Cultivating Reciprocity—The Nature and Health Challenge

Citation

Varanasi, U. and Wolf, K.L. (2026). Cultivating Reciprocity—The Nature and Health Challenge. Ecopsychology, 18 (1), 21-24. doi.org/10.1177/19429347251404055

Link to file

This article explores how building a more reciprocal (two-way) relationship between people and nature can improve both environmental and human health. Instead of viewing nature as something we simply use or benefit from, the authors argue that we should also think about how we care for and give back to it. They suggest that this kind of mutual relationship—often emphasized in Indigenous knowledge systems—can strengthen emotional, cultural, and community connections to the natural world, which in turn supports mental and physical well-being.

The paper also points out that many current approaches to environmental health focus too narrowly on measurable benefits (like cleaner air or more green space) and overlook these deeper relationships. By recognizing values like stewardship, respect, and connection, policies and programs could become more effective and inclusive. In simple terms, the authors are saying that healthier ecosystems and healthier people go hand in hand—and that caring for nature is not just good for the planet, but also for our own well-being.

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).