Skip to main content

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

  • Perspective
  • Published:

An aspirational approach to planetary futures

Nature volume 642, pages 889–899 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Prevailing frameworks to address planetary environmental challenges tend to focus on setting goals, targets, or boundaries to limit human harm to ecosystems or species. Here we propose an aspirational approach aimed at empowering people to shape a better future for all of life on Earth. We do this by building on the human development approach and its supporting metrics, especially the Human Development Index (HDI), a broadly influential framework that has contributed to decades of human progress by measuring and promoting people’s capabilities to lead the lives that they value. Rather than assessing the state or dynamics of the biosphere, we propose the Nature Relationship Index (NRI), which would focus on measuring the progress of nations towards delivering mutually beneficial relationships among people and the rest of the living world in terms that people widely understand and value. Through an open-ended process informed by expert consultation, international concept testing and indicator development, the NRI could help to incentivize progress towards a world in which humanity thrives together with the rest of life on Earth. We explore the challenges and opportunities of developing a robust NRI and invite broader participation to facilitate this development in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Healthy human relationships with nature are diverse, abundant, and continue to evolve.
Fig. 2: Conceptual model for assessing nature relationships across nations using a test NRI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 02 July 2025

    In the version of the article initially published, the affiliation of Emma Marris was incorrect and has now been amended to “Independent researcher, Portland, OR, USA” in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. Conceição, P., Kovacevic, M. & Mukhopadhyay, T. in Measuring Human Capital (ed. Barbara Fraumeni) 83–115 (Academic Press, 2021).

  2. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. et al. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60, 576–589 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marcantonio, R., Javeline, D., Field, S. & Fuentes, A. Global distribution and coincidence of pollution, climate impacts, and health risk in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 16, e0254060 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019). This paper presents a synthesis of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (IPBES 2019) formatted for a scientific audience.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrence, M. et al. Global polycrisis: the causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Glob. Sustain. 7, e6 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellis, E. C. Land use and ecological change: a 12,000-year history. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 1–33 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene (UNDP, 2020). This Human Development Report connects human agency and empowerment to efforts to shape a planet where people and nature thrive together.

  8. Human Development Report 2023–24: Breaking the Gridlock: Reimagining Cooperation in a Polarized World (UNDP, 2024).

  9. Human Development Report 1990: Concept and Measurement of Human Development (UNDP, 1990).

  10. Stewart, F. The human development approach: an overview. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 47, 135–153 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sen, A. A decade of human development. J. Hum. Dev. 1, 17–23 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F. & Choi, H.-J. The HDI 2010: new controversies, old critiques. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 249–288 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Biermann, F. in Trajectories in Environmental Politics (eds Hayes, G. et al.) 58–77 (Routledge, 2022).

  14. Reisinger, A., Cowie, A. L., Geden, O. & Al Khourdajie, A. Science-based targets miss the mark. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 383 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cointe, B. & Guillemot, H. A history of the 1.5 °C target. WIREs Clim. Change 14, e824 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fairhead, J., Leach, M. & Scoones, I. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature. The J. Peasant Stud. 39, 237–261 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Whyte, K. in Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies (eds Hokowhitu, B. et al.) 52–64 (Routledge, 2020). This chapter hioghlights the need to build kin relationships to prevent further injustices against Indigenous peoples in responding to climate change.

  18. Scheidel, A. et al. Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hickman, C. et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e863–e873 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Williamson, K. A. & Thulin, E. Leveraging emotion-behavior pathways to support environmental behavior change. Ecol. Soc. 27, 27 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 3–35 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Biermann, F. & Kim, R. E. The boundaries of the Planetary Boundary Framework: a critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 497–521 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patterson, J. et al. The political effects of emergency frames in sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 841–850 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Whyte, K. Too late for indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e603 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McHugh, L. H., Lemos, M. C. & Morrison, T. H. Risk? Crisis? Emergency? Implications of the new climate emergency framing for governance and policy. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e736 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bennett, E. M. et al. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 441–448 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barrett, S. Climate treaties and approaching catastrophes. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 66, 235–250 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chinn, S., Hart, P. S. & Soroka, S. Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. Sci. Commun. 42, 112–129 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hornung, J. Social identities in climate action. Climate Action 1, 4 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Barfuss, W., Donges, J. F., Vasconcelos, V. V., Kurths, J. & Levin, S. A. Caring for the future can turn tragedy into comedy for long-term collective action under risk of collapse. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 12915–12922 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Heath, S. & Jarillo, S. Climate change affects multiple dimensions of well-being through impacts, information and policy responses. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1465–1473 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bietti, L. M., Tilston, O. & Bangerter, A. Storytelling as adaptive collective sensemaking. Top. Cogn. Sci. 11, 710–732 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Solnit, R. & Young-Lutunatabua, T. Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility (Haymarket Books, 2023).

  35. Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M. & Siegrist, M. Public perception of climate change: the importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Anal. 35, 2183–2201 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pascual, U. et al. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620, 813–823 (2023). This article presents a synthesis on nature values, their plurality and the methods to assess them, based on the IPBES values assessment.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Vlasceanu, M. et al. Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Sci. Adv. 10, eadj5778 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Shrum, T. R. The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing. Clim. Change 165, 18 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lima, P. A. B. et al. More than moral motivations: the moderating role of human capabilities on the relationship between personal norms and pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 425, 139034 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McAfee, D., Doubleday, Z. A., Geiger, N. & Connell, S. D. Everyone loves a success story: optimism inspires conservation engagement. Bioscience 69, 274–281 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Flusberg, S. J., Holmes, K. J., Thibodeau, P. H., Nabi, R. L. & Matlock, T. The psychology of framing: how everyday language shapes the way we think, feel, and act. Psychol. Sci. Publ. Int. 25, 105–161 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bjork-James, C., Checker, M. & Edelman, M. Transnational social movements: environmentalist, Indigenous, and agrarian visions for planetary futures. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 583–608 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jayasuriya, U. & Watene, K. Just transitions as relationship-building. J. Glob. Ethics 20, 171–178 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Grix, M. & Watene, K. Communities and climate change: why practices and practitioners matter. Ethics Int. Aff. 36, 215–230 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morris, J. D. K. & Ruru, J. Giving voice to rivers: legal personality as a vehicle for recognising Indigenous peoples’ relationships to water? Aust. Indig. Law Rev. 14, 49–62 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yap, M. & Yu, E. in Routledge Handbook of Indigenous Wellbeing (eds Fleming, C. & Manning M.) 261–280 (Routledge, 2019).

  47. Watene, K. in Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice Between Generations: Indigenous, African, Asian, and Western Perspectives (eds Abe, H., Fritsch, M. & Wenning, M.) 17–32 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2024).

  48. Fisk, J. J. et al. Cultivating sovereignty in parks and protected areas: Sowing the seeds of restorative and transformative justice through the #LANDBACK movement. Parks Stewardship Forum https://doi.org/10.5070/p537354734 (2021).

  49. Sen, A. Commodities and Capabilities (North-Holland, 1985).

  50. Sen, A. Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

  51. New Threats To Human Security In The Anthropocene: Demanding Greater Solidarity (UNDP, 2022).

  52. Sen, A. The ends and means of sustainability. J. Hum. Dev. Cap. 14, 6–20 (2013). This paper argues for a freedom and capability-based understanding of sustainability, thereby moving beyond mere basic needs.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ellis, E. C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 85, 287–331 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ellis, E. C. The Anthropocene condition: evolving through social-ecological transformations. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379, 20220255 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hill, K., Barton, M. & Hurtado, A. M. The emergence of human uniqueness: characters underlying behavioral modernity. Evol. Anthropol. 18, 187–200 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Moran, E. F. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology (Routledge, 2022).

  57. Henrich, J. & Muthukrishna, M. The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 207–240 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Henrich, J. et al. A cultural species and its cognitive phenotypes: implications for philosophy. Rev. Phil. Psychol. 14, 349–386 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Carballo, D. M. & Feinman, G. M. Cooperation, collective action, and the archeology of large-scale societies. Evol. Anthropol. 25, 288–296 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bliege Bird, R. & Nimmo, D. Restore the lost ecological functions of people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1050–1052 (2018). This piece provides an anthropological perspective on human roles in shaping and sustaining thriving ecosystems.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Brondízio, E. S. et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021). This paper synthesizes Indigenous and local knowledges, values, and practices that sustain nature.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Leach, M., Stirling, A. C. & Scoones, I. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice (Taylor & Francis, 2010).

  63. Leach, M. et al. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: a social–ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob. Sustain. 1, e13 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Arponen, V. P. J., Ohlrau, R. & Kerig, T. The capability approach and archaeological interpretation of transformations: on the role of philosophy for archaeology. Open Archaeol. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2024-0013 (2024).

  65. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B. & Policansky, D. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284, 278–282 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. DeFries, R. et al. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. Bioscience 62, 603–606 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lafond, F. et al. How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 128, 104–117 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Coccia, M. & Wang, L. Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2057–2061 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Ritchie, H. Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet (Little, Brown, 2024). This book reviews recent progress in addressing global challenges towards a future where people and nature thrive together.

  70. Easterly, W. Institutions: top down or bottom up? Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 95–99 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fouquet, R. Historical energy transitions: speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22, 7–12 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Le Fanu, J. The Rise And Fall Of Modern Medicine (Little, Brown, 2011).

  73. Kruk, M. E. et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob. Health 6, e1196–e1252 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Hafner‐Burton, E. M. & Tsutsui, K. Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises. Am. J. Sociol. 110, 1373–1411 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Garcés-Velástegui, P. Varieties of development: on the plurality of political economies and how to harness it. J. Int. Dev. 36, 268–287 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schelling, T. C. Micromotives and Macrobehavior (W. W. Norton, 1978).

  77. Constantino, S. M. et al. Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychol. Sci. Publ. Int. 23, 50–97 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Large-scale cooperation in small-scale foraging societies. Evol. Anthropol. 31, 175–198 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A. & Embry, D. D. Evolving the future: toward a science of intentional change. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 395–416 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Benati, G. & Guerriero, C. Climate change and state evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020893118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Butzer, K. W. Collapse, environment, and society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3632–3639 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Strunz, S., Marselle, M. & Schröter, M. Leaving the “sustainability or collapse” narrative behind. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1717–1728 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Haldon, J., Eisenberg, M., Mordechai, L., Izdebski, A. & White, S. Lessons from the past, policies for the future: resilience and sustainability in past crises. Environ. Syst. Decis. 40, 287–297 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Tainter, J. A. Archaeology of overshoot and collapse. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 59–74 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A. & Anderies, J. M. Going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15176–15178 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Tong, S., Samet, J. M., Steffen, W., Kinney, P. L. & Frumkin, H. Solidarity for the Anthropocene. Environ. Res. 235, 116716 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Sen, A. The Idea of Justice (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).

  88. Territories of Life: 2021 Report (ICCA Consortium, 2021).

  89. Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sust. 1, 369–374 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Fletcher, M.-S., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W. & Palmer, L. Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022218118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Ellis, E. C. et al. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023483118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Gordon, J. D., Fagan, B., Milner, N. & Thomas, C. D. Floristic diversity and its relationships with human land use varied regionally during the Holocene. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1459–1471 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Levis, C. et al. Contributions of human cultures to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 866–879 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Sanderson, E. W., Walston, J. & Robinson, J. G. From bottleneck to breakthrough: urbanization and the future of biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 68, 412–426 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Hickel, J. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustain. Dev. 27, 873–884 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Chen, D. & Pensini, P. The development of the zero-sum beliefs between nature and humanity scale. J. Environ. Psychol. 94, 102247 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Davidai, S. & Tepper, S. J. The psychology of zero-sum beliefs. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 472–482 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Sanyé-Mengual, E., Secchi, M., Corrado, S., Beylot, A. & Sala, S. Assessing the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impacts in the European Union: a consumption-based approach. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117535 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Hussain, A. & Dey, S. Revisiting environmental Kuznets curve with HDI: new evidence from cross-country panel data. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 10, 324–342 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. & Falk, A. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 253–259 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Hausfather, Z. & Moore, F. C. Net-zero commitments could limit warming to below 2 °C. Nature 604, 247–248 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Givens, J. E., Huang, X. & Jorgenson, A. K. Ecologically unequal exchange: a theory of global environmental injustice. Sociol. Compass 13, e12693 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Dorninger, C. et al. Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century. Ecol. Econ. 179, 106824 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Barnes, P. W. et al. Ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation, climate change and prospects for a sustainable future. Nat. Sustain. 2, 569–579 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Grace, M. K. et al. Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1833–1849 (2021).

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Langhammer, P. F. et al. The positive impact of conservation action. Science 384, 453–458 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Schwarzenbach, R. P., Egli, T., Hofstetter, T. B., von Gunten, U. & Wehrli, B. Global water pollution and human health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 109–136 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Fowler, D. et al. A chronology of global air quality. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190314 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (IPCC, 2022).

  110. IPBES. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES secretariat, 2019).

  111. Way, R., Ives, M. C., Mealy, P. & Farmer, J. D. Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition. Joule 6, 2057–2082 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Stoddard, I. et al. Three decades of climate mitigation: Why haven’t we bent the global emissions curve? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 653–689 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M. E. Oceanography: anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 365–365 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. MacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B. & Jahnke, A. The global threat from plastic pollution. Science 373, 61–65 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Wang, F. et al. Emerging contaminants: a one health perspective. Innovation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100612 (2024).

  116. Salomon, A. K. et al. Disrupting and diversifying the values, voices and governance principles that shape biodiversity science and management. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 378, 20220196 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Kimmerer, R. W. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants (Milkweed Editions, 2013).

  118. Watene, K. & Yap, M. Culture and sustainable development: indigenous contributions. J. Glob. Ethics 11, 51–55 (2015). This paper demonstrates how the contributions of Indigenous philosophies and practices shape how the Sustainable Development Goals are grounded, designed and implemented.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Gainsburg, I., Roy, S. & Cunningham, J. L. An examination of how six reasons for valuing nature are endorsed and associated with pro-environmental behavior across 12 countries. Sci. Rep. 13, 8484 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Clayton, S. in The Virtues of Sustainability (ed. Kawall, J.) 3–26 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

  121. Nowak-Olejnik, A., Schirpke, U. & Tappeiner, U. A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 57, 101467 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Himes, A. et al. Why nature matters: a systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. Bioscience 74, 25–43 (2023). This is a comprehensive review of intrinsic, instrumental and relational values of nature expressed in the sustainability literature.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Mayer, F. S. & Frantz, C. M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 503–515 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Woroniecki, S. et al. Nature unsettled: how knowledge and power shape ‘nature-based’ approaches to societal challenges. Global Environ. Change 65, 102132 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Richardson, M., Hamlin, I., Elliott, L. R. & White, M. P. Country-level factors in a failing relationship with nature: nature connectedness as a key metric for a sustainable future. Ambio 51, 2201–2213 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Clayton, S. D. in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (ed. Clayton, S. D.) 164–180 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  127. Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D. & McEwan, K. The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: a meta-analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 21, 1145–1167 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Mackay, C. M. L. & Schmitt, M. T. Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 65, 101323 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Ives, C. D. et al. Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 106–113 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L. & Zelenski, J. M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976 (2014).

  131. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S. & Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Soto-Navarro, C. A. et al. Towards a multidimensional biodiversity index for national application. Nat. Sustain. 4, 933–942 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Jax, K. et al. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 22–29 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Jimenez, M. P. et al. Associations between nature exposure and health: a review of the evidence. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 18, 4790 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018). This paper introduces the concept of nature’s contributions to people.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Pedersen, S., Stevis, D. & Kalfagianni, A. What is planetary justice. Environ. Polit. 33, 1137–1145 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Betley, E. C. et al. Assessing human well-being constructs with environmental and equity aspects: a review of the landscape. People Nat. 5, 1756–1773 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Leach, M. & Fairhead, J. Naturekind: Language, Culture and Power Beyond the Human (Princeton Univ. Press, 2025).

  139. Pustorino, P. in Introduction to International Human Rights Law 223–233 (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2023).

  140. Boyd, D. R. The Right to Healthy Environment: User Guide (United Nations Human Rights, 2024).

  141. Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nat. 2, 1172–1195 (2020). This article presents the Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Marris, E. Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World (Bloomsbury, 2021).

  143. Haraway, D. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: making kin. Env. Hum. 6, 159–165 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  144. Van Lange, P. A. M. A broader mind: concern with other humans, equality, and animals. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 109–113 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Nussbaum, M. C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach (Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).

  146. Balogun, K., Weru, K. & Shen, X. “Freedom from want”: a critical reflection in the face of the Anthropocene. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 24, 274–283 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Measuring What Matters: Australia’s First Wellbeing Framework (Australian Government, 2023).

  148. The Living Standards Framework 2021 (New Zealand Treasury, 2021).

  149. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Global synthesis reveals heterogeneous changes in connection of humans to nature. One Earth 6, 131–138 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Truong, M.-X. A. & Clayton, S. Technologically transformed experiences of nature: a challenge for environmental conservation. Biol. Conserv. 244, 108532 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Reed, G. et al. There is no word for ‘nature’ in our language: rethinking nature-based solutions from the perspective of Indigenous peoples located in Canada. Clim. Change 177, 32 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Do people who experience more nature act more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 289, 110417 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Beery, T. et al. Disconnection from nature: expanding our understanding of human–nature relations. People Nat. 5, 470–488 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).

  155. Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014). This article recounts a recent history of nature perceptions and derived goals of nature conservation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Zhang, J. & Fu, B. Eco-civilization: a complementary pathway rooted in theory and practice for global sustainable development. Ambio 52, 1882–1894 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411–413 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Milner-Gulland, E. J. Don’t dilute the term nature positive. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1243–1244 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Obura, D. O. et al. Achieving a nature- and people-positive future. One Earth 6, 105–117 (2023). This perspective argues for bending the curve of biodiversity decline by integrating actions on nature with the economic and societal determinants of biodiversity trends.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Fox, M.-J. V. & Erickson, J. D. Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106441 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Obura, D. O. et al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science 373, 746–748 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Stirling, A. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Human Values 33, 262–294 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Chilvers, J. & Kearnes, M. (eds) Remaking Participation 314 (Routledge, 2016). This book assesses recent efforts to facilitate public engagement in science, innovation and environmental issues, drawing lessons for the future.

  164. Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J. & Frederiksen, P. Sustainability indicator development—science or political negotiation. Ecol. Indic. 11, 61–70 (2011). This piece evaluates sustainability indicators and contends that their development is both a process of scientific knowledge and political norm creation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M. & Eijsackers, H. Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol. Indic. 7, 215–228 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. B. & Gibbons, M. T. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Wiley, 2001). This book examines the social contract between science and society and proposes that socially robust knowledge is a pre-condition for scientific progress.

  167. Waldmüller, J. M., Yap, M. & Watene, K. Remaking the Sustainable Development Goals: relational Indigenous epistemologies. Policy Soc. 41, 471–485 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Hogan, M. J. et al. Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: lessons from a systems science application. Soc. Indic. Res. 123, 857–877 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Block, S. et al. 2024 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, 2024).

  170. Bertram, C. et al. Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 954–960 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. UNEP-WCMC. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Protected Planet www.protectedplanet.net (2025).

  172. Palomo, I. et al. Incorporating the social–ecological approach in Protected Areas in the Anthropocene. Bioscience 64, 181–191 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Percent of Country Held by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (LandMark, 2024); https://landmarkmap.org/data-methods/national-level-data-sources.

  174. Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12773 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Mohamed, A. et al. Securing nature’s contributions to people requires at least 20%–25% (semi-)natural habitat in human-modified landscapes. One Earth 7, 59–71 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Freire-González, J., Padilla Rosa, E. & Raymond, J. L. World economies’ progress in decoupling from CO2 emissions. Sci. Rep. 14, 20480 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  177. Erb, K.-H., Matej, S., Haberl, H. & Gingrich, S. Sustainable land systems in the Anthropocene: navigating the global land squeeze. One Earth 7, 1170–1186 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Environmental Rule of Law: Tracking Progress and Charting Future Directions (United Nations Environment Programme, 2023).

  180. Meyfroidt, P. et al. Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2109217118 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Cross-country variation in people’s connection to nature. One Earth 8, 101194 (2025). This article presents a recent international assessment of individual relationships with nature.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 12, 303–322 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Ma, D. et al. Global expansion of human–wildlife overlap in the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 10, eadp7706 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Li, B. V., Wu, S., Pimm, S. L. & Cui, J. The synergy between protected area effectiveness and economic growth. Curr. Biol. 34, 2907–2920.e5 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Smith, C. S. et al. Beyond despair: leveraging ecosystem restoration for psychosocial resilience. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2307082121 (2025). This perspective argues for ecosystem restoration as a contributor to community and psychosocial well-being based on transforming human–nature relationships.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Anderson, E. P. et al. Understanding rivers and their social relations: a critical step to advance environmental water management. WIREs Water 6, e1381 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Best, J. Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nat. Geosci. 12, 7–21 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  189. Oviedo-Vargas, D. et al. Advancing freshwater science with sensor data collected by community scientists. Front. Ecol. Environ. 22, e2748 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science 380, eabl4881 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The UNDP HDRO, The Biodiversity and Society Programme of the Oxford Martin School, and The Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery supported the work presented here. E.C.E. and S.D. received funding from an Oxford Martin School Fellowship. S.D. acknowledges funding from Red Federal de Alto Impacto CONATURAR, Argentina. J.M. was funded by the ANU Futures Scheme, M.M. received funding from John Templeton Foundation (JTF62280) and Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF0620). B.F. acknowledges funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (W2412141). An anonymous donor funded part of the concept testing work but was not otherwise involved. The authors also thank others who contributed their expertise to this work, including A. Agarwal, M. Soga, S. Lele, P. Verburg, N. Burgess, J. Gosling, J. Upton, the Framework Institute and the anonymous contributors to the international concept testing, including those interviewed and the interviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Erle C. Ellis

  2. Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Erle C. Ellis, Yadvinder Malhi & Sandra Díaz

  3. Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Erle C. Ellis, Yadvinder Malhi, Jasper Montana, Sandra Díaz & Samira Barzin

  4. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Hannah Ritchie

  5. Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Jasper Montana

  6. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), CONICET, Córdoba, Argentina

    Sandra Díaz

  7. FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina

    Sandra Díaz

  8. CORDIO East Africa, Mombasa, Kenya

    David Obura

  9. Department of Psychology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH, USA

    Susan Clayton

  10. Social Anthropology and Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Melissa Leach

  11. Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Laura Pereira

  12. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Laura Pereira

  13. Independent researcher, Portland, OR, USA

    Emma Marris

  14. Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Michael Muthukrishna

  15. STICERD, Developmental Economics Group, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Michael Muthukrishna

  16. State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Bojie Fu

  17. Faculty of History, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Peter Frankopan

  18. Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Molly K. Grace

  19. University of Auckland, Auckland Central, Auckland, New Zealand

    Krushil Watene

  20. Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA

    Nicholas Depsky, Josefin Pasanen & Pedro Conceição

Authors
  1. Erle C. Ellis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yadvinder Malhi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hannah Ritchie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jasper Montana
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandra Díaz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Obura
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susan Clayton
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Melissa Leach
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Laura Pereira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Emma Marris
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Michael Muthukrishna
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bojie Fu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Peter Frankopan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Molly K. Grace
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Samira Barzin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Krushil Watene
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Nicholas Depsky
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Josefin Pasanen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Pedro Conceição
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed substantially to the work presented in this paper. E.C.E., P.C., J.P. and Y.M. initiated and led the core collaborative work, H.R. led the indicators work with N.D. and S.B. J.M. led the concept testing work with S.C., M.M., K.W., M.L. and B.F. E.C.E., M.L., D.O., S.D., E.M. and Y.M. led the writing, with further contributions from all of the authors. All authors approved submission of the article for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erle C. Ellis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Agni Kalfagianni, Christopher Raymond and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ellis, E.C., Malhi, Y., Ritchie, H. et al. An aspirational approach to planetary futures. Nature 642, 889–899 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09080-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09080-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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