From Cognition to Conservation: Applying Grid–Group Cultural Theory to Manage Natural Resources

Abstract

Harmony between humans and nature can be achieved by changing human perceptions and behavioral patterns towards natural resources. Cultural cognition can guide human behavior. By reviewing the development of grid–group culture theory, its classification methods, and its application to natural resource management, this study expects to gain a comprehensive understanding of the interactions between the worldviews, behavioral trends, and resource management practices of different types of people. By summarizing the application of the theory to multiple dimensions of natural resource management, the study finds the following: (1) changes in dominant cultural types at the same hierarchical level can change natural resource management strategies, and changes in cultural types of lower hierarchical groups are unable to drive policy changes; (2) the cultural types of policy followers in natural resource management are influenced by factors such as age, education, and gender, while natural resource policy (policy makers) cultural types are influenced by the natural resources themselves; (3) hierarchical natural resource management strategies are a more limited way of managing natural resources, at present. Egalitarianism is the ideal state of natural resource management, but the lack of economic efficiency considerations forces the egalitarian management approach to be ineffectively implemented.

1. Introduction

In the field of natural resource management, the focus extends beyond understanding natural processes to managing human societies. This involves formulating appropriate natural resource management policies to alter human behaviors and achieve sustainable development [1]. In recent years, natural resource management has gradually shifted from managing nature to managing human–nature coexistence, emphasizing social and human factors [2,3]. By comparing the definitions of culture by several anthropologists and cultural theorists [4,5,6,7], I personally believe that culture is a collection of social perceptions and behaviors that differentiate a group from another. It is also a crucial element to be improved upon in the feedback loop of human–environment interactions. Consequently, researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of cultural cognition and other human factors in natural resource management [8,9].

As early as 1996, the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC) jointly launched the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). This initiative aims to describe, analyze, and understand the impact of human factors on global changes. By integrating natural sciences and social sciences, it enables a more comprehensive and systematic study of the causes and effects of human activities on environmental changes, as well as human responses to these changes [10].

In the management and use of natural resources, fully leveraging the roles and authorities of individuals, communities, and governments has become a research focus [11]. Simultaneously, promoting local community participation in natural resource conservation and management presents a significant research challenge, while coordinating the interests of local communities and governments remains a central issue in natural resource management studies. These problems involve the behavioral relationships between humans and nature, as well as among humans themselves. Human behavior is influenced by cognitive patterns and social conditions, leading to the emergence of various relevant theories and research paradigms, such as Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior [12] and the Psychological Distance model based on Construal Level Theory (CLT) constructed by Wang Susie et al. [13].

Existing research mainly analyzes values and behavioral awareness but often overlooks the potential impact of social environments on individual behavior. To address this gap, cultural theory (CT) categorizes human social attributes and relationships, thereby classifying worldviews (individuals’ preferences for various types of social organization or cultural ways of life [14]) and establishing models of the relationship between worldviews and natural resource cognition (people’s perceptions and ways of thinking related to natural resources). This helps analyze the choices individuals make when facing natural resource management issues, thereby providing valuable support for implementing natural resource conservation, management policies, and cultural heritage.

Early research on cultural theory primarily included psychological measurement paradigms and cultural theories based on psychology and decision theory [15]. The psychological measurement paradigm focuses on cognitive factors such as individual psychology and perception but neglects the influence of social and cultural factors. Mary Douglas believed that individuals are embedded in social structures and that their social backgrounds shape their values, attitudes, and worldviews. She proposed the use of “grid” and “group” dimensions to explain cultural diversity in the simplest terms, constructing a classification system named grid–group cultural theory (GGCT) [16]. This theory fully considers human social attributes and systematically links social relationships, cultural cognition, and behavior, enabling predictions of behavior through analysis of cultural types. However, critics argue that cultural theory’s classification results are not highly stable in linking behavior and involve complex internal influencing factors.

GGCT has been widely used in the study of explanatory behavior and cognition, but the application of the core approach of the “myth of nature” in natural resource management does not seem to have received much attention. Therefore, this article, by combing through the development of GGCT and comparing the existing research on GGCT in natural resource management, is expected to provide new ideas for natural resource management and recommend this theoretical framework for scholars conducting research in natural resource management. Therefore, by reviewing the development of GGCT and comparing the existing research on GGCT in natural resource management, this article aims to provide new ideas for natural resource management and recommend this theoretical framework for scholars conducting research in natural resource management.

Section 2 of this study reviews the germination process of the formation of GGCT by combing through books and articles related to Mary Douglas’ grid cultural theory, describing the ways in which individual cultural theory can be categorized and the different types of worldviews. In Section 3, this study utilizes Turner’s related research to illustrate the scientific validity of the cultural theory classification from a neuroscience perspective, while using existing research to cross-validate the more widely applied cultural theories with the classification methodology to demonstrate the feasibility of the Gerősian cultural theory. Section 4 first describes the natural resource myths derived from the application of GGCT to resource management; then, through the literature review, the established literature is categorized into three applied directions—(1) types of culture in natural resource management; (2) what factors influence the type of culture; (3) enhancing natural resource management through cultural theory—and the research results and conclusions of each direction are systematically analyzes. In the discussion part of Section 5, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the conclusions and cases of the established literature, proposes that the classification of cultural theory for resource management is divided into two broad categories for policy implementers and formulators (institutions), with a large gap between the directions and results of the different types of research, explains the type of culture of natural resource policy and the connection with natural resources based on the relevant research cases, and finally proposes how to utilize cultural theory for natural resource management. In the concluding section, Section 6, summarizes how to understand the conflicting interests of various parties in natural resource management through the categorical approach of cultural theory, so as to find the key factors for resolving the conflicts, balancing the interests, and achieving the goals of sustainable resource management and social development. Figure 1 shows the correspondence between cultural typologies and natural resource management. It also shows the main issues to be addressed.

Currently, numerous scholars have applied cultural theory to the field of natural resource management, exploring the impact of worldviews, behavioral patterns, and natural resource management models on resource management. Therefore, this paper reviews the application of cultural theory in natural resource management research to provide references for scholars engaged in natural resource management and policy research.

2. Development of Cultural Theory

The historical roots of cultural theory can be traced back to the studies of French sociologist Émile Durkheim from the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. Durkheim posited that early human “classification” primarily involved categorizing people, and that the classification of natural world entities was an extension based on already established social classifications [17]. He stated that “Concepts and other classifications are formed in collective life, expressed in collective terms, and experiential knowledge is mediated through social relationships, which influence the characteristics of thought and knowledge”.

British educational sociologist Basil Bernstein combined Durkheim’s theories with European structuralism, proposing a sociological theory that uses dual variables to distinguish four basic types of classification. This theory can be seen as a precursor to Mary Douglas’s later framework of the four basic social–cultural categories in her grid–group analysis [18].

British social anthropologist Mary Douglas formally proposed cultural theory. She moved beyond focusing on specific issues like quadrant language styles to deeply study the most fundamental social structure classifications and describe their characteristics. This approach reveals the relationship between basic social structure types, human culture, and worldviews from the perspective of social control. This method, later known as the “social cultural survival theory”, is commonly referred to as “cultural theory”. Since this theory employs grid–group classification, it is also known as grid–group cultural theory (GGCT). As Mary Douglas’s understanding of cultural theory deepened, she proposed different definitions of grid–group cultural theory during various periods [19,20,21,22,23,24], as shown in

Table 1. The main ideas of Douglas’ cultural theory from different periods.

Duration	Literary Work	Main Theories
1966	Purity and Danger	She proposed initial ideas about primitive worldviews, external boundaries, internal boundaries, and the fragmentation and reorganization of systems concerning human societies and classifications [13].
1970	Natural Symbols	She first introduced the concepts of “grid” and “group”. “Group” measures the external boundaries of a social unit, while “grid” measures the internal boundaries of a social unit.
1973	Natural Symbols (Revised Edition)	The two versions contained different understandings, leading to confusion in the definitions of grid and group, which made it difficult for people to comprehend her theory [14,15,16].
1978	Cultural Tendencies	She defined grid as the “dimension of individualization” and group as the “dimension of social integration” [17,18].

.

Since the 1980s, Douglas began collaborating with anthropologists Steve Rayner and Michael Thompson, as well as political scientists Aaron Wildavsky and Richard Ellis, to develop her grid–group typology into a mature social and political theory [25,26,27,28,29]. This theory posits that humans are social beings with typical values, beliefs, habits, and lifestyles. Through subsequent research and applications by various sociologists, anthropologists, and other researchers, the grid–group cultural theory has gradually reached a consensus: a high grid indicates strict individual roles and positions within a group, and as one moves downwards, there is a greater likelihood of negotiating one’s relationships with others; the group dimension measures the degree of cohesion between individuals and their group. A person who collaborates with others in “co-residence, co-work, sharing resources and entertainment” will be assigned a high group level. The further to the right one moves, the stricter the control over group entry, and the higher the boundaries between members and non-members.

The grid–group cultural theory uses Cartesian coordinates to classify people, where grid and group are orthogonal. However, this orthogonality is understood not in a traditional sense but from the perspective of morphological changes. The combination of grid and group forms four social environments: low grid–low group (A), high grid–low group (B), high grid–high group (C), and low grid–high group (D). Corresponding to these are four worldviews: individualism, fatalism, hierarchy, and egalitarianism. During this process, Thompson proposed a three-dimensional model, suggesting the addition of an “agency” variable to represent the extent to which a person manipulates or is manipulated by others, thereby further enhancing classification accuracy [30]. Additionally, Thompson and his colleagues recognized that individuals could choose not to interact with others, leading to further refinement of cultural theory by categorizing “hermits” who accept all cultural biases, making them non-interactive [31,32], as shown in Figure 2.

Thompson et al. [29] believe that human nature is constructed based on the social environment in which one is situated. For individualists, human nature is stable and oriented towards self-interest; for fatalists, human nature is unpredictable; for hierarchists, humans are inherently flawed, but good institutions can redeem them; conversely, egalitarians believe that humans are inherently good, but their nature is highly sensitive to the influence of institutions. The grid–group cultural theory focuses on the social attributes of individuals rather than the individuals themselves, aligning with Marx’s view that “the essence of man is the sum of all social relations”. Therefore, when applying the grid–group cultural theory for classification, it is essential to consider the appropriate focus and scale, as an individual’s social attributes and choices may vary in different environments.

3. Validation of Cultural Theory

Many scholars have questioned the classification methods and applicability of the grid–group cultural theory, but numerous researchers have validated its applicability from various perspectives. Some have adopted a biological viewpoint and compared it with other classification methods to elucidate the feasibility of cultural theory.

3.1. Validation from a Neuroscientific Perspective

In the early 1980s, social theorist Victor Turner [33,34] advocated the development of “neurosociology”. At that time, due to limitations in technology and cognition, research in this field was rare. However, in the 1990s, with the development of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology used to measure brain activity, neuroscience made rapid progress, achieving significant discoveries in areas related to social sciences such as human cognition, emotions, decision-making, and social interactions [35,36]. Neuroscientists like Dehaene et al. [37,38,39,40,41,42] proposed that due to the constraints of neurons, there must be a limited set of basic or universal patterns in how humans organize, perceive, and emotionally experience social relationships. Noted neuroscientist Robert Turner [43,44] pointed out that Douglas’s classification aligns with the constraints imposed by the human brain structure on social organization. He utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to provide strong support for the integration of neuroscience and social theory, which his father Victor Turner had previously advocated.

3.2. Validation Through Comparison with Other Classification Methods

The theory of grid–group culture can be said to be the expansion of individualism–collectivism (I-C) to a certain extent, and the I-C classification is the most important classification in the current cultural theory, and many scholars believe that the I-C has a multidimensional structure, but different scholars have different definitions of the dimensions of the I-C expansion. By comparing different cultural theories, these scholars reveal the advantages of I-C-based cultural theories in explaining and predicting human behavior and cultural phenomena. It provides a reference for the development of GGCT.

Between 1960 and 1970, Hofstede conducted a survey of value differences between different divisions at IBM, and the findings were strikingly similar to those of Inkeles and Levinson’s National Cultures theory from 20 years earlier [45,46]. Inspired by the theory, Hofstede identified the four original value dimensions of cultural dimensions theory: individualism and collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity and femininity. It can be seen that this theory also extends I-C in different dimensions. Hofstede then collaborated with Michael Harris Bond of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to add a new dimension: Short-Term vs. Long-Term Orientation. Now, Michael Minkov has proposed a sixth dimension of indulgence versus restraint through collaborative research with Geert [46]. Although Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory has been widely applied globally, some scholars believe its limitations lie in neglecting internal cultural differences and dynamic changes in cross-cultural contexts.

Compared to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, the grid–group cultural theory emphasizes internal cultural diversity and examines how different cultural types influence individual cognition, emotions, and behavior. Additionally, the grid–group cultural theory can reveal the strategies and systems different cultural types employ to solve social problems and conflicts, thereby providing guidance for cross-cultural communication and cooperation [47].

Triandis increased the credibility of the categorization results by introducing horizontal and vertical dimensions in the I-C study, a theory that focuses on the manifestations of individualism and collectivism in different cultural contexts and distinguishes between competitive and cooperative collectivism [48,49]. Although Triandis’s theory has some advantages in explaining individual–group relations, some scholars’ studies have shown that the precision of the vertical–horizontal dimension’s compartmentalization has been questioned [50], and further research is needed.

Moral foundations theory (MFT), one of the most widely used cultural theories, is a fusion by Harry C. Triandis and Craig Joseph of Shweder’s three types of ethics (autonomy ethics, community ethics, and sacred ethics) [51] and Fiske’s four relational models (community sharing, authority ordering, equality matching, and market pricing) [52] through extensive research and the introduction of other moral values. The theory was heavily criticized in its early days for lacking rigor, based on a list of foundations that Haidt and Joseph selected based only on their reading of five books and articles. Through lengthy revision and discussion, Haidt updated the list of five criteria, including Criterion 3: culturally widespread sanctity/degradation, referencing Douglas’ book Purity and Danger as an extension and application of her cultural theory [53].

Moreover, Verweij et al. [54] spent two years using volunteers to compare 39 highly cited classifications (cited over 3000 times) in political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, business studies, social psychology, and communication studies with cultural theory classifications. The study demonstrated a weighted consistency ratio of 0.6583 with a standard deviation of 0.0199 between the cultural theory framework and other classification methods, showing good consistency. This indicates that the cultural theory classification method is scientifically sound and universally applicable. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the grid–group cultural theory can serve as an effective classification method for use and research.

4. GGCT and Natural Resource Management

The core objective of Douglas’s theory is to link the four basic types of social environments with corresponding “worldviews”. In other words, the significance of this theory lies in its use as an analytical and explanatory tool for studying both primitive social issues and more complex modern social problems. In her book Natural Symbols [21], Douglas uses grid–group cultural theory to explore people’s differing attitudes towards various aspects such as travel, gardening, cooking, medicine and health, youth, old age, space, time, interpersonal relationships, and punishment. Empirical typology and theoretical typology can reinforce each other: the former provides validation for the latter, while the latter establishes a foundational framework for the former’s explanations.

4.1. Myths of Nature

One successful integration of cultural theory with empirical typology is seen in the natural cognition typology (Myths of Nature) identified by ecologists studying the management of ecosystems such as forests, fisheries, and grasslands. Michael Thompson and others [30,45] revealed the close connection between types of nature and cultural types, as shown in Figure 3.

Each type of nature perception is represented in reality. In the graphical representation, these nature perceptions are shown as a sphere connected to an ecological line, and the shape of the line reveals the expected interactions between the sphere and the ecological line (the relationship between life and the world), and people possessing different types of nature perceptions perceive natural resources differently [33]. When the line is in the shape of “n”, nature is considered fragile (Nature Ephemeral) and all perturbations have irreversible effects on nature, corresponding to egalitarianism, as egalitarians value equality and therefore believe that nature is the same as human beings, and that there should be no endless demands on nature. This is in contrast to Individualists, who believe that nature is benign and healthy (Nature Robust), and that humans can take from nature because nature has a high tolerance and self-healing ability to return to a good state. When the line is in the shape of an ”m”, it indicates that nature has a high degree of tolerance (Nature Tolerant); a high degree of tolerance allows the sphere to be kept in an optimal condition, but if the tolerance limit is exceeded, the ecological situation will deteriorate. This perception emphasizes the authority of the experts because they can assess the safe zone, corresponding to the concept of hierarchism. When the lines are straight, nature is perceived as variable and unpredictable (Nature Capricious), and it is not possible to summarize the laws from past experiences, in line with the fatalistic viewpoint, where fatalists believe that the connection between humans and nature should be random, and that humans can only be passive in accepting the results of natural changes. In addition, there is a fifth possibility of nature cognition, Nature Resiliene, which corresponds to the hermit conception. This type is often neglected, and this type of nature cognition is also more complex: the hermit believes that nature is eternal and is the integration of the other four types, which forms a transformational cycle. The hermit analyzes the differences and conflicts between different cultural types through acceptance, culminating in a recognition of the oneness of humans and the environment, that is, when one is changed the other is changed with it [55].

4.2. GGCT Application in Natural Resource Management

Public participation is considered one of the key factors in promoting the sustainable development and management of natural resources. However, not all natural resource management projects can effectively involve the public. Conflicts in values and power imbalances can negatively impact the participation process. So far, research on public participation in natural resource management has mainly focused on two aspects: power imbalances and conflicts of interest. Hildyard et al. [56] pointed out that public participation is not simply about bringing various stakeholders together to reach a fair consensus. Multiple perspectives, diverse interests, and power inequalities can severely disrupt the entire process.

Therefore, in recent years, there has been increasing attention on how to design more transparent, effective, and legitimate public participation processes. For instance, Pokorny et al. [47] aimed to enhance the effectiveness of the participation process by predicting potential conflicts between different stakeholders. Additionally, Billgren et al. [57] used cultural theory to analyze stakeholders in natural resource management, indicating that more testing is needed before analyzing stakeholders. By understanding the worldviews of stakeholders, it is possible to predict their decisions and behaviors in different contexts. In conclusion, when studying public participation in natural resource management, it is crucial to fully consider multiple perspectives, diverse interests, and power imbalances, and strive to design more transparent, effective, and legitimate participation processes to achieve sustainable development and resource management goals.

4.2.1. Differences Between Cultural Types in Natural Resource Management

Different cultural types have different perceptions of the natural environment, the way and extent of natural resource development, and the development and acceptance of natural resource management policies, so it is important to analyze the perceptions of different cultural types on natural resources through cultural type surveys for policy development and project implementation [57]. Koehera et al. [58] summarize the connection between cultural theory categories and water management models, where egalitarians see themselves as being in a “community” that establishes a water committee to manage water allocation, operation, and maintenance, which is managed through rationing in the face of water scarcity, with the high cost of maintenance shared equally among community members. Individualism is characterized by private management of water stations, where the individual is fully insured for operation and maintenance, and also owns the business activities and revenues from selling water on their own. Hierarchicals are categorized as “bureaucratic management”, which is usually run by governing bodies such as schools and religious institutions, which establish a set of rules and procedures to deal with the financial, operational, and environmental risks of the water station. Fatalists are of the “opportunist” and “resigned to fate” types, but either type only manifests itself when the project fails.

Zhang conducted two very interesting studies on the topic of water resource utilization and management in Zhangye City, China. In the first study, he analyzed the cultural types of 362 water users, the factors influencing the cultural types, and the cognitive status of water resources management through a questionnaire survey. The study found that the cultural types of the group had a low level of influence on water resources management; combined with the previous studies, he concluded that rights are the determining factors influencing public participation in the process of water resources management [59]. Therefore, in the second study, his focus shifted to finding out which cultural types of rights groups can achieve optimal water management [60]. Zhang found that hierarchical groups can achieve optimal water management by constructing a system of indicators to evaluate the style of water resource management and using fuzzy network analysis, concluding that managers with preferences should be selected and trained. Based on Zhang’s study, Yin et al. [61] conducted a more detailed study on the cultural types of water users and water resources cognition, and found that different cultural types pay attention to different water resource management measures, with hierarchical groups paying more attention to water-saving technologies and water inflow control, while egalitarian groups pay more attention to water demand and water pricing policies, which proves that there are indeed differences in water resources cognition among people of different cultural types. Zhong [62] also found that residents of the same cultural type generally have corresponding views on nature perception, but his study focuses on what factors influence cultural type, which will be discussed in detail in Section 4.2.2.

Applying cultural theory to describe and analyze the whaling-related literature, Singleton et al. [63] examines the development of policy and the establishment of regulatory institutions for the whaling industry. In the 1860s, as whaling tools were perfected and individualism took over due to access to the valuable strategic resource of whale oil, political and scientific methods to assess the whaling industry and then control its impacts were non-existent, and this cultural typology took control of the whaling industry, leading to a decline in whale populations. By 1946, as whale populations declined and outside voices against whaling became louder, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was enacted and became the International Whaling Commission (IWC), at which point hierarchical and egalitarian perspectives became more and more prominent, and various systems and mechanisms were developed to utilize hierarchical logics (laws and quotas) in order to manage the competition over whales and whaling activities. The anti-whaling rhetoric on the policy arena was announced at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, at which point egalitarians (moratoriums on whaling) began to dominate; however, Norway, Japan, and Iceland continue whaling through a number of policies, and as the whaling industry has evolved to the present day, pro-whalers have often articulated the view that careful management and monitoring of whaling is sustainable. It can be seen that as the natural environment has changed, the cultural typologies that dominate policy making on natural resources have also changed.

4.2.2. What Factors Image the Type of Culture in Natural Resource Management

When Zhong et al. [62] conducted a literature review, they found that a large number of studies, when explaining cultural types, only took into account the degree of closeness between people of different cultural types and their class of interests, and focused less on the factors that may exist in cultural types to influence their cultural types; thus, Zhong et al. carried out research on cultural type tendency based on socio-demographic characteristics and, in Zhangye City, found that age showed a strong correlation with egalitarianism, and education level showed a positive correlation with individualism. The study found that age presented a strong correlation with egalitarianism, and education level presented a positive correlation with individualism. Younger people are less controlled by the social order, and as age increases, social experiences and memories affect the way people understand, making respondents more biased toward egalitarian ideas. Education is an important component in behavioral science research, correlating with occupation, class, and income [64]. However, Marris et al. [65], in his study of cultural theory and psychometric paradigm, found that people who scored higher on individualism were older and had less formal education; the result of this study contradicts the findings of Zhong F.L [62], which may be due to the fact that, in the results of this study, hierarchical, individualistic, egalitarian, and fatalistic people were all less formally educated, and that the key factors that differentiate the cultural types of these people are gender and age.

Hoogstra-Klein et al. [66] conducted a study on the cultural typology and influencing factors of people enjoying benefits in natural resource areas in a pine plantation area in the Surakarta region of Java, Indonesia. The area has long faced serious land degradation problems, and in 2002, Surakarta District began implementing participatory forest management, which gives residents more rights to use national forest land and share in the benefits of thinning and harvesting, but the area has a complex social grassroots history and many stakeholders. Hoogstra-Klein utilized the 62 valid questionnaires received (16 from the National Forestry Authority (NFA), 18 from the local Forestry Authority (LAF), 7 from local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 21 from local communities), and used K-mean clustering to classify the results into four categories. It was found that cultural theory (CT) allowed for the initial categorization of participants’ worldviews. The Hierarchical–Individualist cluster consisted primarily of older adults (55+) living in rural areas, while the Strong Hierarchical and Hierarchical–Egalitarian clusters consisted primarily of younger urban residents under the age of 45. Moderate egalitarians are predominantly urban residents between the ages of 46 and 55. In terms of organizational affiliation, respondents with hierarchical–individualist worldviews were mainly villagers; respondents with strong hierarchical worldviews were mainly NFA staff; and respondents with hierarchical–egalitarian worldviews were mainly from NGOs and the local Forestry Department. From the results of the study, different occupational types and ages resulted in different cultural types.

4.2.3. Enhancing Natural Resource Management Through Cultural Theory

Cultural theory categorizes the different stakeholders of natural resources, identifies the needs of different cultural types for natural resources, analyzes the potential risks inherent in each cultural type as well as the conflicts with other cultural types, and finds a compromise to make the management of natural resources better by harmonizing the points of conflict between the parties [67]. Efforts to ensure regular and reliable access to household water supply represent a major challenge for governments in sub-Saharan Africa. Tantoh et al. [68] investigated rural water supply systems in rural areas of Northwest Cameroon using cultural theory and systems thinking analysis (STA) perspectives. Using cultural theory to categorize different social groups, Tantoh used cultural theory and a natural cognitive typology to find that risks to Cameroon’s rural water supply are related to water degradation and operational and maintenance risks that impede the long-term sustainability of the community, and that in Northwest Cameroon, the collective has lost some elements of its ability to control individual behavior—especially as elites use their power to pursue their own interests at the expense of the collective to pursue their own interests. Therefore, a strict hierarchy is recommended here, where people must abide by social norms and respect the normative rules of the state in order to avoid environmental collapse. Zhang X.J. et al. [60] explored the impact of management style on efficient water resource management in the middle reaches of the Hei River in China by using cultural theory to classify water resource management styles into four cultural types in combination with fuzzy network analysis to evaluate the examples, and suggested that the top-down management model (municipal water bureaus, county and district water bureaus, irrigation water management institutes, irrigation water management stations, and farmer water user associations) is the research area to achieve water resources efficient management. Skuzinski et al. [69] used a cultural theory approach to categorize the government, the rich, and the citizens of Detroit and illustrated the perspectives of different cultural types on land use using urban transportation as an example. The study reveals tensions over land use between different cultural types representing classes, and the study suggests two ways in which individualists and hierarchists can be made to support joint land use planning, either by attracting and accommodating different cultural types through the development of policies and the implementation of programs to make different cultural types accept each other under the same interest-driven approach, or by persuading them through communication to recognize the joint land use policies, thus changing their cultural type orientation in a subtle way, eliminating prejudices and reshaping relationships. The application of cultural theory in natural resource management significantly improves our understanding of and ability to cope with complex social–ecological systems, guides us to develop more inclusive and effective management strategies, balances the interests and needs of different cultural groups in practice, and ensures the equity and sustainability of natural resource management.

5. Discussion

5.1. How Cultural Types of Different Objects Affect Natural Resource Management

Section 4.2.1 shows that the application of cultural theory to natural resource management can be categorized into the classification of the people involved and the classification of the managers or institutions, and Koehera [58] describes the management styles of different cultural types in the context of water resource management. Zhang X.J. [59] and Yin X.J. [61] conducted a study on the measures and concerns of different cultural types of people on natural resource management, and the premise of these two studies is actually based on the influence of the cultural types of the people involved in the implementation of this policy on the natural resource management policy when the management approach has already been defined as hierarchical; the study shows that when the policy has already been defined and implemented, the difference in the cultural types of the people involved in its implementation can only be reflected in their views on the management of natural resources and the management of water resources. Cultural type differences can only be reflected in a different focus on the outcomes of policy implementation, which does not directly enhance natural resource management. Singleton uses the history of policy development in marine resource utilization—specifically whaling—as an example to show how resources are managed and utilized when different cultural types dominate policy or rule-making. The example of whaling shows that when individualism was dominant, the use of the individual for personal purposes led to the rapid depletion of natural resources, and such a situation inspired both hierarchists and egalitarians to worry about natural resources. Once hierarchism and egalitarianism became dominant, the exploitation of natural resources was restored to a level of sustainable development; however, some individualists continue to seek personal benefits through various means. What needs to be emphasized is that individualism does not refer to an isolated individual alone, but rather a group that espouses that worldview. When comparing Singleton’s study with Zhang [59] and Yin’s [61] research, it is found that in Zhang X.J. and Yin X.J.’s studies, the cultural type of the policy implementers and the different demands on the policy cannot directly drive the policy change, while in Singleton’s study, the policy implementers can drive the change in cultural type of the policy. This is mainly due to the rationality of the policy. When implementing a hierarchical and egalitarian-dominated policy, people from different cultures will have different views on the policy, but this does not mean that the policy is irrational, and it is not possible to change the policy in this way. On the other hand, there is the equality of status of the participants; whaling policy is made by countries and scientists who are on equal footing with each other, so when one cultural type dominates, the rules and policies change, whereas when there is inequality of status between the policy makers and the participants, the cultural types of the participants are not in a position to push for a change in the policy.

5.2. Factors Influencing the Type of Culture

The analysis of factors affecting cultural types is divided into two parts, one of which is the analysis of factors affecting cultural types of people affected by natural resource management policies, as mentioned in Section 4.2.3. By comparing the studies of Hoogstra-Klein [46] and Zhong [62], it can be found that cultural types are not affected by the same factors in different regions, and that cultural types are often the result of the interaction of multiple factors. However, occupation, education, age, and gender are the main factors that influence culture types, and these factors determine the class of human beings in the social environment, how much they are influenced by the social environment, and how they are treated differently by the society. The other part is the analysis of the factors affecting the culture type of the natural resource management policy or management organization in Section 4.2.1. The culture type of the policy or management organization depends on the general culture type of the people who make up the group. Singleton’s research shows us that the policy and management style will change the natural resource carrying capacity; at the same time, a decrease in natural resource carrying capacity will force the policy to shift by awakening the other culture types, forcing a shift in policy, while increased scientific knowledge shifts people from an ideological confrontation between utilization and conservation to a rational approach. As mentioned in Singleton’s study, the policy of whaling, shifting from individualism to hierarchical egalitarianism to full egalitarianism, emphasizes complete protection from exploitation, but we can see that when the policy proceeds to full egalitarianism, it stagnates, and if the policy makers do not have strong restraints on the participants, then the participants do not comply with the policy. From Skuzinski’s study and other policy developments [69], it is important to recognize that natural resource conservation is not only about protection, but also about considering the other interests of each cultural group, and that there is a need for adequate communication with other cultural groups in the development of rules to move natural resource management towards sustainable development [70].

6. Conclusions

Grid–group cultural theory categorizes human societies into four basic cultural types, each with different tendencies and preferences in social structure, power distribution, values, and behavior patterns. By linking changes in the social environment with cultural theory, it reveals the impact of different cultural types and worldviews on human behavior and decision-making. This helps understand the differences between various social groups and provides references for cross-cultural research, conflict resolution, and social development. Natural resource management often involves conflicts and competition among different stakeholders. This study analyzes the cultural types of different stakeholders (group representatives) and the trend in change in the theory of group culture, and finds that when the stakeholders are policy makers or the policy makers and implementers have the same rights or hierarchies, the type of culture that is dominant within the policy makers determines the policy direction, and the factors of natural resource endowment, politics, and cognition may change the type of culture that is dominant within the policy makers. While egalitarianism may be the most desirable approach to natural resource management, its overemphasis on conservation and lack of consideration of economic benefits can lead to unacceptable non-compliance by some stakeholders, making hierarchical policies the primary means of achieving sustainable development. When the research object becomes the policy adherent, and there is a status or power gap between the policy adherent and the policy maker, the policy adherent cannot promote the policy’s cultural type to be closer to him, but by analyzing the objective factors affecting the cultural type and the same cultural type’s view or focus on the policy, it can be possible to promote the implementation of the policy by changing the relevant influencing factors. Through our review of the literature, we found that the development and application of GGCT in natural resource management seems to be slowing down, gradually being replaced by broad conflict theory and generalized institutional development theory, especially Ostrom’s research on how public resources can be managed without governmental regulation or privatization, which has led to a wider application of institutional development theory in literature analysis and in the real world. But, like Jonathan Haidt’s assessment of MFT theory, GGCT is an open and revisable dynamic theory that provides a one-of-a-kind framework that we can extend, refine, and build upon based on application scenarios, real-world needs, and temporal changes to help managers identify and understand the root causes of conflict and points of contention between different cultural groups.