There are 5 different views on Building with Nature. The 5 views differ in regard to their acceptance of human intervention in natural systems, from the Hands-off view which rejects human intervention to the Functional view which indulges in all possible forms of intervention. The Classical ecological view, the Developmental view and the Co-evolutionary view fall in between. The Hands-off, Classical and Developmental views can be regarded as eco-centric, whereas the Co-evolutionary and Functional views are anthropocentric.

Type 1: Hands-off View

People with a Hands-off view on nature value naturalness – the extent to which nature is free from human interventions. In this view, human intervention is believed to always reduce the naturalness of an ecosystem. So, the best way to conserve nature is not to interfere, but rather to rely on the natural restoration capacity of ecosystems. Any form of maintenance or intervention, even those activities aimed at stimulating natural processes, are in conflict with naturalness. Underlying this thinking is the belief that humans are not part of nature, but that they have a moral responsibility to behave as partners on the basis of intrinsic equality.

Examples of the Hands-off approach are hard to find in practice. Generally speaking, nature conservation organisations consider biodiversity and rare species more important than naturalness and they often resort to interventions aimed at protecting species rather than allowing nature to take its course.

Type 2: Classical View

People with a Classical ecological view strive to conserve and restore existing natural areas in accordance with an historical reference situation. Whether human intervention are incorporated or not, is not an issue. What matters is to protect (and isolate) existing nature (maintaining biodiversity, protecting rare species and unique landscapes) from further harm. Active human intervention is considered necessary since nature cannot defend itself against the threats from society. In this view, humans should act as stewards of the environment, and naturalness is a subordinate issue.

This view represents a reactive and defensive stance against economic activities that harm nature. Examples of the Classical ecological approach are found in the work of non-governmental nature conservation organisations, who may purchase and manage natural and cultural sites to protect them from destruction.

Type 3: Developmental View

In the Development view, both the protection of existing natural areas and the development of new natural sites are the main objectives. Sustainability cannot be realised simply by keeping one’s hands off nature or by protective interventions, but it also requires the development of new natural sites. Core issues are the desire to enhance naturalness and wilderness, to give space to natural processes, to enhance the systems’ diversity rather than only to conserve rare species. Whether it is by reducing maintenance, removing previous interventions e.g. barrages across a river, or by creating favourable physical conditions for biota, all the interventions are aimed at enhancing naturalness. The development of ecological networks, which help to enhance the natural resilience of ecosystems, is encouraged. Basically, interventions are driven by the desire to provide more space for nature rather than by the wish to realise utility for society. Humans are expected to act as partners for nature.

In this view, increasing the quantity and quality of nature requires ecological networks and opportunities for natural processes in addition to protection and isolation. An example of the Development view is the Dutch national ecological infrastructure – a connected network of nature areas with target types of nature specified per geographical region in terms of both naturalness and species diversity.

Type 4: Co-evolutionary View

For people with a Co-evolutionary view, the primary objective is to maximize the social welfare derived from nature, while maintaining ecological qualities. This welfare can be derived both through direct use (resource extraction) or indirect use (regulatory mechanisms), as well as through non-use (social preferences attached to nature’s existence). In nature areas, user functions which do not seriously damage the natural system are allowed, such as recreation and sustainable forms of harvesting. Although naturalness is considered desirable, it is not considered to exclude human activities, as humans are viewed as part of nature. A balanced interaction between nature and society is advocated. Humans should act as the partners of nature, or at the least act as stewards. Both society and nature are allowed to change and to inflict change upon each other, as long as neither suffers serious damage, nor threats to their existence.

In the Co-evolutionary view, the separation of ecology and economy is neither favourable to nature nor to society, since the two are interdependent. Opposition to this interdependence is seen as unrealistic. Examples of the Co-evolutionary view are nature reserves in which recreation is allowed. Another recent example of the Co-evolutionary view is the Dutch ‘Room for the River’ programme in which rivers receive more space so as to accommodate high flood flows. Sacrificing land at suitable locations in this way is compensated by advantages such as reduced flood risks and increased natural beauty which can be enjoyed by visitors. In this plan, a balanced interaction between society and nature is advocated to generate mutual advantages.

Type 5: Functional view

People with a Functional view on nature, consider that nature’s value lies in the benefit that humans derive from nature. In this view, people may act to control and build (or destroy) nature. The Functional view rests on a strong belief in technological progress. Since naturalness is considered illusionary, humans may control and even construct nature to meet societal needs with the help of ecologically-sound civil engineering. Although humans can destroy nature through technology, people can also create favourable conditions for nature by means of technology. Nature can be man-made and abiotic conditions do not pose restrictions since these can be adjusted too.

In this view, as it has not yet been demonstrated unequivocally that critical thresholds have been encountered, and society has survived so far, it is unclear whether such thresholds actually exist for humans. Examples of a purely Functional view include companies which pollute the environment (e.g. river nearby) with the argument that technology will be developed to clean up at a later date.