Rethinking individual relationships with entities of nature

Abstract

Recognizing variation in human–nature relationships across different contexts, entities of nature and individual people is central to an equitable management of nature and its contributions to people, and to design effective strategies for encouraging and guiding more sustainable human behaviour. We complement the broader Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework by zooming in from relationships between people and nature to individual relationships with entities of nature (IREN), and introduce a new typology that categorizes those relationships based on individual attitude, behavioural preference and behaviour towards an entity. These three dimensions illustrate if an individual perceives the entity to provide mainly positive, negative or no contributions; prefers to have a mainly positive, negative or no impact on the entity; and performs mainly actions with positive, negative or no impacts on the entity. The IREN typology defines 17 overarching relationship types, including not only types where attitude, behavioural preference and behaviour are all negative (intolerance), all neutral (indifference) or all positive (stewardship), but also types where the valence of some dimensions diverges. Among those, we integrate and redefine established types like tolerance, and introduce new ones like ambivalent opposition, which is highly relevant for the management of overabundant or invasive species. Combining attitude, behavioural preference and behaviour to categorize different IREN types can help detect inequalities in the benefits and detriments individual people receive from different entities, and signal societal conflict potential or misalignment of behaviour with conservation goals. Combining those three dimensions also indicates the relative importance of goal‐oriented motives like the desire to optimize an entity's perceived contributions, moral motives like the desire to act righteously and implementation barriers preventing individuals from acting according to their preference. By adding an individual‐ and entity‐specific perspective, the IREN framework and typology can encourage more equitable approaches to managing the benefits and detriments people derive from nature, and assist the development of more effective strategies for aligning human behaviour with conservation and sustainability goals.

Human dimensions of grizzly bear conservation: The social factors underlying satisfaction and coexistence beliefs in Montana, USA

“…Practitioners trying to understand the current pulse of human dimensions of wildlife may find these distinctions useful because it suggests two mechanisms for reducing intolerance: positively influencing attitudes or positively influencing acceptance. Mapping satisfaction onto these two different dimensions of coexistence, perhaps alongside human behavior (Lehnen et al, 2022), allows practitioners to see a more complete picture of the public's views on wildlife and wildlife management.…”

Interests, beliefs, experience and perceptions shape tolerance towards impacts of recovering predators

“…The boundaries between typologies are arbitrary and depend on the response scale and the questions used to define attitude and acceptability and should be interpreted with caution. The recent development of a framework that focuses on ‘individual relationships with entities of nature’ (IREN) (Lehnen et al., 2022) is a promising avenue to overcome the challenge of these arbitrary boundaries when applying Brenner and Metcalf's (2020) tolerance framework. The IREN framework incorporates attitude, behavioural preference and behaviour to identify a rich set of 17 typologies (Lehnen et al., 2022), yet this complexity may present challenges to its application and interpretation.…”

“…However, a deeper understanding of these concepts and their relationships is needed as definitions, conceptual framing and measurement, in particular, of tolerance are still a work in progress (Brenner & Metcalf, 2020; Bruskotter et al., 2015; Carlson et al., 2023; Glikman et al., 2021; Hjerm et al., 2020). Many studies address the concept of tolerance towards a single species (Carter et al., 2012; Kansky et al., 2016; Lehnen et al., 2022; Struebig et al., 2018). Fewer strive for generality by focussing on and sharing information across multiple predator species (although see Kansky et al., 2021; Romañach et al., 2007), particularly those recently recovered or undergoing recovery.…”

“…To progress our conceptualisation and understanding of tolerance, further application of measures such as Brenner and Metcalf's (2020) tolerance framework are required (Glikman et al., 2021). Furthermore, investigating the tolerance of individual stakeholders to the impacts of different predator species would allow for the identification of drivers of inter‐individual variation (Lehnen et al., 2022).…”

Measuring perceived fitness interdependence between humans and non-humans

“…There is fundamental uncertainty as to why people care about wild species at all and why they feel strong moral obligations towards some species but not others (Chan et al, 2016 ; Hare et al, 2018 ; Lehnen et al, 2022 ; Soulé, 2013 ). Nevertheless, concerns about effects of human exploitation of other species are reflected in value systems (de Groot et al, 2011 ; Gamborg & Jensen, 2016 ; Teel & Manfredo, 2010 ; Teel et al, 2010 ) and cultural norms worldwide (Artelle et al, 2018 ; Berkes, 2017 ; Turner et al, 2000 , 2009 ).…”