Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a highly recognized human motivational theory, stipulates that achieving human self-actualization depends on fulfilling basic needs—physiological needs; safety needs; love and belonging; and self-esteem. All of these needs are inherently linked to ecological integrity, biodiversity, and a healthy environment. Yet, this connection is not made explicit under Maslow's framework, often driving a misperception that securing a safe environment is a “nice to have” motivation once all basic needs have been met. Doing so ignores crucial interactions between these needs and the environment, influencing decision-making priorities and perceptions of risk at all levels within the hierarchy of needs, which is often depicted as a pyramid. Nature conservation narratives and the terminology used therein have evolved over time. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment highlighted links between ecosystems and human well-being through the ecosystem services concept. The IPBES conceptual framework expanded this concept to also include “nature's contributions to people” and “nature's gifts” to achieve a good quality of life, integrating Indigenous and diverse values of nature, while addressing critiques that the ecosystem services concept marginalizes the intrinsic value of nature. This terminology of services, gifts, and contributions mostly puts the burden of proof (on determining how much there is to gain) onto the ecosystem assessments’ knowledge production and synthesis, thereby directly linking biodiversity with specific ecosystem services; nevertheless, such linkages are often incomplete and uncertain, and at times focus on the conversion of ecological and biophysical phenomena into economic terms. These assessments are important tools to advance science and our understanding of complex processes and dependencies. However, additional tools are needed for showcasing how biodiversity and its complex processes act as a mediator, underlying most physiological and personal safety considerations of basic human needs. Integrating environmental and ecological dimensions through a safety and security lens is therefore essential. Inside Maslow's hierarchy, or five-level pyramid, the two foundational (bottom-most) layers are occupied by physiological needs and safety needs, both of which rely on a healthy environment and a high degree of ecological integrity. With its complex processes, thriving biodiversity supports these needs and is thus, in and of itself, a basic need. Clean water and air required to fulfill physiological and safety needs are both dependent on diverse and healthy ecosystems, which maintain the necessary regulatory functions through effective management of resources and waste. Maintaining healthy fish populations, for example, is important not only for ecology and conservation but also for nutritional security and resource independence of small-scale fishing and coastal communities, playing a crucial role in cases where global supply chains are disrupted. Similarly, species richness and population abundance of native pollinators support many crops; beyond measurable ecosystem services, they also function as a safety net if the hives of main commercial species such as the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) collapse, as has been known to happen. Beyond the services that these fish or wild pollinators provide, management and policy should account for uncalculated risks and the often-neglected values of precaution and resilience of diverse and healthy ecosystems, which provide buffers against increasingly frequent extreme events. This change in mindset in how both gains and risks are perceived, from “managing services” to “enhancing ecological security”, is critical for decision-making processes. At the societal level, enhancing ecological security by minimizing and mitigating risks, as well as through ecological restoration efforts, can be implemented through evidence-based, resilience-driven, natural resource management and spatial planning, satisfying additional physiological needs, including nutrition, health, fresh water, and housing. Within the IPBES conceptual framework, security and safety are integral elements in achieving a fulfilled human life, which is the foundation for human well-being. Framing ecological security and safety as basic human needs can help reduce misperceptions of risk when considering trade-offs within decision-making on policy instruments and practices. Misperceptions and biased beliefs on when, how, and to what extent to act, under which baseline/reference systems, may also function as underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. Therefore, to achieve the end goal of managing and restoring our lands and seas for resilience and ecological security, it is crucial not only to sustain but also to enhance the current baseline that has been already gradually shifting. The next three consecutive layers of Maslow's pyramid—the love and belonging; self-esteem; and (at its pinnacle) self-actualization levels—can also be mediated by nature and human–nature connections. These connections can also be strengthened by greater environmental resilience and ecological security, taking diverse values of nature into consideration, including instrumental (e.g., cultural ecosystem services), relational (e.g., sense of place), and intrinsic (e.g., species’ inherent worth) values. Biodiversity conservation must be better perceived as a necessity, from instrumental, relational, and intrinsic value perspectives. More effective communication is therefore essential to highlight the urgent need for conservation research, monitoring, and adaptive management, along with enhancing ecological security and societal resilience. We therefore call for further development of ecological security as a unifying concept, integrating personal and national security within the biodiversity nexus alongside food, water, climate, and health; at the same time, social–ecological research and monitoring can be strengthened, providing a stronger evidence base of these links. The ecological security concept will further benefit from greater engagement and additional interdisciplinary linkages with the humanities, including Maslow's theories, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's development of the capabilities approach, as well as insights from international relations and security studies.
Steiner et al. (Mon,) studied this question.