Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals


Regional and global assessments periodically update what we know, and highlight what remains to be known, about the linkages between people and nature that both define and depend upon the state of the environment. To guide research that better informs policy and practice, we systematically synthesize knowledge gaps from recent assessments of four regions of the globe and three key themes by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. We assess their relevance to global sustainability goals and trace their evolution relative to those identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We found that global sustainability goals cannot be achieved without improved knowledge on feedbacks between social and ecological systems, effectiveness of governance systems and the influence of institutions on the social distribution of ecosystem services. These top research priorities have persisted for the 14 years since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Our analysis also reveals limited understanding of the role of indigenous and local knowledge in sustaining nature’s benefits to people. Our findings contribute to a policy-relevant and solution-oriented agenda for global, long-term social-ecological research.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Distribution of individual knowledge gaps across the IPBES conceptual framework.
Fig. 2: Evolution of key knowledge gaps from MA to IPBES.

Data availability

Descriptive statistics of the raw dataset are available in the Supplementary Information.


  1. 1.

    Martin, J. L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6105–6112 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chapin, F. S. et al. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 241–249 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jabbour, J. & Flachsland, C. 40 years of global environmental assessments: a retrospective analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 193–202 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).

  6. 6.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Rosen, C. (ed.) World Resources 2000–2001: People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life (World Resources Institute, 2000).

  8. 8.

    Carpenter, S. R. et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1305–1312 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Carpenter, S. R. et al. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 313, 257–258 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB (TEEB, 2010).

  11. 11.

    Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Mapping and Assessing the Condition of Europe’s Ecosystems: Progress and Challenges (MAES, 2016).

  12. 12.

    Bennett, E. M. et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76–85 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Magliocca, N. R. et al. Closing global knowledge gaps: producing generalized knowledge from case studies of social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 1–14 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Díaz, S., Settele, J. & Brondizio, E. (eds) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  15. 15.

    Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tengö, M. et al. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26-27, 17–25 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Alcamo, J. Evaluating the impacts of global environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 268–272 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Archer, E. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Africa (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  21. 21.

    Rice, J. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  22. 22.

    Karki, M. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  23. 23.

    Rounsevell, M. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  24. 24.

    Potts, S. G. et al. (eds) The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (IPBES Secretariat, 2016).

  25. 25.

    Montanarella, L., Scholes, R. & Brainich, A. (eds) The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

  26. 26.

    Ferrier, S. et al. (eds) The Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2016).

  27. 27.

    Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D. & Gordon, L. J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1394–1404 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Martín-López, B. et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7, e38970 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mastrangelo, M. E. & Laterra, P. From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol. Soc. 20, 20 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rodríguez, J. P. et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 7, 281–286 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. (eds) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  32. 32.

    Guo, H. D., Zhang, L. & Zhu, L. W. Earth observation big data for climate change research. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 6, 108–117 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S. & Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 27–39 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gorddard, R. et al. Values, rules and knowledge: adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 60–69 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Martín-López, B. et al. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review. PLoS ONE 14, e0217847 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Droste, N., D’Amato, D. & Goddard, J. J. Where communities intermingle, diversity grows—the evolution of topics in ecosystem service research. PLoS ONE 13, e0204749 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Grove, J. M. & Pickett, S. T. From transdisciplinary projects to platforms: expanding capacity and impact of land systems knowledge and decision making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 7–13 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ellis, E. C., Pascual, U. & Mertz, O. Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 86–94 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Norström, A. V., Balvanera, P., Spierenburg, M. & Bouamrane, M. Programme on ecosystem change and society: knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 22, 47 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Balvanera, P. et al. Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) perspective. Ecol. Soc. 22, 14 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Daw, T. et al. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Martín-López, B. et al. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. J. Environ. Manag. 241, 251–263 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Fazey, I. et al. Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 54–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Fischer, J. & Riechers, M. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1, 115–120 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Popa, F., Guillermin, M. & Dedeurwaerdere, T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65, 45–56 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Cundill, G., Roux, D. J. & Parker, J. N. Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol. Soc. 20, 22 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E. & Beck, S. Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain 2, 457–464 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Ban, N. C. et al. Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1680–1683 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M. & Larigauderie, A. A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002040 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work emerged at an ecoSERVICES workshop supported by Future Earth. M.E.M. and L.G. thank the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology and the ex-Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Argentina for their support (grant nos. PICTO 2014-0046 and PICT 2015-0538, respectively). E.O.-R. thanks the support of Juan de la Cierva Incorporation Fellowship of the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (grant no. IJCI-2017-34334).

Author information




M.E.M. and N.P.-H. designed the study, analysed data and coordinated tasks. L.E., E.B., S.L. and G.S.C. contributed to task coordination. B.L. and E.O.-R. contributed to figure design and preparation. All co-authors contributed to data preparation and manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matías E. Mastrángelo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary figures and tables.

Supplementary Results

Supplementary tables.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mastrángelo, M.E., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Enrico, L. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat Sustain 2, 1115–1121 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing