Most protected area impact research that uses counterfactuals draws heavily on quantitative methods, data, and knowledge types, making it valuable in producing generalizations but limited in temporal scope, historical detail, and habitat diversity and coverage of ecosystem services. We devised a methodological pluralistic approach, which supports social science qualitative methods, narratives, mixed methods, and interdisciplinarity, to fully unlock the potential of counterfactuals in ensuring a place-based and detailed understanding of the socioecological context and impacts of protected areas. We applied this approach to derive possible counterfactual conditions for the impact of a montane protected area on 40years of vegetation change in the Cape Floristic Region-a global biodiversity hotspot and UNESCO World Heritage Site in South Africa. We incorporated diverse methods, knowledge, and information sources, drawing on before-after protected area comparisons for inside and outside the protected area. A significant increase in shrubland vegetation (17-30%) was observed and attributed primarily to a decline in frequent burning for grazing. This also occurred outside the protected area and was driven by socioeconomic drivers and not by concerns over biodiversity conservation or land degradation. Had the protected area not been established the area would have seen intensification of cultivation and increased road networks, buildings, and water storage in dams. Our approach increased historical temporal coverage of socioecological change and contextualized assumptions around causality. Protected area impact evaluation should reengage in place-based research that fully incorporates pluralism in methodologies for constructing counterfactuals in a way that builds regional and global understanding from the local level upward. We devised 10 key principles for deriving counterfactuals grounded in methodological pluralism, covering aspects of collaboration, cocreation, inter- and transdisciplinarity, diverse values and lived experiences, multiple knowledge types, multiple possible causal mechanisms, social science qualitative methods, perceptions, perspectives, and narratives.