How to Review The Nature Record Draft

Quick update: Thank you to everyone who has contributed comments on the draft assessment. We’ve added chapter search to the online tool, and you can also download individual chapters or the full report to review offline and submit comments using our spreadsheet template.

If you’ve been unsure how to participate, today’s post explains how to get started.

Opening a national scientific assessment can feel a little like opening IKEA instructions—lots of diagrams, unfamiliar symbols, and the leftover bolt on the table leaves you with the strong suspicion that you skipped an important step somewhere along the way.

Maybe you opened the assessment at naturerecord.org and realized it was hundreds of pages long or started reading it and thought “I’m not sure I’m qualified to comment on something like this.”

These reactions are completely understandable. This guide is meant to show how anyone can engage with The Nature Record and offer feedback that strengthens the final report.

The first thing to know is that you do not need to read the entire report.

The Nature Record National Assessment is best approached like a map. You don’t need to walk every road. You just need to start somewhere that draws you in and follow your own route.

Some readers begin with the ecosystems chapters, which describe what is happening in marine systems, inland waters, and terrestrial landscapes. Others start with the chapters on drivers of change—forces such as climate change, land use, pollution, or invasive species that shape the condition of nature.

You might also find yourself drawn to the chapters that explore connections between nature and people, including culture, health, economies, and security.

Wherever you begin, spend time with the summaries, key messages, maps, and figures. These often capture the core message of a chapter quickly. They can help orient you before reading more deeply into the text.

Once you have a sense of what the chapter is saying, you are ready to comment.

You do not need to evaluate the technical details of the science. Many of the most helpful comments focus on clarity, relevance, and perspective.

• Does the chapter clearly explain why these findings matter?

• Are there places where the language could be clearer or more accessible?

• Does this reflect what you see happening in your region or community?

• Are there important examples or perspectives that should be included?

• Are there topics that you feel are important and are missing?

Comments like these help ensure the report is not only scientifically rigorous, but also meaningful and usable.

You might also notice where the report feels unbalanced—too much emphasis in one place, not enough in another—or where connections between chapters could be clearer. Those observations are valuable.

There are a few places where you can add particular value.

Clarity. If something is hard to follow, call it out.

Local knowledge. Many people know of restoration efforts, stewardship programs, or partnerships that don’t yet appear in the report but should. We won’t be able to fit every example into the report, but we hope to find other ways to highlight these examples.

Connections between people and nature. How landscapes shape identity, livelihoods, recreation, and well-being—these perspectives are central to the assessment and often best informed by lived experience.

In other words, you don’t need to approach this like a technical reviewer. You can approach it as someone who cares about nature and wants this record to be as complete and useful as possible.

In the end, The Nature Record National Assessment is something you can gently step into.

Read a section that catches your attention. Notice what makes sense and what doesn’t. Pay attention to what feels familiar and what feels missing.

Think of this as the part of the IKEA experience where you stop, look at the instructions, look at the half-built piece in front of you, and realize something might not quite fit the way it should. Maybe a step needs to be clearer. Maybe a piece is missing. Maybe that leftover bolt actually matters.

That’s what this public comment process is for. The draft we’ve shared is one moment in a larger process of listening—to science, to nature, and to people. The final version will be stronger because you took the time to notice what fits, what doesn’t, and what’s missing.

So wherever you begin, welcome. And if you see the extra bolt on the table, please tell us.