregions, future work could seek to generate information from other worldview and knowledge systems, including greater IPs&LCs leadership in these processes, as current studies are weighted not only towards Western scientific knowledge, but also ‘expert’ opinions. This capacity is particularly lacking in terms of modeling/mapping, which had no examples of using ILK in the region.

Few studies mentioned the capacity to bridge between different knowledge systems or social actors. From the 23 publications identified (Appendix III.C), bridging concepts were generally mentioned as a need or future possibility to improve governance or reduce conflict. Only two studies explicitly used this capacity to increase success at incorporating plural values into decisions (e.g., via shared learning or assimilation of knowledge). Cost-benefit analysis, one potential bridging method, was only associated with economic valuations of PES. Similarly, multi-criteria decision-making methods were used infrequently (only five studies), but were more plural. They allowed the determination of what values are at stake in a decision, where they are (i.e., mapping), and how to guide decisions about ES/NCP. While we saw limited capacity to bridge between specific values, there were no explicit efforts to incorporate deeper value levels like worldviews and knowledge systems. Also, bridging is more than just an accounting exercise, and requires the ability to facilitate between actors which is lacking and in the future ES/NCP research would be well served by considering the need to build legitimacy and salience for diverse social actors, which goes beyond a traditional academic focus on rigor as the definition of quality knowledge (Turner et al., 2016).

Similarly, we expected to find low capacity to negotiate and manage competing interests. While terms like conflict, synergy, and trade-off were frequent in this literature, they were mostly about defining (i.e., analytical capacity) these issues, rather than resolving them (i.e., via deliberation, which only had three studies) (Appendix III.D). The extant literature, however, showed some attention to the topic of participation, though very few studies were actually co-designed (Fig. 4C). Furthermore, Latin American-wide reviews have shown little capacity of ES/NCP researchers to integrate across countries (i.e., evidenced through co-authorships, Castro-Díaz et al., 2022). However, Balvanera et al. (2020) highlighted the success of specific efforts to produce greater interactions (e.g., the CISEN network developed around Neotropical ES congresses). Overall, we found little evidence of meaningful social and political engagement, which is part of the broader ability to construct social networks (Box 1, Appendix III.E).

Finally, practical governance capacities were almost absent in this literature. Considering the 19 studies that evoked ‘governance’, they covered a range of issues like sustainable development, territorial and coastal-marine planning, strategic environmental assessments, and watershed management, but did not address specific management practicalities (Appendix III.F). Recurring themes, though, included the need to overcome fragmented governance systems, the lack of cooperation between actors, the importance of collaborative approaches, and the need to integrate local knowledge for the transition to more sustainable and equitable environmental governance. Therefore, clearly, synergizing existing efforts (e.g., CISEN, CONATURAR) requires new institution-building capacities to bring ES/NCP science into policy and management. Globally, this body of research has been shown to focus on technical aspects of valuations, while practice has prioritized capacity-building on analytical tool-kits and awareness-raising (Allan et al., 2022). Yet, the science-society gaps identified here for the Southern Cone clearly warrant greater abilities to create meaningful participation and engagement via governance capacities involving co-learning processes and managing inequitable power dynamics (Kelemen et al., 2023). Including these perspectives, knowledge systems, and approaches in policy formulation requires new abilities to formalize inclusive structures; otherwise, social actor participation in decision-making is unviable.

ES and NCP are concepts intended to help link nature and society (Raymond et al., 2023). Their current usage in the Southern Cone does not seamlessly track global trends. While there is a continued predominance of ecological perspectives, we found a coexistence of BEF, economic utilitarian, and value-pluralist approaches. The emergence of NCP in recent years is part of efforts to navigate the multiple values of nature (e.g., of the 16 NCP-focused papers identified, 13 were value-pluralist), which requires not just filling geographic, methodological, or knowledge gaps, but also strengthening inter- and transdisciplinary research (Metzger et al., 2024). It implies enhancing broader capacities to link science-society in meaningful engagement platforms that produce salient and legitimate information that can be taken up into decisions from individual to collective levels (Pascual et al., 2023). Latin America offers much to the world in this ‘relational turn’ to sustainability and inclusive conservation (e.g., Escobar, 2018; Gallegos-Riofrio et al., 2022). By being reflexive about our research and training programs, we can strengthen a knowledge dialogue from our own territories that benefits biodiversity conservation and just and sustainable development for Latin America and the world (Anderson et al., 2015).

Conceptualization: CBA, DMT, YA, DC, SD, AEJV.

Data curation: CBA, DMT.

Formal analysis: CBA, DMT, JLB, IB, DAC, JCB, MC, CC, SD, LE, SH, PYH, JCO, ARR, LRP, VR, ESH, ESD, AT, ABV, YA, GG, JN, AEJV.

Funding acquisition: CBA, YA, DC, SD, AEJV.

Investigation: CBA, DMT.

Methodology: CBA, DMT, SD, LRP, VR, MB.

Project administration: CBA, DMT, AEJV.

Resources: CBA, YA, DC, SD, JN, AEJV.

Supervision: CBA, DMT.

Validation: CBA, DMT, JLB, JCB.

Visualization: CBA, DMT, MC, PYH, VR, AT, LRP, SD.

Writing - original draft: CBA, DMT.

Writing - review & editing: CBA, DMT, JLB, IB, DAC, JCB, MC, CC, SD, LE, SH, PYH, JCO, ARR, LRP, VR, ESH, ESD, AT, ABV, YA, MB, DMC, JN, AEJV, SD.

This work was supported as part of the Nature’s Contributions to Argentina (CONATURAR) Network, a project of Argentina’s Federal High Impact Networks (2023-102072649-APN-MCT), dedicated to ‘Integrating Biodiversity with Just and Sustainable Development.’