For decades, the environmental movement has grappled with a perception of misanthropy, a natural consequence, perhaps, of humanity’s undeniable impact on the planet’s delicate ecosystems. Yet, as the 21st century unfolds, a significant shift is occurring within mainstream conservation: the recognition that humans can, and indeed are, a powerful force for good. This evolving understanding is evident in a growing number of innovative practices. Foresters, for instance, are revisiting and re-embracing Indigenous burning techniques, not as a relic of the past, but as a vital tool for wildfire prevention and ecosystem management. Biologists are uncovering the ancient wisdom embedded in seemingly wild, flower-dotted meadows, revealing them as carefully cultivated food-production landscapes that require active stewardship – harvesting, in this context – to thrive and persist. Even the once critically endangered peregrine falcon has found an unlikely sanctuary in the urban sprawl, its resurgence partly attributed to nesting sites on towering skyscrapers and a readily available urban prey base, namely, the ubiquitous rat.

This paradigm shift is deeply personal for me. For the past two decades, my writing has centered on a core idea: that humans are not metaphysically distinct from any other species on Earth. Consequently, effective conservation cannot solely rely on the exclusionary tactic of fencing people out of protected areas. Instead, the true challenge often lies not in withdrawing from "nature," but in learning to become more adept at participating in it, fostering a symbiotic relationship rather than an adversarial one.

However, I acknowledge that the notion of "living in harmony with nature" can sometimes sound rather nebulous and idealistic. It was this very sentiment that fueled my excitement to participate in a groundbreaking meeting in Oxford, UK. The objective of this gathering was ambitious: to develop more precise and quantifiable tools for assessing the intricate relationships between humans and the non-human world. For years, scientists have diligently invented and refined numerous metrics to gauge environmental destruction. These include measures like parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, species extinction rates, and the concept of "planetary boundaries." While these metrics are undeniably useful in highlighting the severity of environmental degradation, they tend to engage the public primarily through a sense of dread and urgency. Our group pondered a crucial question: why not also invent metrics that could inspire hope and aspirations, engaging people’s dreams for a flourishing planet?

The endeavor proved more challenging than initially anticipated. The fundamental question of how to quantify a nation’s aptitude for coexisting with other Earthlings is complex. Some of the metrics proposed by the group, in my view, veered too close to the older, more adversarial approach to environmentalism. For example, simply tallying agricultural land use per person, while seemingly objective, overlooked the nuanced reality. While environmentalists have historically viewed farms as antithetical to "nature," they are also potent arenas for both edible and inedible biodiversity, and can be managed in ways that support ecological health. Similarly, while some of us were enthusiastic about utilizing satellite imagery to calculate proximity to green spaces, we recognized a critical limitation: without granular local information, it’s impossible to ascertain whether people can actually access and meaningfully engage with these spaces.

After extensive deliberation, the group of approximately 20 scientists, authors, and philosophers converged on three fundamental questions that would form the bedrock of our proposed assessment framework. The first question probes: "Is nature thriving and accessible to people?" This aims to gauge the extent to which humans can actively and positively engage with the natural world around them. The second question delves into: "Is nature being used with care?" This is, admittedly, a concept with multiple interpretations. Does "care" simply mean maintaining harvests at or below maximum sustainable yield? Or does it necessitate a complete reimagining of our economic systems towards a truly circular model, where resources are continuously reused and regenerated? The third crucial question is: "Is nature safeguarded?" Again, this is not a straightforward metric to assess. However, the aspiration was that by roughly quantifying these three core dimensions, their individual scores could be aggregated to produce an overall score representing the quality of the human-nature relationship within a given context.

Our collective ideas were subsequently published in the prestigious journal Nature last year. While we acknowledged that our framework was not without its imperfections, certain elements, such as green-space remote sensing and agricultural footprint calculations, were deemed robust enough to be included. Since that publication, a dedicated team within the United Nations Human Development Office has taken up the mantle and continued this vital work. They are currently planning to unveil a Nature Relationship Index (NRI) later this year, which will be presented alongside the 2026 Human Development Report. The power of a ranked list is undeniable, and the hope is that countries will be motivated to achieve high scores and actively compete to ascend the rankings, fostering a global race towards a healthier human-nature dynamic.

Pedro Conceição, the lead author of the Human Development Report, shared his vision for the new index, emphasizing its potential to fundamentally alter how countries perceive and approach their environmental programs. While he was understandably discreet about the precise metrics that will ultimately be included in the NRI, he did reveal that none of the specific metrics proposed in our Nature paper made it into the final iteration. Nevertheless, Conceição articulated a powerful sentiment: the NRI is designed to be a critical tool for "challenging this idea that humans are inherent destroyers of nature and that nature is pristine." He explained that narratives focused on constraints, limits, and boundaries, while important, can often be polarizing and fail to energize proactive change. In contrast, the NRI aims to embody a more aspirational outlook. It is not about quantifying our failures, but rather about reflecting our progress towards a green and abundant world. As we collectively improve our relationship with nature, the NRI score will ascend, signifying a positive trajectory with no inherent upper limit.

Emma Marris, the author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World, offers this insightful perspective on the evolving landscape of environmental thought and the critical need for new ways to measure our connection to the natural world. The development of the Nature Relationship Index represents a significant step forward, moving beyond the often-dread-inducing metrics of environmental damage to embrace a more hopeful and actionable approach to understanding and fostering a healthier coexistence between humanity and the planet.