The Community-Driven Ecosystem Resilience and Equity Framework: A Novel Approach for Social Resilience in Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Ecosystem service (ES) frameworks help to assess the benefits ecosystems provide to society, yet weak governance integration often limits their effectiveness. This review critically examines major ES frameworks’ governance gaps, introduces the Community-Driven Ecosystem Resilience and Equity framework (C-DERM), and identifies five key gaps. Thematic coding is applied to achieve research objectives. The analysis of ten ecosystem service models shows that when considering the five socio-ecological elements of ES based on C-DERM—including community engagement and participatory governance, integration of cultural values and local knowledge, dynamic adaptive feedback mechanisms, social equity and inclusion, and social resilience and long-term sustainability—only the IAD-SES model achieves a strong score (3) in community engagement, while SES and IAD-SES moderately (2) integrate cultural values and address resilience; however, most models exhibit weak (1) or absent (0) consideration of social equity and participatory governance, highlighting a critical gap in inclusivity and community-driven approaches within existing frameworks. Finally, C-DERM enhances the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) framework by embedding social considerations into ES assessments.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem service (ES) frameworks have become essential for conceptualizing and assessing ecosystems’ benefits to human societies. These frameworks inform environmental policies, land-use planning, and resource management by integrating ecosystem functions into decision-making [1]. ES frameworks provide scientific assessments of how various land-use strategies affect ecosystem functions, assisting policymakers in making informed decisions that balance environmental sustainability with economic development. The incorporation of economic valuation in many ES models further facilitates the integration of ecosystem benefits into policy and financial decision-making [2].

However, economic valuation often overlooks non-monetary social values like cultural heritage and community relationships. In contrast, ES frameworks increasingly contribute to nature-based solutions for climate resilience, helping policymakers develop ecosystem-based adaptation strategies [1].

Socio-political factors have intensified the need to refine ES frameworks to ensure their relevance in governance. Global environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation have led to international commitments like the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing integrated and inclusive environmental governance [3]. However, socio-political inequalities in access to natural resources highlight the necessity for ES frameworks that extend beyond economic valuation to incorporate social equity and participatory governance [4]. Many local and Indigenous communities, whose livelihoods depend on ESs, remain underrepresented in decision-making, creating gaps between ES policy objectives and their implementation [5]. Addressing these governance shortcomings ensures that ES frameworks support environmental sustainability and social justice.

Although ES frameworks have evolved to reflect the complexity of socio-ecological challenges [6,7], they still struggle to effectively address power dynamics, equity, and community involvement in decision-making [5,8]. Early frameworks, such as MEA [9], categorized services into provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services but lacked strong governance integration. Later models, including The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [10] and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) [11], expanded economic and policy dimensions but retained gaps in participatory governance and resilience [7,12].

The Social-Ecological Systems (SES) [13] and Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) [14] frameworks introduced governance structures and feedback mechanisms but did not fully address community-driven decision-making [15]. C-DERM builds on these frameworks by explicitly integrating community engagement, cultural values, and equity into ES governance. Unlike earlier models, C-DERM adopts a flexible, context-sensitive approach, empowering local stakeholders in ecosystem management to bridge governance gaps in climate adaptation [12,16].

Despite their theoretical and practical significance, most ES frameworks lack comprehensive governance mechanisms, limiting their real-world applicability [17]. While they offer insights into ecosystem dynamics, they often fail to translate ecological knowledge into actionable governance structures [18]. Many models lack sustained community participation in land-use decision-making, fail to address social equity adequately, and struggle to incorporate adaptive governance approaches that respond to changing socio-ecological conditions.

This paper examines governance challenges in existing ES frameworks and explores pathways toward more inclusive, equitable, and resilient governance models. It seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What are the primary governance challenges in ES frameworks? (2) What governance mechanisms can enhance inclusivity and resilience? (3) How do social factors, as a core component of ESs, contribute to human well-being? As models like MEA for ESs [9] do not explicitly treat social services as a main category [19], this article aims to introduce the C-DERM framework by incorporating social dimensions and governance mechanisms that promote socio-ecological sustainability.

2. Historical Development of Theories Applied in Ecosystem Services

The concept of ESs emerged to describe nature’s benefits to human societies, supporting decision-making in environmental policy, conservation, and sustainable resource management [1]. Over the years, several frameworks have been developed to conceptualize, classify, and operationalize ESs, each reflecting different disciplinary perspectives and priorities. This paper evaluates ten ES frameworks. The ten models were selected based on a systematic and purposeful approach to identify gaps in common ES models and provide a basis for developing the new C-DERM model. The selected models encompass a range of environmental, social, and economic approaches. Some, such as MEA [9] and CICES [11], focus on the classification of ESs, while others, such as SES [14] and IAD [20], examine dimensions of governance and social interactions. This diversity helps to analyze each model’s strengths and weaknesses within a more comprehensive framework.

One of the foundational efforts in ES research was the MEA [9], which aimed to evaluate the state of global ecosystems and their ability to support human well-being. The MEA introduced a widely adopted classification of ES into four categories: provisioning (e.g., food, water, timber), regulating (e.g., climate regulation, water purification), supporting (e.g., soil formation, nutrient cycling), and cultural (e.g., recreation, spiritual values). But it does not explicitly consider social services as a main category [19].

Building on the MEA, the TEEB initiative [8] emphasized the economic valuation of ESs, aiming to demonstrate their financial significance to policymakers, businesses, and the public. The CICES was developed as a standardized framework for classifying and assessing ESs to further support environmental policy and decision-making. The CICES refined the MEA classifications by emphasizing provisioning, regulating, and cultural services, making it more applicable to environmental accounting and policy reporting [11]. This framework provided a common language for ES assessments across scientific and policy domains, aiding cross-sectoral comparisons and large-scale environmental evaluations.

InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) was developed as a decision-support tool, integrating biophysical and economic modeling and advancing beyond conceptual classification. It has been widely used in conservation and land-use policy [21]. Recognizing the need to link ES research with governance, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established to integrate scientific, Indigenous, and local knowledge into ES assessments in its conceptual framework. The IPBES has played a key role in global ES assessments, offering a platform for knowledge exchange between scientists and policymakers and highlighting the role of ESs in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development [8].

In parallel, frameworks inspired by the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) theory have focused on the interactions between ecosystems and human societies [22]. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and its adaptation into the SES framework analyze governance structures and institutional arrangements in natural resource management. These frameworks emphasize multi-level governance and adaptive management, providing a theoretical foundation for studying how institutions shape ecosystem service use and sustainability [23,24].

The evolution of ES frameworks reflects a growing recognition of the need to integrate ecological, economic, and governance dimensions into environmental management. Each framework has contributed to shaping ES research and practice, with applications in conservation, policy-making, and land-use planning. As ES research advances, future frameworks may build on these foundations to further refine ES assessment, governance, and decision-support mechanisms.

3. Concept of Governance of Ecosystem Services

Effective ES governance requires a holistic approach integrating ecological sustainability, social equity, and institutional collaboration. Flexible and inclusive governance systems should actively engage diverse stakeholders—local communities, policymakers, researchers, private sector actors, and Indigenous groups—to ensure decision-making aligns with their needs and values [25]. Community-led management, participatory mapping, and co-governance enhance trust and legitimacy while fostering context-sensitive policies for sustainable outcomes [26].

Equitable governance distributes ES benefits fairly, addressing power imbalances through procedural, distributive, and recognitional justice. Inclusive decision-making, benefit-sharing mechanisms, and safeguards against commodification help prevent socio-environmental disparities [27]. Integrating diverse knowledge systems—scientific research, Indigenous knowledge, and local ecological insights—strengthens decision-making and enhances policy legitimacy [28].

Given the complexity of socio-ecological systems, governance must be adaptive, incorporating continuous learning, feedback loops, and scenario planning to respond to evolving environmental and socio-economic conditions. Robust monitoring ensures policies remain effective amid climate change and biodiversity loss [29].

ES governance also requires multi-scale coordination, balancing local, regional, national, and global policies. Polycentric governance and cross-sectoral collaboration align environmental, agricultural, economic, and social policies, minimizing conflicts and enhancing synergies [30]. Transparent decision-making, accountability mechanisms, and anti-corruption measures reinforce governance effectiveness by ensuring fair, evidence-based policy implementation [31].

4. Thematic Coding and Validation

This review follows a narrative approach, chosen for its ability to explore complex, multidimensional themes such as governance gaps in ecosystem service frameworks. This approach allows for a broad synthesis of existing literature and facilitates the identification of key themes and gaps that may not be captured through systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The aim is to collate and critically assess the available evidence, reflecting the current state of knowledge as of early 2025. The 233-document review served as a foundation for identifying governance gaps and deriving key assessment themes rather than directly producing comparative results of the 10 models.

This review is confined to peer-reviewed journal articles to ensure a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of governance gaps in ecosystem service frameworks, drawing on methodologically robust, critically evaluated, and theoretically grounded research. Articles were included if published in English and focused on governance dimensions within agricultural ecosystem service frameworks. Articles were excluded if they did not explicitly address governance or lacked methodological rigor.

To maintain a focused scope, we developed a series of search terms applied in ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science to capture literature specifically addressing predefined ecosystem service frameworks, their emphasis on agricultural ecosystem services, and various aspects of governance. The search strategy employed Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine results, ensuring relevance to the study’s objectives. The following terms were used: “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”, “Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services”, “Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs”, “Common Pool Resource (CPR)”, “Ecosystem Services Partnership Framework”, “IPBES Conceptual Framework”, OR “Social-Ecological Systems”, alongside “agriculture*” AND “governance”. Boolean operators ensured that the results were specific to the intersection of ecosystem service frameworks, governance, and agriculture, allowing for a refined focus on literature that directly addresses the core themes of this study.

The selection process involved an initial screening of titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by a full-text assessment to determine inclusion in the final review. Articles were excluded if they were non-empirical or did not explicitly address governance dimensions. In total, 233 documents were included in the final review (Figure 1).

To ensure a comprehensive literature review, we included studies published until 2025, ensuring that the review reflects the most recent developments. Additionally, to minimize potential biases, studies published in multiple languages were included, though the review was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English. The literature search was performed using various databases, which helped mitigate database bias and ensure that the most relevant research was included.

The synthesis and critical assessment of the literature involved categorizing the studies by key themes such as governance challenges, gaps in existing frameworks, and agricultural context. Studies were evaluated for methodological rigor and relevance to the identified governance gaps in agricultural ecosystem service frameworks. The synthesis highlighted key areas where existing models may fall short in addressing governance dimensions, specifically within agricultural contexts. Figure 1 illustrates the document selection process, from initial title and abstract screening to the final inclusion of 233 relevant studies. The diagram highlights the various stages of the literature review process, ensuring transparency in the selection criteria.

4.1. C-DERM Indicators Based on Coding Identified Gaps in the Exciting Models

The gaps in multiple models based on the literature review were analyzed and coded, and existing gaps were identified. This work was performed in four steps. In step 1, gaps were categorized by code after assessing the models and extracting the codes. These were the five main identified gaps. Then, secondary codes within each primary code were identified, and these secondary codes (specific elements under each theme) were used for greater granularity. Based on the literature review, some criteria were used to break them down. Community-led decision-making, stakeholder participation, and governance structures for community engagement and participatory governance were considered. In the category of integrating cultural values and local knowledge, criteria including incorporation of traditional knowledge, recognition of cultural significance, and non-economic valuation of services were considered. Real-time data and response methods, monitoring and adjustment practices, and policy flexibility for dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms code were employed. Focus was placed on social equity and inclusion, which had secondary codes, including the inclusion of marginalized groups, equity in resource access, and fair benefit distribution. Finally, emphasis on resilience and long-term sustainability was divided into secondary codes, including long-term planning, climate adaptability, and sustainability-oriented goals.

In step 2, the process for each model was coded using review documents or the literature, and the codes were assigned as shown in the matrix, with notes describing each model’s approach to each gap (

Table 1. Social service themes in ecosystem governance and their corresponding codes (C-DERM, themes).

Theme	Codes
Community engagement and participatory governance	Stakeholder participation, governance structures, decentralized decision-making
Integration of cultural values and local knowledge	Traditional knowledge, cultural heritage, non-economic valuation
Dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms	Real-time monitoring, policy flexibility, iterative governance
Social equity and inclusion	Equitable resource access, inclusion of marginalized groups, fair benefit distribution
Social resilience and long-term sustainability	Climate adaptability, institutional durability, socio-ecological resilience

).

There are various coding methods [32,33], but since multiple models are used in this study, thematic coding is appropriate [34,35]. This approach allowed us to systematically examine the contents of each model, categorize them based on the identified gaps, and gain insights into recurring themes and missing elements. It is important to clarify that frameworks such as CICES, while primarily classification systems, were included in the evaluation to highlight their limitations in governance integration. Five gaps were identified and coded based on the analysis and extraction of gaps. Each gap was assigned a main theme or code. To continue, gaps and their themes were highlighted. Each category encapsulated critical areas where existing frameworks inadequately address ecosystem service dynamics, particularly in response to complex socio-ecological interactions. This coding and analysis method provides a structured comparison across the ten models and aligns their respective strengths and limitations with the key elements of C-DERM. The completed coding process enables us to determine where C-DERM addresses the identified gaps in each model, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of the proposed framework’s contributions (Table 1).

In step 3, relevant textual segments from framework descriptions, methodologies, and applications [36] were systematically coded according to their alignment with the predefined themes (

Table 2. Classification of governance integration.

Category	Description
Strong	There is some evidence of implementation, but it lacks thoroughness or is inconsistently applied. The structure exists but is underdeveloped.
Moderate	The component is implemented reasonably but still lacks comprehensive coverage or integration.
Weak	The component is barely implemented or lacks foundational elements. Effectiveness and impact are negligible.
Absent	The attribute or quality is not present at all.

). A comparative coding matrix was developed to ensure consistency in the evaluation. This matrix allowed for the classification of governance integration on a qualitative scale: absent, weak, moderate, strong, or very strong, as demonstrated in Table 2. The matrix provided a structured way to assess the presence and depth of governance-related themes, enabling a transparent and standardized comparison.

In step 4, the results were analyzed and reported. Social equity and inclusion refer to the fair and just distribution of resources, opportunities, and benefits across all social groups, ensuring that marginalized communities have equal access and representation [37,38]. Social equity is particularly important in environmental contexts, where equitable access to ecosystem benefits can improve overall social resilience and community well-being [8]. A critical gap in existing ecosystem service models was discovered by analyzing the codes, as these frameworks often overlook how ecosystem benefits are distributed across different social groups [39]. Including social equity and inclusion as part of ecosystem services models aligns these frameworks with broader social justice objectives, making them more relevant for contemporary, inclusive societies [8,40]. Such integration bridges ecological benefits with societal well-being, acknowledging that equitable access to ecosystem services is essential for resilient and sustainable communities. Community engagement and participatory governance refer to actively involving local communities in decision-making processes regarding ecosystem management. Community participation ensures that management strategies align with local needs and values, promoting more effective and resilient outcomes [41,42]. As an ecosystem service, participatory governance enhances social cohesion and shared responsibility, improving the overall sustainability of ecosystem services by fostering trust and collaboration within communities. Recognizing and embedding cultural values and Indigenous knowledge into ecosystem management helps preserve traditions and ensures that ecosystem services are delivered in a culturally meaningful way [43,44]. This integration is a vital aspect of cultural ecosystem services, as it provides non-material benefits like identity, heritage, and a sense of belonging, supporting ecological and social resilience. Adaptive management involves continuously monitoring and adjusting ecosystem management practices in response to environmental changes and new insights. This feedback process makes systems more responsive and resilient in uncertainty [45,46]. As an ecosystem service, adaptive feedback mechanisms help maintain the stability of ecosystems by allowing communities to proactively address emerging challenges, supporting ecosystem health and long-term functionality. Resilience refers to an ecosystem’s capacity to recover from disturbances and continue providing essential services [12,47]. By prioritizing resilience and long-term sustainability, ecosystem services are designed to endure future pressures and changes, ensuring the consistent provision of resources and benefits for future generations. This approach supports a stable supply of ecosystem services, addressing immediate needs and future demands. These supportive frameworks or conditions make the delivery of ecosystem services more effective, sustainable, and equitable. They provide the social and ecological foundation upon which ecosystem services can thrive and persist, especially under changing environmental and social conditions. A sustainable ecosystem services model should integrate these enablers to address gaps in existing models, aligning with recent shifts in the literature toward a more holistic approach that includes socio-ecological perspectives [41,45]. For example, as shown in

Table 3. Rating gaps based on C-DERM themes in ecosystem governance.

Gap	Strong	Moderate	Weak	Absent
Community engagement and participatory governance				✔
Integration of cultural values and local knowledge				✔
Dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms				✔
Social equity and inclusion			✔
Social resilience and long-term sustainability				✔

, the MEA model was analyzed with a rating system based on community engagement, equity integration, adaptive capacity, cultural knowledge inclusion, and resilience and sustainability to assess the model’s handling of Lim’s identified gaps, as follows:

The coded data provided a structured basis for assessing the extent to which ecosystem service frameworks incorporate participatory decision-making, social equity considerations, and adaptive governance mechanisms.

4.2. Coding Process and Validation

In this study, the process of coding and ensuring intra-coder reliability was carried out in four systematic steps. Below is a detailed explanation of these steps and the criteria used to define primary and secondary codes. These steps ensured consistency across the coding process. Additionally, references to previous studies were used to guide the coding decisions and maintain methodological rigor.

4.2.1. Clarification of Coder Involvement

The coding process was carried out in four steps. In step 1, the models were assessed, and primary and secondary codes were identified and categorized based on the extracted themes. The coding process was carried out ensuring consistency and reliability across all stages of the analysis. To ensure intra-coder reliability, codes were regularly compared, and discrepancies were identified and resolved through careful review and cross-checking with the relevant literature [33,34].

4.2.2. Validation of Coding

The coding framework was cross-referenced with the relevant literature and established frameworks. This ensured that the categories and codes were aligned with prior research and provided consistency with the broader scientific context. Ultimately, coded data were compared with existing coding from similar studies to validate the coding process’s robustness and consistency, ensuring the findings’ accuracy and reliability.

4.2.3. Justification for Coding Decisions

The decision to categorize the themes into primary and secondary codes was based on a rigorous review of the literature on ecosystem governance and its gaps (e.g., CICES, MEA, TEEB). Secondary codes such as “real-time data and response” and “monitoring and adjustment practices” were selected to ensure a granular understanding of the “dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms” theme. These specific elements were chosen because they reflect the current challenges and evolving needs for governance models to be adaptable to environmental and social changes [45,46].

4.2.4. Reference to Previous Studies for Coding

The coding framework was heavily influenced by well-established models in ecosystem governance, such as the MEA and the CPR theory. These models guided the selection of primary and secondary codes to ensure alignment with the existing literature and best practices. For example, the integration of cultural values was inspired by Gómez-Baggethun and Barton [43], and the focus on social equity was shaped by Pascual et al. [8].

4.3. Consistency and Clear Terminology

In step 2, a coding matrix was developed to assess the integration of governance themes in each of the ten models. The matrix utilized qualitative categories: “absent”, “weak”, “moderate”, “strong”, and “very strong”. For instance, the “strong” category represents evidence of significant governance integration that is inconsistently applied, whereas “moderate” indicates a reasonable level of integration that may lack comprehensive coverage. Each code was applied according to predefined criteria, and an example of what constitutes the “strong” integration of community engagement can be seen in Table 2.

4.4. Highlighting Limitations of the Coding Process

Despite a thorough and systematic approach, certain limitations were encountered during the coding process. One challenge was the subjectivity in interpreting the governance dimensions across diverse models. In cases where coding was ambiguous or models provided limited information, a clear decision-making process was applied to maintain transparency, and previous studies were referenced for guidance.

4.5. Visual Support

The coding matrix (Table 2) was a key tool in classifying the extent to which governance-related themes were integrated into each model. The matrix allowed for a transparent and standardized comparison across all 10 models. For example, Table 3 presents an assessment of the MEA model according to its community engagement, equity integration, adaptive capacity, cultural knowledge inclusion, and resilience and sustainability, highlighting its strengths and limitations in addressing the identified governance gaps.

5. Synthesis of the Findings

The 233 documents analyzed encompass studies from China, Brazil, India, the US, Australia, Costa Rica, etc., representing diverse contexts across developed and developing nations. The review includes cases from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, broadly representing different socio-ecological systems. The reviewed documents cover multiple spatial scales, including global assessments, which provide overarching frameworks but often lack localized insights into social equity in ecosystem services; national and regional studies, which address ecosystem service governance but frequently overlook community-driven and marginalized perspectives; and local and urban-scale studies, particularly highlighting community-based conservation and socio-cultural interactions with ecosystem services.

While the reviewed documents discuss ecosystem services, the most significant focus is on gaps in the social dimensions of ESs, particularly social equity and inclusivity in access to ESs; community engagement and participatory governance; the integration of cultural values and local knowledge; dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms; and social resilience, which are often underrepresented in mainstream ecosystem service frameworks. Our findings highlight that existing models insufficiently integrate these social variables, reinforcing the need for a framework like C-DERM, which explicitly incorporates equity, resilience, and community-driven perspectives into ecosystem service management.

5.1. Governance in Ecosystem Service Frameworks: Current Approaches and Gaps

ES frameworks have been crucial in linking ecological processes with human well-being, guiding policy and management strategies at multiple scales. However, the governance dimensions of these frameworks vary significantly, influencing their effectiveness in addressing social-ecological challenges.

Table 4. Comparative evaluation of governance aspects in ES frameworks *.

Model	Community Engagement & Participatory Governance	Integration of Cultural Values & Local Knowledge	Dynamic, Adaptive Feedback Mechanisms	Social Equity & Inclusion	Social Resilience & Long-Term Sustainability
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment	0 (code1.1)	0 (code2.1)	0 (code3.1)	1 (code4.1)	0 (code5.1)
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity	0 (code2.1)	1 (code2.2)	1 (code3.2)	0 (code4.2)	0 (code5.2)
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services	0 (code3.1)	1 (code2.3)	0 (code3.3)	0 (code4.3)	0 (code5.3)
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs	1(code4.1)	0 (code2.4)	1 (code3.4)	1(code4.4)	1 (code5.4)
Common Pool Resource	0 (code5.1)	0 (code2.5)	1 (code3.5)	1(code4.5)	1 (code5.5)
Ecosystem Services Partnership	0 (code6.1)	0 (code2.6)	1 (code3.6)	0 (code4.6)	0 (code5.6)
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services	1 (code7.1)	0 (code2.7)	1 (code3.7)	0 (code4.7)	0 (code5.7)
Social-Ecological Systems	2 (code8.1)	1 (code2.8)	2 (code3.8)	1 (code4.8)	2 (code5.8)
Institutional Analysis and Development	2 (code9.1)	1 (code2.9)	0 (code3.9)	1 (code4.9)	2 (code5.9)
Institutional Analysis and Development- Social-Ecological Systems	3 (code10.1)	2 (code2.10)	0 (code3.10)	1 (code4.10)	2 (code5.10)
	Absent: 0	weak: 1	moderate: 2	strong: 3

* The scores in each column are independent of others and only reflect the model’s performance in that specific criterion.

provides a comparative evaluation of governance aspects across major ES frameworks, highlighting their strengths and limitations in community engagement, cultural integration, adaptive feedback mechanisms, social equity, and resilience.

5.2. Addressing Social Aspects of Each Framework Based on C-DERM

C-DERM aims to address the identified gaps by embedding social considerations at the core of ecosystem service assessment. Designed as a participatory, community-centered framework, C-DERM integrates cultural values, social equity, and resilience, offering deeper insights into how ecosystem services are experienced, valued, and sustained within communities. In the next section, based on the coding performed, the gaps are divided into five groups and described in detail for each model.

The MEA recognizes the importance of stakeholders in ecosystem services management but lacks mechanisms for engaging local communities, especially marginalized groups. This often results in a disconnect between global assessments and local realities, where community priorities may differ from national policies [9,48].

In China, ecological conservation programs aim to educate local communities, but criticism exists about the limited real involvement in decision-making [49]. In Brazil, REDD+ projects involve local communities in carbon emission reduction through forest conservation, although challenges such as a lack of transparency and external pressures persist [50]. India’s Joint Forest Management programs empower Indigenous communities to manage forest resources, yet external legal and economic pressures undermine their effectiveness [51].

While research shows that participatory governance, such as community mapping and focus groups, enhances local engagement [41], the MEA does not effectively integrate these methods at the community level (Q1.1). In contrast, C-DERM places community engagement and participatory governance at its core, ensuring local stakeholders actively contribute to ecosystem management, incorporating traditional knowledge [52]. Tools like stakeholder workshops, surveys, and participatory mapping help align management with community-defined priorities, fostering trust and resilience [41,53]. C-DERM is particularly effective in engaging marginalized groups whose cultural and traditional knowledge is vital for sustainability [8]. This approach contrasts with the MEA’s top-down model, enhancing ecosystem management by focusing on local realities and ensuring culturally relevant policies [24]. While the MEA acknowledges the importance of cultural values, it lacks a framework to integrate community-specific cultural knowledge into ecosystem assessments, as seen in Canada’s Indigenous-led conservation initiatives that prioritize traditional ecological knowledge in decision-making [52], Brazil’s recognition of local cultural practices in the management of Amazonian ecosystems [50], and Australia’s inclusion of Aboriginal cultural knowledge in land management practices [54].

C-DERM, however, prioritizes local knowledge, ensuring more effective, community-driven management ([55,56] Q1.2). Although the MEA offers a global-scale snapshot, it lacks dynamic feedback mechanisms to adjust strategies based on community needs and environmental changes (Q1.3). C-DERM addresses this by integrating adaptive feedback loops that enable ongoing community consultations and monitoring, promoting resilience, especially in climate change and socio-economic issues [9,57,58]. The MEA touches on social equity indirectly but fails to prioritize marginalized communities or address inequalities in ecosystem service distribution (Q1.4). In contrast, C-DERM embeds social equity by promoting fair distribution and prioritizing vulnerable populations [59]. This participatory approach aligns with research showing that including marginalized voices improves ecosystem management and sustainability [60,61]. C-DERM’s emphasis on social justice and local cultural knowledge contrasts with the MEA’s limited focus [8,62]. While the MEA primarily serves as a diagnostic tool, C-DERM incorporates resilience-building practices and adaptive management strategies, ensuring long-term sustainability through community-driven governance and local monitoring [57,63]. This contrasts with the MEA’s focus on ecological resilience without addressing social resilience factors like community cohesion and local knowledge [57,64]. C-DERM emphasizes ecological and social resilience, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to sustainability ([48,53]; Q1.5).

The TEEB framework assigns economic value to ecosystem services but often overlooks the cultural, spiritual, and intrinsic values communities attach to ecosystems [65,66]. This focus on economic incentives can lead to short-term engagement and policies that fail to resonate with local communities [67]. TEEB’s top-down governance model further limits the inclusion of local perspectives ([68] code_2.1). In contrast, C-DERM emphasizes participatory governance, integrating community-defined values and traditional knowledge [42,69]. C-DERM prioritizes local engagement, recognizing Indigenous knowledge to foster long-term stewardship and stronger connections to conservation goals [8,41]. Traditional knowledge is vital for biodiversity conservation and local resilience [70]. C-DERM uses participatory tools like consultations and mapping to ensure marginalized groups actively contribute to ecosystem management, promoting inclusive, sustainable outcomes ([41,71]; code_2.2). Unlike TEEB’s economic focus, C-DERM reflects cultural and ecological priorities, addressing the limitations of top-down models [65,67]. By integrating local voices, C-DERM creates a resilient ecosystem services model aligned with community needs and grounded in cultural values [8,52]. While TEEB focuses on economic valuation, it often overlooks non-monetary cultural values and local perspectives. C-DERM addresses this by actively involving communities in defining cultural values and adapting to shifts in local practices [8,72], which enhances local support and sustainability [52]. TEEB’s static valuation approach, lacking local feedback mechanisms, fails to adapt to real-time changes in community priorities or ecological conditions (code_2.3). In contrast, C-DERM promotes iterative feedback, allowing stakeholders to shape ecosystem management based on evolving socio-ecological dynamics, ensuring flexibility and inclusivity [10,41,73]. TEEB is also criticized for overlooking social equity and inclusivity, focusing on economic incentives at the expense of marginalized communities’ needs. C-DERM addresses this by integrating non-monetary values, ensuring equitable access to ecosystem services, and supporting cultural perspectives [56,74]. C-DERM also formalizes participatory governance, contrasting with TEEB’s lack of structured community involvement [41,59], and prioritizes traditional knowledge to build resilience [5,42]. Unlike TEEB, which risks commodifying nature and exacerbating inequities, C-DERM promotes fair distribution and inclusion ([61,75] code_2.4). TEEB provides valuable insights into ecosystem valuation but lacks mechanisms for resilience-building through community involvement or adaptive governance. C-DERM overcomes this by prioritizing community-driven governance and adaptive management, ensuring that economic incentives do not overshadow essential social and cultural values [69,76]. C-DERM’s dynamic, adaptive framework contrasts with TEEB’s static, economic-focused approach, allowing communities to monitor and respond to ecosystem changes over time [73,77]. Furthermore, TEEB fails to integrate social resilience factors, which are critical for long-term sustainability ([57,76] code_2.5), whereas C-DERM’s focus on both ecological and social resilience offers a more holistic approach.

CICES is a well-established system for categorizing ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. However, it lacks mechanisms for engaging local communities and integrating participatory governance in ecosystem management [11,78]. While effective for organizing services, it does not incorporate local knowledge, socio-cultural values, or community priorities, essential for holistic and inclusive governance ([56] code_3.1). In contrast, the Community-Driven Ecosystem Resilience and Equity Model (C-DERM) addresses these gaps by embedding participatory processes and ensuring local stakeholders, including marginalized groups, are directly involved in assessing and managing ecosystem services [41,69,79]. CICES’s broad categorization of cultural services like recreation and heritage does not integrate traditional ecological knowledge, particularly from Indigenous and marginalized communities, limiting its ability to reflect local priorities ([11,66] code_3.2). C-DERM, however, incorporates community-centered values, local knowledge, and adaptive feedback mechanisms, aligning with evolving cultural priorities and ecological contexts [58,80]. This framework fosters stronger engagement by recognizing diverse local identities and social histories [56,69], ensuring that marginalized groups contribute to ecosystem management with deep-rooted land relationships [81,82]. CICES’s standardized framework also lacks adaptive feedback mechanisms to adjust ecosystem priorities based on community feedback or environmental shifts. This limits CICES’s ability to support resilience and sustainability under changing conditions, as its classification focus does not accommodate dynamic, real-time adjustments [83]. C-DERM fills this need by incorporating flexible, community-driven feedback systems, allowing for continuous adaptation in management practices that align ecosystem services with local and cultural priorities ([11,41] code_3.3). Additionally, CICES’s approach emphasizes economic valuation over social equity and inclusivity (code_3.4), overlooking the unequal distribution of ecosystem services among social groups [84,85]. While CICES categorizes ecosystem services effectively, it does not support equitable access or benefit-sharing, a critical aspect highlighted by researchers advocating for inclusive ecosystem service management. In contrast, C-DERM centers on equity by ensuring fair access and addressing social inequalities mirrored in ecosystem service distribution [8]. This approach aligns with studies demonstrating the importance of participatory governance for accurate valuation and sustainable outcomes [41,56]. While CICES offers a structured classification of ecosystem services, it lacks strategies specific to unique environmental contexts. By providing flexible, ecosystem-specific strategies, C-DERM enables communities to adapt practices based on local conditions, an essential feature for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services amid global environmental changes ([23,48,77] code_3.5).

InVEST primarily emphasizes quantitative, expert-driven assessments, focusing on scientific and economic analysis. Although stakeholder engagement is encouraged, InVEST lacks a structured approach for sustained community participation, relying instead on one-off consultations. This limits its capacity to incorporate local knowledge, cultural values, and community priorities in decision-making, potentially excluding marginalized groups from meaningful involvement ([39,86,87]; code_4.1). In contrast, C-DERM promotes a bottom-up approach with tools like community workshops and participatory mapping, ensuring that local stakeholders actively define and prioritize ecosystem services. This continuous engagement allows for adaptive management that aligns ecosystem strategies with evolving community needs [41,48]. C-DERM also emphasizes equity, ensuring that marginalized voices are integral to the governance process and fostering a more inclusive approach to ecosystem management [79,88]. While InVEST excels in spatial and economic valuation, it does not fully integrate cultural values or traditional knowledge, which is essential for community-driven management. Its reliance on static data limits adaptability, as recalibration is needed for updates, and real-time community input is absent (code_4.2). This focus on biophysical and economic metrics risks overlooking social dynamics critical to ecosystem sustainability [21,56]. C-DERM fills this gap by incorporating quantitative and qualitative data, emphasizing community-defined cultural values and ongoing feedback mechanisms that enable real-time adaptation, fostering resilience and alignment with local priorities [58,69,89]. Moreover, InVEST’s prioritization of economic valuation may inadvertently favor affluent groups, with a limited focus on social equity (code_4.3). Research suggests that commodifying ecosystem services can exclude marginalized communities from receiving benefits ([61,90] code_4.4). By incorporating a social equity lens, C-DERM captures non-monetary values through community-involved valuation processes, addresses distributional justice, and ensures equitable access to services that support sustainable outcomes [8]. Finally, C-DERM contrasts with InVEST’s largely economic tradeoff focus by embedding adaptive governance and community feedback, which InVEST’s static models lack (code_4.5). While InVEST assesses ecosystem services based on static scenarios, C-DERM’s real-time mechanisms allow for ongoing adjustment to environmental shifts, enhancing resilience and long-term sustainability [73,89].

The CPR theory emphasizes institutional governance and rule-based management of shared resources but lacks participatory governance and community involvement in decision-making ([23,91] code_5.1). In contrast, C-DERM prioritizes community engagement, integrating local knowledge and cultural values into governance to promote equity and resilience [41,56]. While the CPR theory lacks mechanisms for including marginalized voices, C-DERM makes these voices central, allowing communities to co-create management practices ([41,69] code_5.2). C-DERM’s adaptive governance model also addresses the static nature of the CPR theory by incorporating feedback mechanisms, enhancing resilience to social-ecological changes [58]. The CPR theory treats traditional knowledge as secondary, while C-DERM places cultural values and local knowledge at its core, fostering community commitment, social cohesion, and sustainability ([42,66] code_5.3). Additionally, C-DERM’s adaptive management approach ensures that governance reflects updated ecological and social conditions, allowing communities to recalibrate priorities in response to climate change and shifting values [76,77]. While the CPR theory does not incorporate diverse social values, C-DERM ensures inclusivity, elevating marginalized voices and emphasizing equity and power-sharing to improve resource management outcomes ([42,92] code_5.4). C-DERM integrates adaptive feedback loops essential for long-term sustainability and resilience [69,93]. Unlike the CPR theory’s focus on enforcement, C-DERM centers on adaptive resilience, incorporating community knowledge and practices for ecological health ([16,70] code_5.5). This model directly involves communities in defining cultural ecosystem services, placing traditional knowledge at the forefront of resource management, thereby addressing the CPR theory’s limitations and enhancing resource stewardship [44,76].

The Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) framework emphasizes interdisciplinary research and global collaboration to advance ecosystem services science. However, it lacks sustained local community involvement in defining and managing ecosystem services. ESP mainly fosters top-down collaboration among experts and policymakers, with limited mechanisms for engaging local stakeholders in decision-making [94]. While promoting inclusivity in research, this approach does not emphasize marginalized or vulnerable group participation [39]. C-DERM addresses this gap by embedding community perspectives and marginalized voices into each phase of ecosystem management, promoting social equity and sustainable outcomes ([79,88] code_6.1). While ESP supports ecosystem service (ES) research, it overlooks cultural values and traditional knowledge [83]. C-DERM fills this gap by incorporating community-defined cultural values, prioritizing marginalized perspectives, and providing a flexible framework adaptable to diverse cultural contexts [43]. Unlike ESP, which applies tools without community-centered governance, C-DERM’s adaptive feedback systems enable real-time response to local changes, aligning ecosystem priorities with evolving needs, a feature that research shows strengthens resilience ([57,88] code_6.2). ESP’s collaborative structure facilitates scientific knowledge exchange but lacks a formal approach for equitable benefit distribution, potentially marginalizing vulnerable groups [85]. C-DERM counters this by prioritizing social equity and power-sharing, ensuring marginalized groups are actively involved in governance (code_6.3). This inclusive approach aligns with findings that equitable governance enhances ecosystem resilience [8,41] (code_6.4). Moreover, while ESP’s top-down, research-focused structure promotes scientific collaboration, it lacks practical, community-based resilience strategies. ESP’s focus on economic valuation limits adaptive management, which is crucial for long-term sustainability [95]. C-DERM, in contrast, integrates local knowledge and community participation into resilience-building, ensuring that management practices reflect local contexts and cultural values [76,96]. Research supports these community-driven approaches as essential for ecological and social sustainability [16,97] (code_6.5).

IPBES promotes scientific and Indigenous knowledge integration in ecosystem assessments but largely operates through a top-down, policy-driven approach, limiting community governance roles to consultation rather than active decision-making [8]. In contrast, C-DERM directly involves local stakeholders in governance, utilizing community advisory boards and adaptive feedback systems for responsive ecosystem management [14,69] (code_7.1). IPBES emphasizes knowledge diversity yet lacks mechanisms to prioritize marginalized voices in ecosystem governance. C-DERM addresses this by embedding continuous community participation, especially for underrepresented groups, across all stages of ecosystem management [5]. Unlike IPBES’s conceptual approach to local knowledge, C-DERM views traditional knowledge as foundational, adapting management practices based on evolving community-defined values [44] (code_7.2). Furthermore, IPBES facilitates global knowledge-sharing but lacks localized, adaptive feedback mechanisms for continuous community input. C-DERM fills this gap with structured feedback loops, enhancing ecosystem resilience and allowing for dynamic responses to local changes, a feature crucial for maintaining relevance in complex social-ecological contexts [58,89]. While IPBES supports socio-ecological flexibility, it remains limited in operationalizing community-driven adaptation and resilience [98] (code_7.3). IPBES highlights nature’s contributions to human well-being regarding social equity but lacks structured provisions for fair benefit distribution, particularly for marginalized groups [8,40]. C-DERM prioritizes equitable governance, addressing power imbalances through inclusive, community-led decision-making mechanisms promoting fairer outcomes across diverse community contexts [85,93] (code_7.4). While IPBES connects biodiversity and human well-being globally, it lacks tools for real-time adaptive management and resilience-building within specific communities. C-DERM actively integrates local knowledge and continuous feedback into its resilience strategies, aligning ecosystem priorities with ongoing environmental changes [16,77]. Research supports that such community-based adaptation enhances ecological and social sustainability, addressing the limitations of IPBES’s broader, less adaptable framework [44,76] (code_7.5).

The SES model emphasizes multi-actor participation in ecosystem governance, recognizing the roles of stakeholders such as governments, local communities, and private entities [14,99]. However, it lacks a structured methodology for involving grassroots communities in formal governance and does not prioritize community-led decision-making [14,22]. While SES helps analyze governance structures, it leaves gaps in incorporating local values and community input [100]. Structured community involvement is essential for aligning ecosystem goals with local priorities and improving sustainable management [41,101]. C-DERM addresses these gaps by incorporating participatory governance and placing local stakeholders in active decision-making roles through community councils, focus groups, and workshops [58,69]. This approach ensures that policies align with community needs and fosters greater ownership of conservation efforts [41] (code_8.1). Additionally, C-DERM integrates traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into management processes, which SES lacks [42,70]. Research shows that community-driven governance enhances ecosystem resilience by aligning management objectives with local knowledge [40,70]. In contrast, top-down approaches like SES may struggle with long-term community involvement due to a lack of active participation mechanisms [102]. While SES focuses on governance and institutional arrangements, it does not integrate cultural values or TEK directly into ecosystem management. C-DERM expands on SES by embedding community-defined cultural values into ecosystem assessments, fostering greater ecological stewardship [14,76]. SES promotes multi-level governance and resilience but lacks structured feedback mechanisms that continuously adapt ecosystem priorities based on local, real-time changes. SES is conceptual, focusing on governance understanding, while C-DERM incorporates structured, iterative feedback loops that empower communities to adjust ecosystem priorities as their needs evolve. This community-centered approach enhances resilience and sustainability, particularly in marginalized communities [14,22,48,58] (code_8.2). Moreover, C-DERM prioritizes social equity in governance, addressing power disparities that SES often overlooks. SES’s emphasis on resilience lacks a focus on social justice, whereas C-DERM emphasizes fair benefit distribution and inclusive participation mechanisms [62,103]. SES’s lack of structured guidelines for integrating local knowledge into management contrasts with C-DERM, which explicitly incorporates TEK to foster resilience [42,44] (code_8.3). C-DERM also addresses SES’s limitation in building resilience at the local level by incorporating community-driven resilience mechanisms, integrating social resilience, cultural values, and participatory governance [104]. While SES values institutional diversity, C-DERM prioritizes community involvement and local knowledge for effective ecosystem management [53,105]. SES does not provide tools for feedback loops, even though Kenya’s community-based natural resource management projects integrate adaptive feedback mechanisms through regular community meetings to assess and adjust conservation strategies [14], Namibia’s community conservancies use ongoing feedback to manage wildlife resources based on ecological monitoring [106], and Sweden’s adaptive co-management of fisheries includes feedback loops through stakeholder engagement and data-sharing to adjust policies [53]. However, C-DERM includes adaptive mechanisms, allowing communities to monitor and adjust management practices based on ecological feedback [23,77]. This community-driven approach ensures localized sustainability practices, supporting long-term ecosystem resilience [104,107] (code_8.4). Recent research indicates that community-driven resilience frameworks, like C-DERM, are more effective in sustaining ecosystems, especially in response to environmental pressures such as climate change [63,104]. C-DERM’s integration of adaptive management and community-driven governance ensures that resilience and sustainability are actively pursued, making it a more effective model than the diagnostic and economic-focused SES framework (code_8.5).

The IAD framework, developed by Elinor Ostrom, is a powerful tool for examining institutional arrangements, rules, and norms in resource governance. While it recognizes stakeholder engagement and values self-organized governance, it lacks structured mechanisms for participatory governance. C-DERM builds upon IAD by embedding formal, community-driven participation at every level, ensuring that resource management actively incorporates local voices and diverse perspectives [41,69]. This structured involvement contrasts with IAD’s focus on analyzing rather than implementing participatory mechanisms (code_9.1). IAD does incorporate cultural knowledge indirectly through norms and historical context, but it does not prioritize cultural values in governance. While it supports local adaptations, it does not embed cultural values or traditional knowledge as core governance components.

In contrast, C-DERM places cultural knowledge at the heart of resource management, recognizing its role in fostering resilience and community cohesion. C-DERM’s framework leverages traditional knowledge to enhance sustainability, an approach that has been shown to improve ecological outcomes [63,69] (code_9.2). A notable gap in IAD is its lack of adaptive feedback for resilience. Although IAD supports polycentric governance, which allows local institutions to respond flexibly, it does not inherently facilitate rapid adaptation to ecological changes or external pressures like climate change. C-DERM incorporates dynamic, real-time feedback mechanisms, allowing communities to adjust practices based on ecological shifts, strengthening resilience [47,103]. This adaptive governance structure in C-DERM enhances ecosystem resilience and sustainability, a critical component that IAD overlooks by focusing mainly on institutional resilience (code_9.3). Social equity is another area where C-DERM significantly diverges from IAD. While IAD considers stakeholder involvement, it does not address systemic inequities or ensure that marginalized voices are equitably represented. This gap can lead to power imbalances, where more influential actors dominate decision-making [108,109]. C-DERM embeds equity as a foundational principle, ensuring inclusive governance that fairly represents marginalized groups. This approach aligns with research showing that equitable governance enhances resilience and fosters social cohesion [8] (code_9.4). C-DERM goes beyond IAD by explicitly focusing on ecological resilience and long-term sustainability. While IAD emphasizes institutional flexibility, it lacks provisions for incorporating ecosystem thresholds or non-linear ecological dynamics. C-DERM includes resilience as a core element, leveraging adaptive feedback to support long-term ecosystem health and promote intergenerational equity. This holistic view aligns resource use with sustainable practices, supporting current and future community needs [110,111] (code_9.5).

The IAD-SES framework emphasizes the role of diverse stakeholders but lacks explicit guidelines for structuring participatory governance, leading to unequal power dynamics and the exclusion of marginalized voices [23,24]. While it recognizes stakeholder involvement, IAD-SES does not provide formal participatory processes essential for complex socio-ecological contexts (code_10.1). C-DERM addresses these gaps by implementing structured participatory governance that reduces power imbalances and ensures fair resource management [88,112]. Unlike IAD-SES, which treats cultural and local knowledge as contextual factors rather than core components, C-DERM directly integrates cultural values and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into decision-making (code_9.2). This focus on cultural knowledge is crucial for effective governance, particularly in Indigenous and rural communities where resource stewardship often relies on deep-rooted local values [14,22,113]. C-DERM enhances the integration of cultural knowledge by embedding community consultations and participatory mapping, ensuring these elements inform ecosystem governance. This approach leads to more resilient and socially accepted management practices by adapting governance structures to local cultural contexts [114]. Building on IAD, the IAD-SES framework provides a more nuanced understanding of social and ecological feedback, yet it lacks mechanisms for active, real-time monitoring and adaptation, often relying on periodic institutional reforms that may not meet the demands of fast-changing environments [13,99,113] (code_9.3). The C-DERM model overcomes this limitation by integrating structured, community-centered feedback mechanisms and continuous environmental monitoring, allowing communities to adjust governance practices quickly in response to ecological shifts. Research highlights that models with dynamic, adaptive feedback loops are more resilient and better suited to address real-time ecological challenges [44,71,115]. Unlike IAD-SES, which focuses primarily on institutional flexibility, C-DERM incorporates ecological indicators and thresholds into decision-making, allowing for immediate, responsive governance that aligns with ecological feedback and social values, enhancing the system’s resilience over time [89,104]. While IAD-SES promotes resilience through polycentric governance and emphasizes cross-scale collaboration, it lacks explicit mechanisms for monitoring ecological feedback or maintaining social feedback loops, which are critical for true sustainability [14] (code_9.3). Although polycentric governance within IAD-SES encourages flexibility, it often falls short of supporting real-time resilience, particularly in the face of rapid environmental fluctuations [116].

In contrast, C-DERM’s approach emphasizes the inclusion of resilience networks that allow for both ecological and social feedback, fostering long-term sustainability. C-DERM also focuses on intergenerational equity, ensuring that resource governance decisions support the needs of future generations [57,117] (code_9.4). Studies on culturally inclusive governance systems support the effectiveness of resilience networks in resource management, with evidence from fisheries and forest management showing that culturally informed governance enhances trust, compliance, and adaptive capacity (code_9.4) [63,118]. C-DERM’s emphasis on equitable, community-driven governance and knowledge-sharing aligns with research findings that underscore the importance of integrated ecological-social feedback for sustaining ecosystem services over time [89,111].

Table 5. Strengths and weaknesses of different models.

Model	Strengths	Weaknesses
MEA	- Global and large-scale focus on ecosystem services	- Does not adequately address social and cultural dimensions in assessments, social resilience, adaptive feedback mechanisms, limited flexibility in local implementation
TEEB	- Focuses on economic valuation of ecosystem services - Emphasizes economic impacts of ecosystem services on decision-making	- Less focus on social and cultural aspects - Limited community engagement in the valuation process
CICES	- Clear and recognized structure for classifying ecosystem services - Useful in policy-making and national decision-making	- Insufficient emphasis on social and cultural dimensions - Lacks local perspective in assessments
InVEST	- Precise analytical models for assessing ecosystem services - Provides decision-support tools based on scientific data	- Primarily focused on environmental aspects and less on social and cultural dimensions - Complex to use in specific areas, requiring a lot of data
CPR theory	- Emphasis on institutional governance and common-pool resource management - Focus on rule-based management (order and structure)	- Lack of community participation in decision-making - Neglect of marginalized voices and vulnerable groups - Overlooks traditional knowledge
ESP	- Interdisciplinary research and global collaboration - Emphasis on knowledge diversity and strengthening expert collaboration	- Lack of continuous local community participation in ecosystem services management - Neglect of cultural values and traditional knowledge
IPBES	- Promotes integration of scientific and Indigenous knowledge in assessments - Focus on knowledge diversity	- Top-down approach with limited active community participation - Lack of mechanisms for prioritizing marginalized voices
SES	- Multi-level participation in ecosystem governance - Analyzes governance structures and identifies roles of different stakeholders	- Lack of prioritization of local participation in decision-making - Does not integrate cultural knowledge and values in resource management
IAD framework	- Comprehensive analysis of institutional arrangements and rules - Recognition of self-organization and stakeholder participation	- Lack of formal mechanisms for social active participation in decision-making - Does not emphasize cultural values and knowledge
IAD-SES	- Emphasis on stakeholder participation and multi-level analysis of governance - Examines institutional structures in ecosystem governance	- Lack of formal mechanisms for active participation in decision-making - Faces challenges in engaging local and marginalized communities

summarizes different models’ strengths and weaknesses.

5.3. Pathways Toward Inclusive, Adaptive, and Socially Equitable Ecosystem Service Governance

Addressing the identified gaps in ecosystem service (ES) governance requires a paradigm shift toward a framework that places social considerations, community engagement, and resilience-building at its core. Existing models have largely failed to integrate participatory governance, cultural values, adaptive feedback mechanisms, social equity, and long-term resilience. A novel approach should correct these deficiencies and establish a flexible, community-centered framework that bridges global assessments with local realities.

A more inclusive ES framework must prioritize participatory governance, ensuring that communities, particularly marginalized groups, are actively involved in decision-making. Rather than relying on expert-driven assessments, the framework should integrate co-management approaches, stakeholder workshops, and participatory mapping techniques to align ES governance with community-defined priorities [41,119]. Governance structures should be polycentric, allowing multiple stakeholders—from local users to policymakers—to engage in meaningful dialogue and co-create management strategies [23]. Community advisory boards and deliberative forums can facilitate ongoing engagement, bridging traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) with scientific expertise for a more holistic governance system [14,55].

A key limitation of existing frameworks is their failure to adequately incorporate cultural values and local knowledge into ES governance. A novel approach must recognize ecosystem services beyond economic valuation, ensuring that spiritual, heritage, and place-based relationships with nature are systematically embedded into decision-making processes [8,56]. This can be achieved by leveraging participatory rural appraisals, storytelling methodologies, and Indigenous land-use practices, enabling communities to define their ecosystems’ value in ways relevant to their socio-cultural contexts [43]. Additionally, the legal recognition of traditional resource governance systems and mechanisms for integrating TEK into formal decision-making can enhance the effectiveness of conservation strategies and ensure culturally appropriate ES management [44].

ES governance must move beyond static, one-time assessments toward continuous, adaptive feedback mechanisms allowing for real-time policy adjustments. Community-based monitoring programs, social-ecological observatories, and citizen science initiatives can facilitate iterative learning, ensuring that ecosystem management strategies remain responsive to environmental and social changes [58,77]. An effective framework should incorporate scenario planning tools and participatory modeling, allowing stakeholders to visualize potential future changes and co-develop strategies that can adapt to evolving ecological and socio-economic conditions [73]. Embedding real-time participatory data collection within governance structures will help to bridge knowledge gaps between scientific assessments and local lived experiences, fostering more dynamic and context-sensitive decision-making [115].

Ensuring fair access to ES and equitable benefit distribution is fundamental to sustainable ES governance. Many existing frameworks assume a universal distribution of ecosystem benefits, overlooking the structural inequalities determining who has access to these resources [8,62]. A new framework should incorporate rights-based approaches, guaranteeing that marginalized communities have a formal role in decision-making processes and secure tenure over natural resources [92]. Additionally, governance models should include redistributive mechanisms such as ES compensation programs, benefit-sharing schemes, and participatory budgeting to ensure that conservation policies do not exacerbate existing socio-economic disparities [59,60]. Implementing social safeguards and equity indicators will help monitor the impact of ES policies on vulnerable populations and create mechanisms for accountability and redress [61].

A sustainable ES governance framework must be future-oriented, integrating long-term resilience planning into decision-making structures. Rather than treating resilience as an ecological concept alone, governance models should recognize the co-dependence of social and ecological resilience, incorporating community-led adaptation strategies, intergenerational equity considerations, and climate change preparedness [16,57]. Tools such as resilience assessments, adaptive co-management frameworks, and participatory scenario planning can help communities anticipate and respond to emerging challenges, ensuring that governance structures remain flexible and forward-thinking [89,104]. Moreover, incorporating nested governance structures—where local, regional, and national institutions work synergistically rather than hierarchically—can enhance system-wide learning, knowledge exchange, and multi-scale resilience-building [14,63].

However, institutional barriers play a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of governance integration in ES frameworks [120]. While many governance models assume that participatory approaches can be implemented through better design and technical solutions, real-world constraints such as institutional inertia, political opposition, and entrenched power dynamics often hinder meaningful progress. Bureaucratic resistance to change, rigid policy structures, and sectoral silos frequently prevent the adoption of decentralized, community-driven governance models. Political interests and lobbying by powerful stakeholders, such as agribusiness, real estate developers, or extractive industries, may also resist participatory decision-making to maintain control over resource allocation [121]. These barriers reinforce top-down governance structures prioritizing economic efficiency over social equity and ecological resilience.

Specific strategies are necessary to address these barriers. First, creating an inclusive policy environment is critical. Policymakers should consult with local communities and marginalized groups early in decision-making [122]. Facilitating institutional reforms that reduce bureaucratic inertia—such as simplifying regulatory processes or creating task forces for inclusive governance—can also promote the adoption of more participatory frameworks [123]. Furthermore, capacity-building efforts, such as training local leaders and stakeholders in governance processes, are essential for ensuring the effective implementation of community-based governance models [124].

Overcoming these barriers requires targeted policy interventions, institutional reform, and political strategies that incentivize transparency, accountability, and multi-stakeholder participation. Strengthening legal frameworks, creating mechanisms for participatory budgeting, and embedding social safeguards into ES policies can help counteract these institutional constraints and enable a more inclusive and resilient approach to ecosystem governance [125].

5.4. Refining MEA with C-DERM

The newly proposed Community-Driven Ecosystem Resilience and Equity Model (C-DERM) is an initial conceptual framework developed to improve the participatory governance of ecosystem services. This model is based on socio-ecological resilience, social inclusion, the integration of Indigenous knowledge, equity and inclusion, and participatory decision-making. The C-DERM is still in the conceptual stage and can be further developed through empirical studies and field experiments in the future. The decision-making diagram related to the functionality of the C-DERM model in ES management is shown in Table 1 and Figure 2.

C-DERM aims to fill these gaps by emphasizing inclusivity, resilience, and participatory methods. C-DERM advances a holistic, community-centered approach by incorporating local voices and respecting community-specific cultural ties to the land. This model provides a means to consider economic and ecological factors and the social dynamics contributing to sustainable ecosystem stewardship.

In doing so, C-DERM responds to the calls for more adaptable, socially responsive frameworks that can address environmental challenges through integrated and equitable ecosystem management. This focus on community engagement, cultural values, and social resilience represents a significant shift from the top-down models currently dominating ES assessment. The key elements of C-DERM include community engagement and participatory governance; integration of cultural values and local knowledge; dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms; focus on social equity and inclusion; and emphasis on resilience and long-term sustainability.

C-DERM presents a transformative model for ES management, addressing critical gaps in existing frameworks by prioritizing community engagement, cultural values, adaptive feedback, equity, and resilience. Unlike traditional models, C-DERM fosters a community-centered governance structure that is both inclusive and adaptive, ensuring that local knowledge and cultural identities inform every facet of ecosystem management. The framework’s adaptive feedback mechanisms respond dynamically to environmental changes, promoting resilience for both natural ecosystems and the communities reliant upon them (Table 2).

6. Discussion

This study underscores the need for ecosystem service models that acknowledge and incorporate communities’ cultural, social, and economic nuances. Traditional models, while invaluable, often lack the depth to capture local cultural expressions, equity considerations, and social adaptability. C-DERM provides a community-centered framework, positioning social resilience and inclusivity at the core of ecosystem service evaluation. This model addresses the diverse needs of local communities and offers a pathway toward sustainable ecosystem management that aligns with ecological health and human welfare. By advocating for participatory research and adaptive management, C-DERM enables more equitable and culturally relevant ecosystem policies. In doing so, it offers an innovative and comprehensive approach that could serve as a template for future socio-ecological research and policy, ultimately contributing to sustainable development and social equity within ES frameworks. C-DERM establishes a comprehensive approach to ecosystem management by addressing key gaps in existing frameworks through its focus on community engagement and participatory governance; integration of cultural values and local knowledge; dynamic, adaptive feedback mechanisms; focus on social equity and inclusion; and emphasis on resilience and long-term sustainability. In comparing C-DERM to models like MEA, TEEB, SES, CICES, InVEST, ESP, IPBES, CPR theory, IAD, and IAD-SES, each model contributes unique strengths to ES frameworks. However, they also exhibit notable limitations in covering C-DERM’s holistic components.

Despite efforts to ensure a comprehensive review, several biases may influence the findings. Publication bias arises from the reliance on peer-reviewed literature, which may exclude valuable insights from policy reports, practitioner-oriented documents, and gray literature, which often contain practical governance experiences. Language bias is another limitation, as the restriction to English-language articles may lead to an underrepresentation of perspectives from non-English-speaking regions, where governance approaches and ES frameworks may differ significantly. Additionally, the thematic focus of this review prioritizes studies explicitly addressing participatory governance, potentially overlooking frameworks where governance is a secondary concern but still plays a role in shaping ES management. These biases should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings, as they may influence the generalizability of the conclusions.

The findings of this study underscore the importance of integrating cultural, social, and economic nuances into ES models, highlighting significant implications for policy, practice, and future research. The C-DERM model uniquely prioritizes community involvement and social resilience in ecosystem governance. The findings suggest that policies can be more inclusive and sustainable by embedding cultural values and local knowledge into resource management. This shift toward participatory governance could lead to more equitable and culturally relevant policies, ensuring that local communities play an active role in shaping the management of their ecosystems. Policymakers could apply these insights to enhance existing frameworks like the MEA and TEEB by incorporating social equity and adaptive governance mechanisms [55,56]. In particular, future policies should integrate mechanisms that allow for real-time feedback and adaptive responses to evolving socio-ecological conditions [41].

Adopting C-DERM can guide local communities and practitioners in implementing ecosystem management strategies that consider ecological health and human well-being. For instance, participatory governance, as highlighted by our findings, can foster trust and cooperation among stakeholders, reduce conflicts, and ensure equitable resource distribution [119]. This approach can improve resource management by aligning it with local practices and supporting sustainable livelihoods. Furthermore, adaptive governance mechanisms can be applied to respond to environmental changes, ensuring long-term resource access and maintaining essential ecosystem services like food, water, and air quality, even in disruptions [41].

The study also paves the way for future research in several key areas. First, there is a need to explore how digital tools and technologies, such as citizen science and remote sensing, can further enhance participatory governance and enable more effective adaptive management [55]. Comparative studies of ES governance in different socio-political contexts could provide valuable insights into best practices and potential challenges when scaling up community-driven approaches [56]. Additionally, the intersection of ES governance with climate adaptation strategies presents an opportunity to develop more resilient, community-based responses to environmental changes, such as climate change and biodiversity loss [126]. The study highlights the need to shift toward more inclusive, adaptive, and socially just governance frameworks in ES management. By doing so, environmental policies will better align with the diverse needs of both human communities and ecological systems, promoting long-term sustainability and social equity [127].

We assessed the significance of the relationships outlined for each gap and their impact on the four constituents of well-being (

Table 6. Comprehensive overview of effects and the sources for each assessment.

Variable	Constituent	Type of Impact	Sources
Community engagement and participatory governance	GSR	Enhances trust, cooperation, and ownership, reducing resource-related conflicts.	[53,91]
	S	Improves equitable resource distribution, reducing social tension.	[48,128]
Integration of cultural values and local knowledge	BMGL	Aligns resource management with culturally significant practices, ensuring sustainable livelihoods.	[42,70]
	S	Embeds resource management in culturally validated practices for long-term sustainability.	[70]
	H	Improves access to traditional medicinal plants and foods.	[44,129]
	GSR	Strengthens social relations through cultural identity preservation.	[44,129]
Adaptability	S	Facilitates adjustments to environmental and socio-economic changes.	[57,130]
	BMGL	Maintains access to resources during crises, supporting sustainable livelihoods.	[73]
	H	Protects essential resources like food and water during disruptions.	[47]
	GSR	Indirectly fosters cohesion through shared adaptation goals.	[47]
Social equity and inclusion	GSR	Promotes fairness and social cohesion through inclusive governance.	[79]
	S	Reduces conflicts and ensures equitable resource distribution.	[131]
	BMGL	Provides fair access to essential resources like food and water.	[132]
	H	Reduces health disparities by ensuring equitable access to clean air, water, and other resources.	[5]
Social resilience and sustainability	S	Enhances the capacity to withstand shocks and maintain stability.	[46]
	BMGL	Ensures sustainable resource management to prevent depletion.	[16]
	H	Maintains essential ecosystem services like clean air and water despite pressures.	[133]
	GSR	Fosters cooperation and shared goals, strengthening community cohesion.	[134]

).

By adding the social aspects of ES, the MEA was refined with C-DERM (Figure 2).

Figure 2 shows the relationship between socio-ecological elements of ESs based on C-DERM with the constituents of well-being.

Engaging communities in participatory governance is essential for enhancing good social relations by fostering trust, cooperation, and a sense of ownership among community members. Research shows that participatory governance increases local support for ecosystem management decisions, reinforcing social cohesion and reducing resource-related conflicts [53,91]. This approach also strengthens security by making resource management more responsive to local needs and contexts, which helps distribute resources more equitably and minimizes social tension [48]. When communities feel included in decision-making, they are more likely to support and uphold these decisions, enhancing social and ecological stability [128].

Integrating cultural values and local knowledge into ecosystem governance directly contributes to basic materials for a good life by ensuring that resource management aligns with culturally significant practices, thereby supporting sustainable livelihoods [42]. This alignment with local practices also enhances security by embedding resource management within culturally validated practices that have successfully sustained resources over generations [70]. Furthermore, research shows that this integration can improve health and social relations. Local health benefits arise from better access to traditional medicinal plants and foods, while social relations are strengthened by preserving cultural identity [44,129].

Adaptability in governance structures is key to achieving resilience and long-term sustainability by allowing communities to respond to environmental changes and socio-economic challenges. Adaptability strengthens security by facilitating community adjustments to changes in resource availability, climate, and economic pressures, which are crucial for long-term resource access and sustainability [57,130]. Additionally, adaptive governance supports health by protecting resources like food and water, which are essential during environmental disruptions [46]. Adaptive systems that maintain basic materials for a good life through resource access during crises support sustainable livelihoods, reinforcing the resilience of the entire ecosystem [73].

Social equity and inclusion within ecosystem governance promote good social relations by fostering fairness, trust, and social cohesion [79]. Inclusive governance addresses marginalized groups’ needs, reduces resource-related conflicts, and enhances security by preventing unequal resource distribution, which can lead to social tension [131]. Equity in access to ES directly supports basic materials for a good life, enabling fair access to food, water, and economic resources [132]. Social equity also positively impacts health, as equitable access to ESs like clean water, air, and traditional medicinal resources is crucial for reducing health disparities [5]. By ensuring that all voices are represented, inclusive governance strengthens social relations and builds a more cohesive community.

Resilience and sustainability are fundamental to each constituent of well-being. Security is improved in resilient communities, as they can better withstand environmental shocks and resource scarcity [46]. Sustainable resource management ensures access to basic materials for a good life by preventing resource depletion, essential for sustaining livelihoods [16]. Health benefits are derived from resilient ecosystems as they continue to provide essential services like clean air, water, and nutrition despite environmental pressures [133]. Moreover, resilience-based governance enhances good social relations by fostering cooperation and shared goals for the long-term sustainability of resources, leading to stronger community cohesion and a commitment to future generations [134].

7. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the role of social participation, cultural integration, and social equity in ecosystem governance through the Community-Driven Ecosystem Resilience and Equity Model (C-DERM). This result emphasizes the importance of integrating social dimensions into ES models, particularly in the context of community-driven governance. This review demonstrates that most existing frameworks emphasize technical assessments, economic valuation, and ecological modeling while neglecting essential governance aspects, such as participatory decision-making, social equity, and adaptive management. As a result, ES governance remains fragmented, with local communities often relegated to passive roles rather than active co-designers of policies that shape their environment.

A key challenge identified in this review is the persistent gap between theoretical ES governance models and their practical implementation. While MEA, TEEB, and IP-BES acknowledge stakeholder engagement, they lack structured mechanisms to ensure meaningful, long-term participation. Moreover, while valuable in making ecosystem functions visible to policymakers, economic valuation approaches often overlook ESs’ cultural, social, and historical dimensions, reinforcing power imbalances in resource management. The absence of adaptive governance mechanisms further limits the ability of ES frameworks to respond to evolving socio-ecological conditions, making them ill-suited for addressing emerging challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and socio-political conflicts over land use. ES governance must move beyond technical design problems and confront institutional, political, and structural barriers that hinder meaningful reform to address these shortcomings. Institutional inertia, vested interests, and regulatory constraints often prevent the adoption of participatory approaches, even when frameworks acknowledge their importance. Overcoming these barriers requires stronger policy instruments, legal reforms, and financial incentives to embed governance considerations into ES management at multiple scales.

Key gaps in traditional frameworks were analyzed through thematic coding, underscoring the need for more inclusive, adaptive, and socially just governance mechanisms in ES management. Based on the coding process validation of intra-coder reliability, the C-DERM framework is structured based on the identified gaps. The C-DERM framework introduces a holistic approach, centering on social resilience, inclusivity, and the incorporation of local knowledge, which has the potential to overcome the limitations of traditional ES frameworks. The C-DERM aims to fill the gaps by emphasizing inclusivity, resilience, and participatory methods. C-DERM advances a holistic, community-centered approach by incorporating local voices and respecting community-specific cultural ties to the land. This model provides a means to consider economic and ecological factors and the social dynamics contributing to sustainable ecosystem stewardship.

8. Patents

This work does not involve a patent application number but presents an innovative conceptual framework. Our research addresses critical gaps in the understanding of social dimensions within ES models, particularly in the context of agriculture. We introduce C-DERM, a novel framework emphasizing community involvement, social equity, and resilience in managing ecosystem services. This model is positioned to address limitations in existing approaches, offering practical solutions for integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives in sustainable agricultural systems.