Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework

1. Scientists have repeatedly argued that transformative, multiscale global scenarios are needed as tools in the quest to halt the decline of biodiversity and achieve sustainability goals. 2. As a first step towards achieving this, the researchers who participated in the scenarios and models expert group of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) entered into an iterative, creation of the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), a heuristic tool based on the diverse, positive relationships that humans have with nature, whilst at the same time offering a structure for consis-tency in the scenarios and models that use it. The NFF enables the co-production of novel scenarios that incorporate diverse interventions towards positive future trajectories for nature and nature's contributions to people. In our discussion, we analyse the contribution of the NFF both as a boundary object to open up more plural perspectives in the creation of nature scenarios and as an actionable framework for developing consistent nature scenarios across multiple scales and levels, whilst enabling this plurality to flourish.


| INTRODUC TI ON
The rapid decline in the state of nature and its clear links to the prosperity of human societies has led scientists to argue that transformative change is required in how societies relate to nature.
The first Global Assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the recent special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both argue that a sustainable world cannot be achieved without transformative systemic change of our societies (IPBES, 2019;IPCC, 2018). Achieving such a change requires identifying visions, pathways and plans that can help people navigate away from undesirable futures and towards desirable ones Bennett et al., 2016;Peterson et al., 2018). The urgency to reframe the future of human societies' relationships with nature has become even clearer since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which is sure to enter the global negotiation agendas for the next biodiversity and climate change targets that will take place in 2021. Decisions on how to catalyse transformative change can be supported by the co-production of visions, scenarios and pathways that are collectively and transparently developed and are made accessible to all interested stakeholders (Pereira, Asrar, et al., 2019). New types of globally relevant scenarios and futures are urgently needed that not only provide an orientation of what diverse possibilities might be achievable, but also to catalyse the movement towards these more desirable futures for people and the planet, in all their plurality (Luederitz, Abson, Audet, & Lang, 2017).
In this paper, we address the question of how a new set of scenarios that respond to these needs can be developed. We outline the systematic steps to develop such scenarios that have been made by a group of experts who participated in the IPBES scenarios and models expert group, and we explain the methodology of each element of the process in detail to illustrate how the process differs from the development of previous global environmental scenarios. A key outcome of the process thus far has been the creation of the Nature Futures Framework (NFF), a heuristic tool based on the diverse, positive relationships that humans have with nature, whilst at the same time offering a structure for consistency in the scenarios and models that use it. The NFF enables the co-production of novel scenarios that incorporate diverse interventions towards positive future trajectories for nature and nature's contributions to people. In our discussion, we analyse the contribution of the NFF both as a boundary object to open up more plural perspectives in the creation of nature scenarios and as an actionable framework for developing consistent nature scenarios across multiple scales and levels, whilst enabling this plurality to flourish.
We conclude with a call to arms for the research community to mobilize and help in moving this agenda forward. We see a broad sweep of the research community interested in the future of nature and its contributions to people as the main audience for this paper. By describing here the background, methodological process and rationale underpinning the NFF, we hope that it will inspire other researchers-ranging from those interested in participatory co-production processes with local communities through to global integrated assessment modellers-to integrate the NFF into their own activities. We set out specifics for how we envision this joint venture could be undertaken in the discussion.

| New scenarios for nature
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was established in 2012 by 94 member states of the United Nations to become the leading intergovernmental body for assessing the state of nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP), as well as options for action. The IPBES conceptual framework illustrates that the ways that nature, biodiversity and ecosystem services are conceived and valued vary across cultures and societies (Díaz et al., 2015). People ascribe different types of values to nature, and its contributions to a good quality of life are often perceived and conceptualized by people in different and sometimes conflicting ways (e.g. as the environment, Mother Earth, natural resources, natural capital from which people derive ecosystem services, our biological community etc.; IPBES, 2015). Furthermore, people ascribe multiple values to the same natural entity (e.g. a landscape can simultaneously be seen as a provider of food and medicine, a good site for mineral exploitation, important for water supply, a habitat for wildlife, a beautiful place or a sacred space; IPBES, 2015). Being able to recognize this plurality and address it in assessments, policies, models and scenarios is a key goal of IPBES.
Scenarios are recognized as powerful tools to examine how different pathways of future human development and policy choices could affect nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP; Ferrier et al., 2016;Harrison et al., 2018;Rosa et al., 2017). However, to date, most scenarios for global environmental assessments have explored impacts of society on nature, such as biodiversity loss, but have not explored the role of nature and related policies in driving development Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Pereira et al., 2010;Saito et al., 2019). Indeed, the variety of connections between people and nature, and how these vary across the world, have mostly been ignored in scenario processes, and the linkages between nature and nature's contributions to people have been underexplored (Cumming et al., 2005;Johnson et al., 2020;Rosa et al., 2017). Furthermore, most existing global assessment scenarios have only been conducted at aggregated global scales, in which local and regional variation, tele-connections and cross-scale dynamics have not been well captured (IPBES, 2016; Obermeister, 2019; Rosa et al., 2017).
Addressing issues of power and rationality in how scenarios are framed, and ensuring an equitable inclusion of voices, especially those of the most marginalized to frame matters of concern is another core challenge (Cairns & Wright, 2019). In relation to nature conservation, IPBES have highlighted the particular importance of including indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), which has long been marginalized or invisible in global scenarios and models. It is therefore increasingly clear that there is a need for new global scenarios for nature (Kok et al., 2016;Rosa et al., 2017;Wyborn et al., 2020).
The scenarios that are currently widely used in global environmental assessments are the Shared Socio-Economic pathways (SSPs). The SSPs were developed by the climate change community to help outline potential socio-economic trends that would influence how climate change manifests in the future (O'Neill et al., 2014(O'Neill et al., , 2017. Whilst they have been successful in both the science and policy domain and in unifying different areas of research, the SSPs have limitations in their applicability to biodiversity and nature research. Firstly, they say little about desirable outcomes for nature and its contributions to people, making it difficult to incorporate biodiversity-specific interventions into models (IPBES, 2016;Rosa et al., 2017). This limits their ability to inspire change (Bennett et al., 2016;IPBES, 2016;Pereira, Sitas, Ravera, Jimenez-Aceituno, & Merrie, 2019). Second, these scenarios are expert-led and have not been legitimized through a co-production process in which a plurality of perspectives are included (Duncan et al., 2018;Kok et al., 2016;Tengö et al., 2017).
Finally, the SSPs focus on their use only as inputs to a scientific process (O'Neill et al., 2017). However, in global assessments scenarios also act as boundary objects that are used to mobilize action, and as tools for building future literacy amongst stakeholders (Kok et al., 2016;Tengö et al., 2017). These concerns highlight the need for new, participatory nature scenarios that can inform decision-making and inspire action.
Following from the IPBES methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES, 2016), the former IPBES scenarios and models expert group set out a research strategy to address some of the above concerns and initiated the development of multiscale scenarios for nature based on pluralistic desirable visions for human relationships with nature (Rosa et al., 2017). These scenarios should be produced at and applicable across multiple scales through a process that includes a diversity of stakeholder voices and values, and explicitly include pathways that enable humanity to meet the desired 2050 vision under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 'Living in harmony with nature' where 'biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people' (UNEP, 2010: para 11).
Central to this process was the research question of how to develop these new scenarios in a way that addresses the gaps identified in other scenarios in order to support the work programme of IPBES. In this paper, we answer this question by documenting the iterative process that was undertaken by the IPBES scenarios and models expert group from 2016 to 2019. Presenting methodological approaches in scenario development is important to ensure scientific credibility as well as legitimacy (Sarkki et al., 2014), but it also ensures replicability where others are able to build on and further contribute to the approach, and critique it. In the following section, we present the outputs of the process to date, including a description of the visions, stakeholder feedback and framework development, and also outline the plan for the development of scenarios that can be used by modellers and practitioners.

| ME THODOLOG IC AL APPROACH
There is an emerging agreement that sustainability challenges require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making, including the involvement of actors from outside academia into the research process in order to integrate the best available knowledge, reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership for problems and solution options (Laing & Wallis, 2016;Obermeister, 2017). As the development of the new nature scenarios is taking place under the auspices of an intergovernmental science-policy platform, such a transdisciplinary approach was required. However, doing transdisciplinary research is not straightforward and requires a deep level of reflection and learning as well as an openness to change direction in response to the needs of diverse participants (Norström et al., 2020;Pereira, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2019). As such, the methodological approach of the scenario development process needed to navigate this complex reality whilst resulting in a usable outcome.
There is currently a debate as to whether ensuring credibility, relevance and legitimacy are of the utmost importance to policy in assessment processes (Sarkki et al., 2015) or whether applicability, comprehensiveness, timing and accessibility are of more relevance (Dunn & Laing, 2017). At the same time, there are trade-offs and constraints to any science-policy process (Sarkki et al., 2014). Whilst being able to leverage the inclusion, representivity and legitimacy offered by intergovernmental platforms, this can also come with certain constraints, including limited time and funding to undertake specific tasks (see Sarkki et al., 2014), and sometimes a lack of interdisciplinary expertise and other forms of knowledge (Harrison et al., 2018;Obermeister, 2017;Vadrot, Jetzkowitz, & Stringer, 2016;Vadrot, Rankovic, Lapeyre, Aubert, & Laurans, 2018). For the expert group, designing a process that could overcome these constraints, whilst producing diverse multiscale positive scenarios for nature was a key challenge. A first step was to ensure a common language of terms within the research group (Box 1). A second step was the development of core principles. Despite these considerations, the overall approach, especially in terms of including stakeholder voices in the process, was a combination of systematic outreach to a broad diversity of stakeholders across all continents and levels of governance, and using additional opportunities as they occurred in order to reach more voices. This process was still constrained by the limited human and budget resources that were available.
We employed three core principles for the approach: co-production, interactive iteration and pluralism. Co-production is increasingly seen as an important process in sustainability science as it enables the harnessing of multiple viewpoints and creates buy-in to a process (Norström et al., 2020). A core aspect of the sciencepolicy interface is the dynamic interaction between stakeholders and scientists that iterates over time, allowing for learning and readjustments (Priess & Hauck, 2014;Sarkki et al., 2015). Finally, according to the IPBES conceptual framework, a plurality of perspectives is core to the platform (Díaz et al., 2015). The subsequent approach was largely informed by the multiple evidence base approach where an enriched picture of understanding serves a starting point for further knowledge generation, triangulation and assessment (Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg, 2014;Tengö et al., 2017).
Next, we outline the iterative process (in the form of phases) and outcomes that resulted at each step, and lay out what is planned to continue to build on the process in the future. This iterative approach is how we went about answering the research question of how to create a new set of scenarios that are diverse, desirable, and multiscale. It has taken time and learning along the way has been a key part of this process, which is also why we seek to document it in this paper. In the discussion section, we situate the findings from this process within the existing literature and critically examine the contribution that the NFF could make in its aim for improved nature scenarios for decision-making in the post 2020 agenda.

| Iterative phases
The scenario development process consisted of five distinct methodological phases ( Figure 1): Phase (i) visioning and storyline development through a participatory workshop (Section 3.1); Phase (ii) elaboration through stakeholder engagement to address gaps in the visions (Section 3.2); Phase (iii) formulation of the NFF based on analysis of the elaborated visions by the expert group (Section 3.3); Phase (iv) further refinement of the NFF through stakeholder engagement (Section 3.4); and finally, Phase (v) consolidation of scenario narratives that can be used by diverse research communities, including modellers (Section 3.5). In the results section, we present the methods that were used as well as the outputs that arose from each of the steps. We discuss the implications of the method and the future development of the NFF scenarios in Section 4.

| Analysis
At each step in the co-production process, information was documented and recorded. For the analysis of the information captured from the stakeholder engagement exercises (Phases i, ii and iv), an approach similar to the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was chosen to organize the discussion process whereby participants are asked to individually reflect and generate ideas based on predetermined questions (Duncan, 2004). Subsequently, they collectively prioritize the ideas and suggestions issued by the group members (Clemen & Winkler, 1999;Harvey & Holmes, 2012). The process allowed us to combine individual and collective reflection, to explore novel concepts, and eventually generate a list of priorities (Coker et al., 2014;Rankin et al., 2016). There is some criticism of NGT in that it is a version of the Delphi method where the feedback step takes place during a face-to-face meeting of experts instead of filling in anonymized questionnaires. For such group settings, Ayyub (2001) highlights the following as potential limitations: socially reinforced conformity within the group, dominance of strong-minded or strident individuals, group motive of BOX 1 Glossary of terms Drivers-The external factors that cause change in nature, anthropogenic assets, nature's contributions to people and a good quality of life. They include institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers, and direct drivers (both natural and anthropogenic; IPBES, 2016).
Future wheels-A graphic method similar to a collectively brainstormed mind-map that identifies direct and indirect future consequences or impacts of a particular change or development (Glenn, 2009). Nature Futures Framework (NFF)-A heuristic that captures diverse, positive values for human-nature relationships in a triangular space (the NFF triangle; see Figure 5). We consider three main ways of valuing nature at each of the vertices (nature for nature, nature for society and nature as culture). The NFF builds on the three values of nature (intrinsic, instrumental and relational values, respectively) identified by the IPBES and repurposes it to make it actionable for the modelling and scenarios community. The NFF triangle illustrates how it is possible to emphasize a complex mixture of values for appreciating nature depending where in the triangle you are situated and thus allows for a plurality of perspectives to be held in different times, contexts and spaces. As such, the NFF approach and the triangle can be used both as a boundary object for continuously opening up more plural perspectives in the creation of nature scenarios (when referring just to the NFF triangle) and as an actionable framework for developing consistent scenarios and models across multiple scales and levels when referring to the overall process captured in Figure 1.
Pathways-Different strategies for moving from the current situation towards a desired future vision or set of specified targets.
Scenarios-Plausible and often simplified descriptions of how the future may develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces and relationships (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). A scenario skeleton is a simplified outline of a scenario.
Seeds-Current positive and inspiring initiatives that hold potential to shape a more just, prosperous and sustainable future. They can be initiatives (social, technological, economic, or social-ecological ways of thinking or doing) that exist, at least in prototype form, and that represent a diversity of worldviews, values, and regions, but are not currently dominant or prominent in the world (Bennett et al., 2016).
Three Horizons approach-A simple, graphical and collaborative approach to build pathways for desirable futures based on a structured and guided dialogue considered along a temporal axis (now, near future, and far future): the first horizon is a business as usual scenario, the second horizon represents the necessary actions to move from the present to the desired future and the third horizon represents emerging paradigms, ideas and innovations for a desirable future (Sharpe, 2013;Sharpe et al., 2016; Figure 6).
Values-A principle or core belief underpinning rules and moral judgements. Values as principles vary from one culture to another and also between individuals and groups (IPBES/4/INF/13).
Visions-A desirable state in the future and therefore, a component of scenarios (the possible future states), demarcated from predictions (likely future states) and pathways (that lead up to the vision). Visions are usually seen as a desirable image of the future and can be defined as a compelling, inspiring statement of the preferred future that the authors and those who subscribe to the vision want to create (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014).

Visioning-'
The process of creating a vision, that is, a representation of a desirable future state, as opposed to scenario building (possible future states), forecasting (likely future states), and backcasting (pathways to desirable future states)' (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014, p. 497).
quickly reaching agreement and group-reinforced bias due to common background of group members. To mitigate these potential limitations, the reflection process was guided by facilitators to ensure that individual personalities and other characteristics did not exert a disproportionate effect on outcomes. Multiple iterations of individual reflections followed by group discussion and synthesis is a valuable technique to avoid confrontation while allowing for a wider range of perspectives to be aired (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963).
Multiple rounds of iterative feedback between multiple groups also allows for the attenuation of institutional and psychological biases (e.g. Hannagan & Larimer, 2010).
The description of the visions from Phase i were written in conjunction with all group members to ensure all aspects were covered and the mapping of the visions across a variety of characteristics was inductively undertaken as part of the workshop process. All the participants brainstormed and prioritized a set of characteristics that they thought were most relevant for describing the core aspects of the visions and these were then tested across all of the visions to see whether they were feasible. The final characteristics were chosen based on those that were most relevant to all the visions, and the visions were mapped according to group consensus, as a result of this inductive group process (see Table S1). More in- During each stakeholder workshop (Phases ii and iv), notes were taken and these data were then recorded in a spreadsheet under thematic codes and analysed to see where there were overlaps and where gaps could be identified (see Table S3). Finally, expert opinion was used to analyse how the visions and stakeholder inputs could be optimally used to derive model-relevant scenarios that remained true to the co-produced, plural and multiscale nature of the undertaking. Through an inductive process that involved group analysis of the data in the visions and clustering into thematic components, the three dimensions of the triangle were derived (see PBL, 2018 for a full documentation of the expert workshop process undertaken in Phase iii). In Section 3 below, we present the results of how this iterative process was undertaken ( Figure 1) as well as the outcomes at each of the phases that fed into subsequent phases.

| Ethical considerations
As this research was not undertaken through a university, there is no ethical clearance number. However, we endeavoured to follow all ethical guidelines in the involvement of human participants during the course of this research. The work presented was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and is in conformity with ethical standards of research. The authors have ensured that the information presented in this paper is either sourced from materials available in the public domain as a result of consent from participants or based on anonymous opt-ins to the research process by participants. Chatham House rules are applied in all workshops and nothing is attributed to any specific individual. All participants are authors of the publicly available workshop reports from which information was extracted for Phases i and iii (Lundquist et al., 2017;PBL, 2018). For the stakeholder engagement in Phases ii and iv, all participants were invited to opt in with an explicit explanation that their responses would be used as direct input to the future visions, F I G U R E 1 The five main methodological phases used for the development of Nature Future Scenarios, which are described in-depth in Section 3. This overall process illustrates how the Nature Futures Framework evolved. (Source: Authors' own) but that all information would be anonymized. At the beginning of each stakeholder engagement process, we obtained verbal consent from all participants present that the outputs from the session may be used in research publications, but that no personal data would be used. The only personal details recorded were of the participants' nationality for regional representation purposes. More information on the source of data for each workshop is available in Supporting Information S2.

| ME THODS AND RE SULTS: DE VELOPING NATURE FUTURE S
We use Figure 1 to structure this section and discuss the different methods and their results by each phase. A more in-depth description of the specific methods used in Phases i, ii, iii and iv is provided in Supporting Information S2. The aim of the first step of the workshop was to set the scene and organize participants into thematic groups. In breakout groups, participants discussed themes that should be captured in future nature scenarios and then in plenary agreed on seven thematic, self-organized groups on freshwater, food, inclusive economics, urban-rural flows, indigenous and local knowledge, nature's dynamics and oceans. As these themes were brainstormed with the participants, they emphasize what those in the room thought were the most important thematic areas for discussion. Extending away from the thematic areas of focus into more holistic narratives for the development of scenarios was therefore acknowledged as a challenge that the team would face further into the process.

| Phase i: Visioning and storyline development
During the second step of the workshop, participants constructed scenario skeletons using three existing initiatives ('Seeds') that they believed would contribute to a better future that reversed the negative trends in their respective themes (Bennett et al., 2016, Box 1). In the third step, participants worked on fleshing out the narratives and exploring possible pathways to achieving the visions using the Three Horizons approach (Sharpe et al., 2016;Figure 6). This process was used to refine the visions, but did not develop specific timelines for change. As a result of these three steps, seven visions (i.e. potential Nature Futures) emerged (Table 1). These visions differ from scenarios in that they are representations of explicitly desirable futures, but do not describe pathways by which they each emerged from a baseline.
As the method was designed to emphasize desirable futures, none of the descriptions are dystopian; rather different aspects of nature and its contributions to people emerge across the different visions.
Desired futures of peoples' relationship with nature varied substantially across these visions (Table 1) This vision illustrates a world based on reconstructing global governance and institutional mechanisms in order to recharacterize economic drivers to include externalities and incentivize sustainable and natural resource use and sustain richly diverse cultures, societies and nature into the future

Sustainable food systems (Food Production)
This vision illustrates a world where global food production systems are re-engineered, emphasizing sustainable supply chains and benefit sharing mechanism in place between producers, traders, transporters and retailers, grounded on biodiversity-rich food production that supports local and indigenous communities The sub-groups mapped the visions across the different topics, which helped to identify commonalities and differences between them (see examples of use in Figure 3; Table S1). The visions were then compared across regions (Africa, Asia, Europe and North America, Latin America, Oceania), so that the experts present from these regions could reflect on how existing positive actions for biodiversity, infrastructure or other social, political or economic actors specific to a region might facilitate or impede the implementation of particular visions (Table S2). The seven Auckland visions became starting points to inform the rest of the scenario development process, but required a lot of refinement before they could be adapted, including moving away from some of the thematic foci to more holistic descriptions of nature.

| Phase ii: Elaboration of the visions through stakeholder engagement
As the Auckland visions were developed by a small group of stakeholders, a series of further stakeholder engagement processes were This ocean-centric vision illustrates a world where the high seas are closed to resource extraction, and coastal ecosystems provide a wealth of ecosystem services, supported by long-term sustainability strategies by governments and businesses that empower local-based sustainable co-management practices. Novel technologies support behavioural change to lower impact diets and increase food production TA B L E 1 (Continued)

| IPBES 6: Stakeholder day and plenary
In the margins of the sixth session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES-6) and IPBES Stakeholder Day (Medellin, Colombia; 17-24 March 2018), a targeted survey was conducted to increase the 'reach' of our consultation activities. Two methods were used to generate further inputs, and materials were visualized and accessible both online and offline to facilitate accessibility and participation: • An exhibition booth where visitors were able to add new ideas, identify gaps in visions and themes and modify or give feedback on the existing visions ( Figure 4) by means of a paper survey.
• An online survey announced through both in person and social media channels.
All information from these stakeholder engagements were recorded to be used in the scenario narrative development process (Table S3).

| Natural Capital Symposium 2018
The seven visions were also presented at the Natural Capital and it was not easy to explain the main differences between the seven visions because of the high degree of overlap in some instances. The need to differentiate between aspects of the visions was an underlying rationale in the development of the NFF in the next phase and was also a core aspect for consideration in the scenario development process.

| Phase iii: Formulating the Nature Futures Framework
In . Considering that all visions were intentionally desirable visions of future human-nature relationships, and that some were narrower in geographical or ecosystem scope (e.g. covering freshwater or marine systems), it was clear that the parameters for separating them would need to be clear and consistent. After many discussions the experts came to realize that underpinning the visions were three value perspectives for how people relate to nature ( Figure 5).
Building on the IPBES guidance on multiple values that identify intrinsic, instrumental and relational values for nature (IPBES, 2015), but seeking to find short and descriptive names for these perspectives they were called: • Nature for Nature, in which nature has value in and of itself, and the preservation of nature's diversity and functions is of primary importance; • Nature for Society, in which nature is primarily valued for the ben-

| Phase v: Towards a first set of Nature Futures Scenarios
The 7th session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES-7, April-May 2019 in Paris, France) decided to establish a task force on scenarios and models to advance work on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, as part of the new IPBES work programme up to 2030, which IPBES-7 approved. The mandate of the task force is to advise IPBES experts working on assessments on the use of scenarios, and to catalyse the further development by a variety of stakeholders including the modelling community, of scenarios and models for future IPBES assessments. The task force is following up on the work performed by the expert group on scenarios and models during the first work programme of IPBES (2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018). In order to fulfil this objective, the task force is currently developing a package of NFF-related material. A process is now underway to develop six illustrative scenarios of futures based on an extreme interpretation of the three value perspectives and the edges where they intersect. A core aspect of this process is to ensure that there is maximum diversity between the different scenarios so that we are able to capture a wide spectrum of possible futures based on plural value perspectives. Engaging the broader scientific community in these endeavours is of great importance and this will be discussed below in Section 4.3.

| Limitations and lessons
The Nature Futures process required dealing with changes, including a change in membership of the expert group when it became an IPBES task force on scenarios and models in November 2019. Although there are multiple benefits from being able to associate with an intergovernmental platform such as IPBES, the fact that the project is not set up as a TA B L E 2 Key highlights from the discussions in the six groups (see Table S3 for a full description)

Value perspective Marine Rural Urban
Nature for Society Stronger enforcement of laws and regulations as an important step towards achieving the desired vision of plastic-free, healthy oceans, serving as a source of jobs and clean energy The potential contribution of blockchain technology and the adaptation of agricultural practices to overcoming some of the negative drivers such as bad practices in agricultural production The need for a circular economy, increased blue/green infrastructure, ecotourism and incentives for urban farming, which would require alignment of priorities across different insti tu tions charged with urban planning Nature for Nature Ideal future is one of healthy oceans, healthy coastlines and healthy ecosystems, but corruption and overfishing are major impediments to this realization There is a possibility of envisioning a future that excludes humans from rural areas (Half Earth), but the preferred focus is how to achieve a well-functioning ecosystem with clean air and water. A decrease in monocultures and pollution are ways to contribute to this goal Sustainable cities with organic local food production and increased overall connectivity with nature as the desirable future, which would require new laws tax reforms, and better spatial planning to ensure connectivity between rural and urban areas Nature as Culture People's perception of oceans as being the root of sustainability problems, and the need to shift away from seeing oceans as a property that can be exploited as amusement parks, and instead revive the spiritual connections with them The need for a change in lifestyle and education, and better management, with more food diversity, eco-friendly farming and increased engagement of youth. The role of technology in overcoming these challenges, and closing the gap between urban and rural areas is key More equity in access to biodiverse urban spaces, green buildings and community gardens. There is a need for new social norms, mindsets and standard-setting initiatives that connect cities to nature regular research project brings constraints. These constraints include the specific protocols for convening groups: whilst it is extremely helpful to be able to draw on the large IPBES stakeholder community, sometimes the rules can be difficult to implement and it can become expensive to generate co-funding for non-supported members to attend meetings.
As this process sits outside of a dedicated research project, the ability to mobilize funding to host stakeholder engagements has been a big limiting factor. The mandate of the task force being to 'catalyse' work means we depend on interactions with other researchers and stakeholders, and the fact that the expert group is voluntary and cannot dedicate excessive amounts of time and resources to the process are further constraints.
Within this context, a chief lesson is that creating a new generation of scenarios and models requires a commitment to participatory processes that makes those involved feel comfortable to express their viewpoint openly (Hebinck, Vervoort, Hebinck, Rutting, & Galli, 2018). The management of group dynamics, especially across disciplines, cultures and languages must therefore acknowledge power differentials and the pluralities associated with cultural contexts (Marshall, Dolley, & Priya, 2018). A core aspect of the approach was to ensure co-production of knowledge through approaches such as employing a cultural guide to help with workshop planning, taking time to establish ground rules with local facilitators, a strong focus on creating a sense of community and mutual respect among the participants in the process, employing techniques such as Chatham House Rules, and negotiating the confidentiality of data. These methods support trust building and represent an investment in social capital, which is needed to progress any collective effort.

| D ISCUSS I ON
The ultimate aim of the Nature Futures endeavour is to develop a process for creating multiscale scenarios of desirable futures for nature, which have been legitimized through a co-production process that includes a plurality of perspectives. The IPBES expert group embarked on an iterative process that resulted in the development of the NFF as a tool for engaging a pluralistic set of positive perspectives on human-nature relationships and as a framework for constructing multiscale scenarios. The NFF serves as a boundary object that provides a platform for practitioners, natural and social scientists, policymakers and modellers to reflect on and compare which types of values and which types of relationships with nature are being analysed, discussed and compared. We believe that the use of the NFF within the overall framework enables more nuanced and relevant dialogue around what possible futures for nature can be created. It also forms a foundational framework from which further scenario work can be undertaken. This is discussed more in Section 4.3.
As such, we argue that the contribution of the NFF is twofold: 1. Its ability to hold a plurality of perspectives on what is desirable, which enables the development of joint goals and visions and recognizes the possible convergence and synergies of measures to achieve these.
2. Its multiscale functionality for elaborating scenarios and models that can inform decision-making at relevant levels, making it applicable across specific places and knowledge systems.

| Desirable futures
The

| Value pluralism
The embracing of value pluralism makes it possible to fit the NFF to different contexts and identify different behavioural changes as-

| NFF as a boundary object
Reinforcing the call by Tadaki, Sinner, and Chan (2017) to move away from theoretical gridlock within the environmental values debate and into a space where the valuation of diverse values of nature can be means of citizen empowerment, the methodological approach of the NFF is an attempt to create a boundary object for bringing different disciplinary perspectives and worldviews together.
The creation of a boundary object in the scientific process can be a useful strategy for reconciling tensions between different viewpoints and translating between them so that progress can be made (Star & Griesemer, 1989). As such, boundary objects must be both adaptable to different viewpoints whilst also being robust enough to maintain identity across them (Star & Griesemer, 1989). In the biodiversity conservation context, boundary objects have proved to be important tools for navigating different scalar perspectives for improved decision-making (Gray, Gruby, & Campbell, 2014). The IPBES Conceptual framework itself has been described as a boundary object for opening up the science-policy interface for broader engagement with plural ontologies and epistemologies (Borie & Hulme, 2015;Scarano et al., 2019). Based on the stakeholder engagements described in Section 3.3, we argue that the NFF triangle has turned out to be useful as a boundary object for bridging multiple disciplines and stakeholder perspectives. As the final outputs of the Nature Futures process must be relevant for a wide audience, including the modelling community, having a common conceptual lynchpin in the NFF has been critical for creating buy-in and understanding across different groups.
The aim of the NFF is not to replace the frameworks described above, but to provide a heuristic that can hold these different conceptualizations in order to provide a simple, but effective, tool for the creation of multiscale, plural biodiversity scenarios. As such, it is intended to be used as a heuristic device for holding ongoing engagements between diverse perspectives. As intergovernmental assessment processes have a strong influence on how the spatial dimensions of environmental problems are designated and thus how power relations are accordingly reconfigured across different scales and levels (Beck, Esguerra, & Goerg, 2017), a tool through which to unpack these relations and empower different spatial scales can be an important offering. By capturing diversity in an accessible heuristic, the NFF has the potential to support IPBES assessment work by operationalizing the platform's principles: promoting a collaborative approach; facilitating an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach; engaging with different knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge; and ensuring full, effective balanced participation across national, sub-regional and regional levels. The NFF approach also complements ongoing IPBES work, especially that of the Values Assessment which will be considered by the 9th session of the IPBES Plenary in 2022. Future assessments, including those on transformative change, the nexus of biodiversity, water, food and health and business and biodiversity, will be able to utilize the NFF as an overarching framework around which to organize the analysis of scenarios and models that deal with these topics.
Disciplinary research often re-emphasizes the problems of scale: ecologists and social scientists traditionally frame their research questions at different scales and consider different facets of natural resource management, setting different objectives and using different language (Montana & Borie, 2016;Stevens, Fraser, Mitchley, & Thomas, 2007), which makes it difficult to connect scales. Within disciplines, scale remains a problem, due to the scale bound nature of research problems and data collection (Levin, 1992).
The NFF has been explicitly designed by an interdisciplinary group of researchers to be used across multiple scales, potentially, but not necessarily, combining scales in the same framework within a cross-scale approach. Overcoming philosophical and disciplinary challenges and embracing the plurality of knowledge systems that lies at the heart of IPBES, were central goals of the expert group as they developed the NFF. Bridging interdisciplinary barriers is required to be able to incorporate more diverse knowledge systems into environmental assessments (Obermeister, 2017). Although not perfect, the group made a lot of effort to embrace a diversity of knowledges, methods, research and discussion styles and this resulted in the NFF triangle operating as a boundary object that can work not only across disciplines, but also across scales.
It is important to point out that packaging and providing knowledge for policy is not a neutral activity, especially when navigating across scales of relevance that requires translating the global environmental knowledge of assessments into a form that is usable by decision-makers that operate at a different level, usually that of a nation state (Turnhout, Dewulf, & Hulme, 2016). The NFF is not a neutral object that was developed with buy-in from the whole world, and this must be fully acknowledged. A key rationale for the development of this paper is for the NFF development process, with all its associated challenges, to be transparently laid out for all to be able to engage with the process, critique it and improve on it in future iterations. Such epistemological agility is necessary when co-producing knowledge with diverse peoples across different scales (Haider et al., 2017), as highlighted by the work on the multiple evidence base that conceptually informs the NFF as a tool to feed into intergovernmental processes like IPBES and the CBD (Tengö et al., 2017).
Finally, the flexibility of the NFF to work across multiple different contexts and with a variety of stakeholders requires it to be relatively simple and this means that it can lose a lot of the nuance and subtlety that is sometimes of great importance when engaging diverse perspectives. This is a core constraint of the NFF, however, its work as a boundary object can alleviate some of this simplification.

| Next steps in the Nature futures scenarios process
In order to broaden the engagement with the NFF and to get wide buy-in to its adoption as an actionable framework by diverse researchers, it is imperative that future steps in the process seek actively to involve more people and expertise. The next steps in the scenario development process are to extend the use of the NFF in multilevel case studies to test its relevance across diverse ecosystems, bio-cultural regions and geographical scales. This will involve both the development of new scenarios based on the framework (discussed in Section 4.3.1) as well as the analysis of existing scenarios within the NFF framework. The articulation of variables and indicators that can be quantified by the biodiversity modelling community is also needed. It is hoped that the insights from the case studies will be input for further refinement of the global scenarios, as well as for developing more diverse sets of indicators to assess the progress towards the goals for nature that incorporate more diverse value perspectives (IPBES/7/INF/11 2 ).
To be most effective, the development of the multiscale scenarios needs to be coordinated across work that is underway elsewhere. Linking to ongoing work on global scenarios connected to the IPCC and UNEP's Global Environment Outlook and Global Biodiversity Outlook, as well as to business and government scenarios, and to the increasing number of local, national and regional social-ecological scenarios, is crucial to gain traction in the user community. This requires strategic planning and innovative communication platforms that engage busy people across a range of interests and scales. Such work can help to catalyse greater societal support for enhanced conservation of nature, but it requires an ongoing commitment of resources, particularly in terms of time and funding. As such, we set out the following two key processes in which we invite interested research and practitioner communities to help take part in furthering.

| Multi-level case studies
To better represent the global diversity of values, ecosystems and local contexts, a broader engagement is needed with a wider range of stakeholders situated in different contexts, and including groups such as indigenous peoples, the youth and the private sector. These engagements could be undertaken with support from several IPBES task forces, including the capacity-building task force that has already organized a youth engagement around the NFF and futuring processes (IPBES Capacity Building, 2019) as well as the indigenous and local knowledge task force that convenes dialogues with indigenous peoples and local communities for ongoing IPBES assessments.
Mobilizing the research community to use the NFF in their own work is critically important to provide a richness of different case examples. Innovations in research methods can also allow a large group of people from around the world to engage with the scenario process by using online methods that allow many people to contribute their perspectives and narratives. As with all participatory visioning and scenarios processes, issues of power, politics and representation, come to the fore (Hebinck et al., 2018;Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015;Pereira et al., 2018).
Recognizing inherent biases whilst trying to foster a wide range of perspectives is also a methodological challenge (Schirrmeister, Göhring, & Warnke, 2020). Navigating these dynamics in a global, participatory process is particularly challenging as it will never be fully representative of the whole world. Furthermore, in asking for the research and practitioner communities to undertake case studies, there is no systematic plan for ensuring representativeness.
However, we hope that by encouraging the involvement of the wider community, by leveraging the diversity of stakeholders in the IPBES process and by actively targeting our own research to ensure the views of under-represented groups such as indigenous knowledge holders, are included, that this process will be a significant step towards a new set of globally relevant, but locally applicable desirable nature scenarios.

| The application of the NFF for the modelling community
Given the complexity of dynamic social-ecological systems, which encompass interconnected natural and human systems that are multi-dimensional with countless feedbacks within and between systems, integrative modelling of environmental scenarios has been a challenge (Pereira et al., 2010;Rosa et al., 2017

| CON CLUS ION: REFR AMING NATURE FUTU RE S
As the IPBES Global Assessment (2019) has shown that Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history and makes it clear that transformative changes are needed to get us onto a more sustainable trajectory for the planet. Under the current socioeconomic trajectory, the world will miss most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and so we need to initiate changes in our economies, technologies and societies if we are to shift onto a more sustainable global development pathway (Naidoo & Fisher, 2020).
The development of the NFF rests on the assumption that there is a critical need to develop positive nature-people scenarios for the future of our planet, particularly at such a moment when we need to act now to prevent irreversible environmental devastation with severe consequences to humanity (Steffen et al., 2018;Wyborn et al., 2020).
The year 2019 saw a diversity of perspectives on how to address the environmental challenges of our time. Examples include Extinction Rebellion 4 that argues that the global environmental crisis is an emergency marked by abrupt climate breakdown and mass extinctions and a global youth movement to avert a climate disaster, sparked by teenager Greta Thunberg, which resulted in mass climate protests and climate strikes by children around the world, referencing #FridaysfortheFuture 5 (Almeida, 2019).
The World Economic Forum is advocating for a New Deal for Nature (Lambertini, Polman, & Børge, 2019), and the Global Deal for Nature has been proposed by the biodiversity research community (Dinerstein et al., 2019). Politicians are forming alliances with researchers and activists to propose interventions like The Green New Deal 6 led by United States Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey. In the context of such diversity, the NFF allows for a standardized approach to appreciate a plurality of NCP over time and space and allows for a more nuanced approach to pathways development that is more relevant for actors operating within specific jurisdictions. Given the need for negotiating a new deal for nature in the post-2020 CBD agenda (Dinerstein et al., 2019;Lambertini et al., 2019), the NFF could create a space wherein a discussion on reversing the degradation of nature and declines in NCP could be held between actors as diverse as politicians and young climate activists.
All the necessary groundwork is currently being laid for the negotiations at CBD COP-15 on the post-2020 biodiversity framework and the global goals on nature to replace the Aichi biodiversity targets. As we navigate the next chapter in global biodiversity governance, the NFF makes a unique contribution towards improving the sciencepolicy interface that can enable a better future for people and nature.
However, this cannot be an isolated endeavour. We call on the research community to join us in testing and improving the framework in diverse contexts and where appropriate to use it in their work. In this way, together we can move towards a more desirable and hopeful future for people and the planet.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
The authors would firstly like to acknowledge and thank all the work-

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
The authors have no conflict of interest with regard to the publication of this manuscript.

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
All data are available in the cited reports and in Tables S1, S2 and S3 (source: Lundquist et al., 2017).