Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance
(2020) In Environmental Science and Policy 104. p.36-42- Abstract
Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of “nature” in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an... (More)
Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of “nature” in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges.
(Less)
- author
- publishing date
- 2020
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Earth jurisprudence, Indigenous peoples, Knowledge systems, Ontological turn, Rights of nature, Science-policy process
- in
- Environmental Science and Policy
- volume
- 104
- pages
- 7 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85075071617
- ISSN
- 1462-9011
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- de259e34-7aa2-447b-bb48-5fca6018cb94
- date added to LUP
- 2021-01-07 11:22:18
- date last changed
- 2022-04-26 23:03:23
@article{de259e34-7aa2-447b-bb48-5fca6018cb94,
abstract = {{<p>Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of “nature” in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges.</p>}},
author = {{Coscieme, Luca and da Silva Hyldmo, Håkon and Fernández-Llamazares, Álvaro and Palomo, Ignacio and Mwampamba, Tuyeni H. and Selomane, Odirilwe and Sitas, Nadia and Jaureguiberry, Pedro and Takahashi, Yasuo and Lim, Michelle and Barral, Maria P. and Farinaci, Juliana S. and Diaz-José, Julio and Ghosh, Sonali and Ojino, Joyce and Alassaf, Amani and Baatuuwie, Bernard N. and Balint, Lenke and Basher, Zeenatul and Boeraeve, Fanny and Budiharta, Sugeng and Chen, Ruishan and Desrousseaux, Maylis and Dowo, Gregory and Febria, Catherine and Ghazi, Houda and Harmáčková, Zuzana V. and Jaffe, Rodolfo and Kalemba, Mphatso M. and Lambini, Cosmas K. and Lasmana, Felicia P.S. and Mohamed, Assem A.A. and Niamir, Aidin and Pliscoff, Patricio and Sabyrbekov, Rahat and Shrestha, Uttam B. and Samakov, Aibek and Sidorovich, Anna A. and Thompson, Laura and Valle, Mireia}},
issn = {{1462-9011}},
keywords = {{Earth jurisprudence; Indigenous peoples; Knowledge systems; Ontological turn; Rights of nature; Science-policy process}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{36--42}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Environmental Science and Policy}},
title = {{Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018}},
volume = {{104}},
year = {{2020}},
}