Finding Nature

A collaboration between Ochre Dawn, Ben Bowen (Indigenous Literacy Foundation), Araceli Camargo (Centric Lab), Professor Miles Richardson (University of Derby) and Dr Jake M. Robinson (Flinders University).

Languages can be a powerful tool to relate to and interconnect with the natural world¹. Indigenous languages––those developed by First Nations Peoples––embody a deep ecological knowledge that is critical to protecting nature². Biodiversity and Indigenous languages are undeniably intertwined³.

“Indigenous languages are the heart of the Earth… they embody the processes and teachings of the planet”¹.

However, half of the world’s population speaks just 24 of the 7,000 or so languages, such that Indigenous Peoples, making up around 6% of the global population, speak more than 4,000 of the world’s languages¹. The importance is such that the period between 2022 and 2032 has been proclaimed as the International Decade of Indigenous Languages by the United Nations General Assembly.

Languages developed over many millennia embody the values, symbols, meanings, and norms of the diverse cultures on Earth. Yet we’ve lost over 700 languages since 1700 largely due to colonialism and political repression, and the current rate of language extinction is 9 per year⁴. This is a shocking and under-reported phenomenon. But as startling as it is, by 2080, the loss of languages is expected to rise to 16 per year, further rising to 26 per year by 2150, at which point 50-90% of the 7,000 global languages will be extinct⁴–gone, and many with no means of recovery. Countless diverse cultural experiences poured into the development of human communication and knowledge over thousands of years, lost to history. To highlight this, we’ve created the Language Stripes.

The Language Stripes

“Language is the expression of our culture and our land. We cannot have one without the others. We cannot describe our culture and our land if we do not have language” – The Queensland Indigenous Languages Advisory Committee.

Cultural diversity is decreasing alongside biodiversity loss, and Indigenous languages are deeply tied to biodiversity, so this dual loss is often interrelated. Indigenous Peoples protect most of the global biodiversity, their ways of living are often in harmony with nature (even when they “manage” the land), and losing languages threatens cultures, which threatens biodiversity, which threatens languages. It’s a vicious cycle.

Therefore, protecting nature is vital to curb the loss of Indigenous languages and to protect Indigenous cultural identity and knowledge. Moreover, protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights and sovereignty has the fundamental benefit of protecting nature’s voice.

“When Indigenous Communities lose their languages, kinship with nature is interrupted.”

Wiradjuri man and CEO of Indigenous Literacy Foundation Ben Bowen says,

“First Nations languages indeed operate at a deeper level of knowledge compared to Western languages in certain aspects. These languages often carry millennia of cultural, ecological, and spiritual wisdom embedded in their vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. They are intimately connected to the land, environment, and traditions of Indigenous Peoples, reflecting profound insights about relationships with nature, social structures, and spirituality.

 Unlike many Western languages, First Nations languages often prioritise relationships when used. There are numerous words for kangaroo which gives an understanding of how one would interact with the animal due to the season, the land, behaviour and gender of the animal, to name a few. This has been shared and learned for millennia through scientific observation, learning of cultural practice and environmental stewardship.

 In essence, First Nations languages are repositories of Indigenous knowledge, offering unique perspectives that challenge Western worldviews and provide valuable insights into sustainable living, ecological stewardship, and cultural continuity. Efforts to preserve and revitalise these languages play a crucial role in safeguarding this deeper level of knowledge for future generations. These languages are truly irreplaceable treasures of human heritage.”

A coding tool.

Language is a coding tool that allows humans to absorb information about environmental phenomena for future use (memory)⁵. In time, we use these memories to create more advanced cognitive outputs such as stories, culture, and knowledge^6,7,8. In this way, we can understand that language is embodied and rooted in the environments we inhabit⁹. Indigenous Peoples developed languages that are intrinsically entwined with the Land¹⁰. This allows them to be in deep and constant dialogue with all beings around them, which in turn provides them with knowledges that guide their ecological practices. However, it goes beyond developing a lexicon or vocabulary; the culture developed through Indigenous languages influences ecological relationships. For example, in the Raramuri language, Iwigara “expresses the belief that all life shares the same breath. We are all related to, and play a role in, the complexity of life¹¹.” This type of thinking influences how some Indigenous Peoples relate to other-than-human beings, seeing them as Kin. It is this kinship that births a curiosity and responsibility to care for and contribute to the abundance of biodiversity.

The data and stripes

Here, we present the Language Stripes. We developed the stripes to bring awareness to the phenomenon of language extinction. You’ve probably heard of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, where animals and plants are given a category based on how ‘at risk’ they are of becoming extinct. Some species thrive and are considered ‘Least Concern’, others are ‘Endangered’, and others still are on the verge of becoming ‘Extinct’. You can think of languages in a similar way. Some languages, like English and Spanish, are ubiquitous, whereas others are doomed to extinction. Indeed, 46 languages have just one native speaker, while 357 languages have fewer than 50 speakers.

The Language Stripes follow the same logic as the Biodiversity and Climate Stripes. The data were acquired from a peer-reviewed study, showing historical average language loss from 1700 to the current day and future projections to 2080 and 2150⁴. The tool developed by Simons (2019) was based on the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS)¹².

To create the 46 vertical stripes, conditional formatting of the language data allowed a data point each decade from 1700 to be assigned a colour. The highest number in 1700 was represented by blue, the lowest was represented by cream. A mid-point value in the data was represented by light blue. The declining trend in languages was therefore captured by a transition from blue to light blue and then from light blue to cream.

However, given the fact that the data is smooth, the colour changes would be too subtle for clear stripes to emerge. To capture the trend and produce stripes, each data point varies randomly between +/-3%. The creation of artificial variability is openly acknowledged as the stripes are intended to be a communication and public engagement tool on an underreported issue. The stripes engage people with the overall declining trend in languages over time.

We worked closely with the Australian Indigenous creative organisation Ochre Dawn to create the stripes (below). You’ll notice the stripes have a faint ‘yarning circle’ layer, designed by Indigenous artist Jordan Lovegrove. Yarning circles are prevalent in First Nations art. They represent a tradition of storytelling, knowledge sharing, and community bonding that is deeply rooted in Indigenous cultures––hence being highly relevant to this topic.

What the stripes represent

The impact of globalisation is a world dominated by a more Western mindset¹³. This impact on Indigenous Communities is one driver of language loss and represents human populations becoming less diverse as nature becomes less diverse. This matters intrinsically to Indigenous Peoples, but also to nature, as languages are critical in the protection of biodiversity and key to a deep relationship with nature. Indigenous Peoples also tend to have a different relationship with the natural world founded on a relational worldview––something we can all benefit from embracing.

Indigenous languages reflect this relational worldview, describing, for example, animals of the forest as co-dwellers, sentient beings able to feel and think, and perceiving nature to be integrated within their own self.¹¹ Indigenous languages express concepts related to nature differently than, for instance, the English language does, with languages regulating the human-nature relationship¹⁴. Our language is limited and constrains solutions; for example, unlike some languages, we, who speak English as our primary language, don’t have a word for ‘living in harmony with the natural world’.¹⁵

Even within our English language, Indigenous Communities talk about nature differently. For example, when speaking of outdoor practices, Western families talk of sports, cycling and canoeing – activities that move through nature as a background. Whereas indigenous Communities talk of reciprocity, foraging, forest walks and medicinal plants.

Our preoccupations and tastes are reflected by our language. Even when we have words for nature, they are being used less and less. Our disconnection with nature is so profound that its separation seeps into our everyday language. Importantly, language not only reflects culture, but it also shapes it. The language of separation starts to frame our thinking, forming concepts of truth and reality. It has a profound influence on how we think and act, creating real boundaries to a close relationship with nature. Our perceived separation from nature is now so deep within our conceptual system, it is difficult to overcome.

The dualistic language of Western thinking promotes abstract reasoning about the natural world. For example, when people’s concepts of nature are studied, they can be placed into three themes: descriptive, normative and experiential.¹⁶ Descriptive language, such as describing plants and wildlife, dominates with 73% of responses. Normative language, often used by those with nature expertise, and Experiential language, which includes positive emotions, feelings and activities in nature, accounted for less than 6% of responses. People who describe nature in simple descriptive terms tend to have lower nature connectedness. Whereas more experiential terms are used by people with higher nature connectedness scores.

So, language drives the human-nature relationship. In the Anishinaabe culture of Central/Southern Canada, a strong positive relationship with nature grew from songs and stories.¹⁷ These oral traditions put nature in the foreground and together with close observations of nature, school children notice interrelationships. When oral traditions and languages are lost, the natural landscape falls mute.¹⁷ Essential knowledge, once passed from elders to children in the landscape through spoken language, is replaced by facts and figures delivered in the classroom. Further, when a language is lost, another must be adopted, and the conventions of that other language may separate the speaker from the rest of the natural world.

When Indigenous Communities lose their language, nature loses a voice, and when we lose nature, Indigenous peoples lose their cultural identity, rights and sovereignty. Therefore, we must prioritise language revitalisation efforts as a fundamental step towards preserving both the rich tapestry of Indigenous cultures and the ecological harmony they have maintained with the land for countless generations. These efforts require support and collaboration from broader society, including educational institutions, governments, and individuals. By actively working together to protect and revitalise languages, we can ensure that the voices of these Communities are heard, that their cultural identities are celebrated and respected and that the delicate balance between humanity and the natural world is maintained for the benefit of all.

Please support organisations such as the Indigenous Literacy Foundation, Language Conservancy, Living Tongues, and the Endangered Languages Project, which work tirelessly to protect Indigenous languages.

References

1. Redvers, N., Menzel, K., Ricker, A., & Lopez-Carmen, V. A. (2023). Expanding the scope of planetary health education: the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. The Lancet Planetary health, 7(1), e4-e5.
2. UNESCO, C. (2017). Biodiversity and linguistic diversity. UNESCO.
3. Gorenflo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R. A., & Walker-Painemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8032-8037.
4. G. (2019). Two centuries of spreading language loss. Proc. Ling Soc Amer. 4. 27:1-12.
5. Gabrieli, J.D. (1998). Cognitive neuroscience of human memory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), pp.87-115.
6. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual review of sociology, 23(1), pp.263-287.
7. Lupyan, G., Rahman, R.A., Boroditsky, L. and Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24(11), pp.930-944.
8. Gabrieli, J.D. (1998). Cognitive neuroscience of human memory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), pp.87-115.
9. Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and cognition. Neural Networks, 22(3), pp.247-257.
10. Martinez, D. (1994). Traditional environmental knowledge connects land and culture: American Indians serve as the link. Winds of Change 9:(4)89–94.
11. Salmón, E. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human–nature relationship. Ecological applications, 10(5), pp.1327-1332.
12. Fishman, J.A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
13. Sabloff, A., & Lemon, J. (2001). Reordering the natural world: humans & animals in the city. Urban History Review, 30(1), 71.
14. Angle, S. C. (2009). Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Bang, M., Marin, A., Medin, D., & Washinawatok, K. (2015). Learning by observing, pitching in, and being in relations in the natural world. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 49, 303–13.
16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Hatty, M. A., Goodwin, D., Smith, L. D. G., & Mavondo, F. (2022). Speaking of nature: relationships between how people think about, connect with, and act to protect nature. Ecology and Society.

Last week the Government pledged to ‘boost Britain’s access to nature’ and ‘connect the public with the natural world’. This commitment includes funding to encourage more children to spend time outdoors and the establishment of a new National Park. The ability of the area to connect people with nature is a key criterion for this park.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must do all it takes to protect these much-loved spaces and ensure that love for the natural world continues into the next generations.” While the use of the word “love” suggests a deep emotional connection, the press release uses the word “access” 22 times, giving the announcement a functional tone. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the UK is not a nation of nature lovers. In fact, it ranks at the bottom among European countries, reflecting a strained relationship with nature. The UK is one of the most depleted nations in terms of nature.

A nation of nature lovers?

Too often and for too long, nature has been viewed as a resource to exploit, sometimes a threat and at best a source of recreational challenges. That is not a loving relationship. Nor is love built on access alone. We have previously explored the parallels between interpersonal and human-nature relationships. While access is undoubtedly an important first step, it is akin to opening the door to a party. However, walking into a room full of strangers can be challenging, especially if you don’t know how to engage.

Institutions worldwide are starting to recognize the need for a new approach towards nature, and the language used is significant. For instance, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework  refers to ‘Mother Earth‘ and the text recognises our place in nature, the fundamental need for nature and a harmonious relationship with it. Target 12 includes access to nature, but goes beyond that to ‘mainstreaming’ urban biodiversity and improving human connection to nature and wellbeing. However, the indicator to measure progress is solely accessed based, ‘Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/blue space for public use for all’.

The problem lies in the fact that actions tend to follow the metrics, and the amount of accessible green space is not the sole issue nor should it be the sole indicator. Research indicates that the connection or orientation to nature is the most significant factor in the use of green spaces, surpassing perceived accessibility. Further, amount of green space for public use doesn’t capture or motivate ‘mainstreaming’ urban biodiversity.

Simply increasing the opportunity to access nature does not necessarily foster a genuine orientation to engage with nature. When both opportunity and orientation are considered together, orientation has been found to be a stronger determining factor, even when green spaces are as close as 250 meters. Therefore, the Government’s plan for everyone to be within 15 minutes of a green space will do little to ‘ensure that love for the natural world continues into the next generations’. To return to the previous analogy, access may be an open door to the party, but its relevance diminishes if there is no orientation to walk through that door.

Measuring green space, access, and visits may seem like objective and straightforward metrics, but ‘describing things by certain characteristics rather than others merely because those characteristics are countable is a profoundly subjective decision’. While measures of access and visits may capture elements of opportunity, orientation, and connection, recommendations often prioritise visits and access due to the metrics used.

Nevertheless, there is hope. The press release includes building on the success of the Generation Green project. Rather than a simple access project, Generation Green used our pathways to nature connectedness to connect young people with nature. Returning once more to the previous analogy, an approach that opens the door to the party, provides the orientation to enter and tools to engage once inside. Projects like these embrace the language, practice, and science behind fostering a genuine connection with nature. This approach must become mainstream in press releases, policy-making, and practice if we aim to achieve a transformation that creates a biodiverse nation truly in love with the natural world.

Forests are currently in the spotlight, as they play a crucial role in addressing some of society’s most pressing challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss. While forests are key to addressing these global issues, they, and the sector responsible for their management, are facing a complex set of intertwined threats and opportunities. Many of these challenges are well-documented, but solutions often remain elusive. Additionally, there are emerging trends that have yet to receive widespread attention.

Earlier this year I was involved in a horizon scan, aimed at identifying these upcoming issues that are likely to impact the field of forest management in the UK over the next half-century. These are challenges that, while currently under-recognized, have the potential to significantly influence the entire sector and extend their reach beyond it.

Considering that forest management operates on extended time scales, the importance of having a keen foresight is self-evident. So, the research, now available in the journal Forests, helps ensure the resilience and sustainability of our forests for the years to come.

The research employed a well-established horizon scanning methodology, engaging a diverse expert panel, to compile and prioritise a list of 180 proposed issues. After a rigorous process, we selected the top 15 most critical concerns for further examination.

The top-ranked issue, ‘Catastrophic forest ecosystem collapse,’ highlights the consensus on the potential for such a collapse and its far-reaching implications across the sector and society as a whole. The 15 issues encompass a wide range of themes, from environmental shocks to evolving political and socio-economic factors, underscoring the complexity of their interactions.

The 15 horizon scan issues identified were:

1. Catastrophic forest ecosystem collapse
2. Increased drought and flooding change the social costs and benefits of trees
3. Forest management becomes more challenging due to changing seasonal working windows
4. Protecting and enhancing soil microbial ecology becomes a higher priority
5. Viruses and viroids emerge as pathogens of increasing importance for trees
6. eDNA revolutionises our understanding of forest ecosystems
7. Trees are at the heart of future urban planning
8. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) drives transparency and investment in nature-positive management
9. Natural capital funding streams are greatly upscaled
10. New technologies facilitate widespread adoption of smart silviculture
11. New technologies improve worker health and safety
12. New wood product markets stimulate more active forest management
13. UK commercial forest resources may not match future value chains
14. Unpredictable supply and demand dynamics in global wood product markets
15. International commitments will spotlight ecosystem integrity and drive monitoring efforts.

From my perspective, I was pleased that a human-nature relationship issue made it through from the 180 long list to the final 15 most critical issues – placing trees are at the heart of future urban planning. There weren’t many broadly social issues on the long list and a couple covered the potential for woodland management to foster human engagement with nature, for connection, wellbeing and one health. However, trees being at the centre of urban planning captures some of this thinking and was endorsed as a priority by the diverse expert panel.

It reflects the recent shift in environment science-policy thinking recognising that for a sustainable future there is a need for a fundamental change in the way that citizens, institutions and societies relate to and value nature (e.g. Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future). Although accepted that woodland provides significant health benefits, UK urban centres tend to lack easy access to significant woodlands. There is a need for urban planning and planting principles to move beyond a focus on issues such as carbon storage and recreational access to the potential for wider benefits and societal impact. Given that the UK is one of the least nature-connected societies in Europe (White et al., 2021), integrating treescapes into and around urban areas will bring important opportunities to transform the ways society relates to and values nature and thereby protects biodiversity and responds to climate change (Richardson et al., 2020). These challenges and new objectives will have significant implications for both the forestry and arboricultural sectors, which will need to work closely together.

Since 1970 there’s been a shocking 79% average decline in species – including gorillas, orangutans, hornbills, and so many more – that rely on forests for survival. The new Forest Stripes show the crisis facing our world’s forests in one striking image.

Forest Species Stripes

The Forest Stripes were created by environment charity WWF and based on the biodiversity stripes approach, which themselves were inspired by the Climate Stripes. The new image from WWF was made in collaboration with the University of Reading, ZSL and the University of Derby. They show the crisis facing our world’s forests:

• There’s been a shocking 79% average decline in species that rely on forests.
• We are failing forests and the species that rely on them for survival.
• Since the global pledge to end deforestation by 2030 was made, an area of tropical rainforest twice the size of Wales has been lost.
• We are now spending at least 100 times more public funding on environmentally harmful subsidies ($378 billion – $1trillion) than we are on finance for forests ($2.2bn).
• Where tropical forests are under the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, forests are better protected and deforestation and degradation are lower.

Despite every pledge to protect them, forest loss and degradation are still getting worse. We have to do to bring our forests back to life. WWF’s new major report, Forest Pathways, shows just how much we’re failing our forests and sets out exactly what needs to be done to bring them back to life. Find out more about forests here.

Global warming, biodiversity loss, and forest species loss 1970-2018

When combined, the trio of climate, biodiversity and forest stripes tells a devastating story of environmental crises and the scale of the challenge. As the planet warms biodiversity has been lost to a critical level. With forests crucial to help avoid the worse climate consequences and wider decline of biodiversity.

The root cause is the failing human-nature relationship. Once, forests provided food and shelter for many and were trusted to meet our needs as a giving parent. A worldview still found in Indigenous communities.  For example, trees of the forest have great importance for the Co Tu of Vietnam. They have souls and are personified as gods, creating a culture of protecting forests. Similarly, to the Nayaka, the animals of the forest (now represented by the forest stripes) were sentient beings, persons and co-dwellers.

From a modern perspective, such relational worldviews are often grossly misunderstood as a primitive worldview. Yet today, we’re failing nature and ‘relationally framing’ the technology we use – the objects of the concrete jungle, rather than the forest. Although we no longer see the forest as a giving parent, the forest still provides. Even in urban locations, the amount of forest near a person’s home relates to the structural integrity of the amygdala, a key centre for processing emotions within the brain. Forests also help manage our moods and keep us well. You can read more about such stories in Reconnection.

At the heart of efforts to protect forests is our relationship with the rest of nature. A deep emotional and meaningful bond with nature and a relational worldview are essential.  For example, people with a closer connection with nature are more willing to do more for conservation work in the forests. In the forest of life, the human tree casts much shade – but must also be a source of hope.

A guest blog by Dr Carly Butler, Researcher in Nature Connectedness, University of Derby.  

The Nature Connectedness Research Group are delighted to announce the release of a new resource for businesses and other organisations: The Nature Connected Organisations Handbook: A guide for connecting organisations with nature for sustainable futures and workplace wellbeing.

Nature Connected Organisations Handbook

Nature connection is about how people think about, feel towards, and engage with nature. It is increasingly recognised as having a vital role to play in addressing the ecological and climate crises, as well as improving people’s psychological wellbeing. Those who have a strong sense of nature connectedness feel happier, function better, and help the environment more than those who are less connected.

Our previous Nature Connection Handbook was written to help organisations who aim to connect people with nature by providing a summary of nature connection research and evidence-based methods for helping people improve their sense of nature connectedness. We wanted to build on this to produce a second handbook to focus on internal organisational change, helping organisations grow nature connectedness amongst their own staff and management. So, we turned our attention to developing the idea of a nature-connected organisation, applying the science to develop a framework and guidance. This new handbook is the result – helping organisations of all types change how their people, infrastructures, and culture relate to nature.

The handbook offers a brief outline of the science of nature connection, explains why nature connection is important for organisations, and offers a framework and tips for bringing nature connection into an organisation. It identifies opportunities for connecting staff with nature, opportunities to develop spaces and processes that are nature connecting, and opportunities for going deeper and embedding nature connectedness into organisational culture. By closing the gaps between humans and the more-than-human world, nature-connected organisations support the mental wellbeing of their staff, make direct contributions to nature’s wellbeing, and champion transformational change to a more sustainable future for all.

Nature on the Board

Why do we need nature connected organisations?

Without global action to protect and restore nature and limit the effects of climate change, the world faces significant risks of environmental, societal, and economic breakdown and ultimately, of an unliveable planet. Organisations of all types have a key role to play in addressing these existential crises by adopting nature positive and net zero policies and practices. There is a growing wave of businesses recognising the risks and the opportunities of the climate and ecological crises and taking action to help nature and the environment. While there is a desperate need for all organisations to join this wave and for amplification and acceleration of the actions being taken, most climate and nature initiatives are missing an opportunity to address one of the root causes of the planetary emergencies – the breakdown of the human-nature relationship.

Over generations, people have become disconnected from the more-than-human world, becoming increasingly anthropocentric and nurturing a relationship with nature based on dominance and exploitation. Daily life often offers little opportunity for the kind of close engagement, appreciation and care for nature that can foster a closer relationship with nature. For individuals, having a close relationship with nature is essential for health and wellbeing, and on a broader level, a society that is connected with nature cares for it – protecting, regenerating and nurturing the environment. Changing how people think about, feel towards, and engage with nature is essential for addressing the loss of biodiversity and climate change that threatens our world.

Becoming a nature connected organisation can help businesses go beyond risk limitation, mitigation measures, the setting of targets, and surface-level changes to tick the boxes for climate and nature action, to effect meaningful change for staff, the organisation, nature, and society at large. Too often humans are absent from net zero and nature positive strategies, yet work to address people’s relationship with nature is fundamental to the kind of societal transformation that the crises requires. Organisations have an untapped potential to lead on this work, by becoming more nature connected and connecting.

Nature connected organisations are also essential for the wellbeing of staff. When people feel emotionally connected with nature they are happier and more satisfied with life. Organisations can help staff develop their sense of nature connectedness by embedding nature connection practices and principles into their day-to-day activities. Organisational spaces and infrastructure can be designed to help facilitate the development of closer emotional bonds with nature, while cultural shifts within an organisation can ensure a focus on nurturing nature and put a relationship with nature at the heart of its operations and visions. A focus on nature connection can also boost the financial and operational success of an organisation, with healthier and happier staff leading to greater productivity, reduced sick leave, and increased creativity and innovation.

The handbook offers practical guidance for organisations to bring nature connection into their workplace and culture. It sets out a pathway for uniting well-being and sustainability agendas and enacting corporate responsibility for delivering integrated social and environmental benefits for staff, society, nature – and the organisation itself. We have developed a ‘tree framework’ that organisations can use to audit their current practices and policies and to identify, design, and develop actions they can take towards becoming nature connected. The framework invites reflection and action across all levels of an organisational tree: the staff (the crown), the structures (the trunk), the culture (roots) and the community (soil).

It is designed to be useful to organisations across sectors – from small, medium to large businesses, charities and NGOs, public sector organisations, and community groups – and for people at all levels of an organisation, whether CEOs, trustees or directors, sustainability leaders, human resource managers, wellbeing champions, or employees wanting to initiate steps towards nature connection in their organisation. There are lots of ideas for actions – big and small – that organisations could do to boost nature connectedness. These range from use of five nature connection practices that organisations could use as part of a staff nature connection or wellbeing initiative, or ideas for ‘nature-hacking’ workspaces, through to suggestions for embedding nature connection principles in organisational culture by having nature connection as a KPI or putting ‘nature on the board’. Examples from SMEs, NGOs and public service organisations that already nurture nature connection are shared.

The handbook is free and available to download at bit.ly/ncohandbook. As with the original handbook, we are grateful to Minute Works and Catherine Chialton for the beautiful design and illustrations.