• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• EU close
• University of North Texas close

Over the past decade, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) has been established to better integrate social science research and societal concerns into the goals and objectives of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network, an established global network of long-term ecologicalmonitoring sites. TheHorizon 2020 eLTER project, currently underway, includes as one of its key objectives to evaluate the performance of LTSER platforms.This article reflects part of this evaluation: six LTSER platformswere assessed through site visits of the lead author, coupledwith reflections and insights of the platform managers, whoare also co-authors.We provide background for the mission and goals of LTSER, then assess the six international LTSERplatforms—Baltimore Ecosystem Study LTER, USA; Braila Island LTSER, Romania; Cairngorms LTSER, UK;Doñana LTSER, Spain;OmoraEthnobotanical Park CapeHorn LTER,Chile; and Sierra Nevada LTSER, Spain. While based on a strong theoretical foundation in socio-ecological research, there has been a steep learning curve for scientists applying the concept in practice at LTSERplatforms.We show positive impacts that have been achieved, including contributions to policy, land-use planning, and natural resourcemanagement.Weexplain key aspects of LTSERplatforms that have proven challenging, includingmanagement, interdisciplinary integration, and stakeholder collaboration.Wecharacterize the tensions between top-down desires for network harmonization, bottom-up demands such as local policy relevance, and platform-level constraints such as time and budget. Finally,we discuss challenges, such as local context dominating the character of LTSERplatforms, and the fact that scientists are often disincentivized from engaging in transdisciplinary science. Overall, we conclude that while the internationalnetwork offers important advantages to itsmembers, a more productive balance between local and global goals could be achieved, and membersmay need to temper their expectations of what the network can and cannot offer at the local level. Peer reviewed

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, 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 decisions7,11. 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.