At its core, the team’s research challenges the way social science has often studied collectively-held habits and routines – so called social practices – as if they were mostly social or cultural, leaving nature in the background. Nitschke and his colleagues argue that this misses the point. Nature is not just a backdrop – it actively shapes and is shaped by what people do. For example, weather conditions influence whether people bike or drive to work, while at the same time, driving contributes to air pollution and climate change. Gardening, likewise, depends on soil, pollinators, and weather, but it can also alter ecosystems depending on how it’s done.

The researchers developed a model that looks at four key ways in which practices and nature are linked as social-ecological practices. First, they consider how nature contributes to practices, such as fossil fuels enabling driving a car or soil enabling gardening. Second, they look at the ecological effects of those practices, like the emissions that come from commuting. Third, they explore how practices interact with each other – for example, how gardening might influence food choices. Finally, they examine how governance shapes practices through policies such as transport planning or gardening regulations. By mapping out these interconnections, Nitschke’s work highlights where changes could push societies toward more sustainable ways of living.

What makes this approach especially powerful is its attention to everyday life. As Nitschke explains, environmental problems don’t just come from big industries or governments – they’re also embedded in the daily routines enacted by millions of people. By analysing those routines as social-ecological practices, acknowledging the many – yet often indirect – interconnections with nature, everyday life and governance, researchers and policymakers can spot hidden leverage points for transformation. 

Encouraging cycling instead of driving, or promoting urban gardens that support biodiversity, can ripple outward in ways that reshape habits, infrastructures, and even cultural values, while also being influenced by distant factors, such as day care schedules or insect diversity.

The paper also stresses that this isn’t just about theory. Nitschke and his team tested their ideas through real-world experiments, such as studying how commuters respond to alternatives to car travel and how urban gardeners interact with insect diversity. These cases show how the social-ecological perspective can bridge sociology with natural sciences, creating new tools for addressing sustainability challenges.