Special issue: Towards an eco-social pedagogy
Introduction
Life is vulnerable. Seven of nine planetary boundaries – the scientifically defined environmental thresholds within which humanity can safely operate without triggering irreversible changes to Earth’s ecosystems – have already been surpassed (Sakschewski et al., 2025). In 2026 the World Economic Forum’s risk report highlighted that climate change and the destruction of biodiversity are threatening conditions for diverse life on Earth (Elsner et al., 2026).
There is consensus that achieving sustainability requires transformative changes at the planetary, societal and individual levels (Gurung et al., 2024; IPCC, 2024; Meadows, 1999; Senge, 1990, p. 69). This process involves overcoming the perceived divide between humans and the rest of nature, as these dimensions are inherently interconnected (Biggs et al., 2021, pp. 3–5; Gurung et al., 2024).
Systems thinking involves viewing single elements as part of a larger system and understanding their interactions (Senge, 1990, p. 68). Fostering a sense of belonging within social-ecological systems – referred to here as planetary belonging – is vital for developing a systemic understanding of human–nature interactions on Earth (Salonen et al., 2023, 2024). The current degradation of the social-ecological system is driven by the very choices and interactions that shape it, particularly those driven by an economic logic that conflicts with ecological functioning (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024). However, because these patterns reflect changeable forms of behaviour and decision-making, the system remains open to transformation through an improved understanding of interconnectedness. This raises questions about human-centred worldviews, education and learning about how to comprehensively address the overlapping social and ecological dimensions of life (Nivala and Ryynänen, 2025) and for this purpose, a theory of planetary social pedagogy has been proposed (Salonen et al., 2023).
We are interested in how people describe this more holistic approach to their sense of belonging, aside from a traditional human-centred perspective. We assume that recognising and nurturing their systemic understanding and identifying the planet as a whole entity can significantly impact efforts to address human-induced climate change and biodiversity loss. The experience of belonging fosters a sense of life’s meaningfulness (Lambert et al., 2013), and the way that individuals identify with the world can extend their sphere of care and raise awareness of their power of influence (Salonen et al., 2024).
The research gap that we have identified relates to the above findings and assumptions. Human–nature relations have been researched in various ways in the past decades based on differing concepts; for example, connectedness to nature (Mayer and McPherson, 2004) and relatedness to nature (Nisbet et al., 2009). Questions of identity and belonging, however, have remained largely untouched, even though planetary crises require individuals to re-evaluate their identities (Reicher, 2004). Through guided mindfulness practices and facilitated dialogues in Finland we seek to understand how people perceive their sense of planetary belonging within a social-ecological systemic whole. Our specific research questions are as follows:
-
RQ 1.
How do individuals articulate their sense of belonging and describe the systemic whole to which they feel connected?
-
RQ 2.
How do individuals describe urban environments in relation to their sense of planetary belonging?
-
RQ 3.
What kind of systemic dynamics are described as underlying the perceptions of planetary belonging?
Theoretical framework
Human life and complex social-ecological systems
Complex systems consist of interdependent factors that interact with peoples’ lives (Biggs et al., 2021, pp. 3–5). This is true of the Earth as a whole, human societies and urban and rural areas. As everything is intertwined, it is critical to understand the foundational assumptions of how the systems and the dynamics within them operate (Gurung et al., 2024; Meadows, 1999, p. 18; Senge, 1990). Although the underlying dynamics of social-ecological systems affect humans’ everyday actions (Moore et al., 2014) – and vice versa (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024) – people often perceive systemic shifts as being beyond their influence or outside their sphere of care or capability. For instance, tracing the origins of components in technological devices is nearly impossible, even for citizens who wish to make a difference through recycling (Biggs et al., 2021, pp. 3–4).
Gurung et al. (2024) suggest accelerating transformative change by addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the decline of nature. In their literature review these were identified as: (a) humans’ disconnection from and domination over nature; (b) concentration of power and wealth; and (c) prioritisation of short-term, individual and material gains (Gurung et al., 2024). Evidence from earlier research shows that shifting from individualism to a more collective orientation fosters empathy and connection (Lamm et al., 2010). Adopting a changed perspective can reshape perceptions of what kinds of dynamics within the system are possible or desirable (Formenti and Hoggan-Kloubert, 2023).
Achieving transformation towards intergenerational sustainability involves fundamental changes in systems, worldviews and daily practices, particularly in high-income Western countries (Gurung et al., 2024; IPCC, 2024). A deep social transformation requires changes across all levels of society, with alterations at one level affecting others (Gurung et al., 2024; Meadows, 1999). Therefore, instead of taking a traditional, linear approach that treats single elements as separate, each aspect should be treated as part of an interrelated system (Bateson, 1972, pp. 492–8; Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024). In a world of ongoing crises, questions about the meaning of life become central. According to the theory of planetary social pedagogy, a lack of agency stems from the difficulty to define who and what belongs to us (Salonen et al., 2024).
Planetary belonging and worldviews
Previous research supports the idea of human–nature relatedness as a fundamental requirement (Baxter and Pelletier, 2019). Otero et al. (2025) suggest that to be truly part of nature one must respect it. Connection to the natural environment is further linked to pro-environmental behaviour (Mayer and McPherson, 2004), while disconnection can decrease individuals’ motivation for promoting sustainability in society (Nisbet et al., 2009).
It is acknowledged in many Indigenous worldviews that there are no barriers between humans and nature (Hill et al., 2019). However, in most Western mechanistic worldviews, humans and nature are more often seen as being separate (Lange, 2018). In Western cultures, there are few terms to describe the connectedness of humans and nature, and their meanings tend to be limited. Conversely, many Indigenous cultures articulate human–nature interconnectedness using intricate and diverse expressions (Gurung et al., 2024; Salmon, 2000) and regard a person’s relationship with place and natural resources as essential for connecting humans with other beings such as plants and animals (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016). Furthermore, human–nature interconnectedness is reflected in cultural practices and ways of life (Salmon, 2000). Laws maintaining societal structures can be derived from the so-called laws of nature (Redvers et al., 2020). As an example, in some cultures, people greet the sun each morning, recognising their responsibilities in daily life (Gordon et al., 2023). Meanwhile the interconnectedness of humans and nature is expressed through concepts such as shared breath symbolising unity among all living beings who share the same air – plants, animals, humans and the land (Salmon, 2000).
Planetary citizenship (Moraes and Freire, 2017) signifies a perspective where humans are part of social -ecological systems on Earth. An emerging ecosocial turn in social pedagogy challenges the mostly mechanistic Western worldview by recognising the interconnectedness of all life on the planet – locally, globally and across generations (Nivala and Ryynänen, 2025; Salonen et al., 2023). Keto and Foster (2021) argue that addressing the planetary crisis requires repairing relationships with all life forms. The concept of ecosocialisation offers a strong framework for lifelong learning about how to live as part of the planet’s ecosystem (Keto and Foster, 2021). Salonen et al. (2023) argue that recognising the planet as an entity can foster meaning and care, enhancing the ability to live in harmony with the Earth. Furthermore, the regenerative development school of thought, as described by Haggard and Mang (2016), conceptualises the planet as an ecosocial entity composed of smaller systems nested within larger ones – simultaneously distinct and whole, yet interconnected and interdependent.
In this research, planetary belonging refers to a perspective in which individuals recognise their varied responsibilities within the interconnectedness of humans and nature. This concept bridges local and global perspectives (spatial dimension) and connects past and future (temporal dimension) in shaping a sense of belonging. (Salonen et al., 2023; 2024.)
Mindfulness and systemic transformation
We incorporate insights from mindfulness research to foster capacities for adapting new perspectives. Mindfulness practices can enhance mental flexibility and enable significant shifts in perspective (Shapiro et al., 2006). These shifts can bring a change in worldviews and social interactions, holding the potential to transform the entire system (Meadows, 1999, p. 18).
Mindfulness practices encourage individuals to engage with each experience as it arises, cultivating the ability to neither only pursue pleasurable experiences nor reject unpleasant ones (Shapiro et al., 2006), which is particularly relevant in the context of ongoing interrelated ecosocial challenges (Thiermann and Sheate, 2020). Mindfulness can also enhance emotional regulation (Keng et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2019), self-awareness (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and a connection with the natural environment (Wang et al., 2016). This provides a foundation for congruent and conscious behaviour (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Ryan and Deci, 2000) characterised by freedom of choice and the ability to move away from prior behavioural patterns and beliefs (Shapiro et al., 2006).
Material and methods
Participants and data collection
To explore perceptions of planetary belonging, a walking mindfulness activity was implemented as a priming exercise to support reflection and authentic dialogue. Data were collected through six semi-structured dialogue sessions at events in Kuopio, Turku and Helsinki in Finland. The sessions involved 51 adult participants from diverse professional backgrounds, including municipal services, education, entrepreneurship, research and the third sector.
The first four dialogue sessions took place during a seminar on nature and biodiversity loss, the fifth during a conference on the topic of futures research, and the sixth at the beginning of a course on planetary teaching practices. All participants were inherently interested in the article’s themes and had the capacity for a conceptual dialogue.
Five sessions were held in Finnish and one in English. The participants were not familiar with each other, and core concepts like planetary belonging and ecosocialisation were not explicitly introduced. Event descriptions informed participants of the mindfulness exercise and the recording of dialogue on planetary inclusion, with voluntary participation considered as informed consent.
Each session began with a 15-minute silent mindfulness practice (Papies et al., 2015) based on the attention training technique, emphasising an outward focus and gentle curiosity (Shapiro et al., 2006; Wells, 1990). It consisted of five guided segments during the walk, each lasting three minutes, totalling 15 minutes, as follows:
-
Observe the weight of your foot against the ground as you step. Try to feel the contours of the terrain and the different surfaces beneath you.
-
Next, focus your attention on the sounds around you. Endeavour to notice the various sounds.
-
What is the quality of your own voice and breath? You can listen to how they sound, without producing words.
-
What are the sensations in your body? How does your body feel, as your foot presses into the ground?
-
Finally, look freely around you. What is there? What are you? How are you?
A 60-minute, semi-structured dialogue followed to deepen understanding through reflection and interaction (Hirsjärvi and Hurme, 2009). A guided reflection approach aimed to trigger participants’ reflective thinking (Shackleton et al., 2021, p. 112). This is where the transformative power of dialogue – a typical social pedagogical practice – lies (Sharpe et al., 2016), and when dialogue can foster meaningful questions, active listening and connections, helping individuals uncover knowledge they may not have been aware of (Drimie et al., 2021, p. 141).
The dialogue was conducted in a private setting to establish trust and privacy. Participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answers and were asked to speak for no more than one minute at a time, allowing everyone to contribute with a natural flow. The audio-recording of the session began once the dialogue started.
The dialogue was facilitated through four segments, each lasting approximately 15 minutes. At the beginning, the facilitator read aloud a predetermined statement designed to prompt reflection on belonging and meaningfulness – core concepts of the theory of planetary social pedagogy (Salonen et al., 2023) and the planetary inclusion (Salonen et al., 2024). Questions and statements included: ‘How was this walking experience for you?’, ‘Our existence has a meaning’, ‘We belong to an entity’ and ‘What else would you like to say about the connectedness of humans and nature?’ Participants were invited to discuss freely and the session concluded with a final reflection.
Analysis of the data
For the initial phase of the analysis, the recorded dialogues were transcribed verbatim. Each transcription was reviewed and finalised for accuracy. Instances where the same speaker repeated the same point, or where a subsequent statement supported the previous one without introducing new information, were removed. Fillers and hesitations that appeared in the reflective discussions were removed when their omission did not alter the meaning of the sentence. At this point a discursive interpretation was avoided by focusing on actual statements: the participants’ observations and the connections between these observations.
The steps for thematic analysis proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2023, pp. 207–9) were followed. The text of transcripts was first divided into separate short sections, each containing a single idea, proposal or utterance. The transcripts were read through, and individual sections were labelled and manually coded. Brief descriptions of the content – for example, the ‘idea of a web’ – were written in the margins. All codes were then consolidated. The relationships between the content were examined to ensure coherence and the thematic categorisation adjusted as needed. Finally, the codes were grouped into major categories based on their similarities in content. Where appropriate in relation to their content, the categories were connected through labels reflecting previous research. Code integration was conducted alongside the original data samples so that no premature simplifications distorted the meaning of the expressions.
Codes not fitting with the main themes were either assigned to minor subgroups within the themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006) or excluded from the analysis (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). The thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) identified meaningful, distinct and similar patterns emerging from the data, guided by the research focus. For the purpose of inductive content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008), themes describing the phenomenon were refined and developed into three sub-themes (each consisting of minor subcategories) through a mind-map (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and presented in a visual representation. The analysis reflected on Indigenous worldviews (for example, Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016), the conceptualisations of ecosocialisation (Keto and Foster, 2021) and regenerative development (Haggard and Mang, 2016).
Results
How do individuals articulate their sense of belonging and describe the systemic whole to which they feel connected?
The first theme focused on the ways in which the participants articulated their sense of belonging and the systemic whole to which they felt they belong (Figure 1). The data shed light on planetary belonging in various ways.
The participants articulated their perceptions through three sub-themes: (1) organisms within organisms; (2) interdependence; and (3) the significance of ecosocialisation (see Figure 1).
The articulated sense of planetary belonging
The first sub-theme articulates the dimensions of interconnectedness between the organisms having similarities to living systems (Haggard and Mang, 2016) and ecosocialisation (Keto and Foster, 2021) approaches. It emphasises the idea of nested systems within the circle of life, where individuals are seen as equal to other living beings. The second sub-theme underscored the reciprocity and interdependence inherent in social-ecological systems on Earth. In relation to this unavoidable mutual dependency, participants reflected on the human influence. The third sub-theme considered the sense of belonging in such nested and interrelated systems from the perspective of how human relationships with other living beings are shaped.
Although the relatively recent concept of ecosocialisation (Keto and Foster, 2021) was not explicitly referred to in the dialogues, the reflections revealed recognisable and increasingly nuanced insights aligned with it. For instance, participants proposed that children and animals function as ecosocialisation agents and highlighted both the responsibilities of parents and the significance of place attachment as enablers of ecosocialisation. Taken together, these insights imply that ecosocialisation may be an ongoing process throughout the life course. For example, one participant included the idea – illustrated literally through the metaphor of children in a playground – that ‘adults need to stay within planetary boundaries, and if not, it [restraint] needs to be practiced more’.
The sense of belonging was described through the lens of meaningfulness more particularly. This supports Lambert et al.’s (2013) view that belonging fosters meaning. Furthermore, aligned with the findings of Baxter and Pelletier (2019), while we are integrated into human communities, there is always an integration into multispecies realms. According to Foster et al. (2022), the recognition of the unmediated capacity of ecosocialisation is crucial in regenerating human relationships with other forms of life and their interdependent coexistence. This research suggests that ecosocialisation can continue throughout life.
The sense of belonging was articulated in the dialogues in a holistic way; for example, ‘Humans are part of nature, of all these ecosystems, everything that exists globally in this whole system’. The dialogue focusing on the human–nature relationship was initiated without providing a concept for interconnectedness. However, the strong reactions that were seen were unexpected, as the predetermined formulation was challenged in every dialogue; for example, ‘As I say it, it’s not people and nature, it’s we are nature. Nature is us. So, it’s not like we affect something and they affect us, we create this world together and like all the time, come into being together.’ This example makes tangible the linguistic categorisation that tends to misconstrue perceptions of belonging and the finding aligns with perceptions seen among nature preservation researchers and fieldworkers (Otero et al., 2025).
Humanity’s role in social-ecological systems was often negatively perceived, as exemplified in the following comment: ‘We are also very vulnerable in ourselves and as a society in our interaction with each other and the interaction with nature – it can break up anytime. We can destroy it, or it can just be the result of unconscious actions, but it can just happen.’ This view of humanity as a destructive force in the planet’s ecosystem, rooted in human attempts to dominate it and the subsequent failure to do so, has been brought up in other recent studies (see, for example, Otero et al., 2025).
These insights align with the findings of a broad review by Gurung et al. (2024), as disconnection from the rest of nature was identified as the main underlying cause of both direct and indirect negative impacts on the ecological system. According to Keto and Foster (2021), human–nature relations need to be both understood and experienced in order to be repaired. This study provides further insight on the experiences shared by participants: ‘I think our relationship is like we are healing together. We get distracted, but then we heal together and then we are connected – and we become something together.’
How do individuals describe urban environments in relation to their sense of planetary belonging?
The urban environment is deeply intertwined with Western culture, as are the associated ways of living, our modes of coexistence on Earth and the ways in which we describe it. The findings suggest that considering aspects of urban environments and the use of materials in terms of planetary belonging and the lifelong ecosocialisation process is vital. The second analysis deepens the understanding of factors contributing to this sense of alienation (Figure 2), offering further insight in relation to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessment report (Gurung et al., 2024), which identifies disconnection from nature as the most evident underlying cause of biodiversity loss.
These alienating effects were clearly described: ‘It doesn’t mean that these walls wouldn’t be kind of part of our system in nature, but they are a little harder and not that easy to grasp in a way. Because they are non-organic.’ The urban environment was literally characterised as where one forgets they belong to a planetary whole.
Urban lifestyle’s aspects as alienating from the sense of planetary belonging
In general, the traditional worldviews and expressions of Western and Indigenous cultures differ in how they portray human–nature entanglements and their understandings of sustainability (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016; West et al., 2024). As the enquiry through the data deepened, it resonated with some Indigenous perspectives. For example, in one of the dialogues, experiences were reflected in relation to the Indigenous Sámi people’s close connection to the annual cycle of nature, while the Western perspective experienced was described as having ‘lost the skill’.
In the analysis (Figure 2), the alienating effects of urban environments were distilled into observations of the fast-paced lifestyle commonly associated with urban living; the predominance of inorganic materials that characterise cityscapes; and physical distance from living, natural surroundings such as forests. The first sub-theme suggests that a fast-paced lifestyle constrains individuals’ capacity for profound reflection, including reflection on the kinds of choices they make in their everyday lives. Such ‘hurriedness’ appears to steer people towards ethically questionable or convenience-prioritised decisions while simultaneously enabling the avoidance of ethical self-reflection regarding one’s own conduct. One participant described this as: ‘Sometimes you’d really want a chance to just have time to think about the bigger picture in peace’ and another as: ‘That’s why we really want to … fill our lives with all kinds of busyness’.
The second sub-theme of urban elements and materials shows how inorganic materials and technological devices shape a sensory landscape that alienates the living environment from other forms of life. For example, one participant described feeling that ‘people have this need to build – like they want to “protect” – the land with something they think is better [than soil]’. The sense of disconnection was also specifically described as follows: ‘I have this plastic here between me and the rock, and I just can’t seem to feel a proper connection’, and further as ‘How we could have space to listen’.
The third sub-theme of perceived distance from living nature addressed the consequences of being distant from the forest: distance effectively alienating us from the systemic whole and leading to a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem. This distance was linked to an environmentally harmful attachment to material wealth, as described in this statement: ‘We probably recognise well-known brands much better than the leaves of different trees by name’, and further in the comment ‘the food just comes from somewhere’ (Figure 2).
These observations align with some Indigenous perspectives holding that a person who is connected to a place can form relationships with other beings, strengthening the ethical dimension of those relationships (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016). If humans are only loosely connected to their supplies, they become more distant from an ethical perspective as well (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016). The significance of locality and ethics is also emphasised in the conceptualisation of the theory of planetary social pedagogy (Salonen et al., 2023) and the scale of planetary inclusion (Salonen et al., 2024). Furthermore, fostering lifelong ecosocialisation may require rethinking living environments – in terms of both consumption and urban planning – by moving away from the demands of modern urban life that might alienate us from the whole.
Salmon (2000) explains that, in many Indigenous worldviews, humans are regarded as equal to the natural world, forming kindred relations. Similarly, a perspective of generations and timelines seen in theorisations of planetary social pedagogy and planetary inclusion (Salonen et al., 2023, 2024) emphasises that the complex interactions arising from interconnectedness enhance and sustain the planet’s ecosystem. This type of understanding and sense of planetary belonging does seem to exist within the Western worldview (Figure 1), albeit alienated by the urbanised lifestyle (see Figure 2).
What kind of systemic dynamics are described as underlying perceptions of planetary belonging?
The third analysis suggests that the participants’ sense of planetary belonging has been shaped by economic (capitalist) power dynamics. A distinction between the rest of nature and humans was perceived (Figure 3) and compared to the descriptions of the sense of belonging described earlier (see Figure 1). For example, one participant said: ‘There is a huge difference in our relationship with nature depending on how we perceive ourselves in the structure.’
Systemic dynamics shape perceptions of planetary belonging
The first sub-theme highlighted the contexts in which the assumption of human dominance manifests: dominance driven by monetary interests (including dominance over humans themselves), dominance over animals and dominance over plants. As described in the data, ‘People have this tendency to feel like they need to be in control of things, and then they get a bit lost when they can’t [be]’. A fundamental money-driven dominance is suggested as shaping interactions in human–nature relations. The second sub-theme illustrates ways of perceiving the value of nature in a more nuanced way, representing the value of nature in monetary terms and for its intrinsic value. This partly overlaps a third sub-theme that suggests the restorative power of nature. This third sub-theme illustrates perspectives on the power of nature without the presumption of human dominance, including nature’s restorative power, its ability to recover from crises and its enduring resilience (Figure 3).
In the dialogues, money is not portrayed in relation to humans per se, but rather in relation to the system in which power dynamics are constructed. For example, one participant pointed out that a landowner who resorts to clear-cutting, may not benefit from the felling of their forest as the value of it is only realised through logging. The analysis resonates with and deepens the findings of Gonzalez-Redin et al. (2024), who emphasise that the internal choices and interactions in the social-ecological system, largely guided by economic logic, cause it to operate in ways that harm the natural system, even though it relies on that system for its own functioning (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024).
The tensions identified in the data (Figure 3) also align with and deepen the analysis of Gurung et al. (2024). Specifically, the capitalist domination over nature and people – closely linked to a disconnection from nature – was seen as the main underlying factor of biodiversity loss (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024). The traditional Western concept of sustainability can be seen as being strongly subordinated to assumptions of control and ownership (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina, 2016; Stirling, 2014). Contrary to this line of thinking, there is evidence that many Indigenous traditions adapt natural laws to shape and balance both social and ecosocial encounters (Redvers et al., 2020).
Our third analysis highlights the difficulty of redirecting the social-ecological system towards a life-sustaining path. Stirling (2014) argues that humanity itself is not the problem. The real challenges lie in economies, institutions, infrastructures and cultures – both in their underlying structure and assumptions of how systems function (Gurung et al., 2024; Meadows, 1999; Redvers et al., 2020). Despite the interrelated systemic challenges (Elsner et al., 2026; Sakschewski et al., 2025), a systemic understanding of belonging provides a sense of meaningfulness to support mental and spiritual well-being (see Lambert et al., 2013; Salonen et al., 2024). As described in our data: ‘It’s pretty clear [the] next year could be influenced by whatever changes, but the bottom line is that we need it [belonging and meaning] for our mental and spiritual being.’
Summarising experience of planetary belonging
The experience of planetary belonging can be seen as an identification with a holistic understanding of an individual’s significance within the entity. Planetary belonging, as demonstrated in this study, is a constantly evolving and dynamic understanding of humans’ place and role within Earth’s social-ecological systems. According to the participants of this study, the experience can be positive, negative or ambivalent – as represented in Figure 4 – and is shaped in part by elements of the urban environment and lifestyles, as well as by the presumptions of systemic power dynamics. Therefore, our analysis suggests that by identifying the barriers and fostering the mediators to lifelong ecosocialisation, intrinsic planetary belonging becomes possible to experience and emphasises the necessity of lifelong ecosocialisation as a crucial element of contemporary social pedagogy in addressing ongoing climate change, biodiversity loss and depleting of natural resources.
Systemic understanding and the experience of planetary belonging
Ethical considerations and limitations of the study
The findings of this qualitative study cannot be generalised. It is freely acknowledged that the participants were inherently interested in the study’s themes and were able to articulate their views – with many being professionals in environmental fields, education and research – which likely influenced the data.
This research adheres to the guidelines set by the Finnish Research Ethics Council (2023) related to reliability, respect and accountability. These guidelines were implemented in the way the researcher communicated the analysis to both the research participants and the readers (Shackleton et al., 2021, p. 112). The study participants were informed through written, video and verbal communications that the dialogues and perspectives would be anonymised and regarded as part of a larger collective.
In broad terms, mindfulness is considered a safe practice, and even in the presence of many mental and physical conditions it enables a person to experience even strong emotions with less reactivity and with greater objectivity (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Shapiro et al., 2006; Wells, 2009). However, focusing on the internal world can cause rumination and worsen anxiety (Wells, 1990). To avoid negative or unexpected responses, the study design respected principles of the attention training technique to adopt an external focus (Wells, 1990, 2009), which is considered safe even for people with severe mental disorders (Knowles et al., 2016).
A skilled facilitator can navigate differing viewpoints (Drimie et al., 2018) and hold an unbiased space for participants’ perspectives. In facilitated processes, it is crucial to help participants feel secure and comfortable while also avoiding any steering of the discussion. The researcher collecting data for this study is trained and has facilitated co-creation and mindfulness-enhanced exercises for several years. Nevertheless, it is possible that some participants may have felt pressured to provide insights pleasing to the group.
For the purpose of shining a light on the kind of planetary understanding that exists in several parts of the world, we introduced research on Indigenous perspectives. However, our research did not include a co-research process with Indigenous people. To meaningfully assess what Western worldviews could learn from Indigenous perspectives, a broader co-participatory setting that includes experiential expertise is recommended (Hill et al., 2019).
Discussion and concluding remarks
This research offers a nuanced understanding of how adults in Finland can perceive and describe their experiences of planetary belonging: in other words, what it means to identify as part of a system defined by interdependence among all living beings and to recognise that humanity’s future is inseparably tied to the future of Earth.
The rich data generated in the dialogues that were primed with a mindfulness exercise reveal that by investing in the quality of social encounters, people can gain a profound understanding of the interrelated dynamics of an ecosystem, and also the boundary conditions within which its diversity is navigated (also West et al., 2024). The idea that we can improve on our responsibility in relation to others, as well as within the planet’s entity, is supported. We can become aware that meaning in life can be created in other ways than those stereotypically understood in Western contexts, such as in relation to money and success. A mindfulness-enhanced dialogue could thus serve as a means to accelerate transformation within social pedagogical practices.
If an authentic relationship with ecological realms is forgotten, there is a risk of forgetting how to sustain the world (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024; Keto and Foster, 2021; see also Lange, 2018). Urban infrastructures contain elements that may alienate us from human–nature relations understanding human life as a part of other life on Earth. Yet mindfulness-enhanced walking exercise seems a promising approach to fostering authentic human–nature relationships, since ecosocialisation occurs precisely through multispecies interactions (Keto and Foster, 2021). As an example of how this could be applied; planners and citizens could discover the experience of planetary belonging through mindfulness-enhanced participatory urban planning.
This study’s insights into urban living raise serious questions about the continued use of inorganic materials. Accordingly, if we genuinely consider what might result from a shift away from alienation towards a deeper experience of planetary belonging – including the lifestyle that it necessitates, the actions it entails and the ways that these can be supported through social pedagogical practices – then lifelong ecosocialisation can be regarded as a key strategy.
The Western social-economic system has been criticised for failing to align with the needs of the natural system (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024; Redvers et al., 2020). Similar to Moore et al. (2014), the findings of this research underscore the role of systemic dynamics in any transformational change. Sustainability transformations are more likely to emerge from mutual care and responsibility than from hierarchical control (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024; Stirling, 2014). Our findings suggest a controversy over Western cultural desire to dominate nature that challenges the underlying assumptions of control that have shaped urban life and nature management in the past centuries, and the perception of the dynamics between these aspects appears to be evolving.
Rethinking human responsibilities requires conscious, reflective citizens who can view the world from diverse perspectives (Salonen et al., 2023, 2024). Mindfulness-enhanced idialogues provide a potential space for this kind of human development. The dialogues in this study fostered respectful interaction and reflection, deepening and making visible interconnectedness of cohabitance and enabling profound thinking, which we often forget in the busyness of everyday life. Nivala and Ryynänen (2025) further challenge the field: ‘Through eco-socially conscious pedagogical approaches our relationship to the more-than-human world can change; and conversely, social pedagogy can also be part of the problem. Which side do we choose?’
It is relevant to ask how the experience of planetary belonging may be fostered. We suggest mindfulness-enhanced learning where it is possible to gain a safe and balanced experience of belonging to social-ecological systems on Earth and also to share those experiences with others in order to construct a shifted perspective on human place and role within the entity. According to our findings, the way in which ecosocialisation is enabled influences whether one experiences their role in the whole as affirming, alienated or disruptive. We propose that a coherent experience of planetary belonging is essential for sustaining and activating human agency in a balanced coexistence with other parts of life on Earth. Through this research we introduce an easy to apply approach to holding authentic dialogues concerning the experiences of planetary belonging.
Lange (2018) explains that it is possible that nature itself becomes the teacher of how to be a human on planet Earth. While a holistic and systemic understanding of human–nature interconnectedness is not commonly associated with Western cultures – and the choices made and interactions occurring within the social-ecological system mostly mirror the reverse situation (Gonzalez-Redin et al., 2024) – according to this study, such understanding does manifest. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that such an understanding, and the experience of planetary belonging based on it, can potentially be channelled into behaviour that respects planetary boundaries. However, further research is needed to explore how widespread this kind of understanding is, and under what conditions it translates into mutually supportive dynamics.
Acknowledgements
We extend our warmest thanks to everyone who assisted with the practical arrangements for the dialogues. We are equally grateful to all dialogue participants in Kuopio, Helsinki and Turku. It was an honour to explore your experiences of belonging and to work analytically with the depth of insight present in your dialogues.
Funding
The research was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture through the Sustainability Transformations Doctoral Education Pilot (Grant No. OKM/7/523/2024).
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
The authors declare that the research reported in this article was conducted in accordance with Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK standards.
Consent for publication statement
The authors declare that research participants’ informed consent to publication of findings – including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information – was secured prior to publication.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.
References
Bateson,G. (1972). The roots of ecological crises. Steps to an ecology of mind. Bateson,G(ed.), Jason Aronson Inc., pp.492–498.
Baxter,D E; Pelletier,L G. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 60 (1) :21–34, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000145
Biggs,R; Clements,H; de Vos,A; Folke,C; Manyani,A; Maciejewski,K; Martín-López,B; Preiser,R; Selomane,O; Schlüter,M. (2021). What are social-ecological systems and social-ecological systems research?. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Biggs,R, de Vos,A;Aand Preiser,R;R, Clements,H;H, Maciejewsk,K;K, Schlüter,MM(ed s .), Routledge, pp.3–26, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-2
Braun,V; Clarke,V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2) :77–101, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown,K W; Ryan,R M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4) :822–848, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 12703651
Creswell,J W; Creswell,D J. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 6th ed. Sage.
Drimie,S; Hamann,R; Manderson,A P; Mlondobozi,N. (2018). Creating transformative spaces for dialogue and action: Reflecting on the experience of the southern Africa food lab. Ecology and Society 23 (3) :2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-10177-230302
Drimie,S; Magner,C; Pereira,L; Charli-Joseph,L; Moore,M-L; Olsson,P; Siqueiros-Garcia,J M; Zgambo,O. (2021). Facilitated dialogues. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Biggs,R, de Vos,A;Aand Preiser,R;R, Clements,H;H, Maciejewski,K;K, Schlüter,MM(ed s .), Routledge, pp.136–147, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-12
Elo,S; Kyngäs,S. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1) :107–115, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x 18352969
Elsner,M; Atkinson,G; Zahidi,S. (2026). The global risks report 2026. 21st ed. World Economic Forum. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2026.pdf.
Finnish Research Ethics Council. (2023). Hyvä tieteellinen käytäntö ja sen loukkaamisepäilyjen käsitteleminen suomessa. Tutkimuseettisen Neuvottelukunnan Julkaisuja. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-03/HTK-ohje_2023.pdf.
Formenti,L; Hoggan-Kloubert,T. (2023). Transformative learning as societal learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 177 :105–118, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.20482
Foster,R; Zin,M; Keto,S; Pulkki,J. (2022). Recognizing ecosocialization in childhood memories. Educational Studies 58 (4) :560–574, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2022.2051031
Gonzalez-Redin,J; Gordon,I J; Polhill,J G; Dawson,T P; Hill,R. (2024). Navigating sustainability: Revealing hidden forces in social–ecological systems. Sustainability 16 (3) 1132 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16031132
Gordon,E; Davila,F; Riedy,C. (2023). Regenerative agriculture: A potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses. Sustainability Science 18 :1833–1849, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01281-1
Gurung,J; Leventon,J; Wickson,F; Dabezies,J; Olemako,T; Penca,J; Rajvanshi,A; Remans,R; Turnhout,E; Yoshida,Y; Kahrić,A; Naggea,J; Bridgewater,P; Reyers,B; Renaud,A. (2024). Transformative change and a sustainable world. Thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. O’Brien,K, Garibaldi,L;Land Agrawal,AA(ed s .), Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Secretariat, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382238
Haggard,B; Mang,P. (2016). Regenerative development and design: A framework for evolving sustainability. Wiley.
Hirsjärvi,S; Hurme,H. (2009). Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Gaudeamus.
Hill,R; Adem,Ç; Molnár,Z; Alangui,W V; Aumeeruddy-Thomas,Y; Bridgewater,P; Cairns,W; Tengö,M; Thaman,R; y Adou Yao,C; Berkes,F; Carino,J; Carneiro da Cunha,M; Diaw,M C; Diaz,S; Figueroa,V E; Fisher,J; Hardison,P; Ichikawa,K; … O’B Lyver,P. (2019). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43 :8–20, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2024). AR6 synthesis report: Climate change 2023. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/.
Kabat-Zinn,J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain and illness. Delacorte.
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani,K; Giardina,C P. (2016). Embracing the sacred: An indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11 (1) :57–67, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3
Keng,S L; Smoski,M J; Robins,C J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychological Review 31 (6) :1041–1056, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006 21802619
Keto,S; Foster,R. (2021). Ecosocialization: An ecological turn in the process of socialization. International Studies in Sociology of Education 30 (1–2) :34–52, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1854826
Knowles,M M; Foden,P; El-Deredy,W; Wells,A. (2016). A systematic review of efficacy of the attention training technique in clinical and nonclinical samples. Journal of Clinical Psychology 72 (10) :999–1025, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22312 27129094
Lambert,N M; Stillman,T F; Hicks,J A; Kamble,S; Baumeister,R F; Fincham,F D. (2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39 (11) :1418–1427, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186 23950557
Lamm,C; Meltzoff,A N; Decety,J. (2010). How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22 (2) :362–376, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21186 19199417
Lange,E A. (2018). Transforming transformative education through ontologies of relationality. Journal of Transformative Education 16 (4) :280–301, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541344618786452
Mayer,F S; McPherson,F S. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (4) :503–515, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
Meadows,D H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.
Moore,M-L; Tjornbo,O; Enfors,E; Knapp,C; Hodbod,J; Baggio,J A; Norström,A; Olsson,P; Biggs,D. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: Toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society 19 (4) :54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454
Moraes,S E; Freire,L d A. (2017). Planetary citizenship and the ecology of knowledges in Brazilian universities. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 8 (3) :25–42, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.8.3.03
Nisbet,E K; Zelenski,J M; Murphy,S A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 41 (5) :715–740, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
Nivala,E; Ryynänen,S. (2025). An eco-social turn in social pedagogy. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 14 (1) :6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2025.v14.x.006
Otero,I; Keller,R; Deplazes-Zemp,A; Reynard,E. (2025). Exploring the personal sphere of transformative change in researchers and stakeholders working on nature. Ecosystems and People 21 (1) :2436374. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2436374
Papies,E K; Pronk,T M; Keesman,M; Barsalou,L W. (2015). The benefits of simply observing: Mindful attention modulates the link between motivation and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (1) :148–170, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038032 25347126
Redvers,N; Poelina,A; Schultz,C; Kobei,D M; Githaiga,C; Perdrisat,M; Prince,D; Blondin,B. (2020). Indigenous natural and first law in planetary health. Challenges 11 (2) 29 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/challe11020029
Reicher,S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology 25 (6) :921–945, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00403.x
Ryan,R M; Deci,E L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 :68–78, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 11392867
Sakschewski,B; Caesar,L; Andersen,L; Bechthold,M; Bergfeld,L; Beusen,A; Billing,M; Bodirsky,B L; Botsyun,S; Dennis,D; Donges,J F; Dou,X; Eriksson,A; Fetzer,I; Gerten,D; Häyhä,T; Hebden,S; Heckmann,T; Heilemann,A; … Rockström,J. (2025). Planetary health check 2025: A scientific assessment of the state of the planet. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 144p DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017
Salmon,E. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human–nature relationship. Ecological Applications 10 (5) :1327–1332, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2641288
Salonen,A O; Isola,A-M; Jakonen,J-P; Foster,R. (2024). Who and what belongs to us? Towards a comprehensive concept of inclusion and planetary citizenship. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 13 (1) :5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2024.v13.x.005
Salonen,A O; Laininen,E; Hämäläinen,J; Sterling,S. (2023). A theory of planetary social pedagogy. Educational Theory 73 (4) :615–637, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12588
Senge,P M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
Shackleton,S; Bezerra,J C; Cockburn,J; Reed,M G; Abu,R. (2021). Interviews and surveys. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Biggs,R, de Vos,A;Aand Preiser,R;R, Clements,H;H, Maciejewski,K;K, Schlüter,MM(ed s .), Routledge, pp.107–118, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-9
Shapiro,S L; Carlson,L E; Astin,J A; Freedman,B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62 (3) :373–386, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237 16385481
Sharpe,B; Hodgson,A; Leicester,G; Lyon,A; Fazey,I. (2016). Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society 21 (2) :47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247
Stirling,A. (2014). Emancipating transformations: From controlling ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress. STEPS working paper 64. STEPS Centre.
Thiermann,U B; Sheate,W R. (2020). The way forward in mindfulness and sustainability: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 5 (1) :118–139, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00180-6
Wang,X; Geng,L; Zhou,K; Ye,L; Ma,Y; Zhang,S. (2016). Mindful learning can promote connectedness to nature: Implicit and explicit evidence. Consciousness and Cognition 44 :1–7, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.006 27323209
Wells,A. (1990). Panic disorder in association with relaxation induced anxiety: An attentional training approach to treatment. Behavior Therapy 21 :273–280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80330-2
Wells,A. (2009). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. The Guilford Press.
West,S; Haider,L J; Hertz,T; Garcia,M M; Moore,M-L. (2024). Relational approaches to sustainability transformations: Walking together in a world of many worlds. Ecosystems and People 20 (1) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2370539
Wu,R; Liu,L-L; Zhu,H; Su,W-J; Cao,Z-Y; Zhong,S-Y; Liu,X-H; Jiang,C-L. (2019). Brief mindfulness meditation improves emotion processing. Frontiers in Neuroscience 13 (1074) :1–10, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01074 31649501