Abstract
Across recent decades the disciplines devoted to nature and health have amassed impressive evidence that nature benefits people’s physical, psychological, and social well-being (Frumkin et al., 2017; Wolf, Lam, McKeen, Richardson, van den Bosch & Bardekjian, 2020). Many of the research articles call out two alarming and interacting trends: (1) increased global urbanization that threatens biodiversity and thus reduces opportunity for urban residents to interact with nature; and (2) equally compelling evidence of inequities of nature access to underserved populations, which denies them of extensive health benefits of nature experiences (Rigolon et al., 2024). While increasing both access and awareness of nature’s beneficial effects for all people is essential, it is also imperative to learn to care for our ever-dwindling natural spaces and ecosystems.
Our concern for prevailing nature and health research is the focus on benefits quantification, rarely addressing the relational opportunities of values and behaviors that can arise from deep connection to nature. The limitation of ecosystem services and other nature-based solutions constructs is that they seek to demonstrate nature value as a commodity that is monetized and treated as an economic product. They conceptually optimize nature functionality to serve humanity, only recently recognizing broader cultural ecosystem services (Comberti, Thornton, Wyllie de Echeverria, & Patterson, 2015; Lele, Springate-Baginski, Lakerveld, Deb, & Dash, 2013). As decision-makers and the public translate health benefits research to programs and prescriptions, increased use of local greenspace can lead to overuse and degradation, a version of the tragedy of the commons. Continued focus on human-centric benefits of nature fails to recognize that mutual care or reciprocal relationship with nature is essential for both local natural systems and the health and survival of the planet (Varanasi, 2020).
We urge the nature and health community to take initiative in research design, participant engagement, and policy recommendations—to embrace reciprocity. Multiple sustainability and biodiversity-promoting organizations around the world are calling out the necessity of this in science-policy initiatives (Díaz and Pascual, 2025), including One Health. As the concept of reciprocity gains traction, it takes on different meanings. We promote approaches that demand explicit intentionality in that people and institutions be conscious of consequences of their actions and the direction of causality (Vaccaro, 2025). Nature and health research and programming should expand from positions of human health benefits delivery to collaboration on interdependent knowledge for mutually beneficial nature experience and behavior.
Future research on nature and health needs to be more proactive in investigating reciprocity and developing aligned measures. It is an urgent need, not a set-aside for later research. How do we more effectively intervene to promote reciprocity behaviors and then evaluate actions? Studies using measurement scales of nature connectedness, nature relatedness, environmental identity, and similar constructs seek to measure the extent and degree of psychological affinity that a person holds for ambiguous descriptions of nature. Few approaches include statements about intent or actual action to heal nature or accept responsibility for the natural world as an essential and equal partner. Hence, the challenge remains: How to motivate study participants to take action? How might deep traits and values be shaped and expressed in everyday life? Actual reciprocity with nature is more than agreement with favorable statements; it entails the difficult process and choices of behavior change. Developed societies and nations have established economic systems premised on utilitarian commodification of nature. Prevailing economic and marketing systems challenge any single person’s intent to pursue reciprocity in their lifestyle and community.
What are the potential resources for expanding reciprocity practices? Are there cultural reservoirs of reciprocity behaviors that can be generalized for broader populations? Acts of reciprocity are nurtured by relational values, which reflect the relationship and responsibility that humans, both individually and collectively, have toward nature and the places where they live (Kleespies and Dierkes, 2020). One opportunity is to interrogate the informal and formal values expressed by people who live more simply, by choice or perhaps due to resource constraints. Tradition-based societies are fully contemporary—living, evolving, and participating in today’s economies, cultures, and technologies. Adaptable lessons from here and now, from past generations, and from locales across the Global North and South can give rise to understanding about how to responsibly interact with nature and live a meaningful life (Böhme, Walsh, & Wamsler, 2022). For instance, various spiritual traditions, such as Shinto in Japan and Jainism in India, acknowledge more diverse and animistic expressions of deities and organisms, engendering extended relationships and responsibilities for nature in place. Another example, ancestral agrosystems can provide cues to sustainable behavior and food security (Gallegos-Riofrio et al., 2022b).
Indigenous cultures are oft-mentioned models of reciprocity, being resilient peoples and cultures that integrate the spiritual and essentialness in relationship with land and water. Collaborating with Indigenous and other sourcing communities on mutually beneficial projects and knowledge building requires active listening and learning, with humility and awareness of privilege. Novel research design approaches could incorporate storytelling and interpretation of ceremony (Wilson, 2020). Building trust and taking the long view in community-driven science is essential (Varanasi, Trainer & Schumacker, 2021), and there are good models of Western and Indigenous research partnership (Varanasi, 2021).
A challenge is to not simply appropriate or adopt Indigenous practices, be they traditional or contemporary, but to collaborate to translate them to broader realms of people and places (Wolf, 2021). Recent publications explore both the specifics of ancient traditions and transcendent practices that are relevant to broader integration across all communities (Celidwen and Keltner, 2023; McMillen et al., 2020), including urban settings. Such trans-indigeneity interpretations acknowledge locally relevant cultural land practices but also elaborate on beliefs and actions that can be universal, promoting kinship within and beyond native cultures (Topa and Narvaez, 2022). Becoming kin with the earth involves entering relationships that have responsibility (Krawec, 2022).
How do we proceed with reciprocity research? Table 1 lists researchable traits, gleaned from popular and academic sources. Concepts derived from spiritual and Indigenous learnings can launch theory development and reconceptualization of relationships to nature. Additional bridging dimensions of relationship suggest how people of all communities may express reciprocity. For instance, a recent article compared nature views and “embodied interaction” effects on young people when being present in nature (Gray et al., 2025). Other recent studies have explored adsorption (or deep attention), awe, and the emotions of contemplative forest bathing (Ballew and Omoto, 2018). Deficiencies in representation of socio-culture diversity in current research must be addressed (Gallegos-Riofrío, Arab, Carrasco-Torrontegui, & Gould, 2022a). Mixed methods are essential for such studies. Qualitative assessment, combined with quantitative biomarkers or surveys, is needed to expand understanding and future intervention.
Conceptual Opportunities for Reciprocity Research
Research on reciprocity should also explore the realities of behavior development—that is, how to reveal nature’s needs to study participants and evaluate their consequent behavior change. Interventions will likely involve partnerships with organizations and institutions that engage people in care and relationship with local landscapes or resource systems. Program examples include ecological restoration, community gardens, and citizen-driven land care—such as tree stewards, pollinator pathway groups, or community science programs—and others as highlighted in the Urban Nature Atlas (https://una.city/). Recent research also offers ideas, such as gratitude letters to nature and mindfulness practices. Nature prescription frameworks can expand to planetary health prescriptions (Earth RX) (Victorson, 2024). Decades of research in conservation behavior can be used to assess sustainability behaviors, such as recycling and transportation alternatives choices (McKenzie-Mohr, 2024). Could researchers themselves also be the models of this behavioral change? Longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the duration of effects. Within each of these research contexts, questions must turn beyond expressions of nature appreciation to actions that matter.
There are increasing numbers of publications across journals of many disciplines addressing the topic of socioecology and modes of human relationship with the natural world. They seek to redirect societies from human domination and economic extraction, attempting to move systems towards relatability to reciprocity. It is essential for investigators and communities to come together more often to expand science and practice to pursue better understanding and adoption of how to nurture reciprocal relationships with nature. Our very survival depends on it.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this article.