Trends across NCP categories and EBV classes
Our generalised least squares (GLS) model tested for statistical differences between our two predictors, NCP category and EBV class (Fig. 1). Our analysis showed that, consistently across EBVs (all p values > 0.05), the responding experts estimated the impact of biodiversity change on non-material NCPs higher than the other two NCP categories. Specifically, our survey respondents voted the impact that biodiversity change has on ‘Non-material NCPs’ significantly higher and statistically different (t = 3.316, p = 0.002) from ‘Regulating NCPs’ (t = 1.259, p = 0.2143) and ‘Material NCPs’ (t = 0.847, p = 0.567).
Weighted averages of responses by experts in our survey attributed to the impact of biodiversity change across three essential biodiversity variables (EBVs): species population, species traits and functions, biomass and abundance on categories of regulating, material and non-material Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs); arrows indicate how we tested for statistical difference and where we found this difference to be statistically significant (*).
Our findings suggest that different NCP categories more significantly influence expert weightings, whereas EBV classes do not exhibit the same effect. Specifically, expert weightings for ‘Non-material NCPs’ differ significantly from those for ‘Regulating NCPs’ and ‘Material NCPs,’ prompting a deeper examination of the ‘Non-material NCP’ category.
We did not focus on local trends of Algoa Bay and the Wadden Sea individually in this paper. Although our data allow for this comparison and further for a comparison across organism groups, we want to focus on the wider trends here and focus on the trends in NCPs and EBVs.
Our findings indicate that biodiversity changes significantly impact non-material NCPs in the coastal areas of the Wadden Sea and Algoa Bay. This stands in stark contrast to the current lack of research on the subject. Existing studies on ES and NCPs have primarily concentrated on regulating and material NCP categories, particularly in investigations concerning marine and coastal regions15, resulting in an imbalance in knowledge regarding NCPs and a lack of information on non-material NCPs16.
One possible explanation for this disparity is the intangible nature of non-material NCPs and the fact that it is simply difficult to measure something like cultural value17. The ES research has predominantly employed metrics derived from the natural sciences and economics, and the absence of metrics for cultural ES has skewed research towards other ES7. The concept of NCPs attempts to bridge this gap and go beyond it by including relational values, but the relative novelty of the concept compared to ES may explain why policy has not yet shifted its focus towards non-material NCPs.
The omission of non-material NCPs in conservation strategies may have led to a bias favouring the generation of other NCP categories at the expense of non-material NCPs. The variations in the impact of biodiversity changes on the NCP categories can also be associated with the trade-offs that may occur among them. NCPs are frequently generated synergistically, and in some cases, the provision of some NCPs comes at the expense of others, resulting in trade-offs. Trade-offs predominantly occur between non-material NCPs and other NCP categories15. In the marine environment, this can occur, for example, when maritime space is utilised for aquaculture or energy production (material NCPs), compromising the perceived aesthetic quality of an area and impacting potential recreational and cultural uses15.
Non-material NCPs and their associated cultural elements serve as a foundation of key aspects of human well-being. Consistent with the lack of research on non-material NCPs, there is also limited understanding of the relationship between these NCPs and human well-being, particularly in marine and coastal areas15,18. The initial findings of our study, therefore, support the call in the previously cited literature for a higher inclusion of non-material NCPs in research and conservation, a marked increase in the employment of social science methods, and a better understanding of how these NCPs relate to human well-being.
Detailed findings on non-material NCPs
Experts assessed the impact of marine biodiversity changes on human experiences, like healing, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment19, with most respondents considering them extremely or very significant (Fig. 2), underlining their already known importance19. These results point to the natural environment having a profound impact on the human experience.
Impact significance of biodiversity change in three biodiversity variables (species population, species traits and functions, biomass and abundance) on detailed groupings of non-material Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs); most heavily impacted NCPs are found at the top, decreasing in impact towards the bottom (ranking is done for the column of species population).
Non-material contributions extend to learning and inspiration, showing overall high importance, though slightly less so than experiences (Fig. 2). Notably, responses varied more regarding changes in biomass and abundance, suggesting some moderation in significance. Supporting identities, including spiritual and social cohesion19, saw a slightly more moderate view on the significance of biodiversity changes compared to other non-material NCPs.
In Algoa Bay, the literature documents how stakeholders value non-material contributions, emphasising the ocean’s importance for recreation, well-being, and cultural identity20,21. In the Wadden Sea, there are also accounts in the literature and how residents derive aesthetic enjoyment and a sense of identity from the coastal environment, highlighting biodiversity’s role in enhancing these experiences22.
Overall, while existing literature offers insights, engaging a broader range of stakeholders as well as attending to the different dimensions of human well-being and the diverse forms of knowledge these stakeholders contribute is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of non-material NCPs, urging further research into the consequences of biodiversity changes15,19.
Implications for conservation management
The survey results indicate that non-material NCPs are disproportionately affected by coastal biodiversity changes in the Wadden Sea and Algoa Bay, raising concerns due to their status as the least studied NCP category in marine and coastal environments20. Furthermore, it is also the NCP category that is least regarded by policy10, showcasing a discrepancy between stakeholder perceptions and academic as well as policy priorities. Scientists, policymakers, and NGOs play crucial roles in shaping conservation strategies, with their focus potentially impacting coastal communities dependent on the ocean15. Adams and Morse23 further highlight the bias in priorities, noting that non-material NCPs are not only under-researched but also frequently neglected in policy formulation. In response to an increasing need to make conservation more inclusive, effective, and socially just24, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recently published Guidelines on the Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature.
The emphasis on material NCPs reflects the values inherent in coastal biodiversity policies and research, primarily prioritising instrumental values23,25. In contrast, non-material NCPs are implying relational values, which are significantly impacted by coastal biodiversity changes, underscoring the importance of integrating relational values into environmental management10,25,26.
However, transitioning to relational values is complex as it involves diverse perspectives on human-nature relationships. There are worldviews, characterised by a nature-culture dichotomy, that often perceive nature as separate from human activities, perpetuating a simplified view of ecosystems15,26. This perception limits the effectiveness of conservation efforts by disregarding the interconnectedness of nature and culture27 as the separation overlooks the reality of human influence on nearly every corner of the planet, highlighting the inseparability of humans and nature26. Moreover, culture permeates all aspects of human interaction with the environment, shaping existing ocean management and conservation strategies. The desire to protect nature as distinct from human activities, exemplified in the practices of many national parks, stems from a view that downplays the intertwined nature of culture and nature, thus prioritising instrumental values over relational ones28.
Conservation strategies like marine protected areas (MPAs) that are driven by instrumental and intrinsic values can enhance biodiversity but may also perpetuate social injustices and reinforce the nature-culture divide10. Prioritising the nature-culture dichotomy and resulting policy perspectives risks obscuring and silencing forms of knowledge and governance that do not fit into these dominant paradigms. However, many rights- and stakeholder groups, including Indigenous communities, subsistence fishers, women, and youth, frequently feel excluded from decision-making processes and face restricted access to the ocean due to conservation measures20. In Algoa Bay, this exclusion extends to limitations on fishing activities, closure of coastal areas, and restricted access to sacred heritage sites, thus exacerbating social inequalities, reminiscent of apartheid-era segregation. While conservation efforts in the Wadden Sea do not reinforce social inequalities to this degree, there is much opposition and resistance from local residents towards the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park26,29.
The importance of proper knowledge co-production for conservation
The importance of inclusion, representation, and participation in conservation practices is crucial for recognising the complexity of nature-culture relationships and the impacts of biodiversity changes on non-material NCPs20. One avenue for attending to these diverse perspectives is through knowledge co-production22,30. If done right, with care and respect for the wishes and needs of stakeholders and communities, knowledge co-production can take the form of a partnership that benefits not only researchers but communities as well, through access to resources and support, funding, and further research opportunities31. Particularly when working with Indigenous communities, foregrounding ‘Indigenous values of relational reciprocity and self-determination’ is more important than reaching an appropriate level of ‘diversity’31. Indeed, as Wilson et al. 32, p. 131) note, ‘Indigenous peoples want to conduct their own research, in their own way, in their own words, under their terms, and for their own purposes.’ Knowledge co-production, then, must be mutually beneficial and relevant to both researchers and the communities with which they work33. If not, there is a very real risk that this process can reinforce and perpetuate, rather than challenge and resist, colonial violence and power imbalances.
Indigenous and local knowledge is highly contextual and relational, and its significance and meaning may be lost in the process of translation34. Many Indigenous scholars call for ‘recognition based on its own scientific merit and its inclusion as a distinct knowledge system,’32, p. 132). Framing entire knowledge systems as ‘traditional’ or ‘local’ may in itself be a colonial act which diminishes their legitimacy, global relevance, and authority, and may even lead to researchers speaking not only about but also for communities ‘by undertaking expert inquiries into what ‘local’ people think, feel, know, and want’34,35, p. 107). Further, the desires to improve, to make the world a better place, and to advance scientific understanding often motivated historical colonial governance of and research ‘on’ Indigenous people34,36. There is, therefore, a deep-seated distrust of researchers, who are often perceived as only benefiting their own objectives36. Indeed, as de Leeuw et al. 33, p. 184) note, ‘Indigenous peoples have insisted that they are ‘researched to death’, that research continues to be ‘about’ as opposed to ‘with’ or ‘by’ them, and that their stories are being ‘stolen.’‘ It is thus vital in knowledge co-production to respect a community’s wishes, even if it means non-participation or outright refusal37. More broadly, care should be given to communities’ needs and interests when designing knowledge co-production processes, as well as ensuring that the outcomes of these processes are accessible and beneficial in the long term36.
Nonetheless, regional-level co-production can promote the inclusion and representation of plural voices, guiding the implementation of conservation strategies that address regional needs and values38. ‘Management of marine resources is management of people,’ and the social sciences are equipped to explore and understand the human dimensions of the oceans39,40, p. 30). In particular, social science approaches may offer insight into the effectiveness of conservation and management measures, the social and political conditions that might impact such measures, and the impacts of such measures on human well-being. Further, the social sciences offer a multitude of relational approaches to the oceans that transcend the nature-culture binary, which is crucial to incorporating non-material NCPS into policy40. Indeed, in recognising plural worldviews and relational values, the social sciences have the potential to guide ‘a planning practice that seeks to comprehend the relational complexities of the marine world’41, p. 95). However, the social sciences are often relegated to the sidelines and reduced to scientific communication, education, and social impact and indicator analysis42. Additionally, social approaches, if not done with care, have the potential to cause more harm than good. The social sciences, then, are not ‘good’ by default; rather, there is a need for critical social science approaches that go beyond communication and education, that account for power dynamics, historical and cultural sensitivities, and for ‘the complexity of socio-spatial relationships in marine environments’37,42, p. 39).
Lastly, it is not a case of needing more social science methods, but rather of viewing social science research as equally legitimate as the ‘natural’ sciences in policymaking, and of meaningfully engaging with it for conservation and management measures that are socially relevant and sustainable transitions that are just42. Our survey underscores the importance of this meaningful engagement to enhance both environmental protection and human well-being, and calls for careful knowledge co-production at the regional level, inclusive of diverse stakeholders and local communities, focusing on relational values to tackle the underlying causes of sustainability challenges and biodiversity change43.
Other ways to engage with cultural values to aid integrating non-material NCPs into policy
To ensure that non-material NCPs inform policymaking, it is essential to engage stakeholders through participatory methods, adopt frameworks that highlight intangible values, and incorporate these into well-being assessments. Equally important is to support traditional ecological knowledge and community-based conservation approaches that emphasise spiritual and emotional ties to nature, integrating the cultural and relational values of nature in conservation policies. Such methods give voice to both individuals and communities, facilitating the integration of intangible values into policy objectives and decision-making processes.
For instance, engaging local stakeholders through participatory mapping and valuation methods can help capture diverse perceptions and values associated with non-material NCPs44. This approach allows for the identification of priority areas and the understanding of different stakeholders’ perspectives, which is crucial for informed land-use decisions and policy development. Additionally, implementing a triad of social spaces—lived, perceived, and conceived spaces—can make non-material NCPs more visible and integrate them into decision-making processes45. This framework helps in recognising the plurality of values and socio-spatial relationships, thereby enhancing the operationalisation of NCPs in environmental management and marine-use planning. Case studies highlight how improved coastal planning can lead to better integration of non-material NCPs46. Emerging management strategies incorporate stakeholder engagement and policy support to balance conservation with human services, including non-material benefits such as recreation, aesthetic value, and community identity. For instance, through the replacement of ‘hard engineering’ like marinas and sea walls through ecological solutions like mangrove, coral, or oyster restoration.
On a regional scale, management of the Litoral Norte MPA in Portugal explicitly considered non-material NCPs—such as engagement with nature, sense of place, solitude, and spirituality—by surveying users and incorporating their well-being dimensions into conservation practice and policy10. These well-being dimensions were explicitly considered in conservation practice and policy, supporting both biodiversity and human well-being by recognising and fostering cultural and spiritual connections to the marine environment.
Further, employing participatory methods, such as art-based interventions47 or the practice of walking, effectively assesses the emotional and spiritual contributions of natural environments48. While in-situ methodologies for measuring emotional connections to the oceans have particular challenges, such as the ability to swim, the Wadden Sea marks a special case, as walking methods are common practice here. The Wadden Sea is almost entirely walkable at low tide49.
Additionally, more quantitative evaluations of biodiversity-driven NCP changes, like we did here, but in other spatial contexts, can provide critical insights for adaptive policy development. Conducting quantitative assessments of how biodiversity changes are affecting NCPs in other places, including non-material contributions, can provide insights into the spatial and temporal dynamics of these contributions. Understanding these dynamics can help policymakers anticipate trade-offs and synergies, thereby supporting more informed and adaptive policy frameworks50. These strategies collectively support the integration of diverse values into environmental management and policy planning, promoting sustainable and inclusive decision-making.
Limitations and future research
A limitation of this study is its small sample size. Although, as marine biodiversity experts, our small sample group was carefully chosen for the particular knowledge the survey required. As Hesse-Biber and Leavy argue, ‘The goal is to look at a ‘process’ or the ‘meanings’ individuals attribute to their given social situation, not necessarily to make generalizations.’51, p. 119). Nevertheless, the low responses led us to not conducting an in-depth statistical analysis. The survey, distributed among numerous partners, saw limited completion rates, indicating possible issues with participant engagement. The survey’s complexity may have deterred respondents, evident from incomplete responses and feedback highlighting confusion. Balancing the need for detailed data collection with participant engagement poses a challenge in survey design, often resulting in a trade-off between complexity and participation rates52. The inclusion of open-text questions, while intended to gather comprehensive insights, may have added unnecessary complexity, potentially contributing to respondent disengagement. A more focused survey, centred on the effects of biodiversity changes on NCPs, followed by separate, in-depth interviews, might improve participation rates without compromising data quality.
Furthermore, the study primarily engaged conservation and research professionals, neglecting perspectives from more non-academic stakeholders52. This limits the generalisations we could draw from our analysis. Future research could strive for broader inclusivity, incorporating diverse knowledge holders to inform conservation practices more comprehensively, especially to advance our understanding of relational values and non-material NCPs. For instance, a broader stakeholder analysis might enable a wider audience53. In particular, including perspectives of local community residents, who are experiencing biodiversity change ‘on the ground’, may offer valuable insights. Future studies could employ real-world lab frameworks to co-design studies with Indigenous groups and local communities, using methods like deliberative mapping and photovoice to document non-material NCP perceptions54.
While this study offers insights into stakeholders’ perceptions across two coastal regions, it overlooks intra-regional variations and differences between organism groups. Subsequent investigations could delve deeper into these aspects, analysing responses regionally and by organism group to uncover nuanced drivers of NCPs51. While resource-intensive, expanding this research to encompass diverse coastal regions could enhance understanding and inform tailored conservation strategies.
