Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

Economic and Social Dimensions of Environmental Behavior: Balancing Conservation and Development in Bhutan

Abstract: One of the primary approaches to environmental conservation emphasizes economic development. This conservation‐and‐development approach often ignores how development affects sociocultural characteristics that may motivate environmental behaviors (actions that actively benefit or limit one's negative impacts on the environment). Evolutionary anthropologists espouse a theoretical perspective that supports the conservation‐and‐development approach. Others believe sociocultural factors are the foundation of environmental behavior and worry that development will erode the values and norms that may shape such behavior. My research assistants and I surveyed 170 individuals from eight villages in two communities in Bhutan to explore whether economic (wealth, market integration) or social (religious behaviors, environmental values, social capital) factors are better indicators of environmental behavior. I used multilevel modeling to analyze use of fuelwood, use of agricultural chemicals, and tree planting, and to determine whether social norms were associated with these behaviors. Although economic factors were more often associated with these behaviors than social factors, local conditions and control variables were the best indicators of behaviors. Furthermore, economic factors were not always associated with positive environmental outcomes. Instead, farmers attempted to make the best economic decisions given their circumstances rather than seeking to conserve resources. Although religion was not a strong predictor of any of the behaviors I examined, I found evidence that the understanding of Buddhist philosophy is growing, which suggests that social factors may play a more prominent role as Bhutan's development progresses. My results highlight the need for conservation planners to be aware of local conditions when planning and implementing policies aimed at motivating environmental behaviors and that economic and social motivations for conservation may not be mutually exclusive.     

Financial Mechanisms for Conservation in Brazil

Abstract:  I reviewed some of the financial mechanisms for biodiversity conservation activities in Brazil. There is a heavy dependence on the public sector, but macroeconomic policies aimed at reducing government spending have resulted in reduced budgets dedicated to public conservation measures. The financial constraints for environmental protection have also increased because of a reduction in foreign aid. Positive signs for the immediate future, however, come from new initiatives that create economic instruments to finance conservation. The most important initiatives include conservation criteria for tax redistribution; environmental compensation; water charges; royalties for electricity, petroleum, and natural gas; tradable obligations for forest reserves; and voluntary measures on the part of the business sector. Resources created from these initiatives have different origins and are managed by different public agencies according to varying laws and policies, so their efficient implementation will require that the institutions involved in biodiversity conservation in Brazil establish a minimum set of common priorities and objectives.     

Linking ecosystem services and human‐values theory

Understanding why people make the decisions they do remains a fundamental challenge facing conservation science. Ecosystem service (ES) (a benefit people derive from an ecosystem) approaches to conservation reflect efforts to anticipate people's preferences and influence their environmental behavior. Yet, the design of ES approaches seldom includes psychological theories of human behavior. We sought to alleviate this omission by applying a psychological theory of human values to a cross‐cultural ES assessment. We used interviews and focus groups with fish workers from 28 coral reef fishing communities in 4 countries to qualitatively identify the motivations (i.e., human values) underlying preferences for ES; quantitatively evaluate resource user ES priorities; and identify common patterns among ES motivations and ES priorities (i.e., trade‐offs and synergies). Three key findings are evident that align with human values theory. First, motivations underlying preferences for individual ESs reflected multiple human values within the same value domain (e.g., self‐enhancement). Second, when averaged at community or country scales, the order of ES priorities was consistent. However, the order belied significant variation that existed among individuals. Third, in line with human values theory, ESs related to one another in a consistent pattern; certain service pairs reflected trade‐off relationships (e.g., supporting and provisioning), whereas other service pairs reflected synergistic relationships (e.g., supporting and regulating). Together, these findings help improve understanding of when and why convergence and trade‐offs in people's preferences for ESs occur, and this knowledge can inform the development of suitable conservation actions.     

Integrating Biological and Social Values When Prioritizing Places for Biodiversity Conservation

The consideration of information on social values in conjunction with biological data is critical for achieving both socially acceptable and scientifically defensible conservation planning outcomes. However, the influence of social values on spatial conservation priorities has received limited attention and is poorly understood. We present an approach that incorporates quantitative data on social values for conservation and social preferences for development into spatial conservation planning. We undertook a public participation GIS survey to spatially represent social values and development preferences and used species distribution models for 7 threatened fauna species to represent biological values. These spatially explicit data were simultaneously included in the conservation planning software Zonation to examine how conservation priorities changed with the inclusion of social data. Integrating spatially explicit information about social values and development preferences with biological data produced prioritizations that differed spatially from the solution based on only biological data. However, the integrated solutions protected a similar proportion of the species’ distributions, indicating that Zonation effectively combined the biological and social data to produce socially feasible conservation solutions of approximately equivalent biological value. We were able to identify areas of the landscape where synergies and conflicts between different value sets are likely to occur. Identification of these synergies and conflicts will allow decision makers to target communication strategies to specific areas and ensure effective community engagement and positive conservation outcomes. Integración de Valores Biológicos y Sociales al Priorizar Sitios para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad     

Improving Environmental and Social Targeting through Adaptive Management in Mexico's Payments for Hydrological Services Program

Natural resource managers are often expected to achieve both environmental protection and economic development even when there are fundamental trade‐offs between these goals. Adaptive management provides a theoretical structure for program administrators to balance social priorities in the presence of trade‐offs and to improve conservation targeting. We used the case of Mexico's federal Payments for Hydrological Services program (PSAH) to illustrate the importance of adaptive management for improving program targeting. We documented adaptive elements of PSAH and corresponding changes in program eligibility and selection criteria. To evaluate whether these changes resulted in enrollment of lands of high environmental and social priority, we compared the environmental and social characteristics of the areas enrolled in the program with the characteristics of all forested areas in Mexico, all areas eligible for the program, and all areas submitted for application to the program. The program successfully enrolled areas of both high ecological and social priority, and over time, adaptive changes in the program's criteria for eligibility and selection led to increased enrollment of land scoring high on both dimensions. Three factors facilitated adaptive management in Mexico and are likely to be generally important for conservation managers: a supportive political environment, including financial backing and encouragement to experiment from the federal government; availability of relatively good social and environmental data; and active participation in the review process by stakeholders and outside evaluators. Mejorando los Objetivos Ambiental y Social Mediante el Manejo Adaptativo en el Programa de Pagos por Servicios Hidrológicos en México     

Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers

There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit‐based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species‐specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target‐based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target‐based natural resources management tools versus limit‐based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.     

Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large‐scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social–ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz‐Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on‐the‐ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social–ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way.     

Simple Spatial Modeling Tool for Prioritizing Prescribed Burning Activities at the Landscape Scale

Abstract:   Resources for prescribed fire are frequently insufficient to manage public lands for all conservation and resource management objectives, necessitating prioritization of the application of fire across the landscape within any given year. Defining tradeoffs when applying prescribed fire to large landscapes is problematic not only because of the complexity of weighing competing management objectives at the landscape scale, but also because of the difficult nature of independently applying need-to-burn criteria to large areas. We present a case study of a simple modeling process implemented at Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida Panhandle (U.S.A.) to prioritize the application of prescribed fire. In a workshop setting, managers and biologists identified key conservation criteria and landscape management objectives that drive the application of prescribed fire. Remote sensing and other spatial data were developed to directly or indirectly represent all these criteria. Using geographic information system software, managers and biologists weighted each criterion according to its relative contribution to overall burn prioritization, and individual values for the criterion were scored according to how they influence the need to burn. Subsequently, this process has been validated and modified through ecological monitoring. This modeling process has also been applied to the 77,400-ha Blackwater River State Forest, public land adjacent to Eglin Air Force Base, demonstrating its applicability to lands with varying management priorities. The advantages of this model-based approach for prioritizing prescribed fire include the reliance on accessible, inexpensive software, the development of spatially explicit management objectives, the ease of transferability, and clearly stated assumptions about management that may be tested and reviewed through monitoring and public comment.     

Integration of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making

In the Anthropocene, coupled human and natural systems dominate and only a few natural systems remain relatively unaffected by human influence. On the one hand, conservation criteria based on areas of minimal human impact are not relevant to much of the biosphere. On the other hand, conservation criteria based on economic factors are problematic with respect to their ability to arrive at operational indicators of well‐being that can be applied in practice over multiple generations. Coupled human and natural systems are subject to economic development which, under current management structures, tends to affect natural systems and cross planetary boundaries. Hence, designing and applying conservation criteria applicable in real‐world systems where human and natural systems need to interact and sustainably coexist is essential. By recognizing the criticality of satisfying basic needs as well as the great uncertainty over the needs and preferences of future generations, we sought to incorporate conservation criteria based on minimal human impact into economic evaluation. These criteria require the conservation of environmental conditions such that the opportunity for intergenerational welfare optimization is maintained. Toward this end, we propose the integration of ecological–biological thresholds into decision making and use as an example the planetary‐boundaries approach. Both conservation scientists and economists must be involved in defining operational ecological–biological thresholds that can be incorporated into economic thinking and reflect the objectives of conservation, sustainability, and intergenerational welfare optimization.     

Molecular Systematics and the Conservation of Rare Species

Abstract: Despite the tradition of systematic biology as the science of diversity, systematics has until recently contributed relatively little to the theory and practice of conservation biology. We identify four areas in which systematics could contribute to the conservation of rare plant species: (1) species concepts, (2) the identification of lineages worthy of conservation, (3) the setting of conservation priorities, and (4) the effects of hybridization on the biology and conservation of rare species. Species concepts that incorporate history and reflect phylogeny ultimately will be more useful for preserving biodiversity than those that do not. Phylogenetic analyses involving conspecific populations often reveal multiple lineages that may warrant protection as evolutionarily distinct units. Phylogenetic information also should be considered in setting priorities for conservation. Systematics provides the tools for inferring relationships among organisms and, in conjunction with biogeography, for identifying those areas that harbor many actively speciating groups. Hybridization may lead to the extinction of a rare species, but in other cases, ironically, artificial hybridization with a more widespread congener may be the only way to preserve the gene pool of a rare species. We appeal to systematists to contribute actively to both conservation theory and practice, and we call for the integration of systematics in the establishment of conservation priorities and the development of strategies to preserve Earth's biota.     

Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land‐use change

Designing connected landscapes is among the most widespread strategies for achieving biodiversity conservation targets. The challenge lies in simultaneously satisfying the connectivity needs of multiple species at multiple spatial scales under uncertain climate and land‐use change. To evaluate the contribution of remnant habitat fragments to the connectivity of regional habitat networks, we developed a method to integrate uncertainty in climate and land‐use change projections with the latest developments in network‐connectivity research and spatial, multipurpose conservation prioritization. We used land‐use change simulations to explore robustness of species’ habitat networks to alternative development scenarios. We applied our method to 14 vertebrate focal species of periurban Montreal, Canada. Accounting for connectivity in spatial prioritization strongly modified conservation priorities and the modified priorities were robust to uncertain climate change. Setting conservation priorities based on habitat quality and connectivity maintained a large proportion of the region's connectivity, despite anticipated habitat loss due to climate and land‐use change. The application of connectivity criteria alongside habitat‐quality criteria for protected‐area design was efficient with respect to the amount of area that needs protection and did not necessarily amplify trade‐offs among conservation criteria. Our approach and results are being applied in and around Montreal and are well suited to the design of ecological networks and green infrastructure for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in other regions, in particular regions around large cities, where connectivity is critically low.     

Threatened Species and the Potential Loss of Phylogenetic Diversity: Conservation Scenarios Based on Estimated Extinction Probabilities and Phylogenetic Risk Analysis

Abstract: New species conservation strategies, including the EDGE of Existence (EDGE) program, have expanded threatened species assessments by integrating information about species' phylogenetic distinctiveness. Distinctiveness has been measured through simple scores that assign shared credit among species for evolutionary heritage represented by the deeper phylogenetic branches. A species with a high score combined with a high extinction probability receives high priority for conservation efforts. Simple hypothetical scenarios for phylogenetic trees and extinction probabilities demonstrate how such scoring approaches can provide inefficient priorities for conservation. An existing probabilistic framework derived from the phylogenetic diversity measure (PD) properly captures the idea of shared responsibility for the persistence of evolutionary history. It avoids static scores, takes into account the status of close relatives through their extinction probabilities, and allows for the necessary updating of priorities in light of changes in species threat status. A hypothetical phylogenetic tree illustrates how changes in extinction probabilities of one or more species translate into changes in expected PD. The probabilistic PD framework provided a range of strategies that moved beyond expected PD to better consider worst‐case PD losses. In another example, risk aversion gave higher priority to a conservation program that provided a smaller, but less risky, gain in expected PD. The EDGE program could continue to promote a list of top species conservation priorities through application of probabilistic PD and simple estimates of current extinction probability. The list might be a dynamic one, with all the priority scores updated as extinction probabilities change. Results of recent studies suggest that estimation of extinction probabilities derived from the red list criteria linked to changes in species range sizes may provide estimated probabilities for many different species. Probabilistic PD provides a framework for single‐species assessment that is well‐integrated with a broader measurement of impacts on PD owing to climate change and other factors.     

Reorienting Systematic Conservation Assessment for Effective Conservation Planning

Abstract: Systematic conservation assessment (an information‐gathering and prioritization process used to select the spatial foci of conservation initiatives) is often considered vital to conservation‐planning efforts, yet published assessments have rarely resulted in conservation action. Conservation assessments may lead more directly to effective conservation action if they are reoriented to inform conservation decisions. Toward this goal, we evaluated the relative priority for conservation of 7 sites proposed for the first forest reserves in the Union of the Comoros, an area with high levels of endemism and rapidly changing land uses in the western Indian Ocean. Through the analysis of 30 indicator variables measured at forest sites and nearby villages, we assessed 3 prioritization criteria at each site: conservation value, threat to loss of biological diversity from human activity, and feasibility of reserve establishment. Our results indicated 2 sites, Yiméré and Hassera‐Ndrengé, were priorities for conservation action. Our approach also informed the development of an implementation strategy and enabled an evaluation of previously unexplored relations among prioritization criteria. Our experience suggests that steps taken to ensure the closer involvement of practitioners, include a broader range of social data, encourage stakeholder participation, and consider the feasibility of conservation action can improve the relevance of assessments for conservation planning, strengthen the scientific basis for conservation decisions, and result in a more realistic evaluation of conservation alternatives.     

National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review

Abstract: One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non‐European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.     

Gaps and Mismatches between Global Conservation Priorities and Spending

Abstract:  Several international conservation organizations have recently produced global priority maps to guide conservation activities and spending in their own and other conservation organizations. Surprisingly, it is not possible to directly evaluate the relationship between priorities and spending within a given organization because none of the organizations with global priority models tracks how they spend their money relative to their priorities. We were able, however, to evaluate the spending patterns of five other large biodiversity conservation organizations without their own published global priority models and investigate the potential influence of priority models on this spending. On average, countries with priority areas received greater conservation investment; global prioritization systems, however, explained between only 2 and 32% of the US$1.5 billion spent in 2002, depending on whether the United States was removed from analyses and whether conservation spending was adjusted by the per capita gross domestic product within each country. We also found little overlap in the spending patterns of the five conservation organizations evaluated, suggesting that informal coordination or segregation of effort may be occurring. Our results also highlight a number of potential gaps and mismatches in how limited conservation funds are spent and provide the first audit of global conservation spending patterns. More explicit presentation of conservation priorities by organizations currently without priority models and better tracking of spending by those with published priorities are clearly needed to help make future conservation activities as efficient as possible.     

Attitudes toward Sustainability and Extinction

Abstract: Conservation biologists and natural resource managers are both working to maintain species, but their approaches and priorities differ. The contrast was highlighted when the World Conservation Union (IUCN) listed some commercial fish species, such as the Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ), in the 1996 Red List of Threatened Animals. These species qualified under IUCN's criteria because they had undergone a marked decline in abundance. Disagreements over these listings revealed fundamental differences between resource managers and conservation biologists. Resource managers aiming to maximize continuing yields using specific, explicit, and data-rich models, generally have not considered risk assessment and sometimes face the necessity for political compromises. Conservation biologists generally consider a wide diversity of species and operate in a data-poor and precautionary context with an overall aim of minimizing extinction risk. The IUCN Red List is an extreme case in point and uses simple criteria for evaluating the conservation status of all species. Under these circumstances, it can do little more than indicate a species' status in order to prompt further investigation by the appropriate body. We suggest that productive collaboration between conservation biologists and resource managers will start with an understanding of these different perspectives and will benefit from common interests in precautionary approaches, ecosystem approaches, and adaptive management studies.     

Application of function analysis to bathing areas in the Maltese Islands

On a small island such as Malta where many developers and policy makers place a large emphasis on social use and develoment values, which encourages recreational/industrial development, it is often hard to promote the monetary value of coastal conservation due to strong competition with the large tourism industry. An assessment of the ecological (conservation) and economic (use/development) values of four popular Maltese bathing areas (Mellieha, St. George’s, Ramla and Ghajn Tuffieha Bay) was carried out by evaluating their ability to provide a number of functions. This is dependent on the environments’ inherent characteristics within the context of locally applicable time and space functions. Function Analysis is an innovative technique able to provide a means for assessing changes in environmental quality of an area and evaluating the sustainability of applied management regimes. This paper is a first example of an application of the Functional Analysis approach in Malta. Local application of this technique indicates a need for additional refinement in application to coastal areas. Analysis showed that St. George’s, had the lowest conservation value, Ramla and Ghajn Tuffieha bay had the highest conservation values, Mellieha Bay had high conservation value and use/development potential. In this context, conservation value is understood to reflect values of biodiversity, information/knowledge and environmental quality.     

Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks

Conservation biologists recognize that a system of isolated protected areas will be necessary but insufficient to meet biodiversity objectives. Current approaches to connecting core conservation areas through corridors consider optimal corridor placement based on a single optimization goal: commonly, maximizing the movement for a target species across a network of protected areas. We show that designing corridors for single species based on purely ecological criteria leads to extremely expensive linkages that are suboptimal for multispecies connectivity objectives. Similarly, acquiring the least‐expensive linkages leads to ecologically poor solutions. We developed algorithms for optimizing corridors for multispecies use given a specific budget. We applied our approach in western Montana to demonstrate how the solutions may be used to evaluate trade‐offs in connectivity for 2 species with different habitat requirements, different core areas, and different conservation values under different budgets. We evaluated corridors that were optimal for each species individually and for both species jointly. Incorporating a budget constraint and jointly optimizing for both species resulted in corridors that were close to the individual species movement‐potential optima but with substantial cost savings. Our approach produced corridors that were within 14% and 11% of the best possible corridor connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolverines (Gulo gulo), respectively, and saved 75% of the cost. Similarly, joint optimization under a combined budget resulted in improved connectivity for both species relative to splitting the budget in 2 to optimize for each species individually. Our results demonstrate economies of scale and complementarities conservation planners can achieve by optimizing corridor designs for financial costs and for multiple species connectivity jointly. We believe that our approach will facilitate corridor conservation by reducing acquisition costs and by allowing derived corridors to more closely reflect conservation priorities.     

Five challenges to reconcile agricultural land use and forest ecosystem services in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia possesses the highest rates of tropical deforestation globally and exceptional levels of species richness and endemism. Many countries in the region are also recognized for their food insecurity and poverty, making the reconciliation of agricultural production and forest conservation a particular priority. This reconciliation requires recognition of the trade‐offs between competing land‐use values and the subsequent incorporation of this information into policy making. To date, such reconciliation has been relatively unsuccessful across much of Southeast Asia. We propose an ecosystem services (ES) value‐internalization framework that identifies the key challenges to such reconciliation. These challenges include lack of accessible ES valuation techniques; limited knowledge of the links between forests, food security, and human well‐being; weak demand and political will for the integration of ES in economic activities and environmental regulation; a disconnect between decision makers and ES valuation; and lack of transparent discussion platforms where stakeholders can work toward consensus on negotiated land‐use management decisions. Key research priorities to overcome these challenges are developing easy‐to‐use ES valuation techniques; quantifying links between forests and well‐being that go beyond economic values; understanding factors that prevent the incorporation of ES into markets, regulations, and environmental certification schemes; understanding how to integrate ES valuation into policy making processes, and determining how to reduce corruption and power plays in land‐use planning processes.