Shared hopes and conflicting priorities on Nature Contributions to People and ecosystem restoration in a global biodiversity hotspot

As ecosystem restoration accelerates worldwide, understanding how people prioritise the benefits they derive from nature is essential for designing interventions that are inclusive, legitimate, and sustainable. However, the integration of non-material Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs) into restoration research and policy remains limited, although these contributions are increasingly recognised as central to how societies relate to biodiversity and the landscapes they depend on. This gap is particularly consequential in Madagascar, a global biodiversity hotspot where dependence on natural resources is high and ecosystem restoration is urgent. Despite national pledges to restore four million hectares, little empirical evidence exists on how priorities for non-material and regulating NCPs differ within and across actor groups involved in or affected by ecosystem restoration. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 1,200 local community members across 30 villages in Madagascar to document the benefits they prioritise in their daily lives and in relation to ecosystem restoration. This work is complemented by ongoing surveys of approximately 500 people, members of stakeholder groups operating at district, regional, and national scales, including government agencies, civil society organisations, and restoration practitioners. Taken together, these cross-scale datasets provide an unprecedented opportunity to examine priority heterogeneity in ways that reveal how restoration outcomes are interpreted, supported, or contested by different actors. Such heterogeneity has direct implications for the social feasibility, uptake, and long-term legitimacy of ecosystem restoration interventions. Preliminary analyses show that many local community members prioritise non-material NCPs, such as social cohesion and cultural continuity, alongside regulating NCPs, such as water regulation. Substantial intra-group variability emerges, partially shaped by socioeconomic differences. Anticipated comparisons across actor groups are expected to reveal contrasting priorities, with institutional stakeholders likely to prioritise regulating NCPs more strongly. The findings will clarify where shared hopes for ecosystem benefits emerge and where differing priorities could generate conflicts, providing an empirical basis for anticipating tensions and identifying cooperative pathways in ecosystem restoration planning. By grounding restoration efforts in the priorities that different actors consider meaningful, this work aims to support strategies that are more socially credible and resilient over time.