Balancing the plural voices at play – approaches of researchers to advancing an inclusive understanding of people-nature relationships

Amidst the intertwined challenges of biodiversity loss and declining human well-being, people’s perspectives on nature vary widely based on how they relate to it. Therefore, it is important that conservation policies recognize how nature contributes to human well-being and the diverse values people ascribe to it. Yet, policies often focus narrowly on economic values, neglecting the diversity of people-nature relationships and the varied groups of people who experience them. In contrast, a growing body of scientific research has demonstrated the importance of accounting for diverse perspectives to address the above mentioned intertwined challenges. To support this, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced two frameworks: Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), reflecting what nature supports to well-being, and the plural valuation framework, which captures the varied reasons nature matters, i.e., their values. Yet, scientific evidence itself remains biased toward monetary valuation, thereby overlooking critical non-monetary perspectives. The disregard for non-monetary perspectives becomes evident when socio-cultural methods, which can uncover these, are applied. The methods employed for data collection and analysis, i.e., how the diversity of people-nature relationships is studied, condition our understanding of people-nature relationships and shape the resulting evidence. Two additional methodological choices also affect scientific outcomes, namely the phenomenon and framework chosen (what dimension of people-nature relationships to study and through which framework) and the selection of research participants (who participates). This thesis seeks to advance an inclusive understanding of people-nature relationships by examining how methodological choices shape this understanding, with the ultimate goal of informing inclusive conservation policies and practices. It is based on a study of four relevant social actor groups in Mount Kilimanjaro's social-ecological system in Tanzania, conducted as part of the Kilimanjaro Social-Ecological System (Kili-SES) Research Unit. The thesis consists of five chapters, with Chapter I framing Chapters II–V. Chapter II synthesizes how research has approached capturing tourists’ values ascribed to nature in protected areas so far. Chapters III-V use socio-cultural approaches to yield empirical evidence on NCP and value perspectives of diverse actors in Kilimanjaro. Chapter II highlights the role of valuation frameworks and methods in shaping scientific outcomes. The frequent application of monetary methods can explain the persistent bias toward monetary values. Further, the results also show that most studies focused on tourists solely, thereby not accounting for potentially differing value perspectives of other (local) social actors. To confront these imbalances, Chapters III–V apply socio-cultural and diverse-actor approaches. Additionally, this requires closely examining the three methodological choices mentioned above. Chapters III–V are based on data on context-specific NCP expression (Chapter III), preferences for these context-specific NCP (Chapters IV and V), and expression of diverse values tailored to the Kilimanjaro context (Chapter V). This was achieved through the analysis of 130 semi-structured interviews and 623 surveys conducted with farmers, nature conservationists, tour guides, and tourists. On a methodological level, this thesis demonstrates how researchers can deliberately make decisions throughout the research process to advance a more inclusive understanding of people-nature relationships. It (1) offers an approach that uses different question-framings within a single method to capture diverse perspectives. Even without changing the method, these question-framings can broaden interviewees’ access to their diverse perspectives and thereby, this approach reduces the risk of knowledge omission (Chapter III); (2) reflects on two analysis approaches to avoid the risk of stereotyping social actors, ensuring inclusivity throughout the research process (Chapters IV and V); and (3) shows that combining the two IPBES frameworks can better account for the multidimensionality of people-nature relationships (Chapter V). Thereby, this thesis demonstrates the influential role of researchers’ decisions in shaping scientific outcomes. This is an important empirical contribution of the thesis, given the dearth of studies on people-nature relationships that incorporate a critical methodological assessment and reflection. This thesis has important implications for conservation policy and practice (Chapter V). To account for distinct preferences for context-specific NCP and nurture value pluralism, conservation strategies must not only focus on bending the curve of biodiversity loss but need also to be diversified to simultaneously foster the well-being of all people.