As a movement, environmentalism has often exhibited a somewhat misanthropic stance. This reaction is understandable—we humans have inflicted significant damage on the ecosystems that surround us. However, in the 21st century, mainstream conservation is starting to recognize that humans can also act as a positive influence. Foresters are adopting Indigenous burning techniques to mitigate wildfires. Biologists are discovering that meadows filled with flowers were historically landscapes for food production that require care or they will vanish. The once-threatened peregrine falcon is now thriving partly due to nesting opportunities on tall buildings and an abundance of urban prey: namely, rats.
For the past two decades (which is a considerable time), I’ve been discussing how humans are not fundamentally different from any other species inhabiting the Earth. Conservation efforts cannot solely focus on excluding people from protected regions. Often, the true challenge lies in becoming more adept at integrating with “nature” rather than withdrawing from it.
Nonetheless, I realize that the concept of living harmoniously with nature may appear sentimental. Hence, I was thrilled to be a part of a meeting in Oxford, UK, aimed at developing more accurate tools to evaluate human-nonhuman interactions. Scientists have created numerous metrics for measuring environmental degradation, from carbon dioxide concentrations to species extinction rates to “planetary thresholds.” While these are useful, they often engage people primarily through fear. We contemplated the possibility of creating metrics that would spark people’s hopes and aspirations instead.
The task proved more challenging than I anticipated. How does one quantify the degree to which individuals in various nations coexist well with other beings on Earth? Some of the indicators proposed by the group seemed to me too reminiscent of the older, more confrontational methods. Why track the amount of agricultural land utilized per person, for instance? Environmentalists have usually regarded farms as antithetical to nature, yet they can also be potential zones for both consumable and non-consumable biodiversity. Some participants favored using satellite imaging to assess factors like proximity to green areas. However, without local data, establishing whether people can genuinely access that space is impossible.
Ultimately, the approximately 20 scientists, writers, and philosophers convened in Oxford settled on three fundamental inquiries. First, is nature flourishing and accessible to people? We sought to determine whether humans could engage meaningfully with their surroundings. Second, is nature utilized with consideration? (Certainly, “consideration” could encompass various interpretations. Is it merely about keeping harvesting below maximum sustainable levels? Or does it necessitate a fully circular economy?) Lastly, is nature protected? Again, assessing this is not straightforward. But if we could loosely quantify each of these three elements, they could combine into a cumulative score for the quality of the human-nature relationship.
We published our concepts in Nature the previous year. While they weren’t flawless, green-space remote sensing and agricultural footprint assessments were included. Since then, a team at the United Nations Human Development Office has advanced this work, planning to unveil a Nature Relationship Index (NRI) later this year alongside the 2026 Human Development Report. Everybody appreciates a ranked list; we hope nations will strive for a favorable score and compete to achieve the highest rankings.
Pedro Conceição, the lead author of the Human Development Report, informs me that he aims for the new index to transform how countries perceive their environmental initiatives. (He wouldn’t share any spoilers regarding the final metrics, but he did mention that nothing from our Nature paper made it in.) The NRI, Conceição states, will be essential for “challenging the notion that humans are inherently destructive to nature and that nature is unspoiled.” Narratives focused on limitations, restraints, and boundaries are divisive rather than inspiring, he adds. Therefore, the NRI isn’t about highlighting our failures. It addresses aspirations for a lush, bountiful world. As we improve, the number increases—and there is no upper limit.
Emma Marris is the author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.
