Skip to main content

Natures instead of nature—plural perceptions and representations of nature and its challenges for ecological transition: a systematic review of the scientific production

Abstract

Background

Recognizing nature and the environment as sociocultural constructions is critical to enhancing a transformational ecological change. This involves understanding their diverse sociocultural meanings and societal approaches and how these understandings affect equitable ecological transitions. We reviewed empirical studies and essays, categorizing 161 studies into three main categories: opposition, domination, and interdependencies, reflecting varying knowledge, power dynamics, cultures, and contexts. These studies aim to uncover how societies conceptualize, explain, and engage with nature and the environment, shaping society–nature relationships and influencing ecological transitions.

Results

This study underscores the diverse perceptions and representations of nature, from a controllable resource to an integrated web of life. Three main categories emerged: (i) nature against society, in a logic of opposition; (ii) nature subordinated to society, in a logic of domination, although integrated into society; and (iii) nature united with society, in a logic of interdependence. Thus, this study advocates discussing “natures” as sociocultural constructs, highlighting the plurality of social perceptions and representations, which can inform policies and challenge socio-political and socio-economic systems.

Conclusions

This review may pave the way to, first, give visibility and value that diversity and plurality as an instrument that can enrich policies and defy socio-political and socio-economic systems to change and, second, identify the main drivers and resistances that the implementation of an ecological transformation change may face in different sociocultural contexts.

Introduction

Social, cultural, and historical factors shape societies' understanding and interpretation of nature. That is why our cultural and social background influences how we perceive, interpret, and value the natural world. Rather than being an objective reality, nature is deeply intertwined into the fabric of human cognition and social behaviours, created by power relations that govern its perception and use. This insight emphasizes the importance of investigating how different communities understand and value the natural environment and the repercussions of that interpretation on the ecological transition.

Literature has made progress in deconstructing these human–nature relationships. The review of Flint et al. [1] aimed to examine empirically established categories of human–nature interactions considering ecosystem services and actions within landscapes; the work of Raymond et al. [2] explored the use of various metaphors of human–environment relationships for evaluating social–ecological systems or even the work of van den Born [3] which give insight into the visions of nature of lay people and the extent to which these visions of nature reflect those of philosophers. However, gaps still exist, notably in comprehensively addressing the range and complexity of societal perspectives on nature and the environment. Our research aims to fill this gap by conducting a thorough review of existing scientific production, with a dual focus: first, to map out the various conceptions and representations of nature and the environment, and second, to identify the key drivers and barriers to ecological transition, particularly in the multicultural context of Europe.

Our approach is based on the awareness that nature and the environment are socially constructed entities with meanings that differ across cultural and historical contexts [4,5,6,7]. Nature frequently refers to the physical world, and its perception is influenced by social variables, resulting in different and context-specific understandings [8]. Because human engagement with nature is closely entangled with societal views, cultural norms, and historical narratives, different civilizations develop their sense of ‘nature’ based on their cultural origins and historical legacies [9]. In contrast, the term 'environment' refers to natural and human-made elements and serves as the broader framework within which nature operates [9]. This formulation may give the impression of overlooking a fundamental aspect defended by authors in science and technology studies, particularly the idea that nature does not transcend the “social” constructions we impose upon it. This perspective underscores the interconnectedness between humans and more-than-human, a concept central to the “cosmopolitics” advanced by influential figures such as Isabelle Stengers [10, 11] and Bruno Latour. This division, often reflected in concepts like “nature” and “environment,” has been extensively discussed by Latour, especially in seminal works like “Reassembling the Social” [12] and “We Have Never Been Modern” [8]. In these works, as well as in his article “Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics?” [13], Latour delves into the limitations of social constructivism and advocates for a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges the entanglement of human and non-human entities. While our use of the notion of “environment” may seem to perpetuate this dichotomy, it is essential to recognize that our intention was to highlight the plurality of perceptions and representations of nature, thereby challenging dominant discourses of opposition and domination. By acknowledging the existence of multiple “natures” and emphasizing interdependence, we seek to pave the way for a more holistic view of human-nature interactions.

However, these conceptualizations are not divorced from power dynamics. Dominant groups influence society’s attitudes and interactions with the environment, sustaining inequalities and exploitative activities. This power asymmetry stems from a Western Cartesian narrative that divides nature and society, maintaining colonial, capitalist, and patriarchal ideas that support environmental injustices [14]. Furthermore, marginalized people, especially women, are doubly disenfranchized under this paradigm, vulnerable to exploitation and dominance alongside nature. Ecofeminist approaches reveal how these interlocking oppressions reinforce colonial logic, sustaining a cycle of exploitation and marginalization. The effects of this mindset go beyond social injustices, increasing global environmental issues like climate change. These repercussions disproportionately affect vulnerable people, expanding the gap between the Global North and South and emphasizing the urgent need for a more equitable and inclusive approach to environmental governance [15,16,17,18].

Not all humans are considered on the culture side. Ecofeminism points out that women, nature, and the environment are exploited and dominated by Western society [19]. It reproduces the same colonial logic that represented nature as an object to be exploited and the colonized people as “intuitive,” “savage,” “emotional,” and “instinctive” persons [20,21,22,23]. The primary justification was the “rescue” of the non-European world from a state of primitive nature into a state of Civilization [24]. As Cronon [25] states in his essay, this romanticized view of wilderness has led to problematic consequences, including the marginalization of indigenous peoples, a narrow focus on preserving specific "wild" areas, and a disconnection between humans and the rest of the natural world. In a recent review, Beery et al. [26] argue that this disconnection from nature has received comparatively less attention and lacks comprehensive theoretical development, which would benefit from moving beyond the individual level to encompass broader societal and collective dimensions of disconnection, such as institutional, sociocultural, and power-related factors that contribute to disconnection [26].

In recent years, there has been a rising appreciation for the importance and validity of indigenous and local knowledge systems in improving our understanding of biodiversity governance and ecosystem management for human well-being. Tengo et al. [27] propose incorporating knowledge systems, including indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge, within global assessment frameworks like the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Their approach, known as the multiple evidence basis (MEB), emphasizes the value of viewing different knowledge systems as complimentary rather than competing. MEB allows for a more thorough understanding of complex situations and collaborative assessments across knowledge domains by evaluating knowledge inside each system and recognizing the unique insights it provides.

Similarly, Pascual et al. [28] emphasize overcoming hurdles and incorporating nature's values into decision-making processes. Despite international accords and frameworks emphasizing the need to value ecosystem services, present policies frequently prioritize market-based values, leaving out other ways people benefit from nature. Drawing on vast scientific literature and indigenous and local knowledge sources, IPBES evaluated the importance of multiple values in policymaking and recommended value-centred ways to overcome existing impediments. By embracing a larger spectrum of beliefs and viewpoints, governments may work towards more just and sustainable futures that respect people and nature equally across generations.

In addressing these intricacies, our research aims to challenge dominant discourses and pave the path for a more nuanced view of human–nature interactions. As such, it is relevant to ask to what extent representations and perceptions of nature and environment produce hegemonic discourses, which are dominant or prevailing narratives, ideologies, or beliefs about nature and environment that exert significant influence over society’s understanding and actions, as well as specific meanings and social-cultural practices as well as specific meanings and social-cultural practices? Moreover, whether these plural perceptions and representations of nature and the environment produce resistance or facilitate the path of ecological transition? First, it is necessary to deconstruct the Western Cartesian narrative to answer those questions. This perspective often stems from Descartes’ philosophical dualism, which posited a clear separation between the mind (thinking, rational) and the body (physical, material), which continues to perceive nature and society/culture as antagonistic poles [29]. This separation conceived the modern Western concept of nature as the great outside. It separated from humanity, being the later in command of the former [30]. Secondly, it is vital to recall the agency of nature in the context of ecological transition since it is based on the concept of "interdependence" between natural, economic, and social phenomena, which is crucial to starting along the path of sustainable development. Supported by Nash [31], we argue that human agency–defined as an actor’s ability to act in a particular environment—cannot be separated from the “environments” in which that agency exists. Furthermore, we are tempted to argue that humans are not the sole “engine of history.” Instead, the interdependence and agency of all living species, whether human or non-human, create the endless possibilities of coexistence and so serves as the agents of history.

Background

Nature has constantly challenged various cultures and civilizations to seek relationships serving each era's dominant visions. Our relationship with nature has always expressed the ambivalence between the need to ensure our survival and the need to respect it as a form of life that shelters multiple lives and makes them possible. The search for knowledge of its diversity and mysteries has both motivated us to try to dominate nature by appropriating its elements and inspired us to understand, as expressed in artistic, philosophical, and scientific production throughout history. These visions are mirrored in the world of life where complex and multifaceted forms of relationship with nature are drawn and affirmed, hence the importance of this study, which seeks to account for these relationships in recent studies. Although living without nature is impossible, that fact cannot justify the abuse and extractive logic that has guided humanity’s relationship with nature. Therefore, the possibility of harmonious coexistence and interdependence between people and nature can be achieved in the various forms of social organization that express particular social constructions in their interactions and the references, principles, and virtues articulated by social policies and norms. Talking about the social construction of nature implies an ontological discussion, not only an epistemic one, that is “multinatural” and not multicultural. Considering the insights from Mario Blaser’s [32] work on political ontology, deepening our understanding of the ontological dimensions of ecological transitions is essential. Blaser's perspective highlights the need to go beyond merely recognizing different ways of knowing and engage in a broader discussion about the nature of reality itself, arguing that discussions about the social construction of nature inherently involve ontological considerations, not just epistemic ones. He emphasizes the concept of “multiculturalism,” which suggests that there are multiple, interconnected ontologies or ways of being in the world. Blaser's analysis challenges the adequacy of multicultural frameworks in addressing ecological transitions, instead proposing a focus on these movements' ontological dimensions.

Ecology studies have proposed one way of perceiving the mutual relationship between nature and society through the “ecosystem services” concept [33]. Initially proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [34], this concept is part of the CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) and is structured into three typologies: provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural services [35]. Ecology studies have been valuing the “cultural services of ecosystems” to contemplate the multidimensional character of ecosystems, that is, the connections of the environment and nature with spiritual, sociocultural, ethical, epistemological, political, ontological, and emotional dimensions crucial to the human well-being [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48].

The relationship between ecosystems, environment, and nature stems from their shared focus on the natural world and the recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of living organisms and their environment. These concepts have been developed through integrating knowledge and ideas from various disciplines, such as ecology, biology, geology, geography, and social and environmental sciences [49, 50].

While interdisciplinary studies in the field of 'relations nature–environment–society' have flourished in various disciplines, it is imperative to acknowledge the vital role played by the science of education and environmental education in shaping our understanding of these complex relationships. Environmental education can be understood as a means to intellectually, emotionally, and ethically engage people with the environment [51]. However, it should go beyond conveying facts and data to inspire a profound connection and stewardship for the natural world [52]. This becomes apparent in the context of children, as their interactions during childhood with a wide range of living and non-living elements from nature create valuable learning experiences, including developing an understanding of biodiversity [53]. Also, environmental education can bridge disciplinary boundaries, encouraging the integration of diverse knowledge and perspectives in addressing environmental issues. As Beery [54] stated, our capacity to mentally separate ourselves from the broader natural world may partly be responsible for environmental degradation. Therefore, challenging the binary distinction between nature and culture is both valuable and constructive, which can be done by outdoor environmental education transcending this problematic dichotomy and encouraging more relational discourse.

Also, the ecosystem services field is deeply rooted in and influenced by the concept of connectedness theory, as it has played a significant role in shaping how we perceive and study the relationship between nature and human well-being [52], namely emphasizing the need for individuals and societies to foster a sense of kinship, respect, and responsibility towards the environment [55]. The seminal work of Chawla [56] highlights the importance of personal experiences in nature and the development of environmental identity, suggesting that throughout human history and civilizations, various cultures, civilizations, and indigenous knowledge systems have recognized the importance of nature's benefits and have developed ways to harness and protect them.

As scientific understanding advanced, there has been an increasing recognition of ecosystems' complex and dynamic nature, the importance of environmental factors in shaping ecosystems, and the intrinsic value of nature [57]. This has led to these terms' intermingling and overlapping usage, as they are often used interchangeably in everyday language and academic discourse [58]. However, the concept of “ecosystem services” can be problematic in the sense of implying the Western modern anthropocentric rationality behind it, precisely in considering that nature and the environment have essential “services” for human benefit [40]. In that regard, the conceptual model proposed in 2013 by the IPBES introduced an alternative language to identify and classify ecosystem services [59]. In short, IPBES proposed the concept of Nature's Contributions to People [60] to suggest a more inclusive and respectful approach to the different representations of nature. In this approach, nature does not have the function of serving people, and it proposes a holistic logic that is less utilitarian and more inclusive and focused on nature's agency and its intrinsic values.

Therefore, four challenges stand out: (1) to consider the agency and the interdependency of humans and non-humans for a better understanding of social practices [61]; (2) the recognition of different forms of social participation through the engagement of communities with the social-cultural world and nature, implying bottom-up policies to face the effects of climate change [62]; (3) the conception and implementation of policies that consider effectively the local sociocultural specificities and needs, and local effects imposed by climate change, to deal, sustainably and inclusively, with the ecological and environmental crisis [63]; (4) to consider in the deliberative and participatory settings different forms of knowledge (traditional, erudite, ecological, local, scientific, artistic, popular, lay, among many others), language and actors. Also, it includes the kind of knowledge born out of the struggles of the social movements for human dignity and, thus, the epistemological diversity of the world against the dominant ways of knowing [64,65,66].

A shift of paradigm is necessary, both in the way we look at nature (which is not at the “service” of humans) and in terms of individual and collective values and behaviours (which are not apart from nature and the environment). In that sense, access to the individual and collective perceptions and representations about nature and the environment is crucial and must be framed within sociocultural backgrounds. Monitoring and understanding these ecological relationships will contribute to an effective, transformative ecological transition by mitigating the harmful effects of climate change on nature and society and combating environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in the world [67, 68]. Social transformation needs a collective awareness of the social construction of nature and the environment to allow an understanding of the drivers and constraints of ecological transition.

Current discussions have moved beyond Latour's and Escobar's classic works. Some critical advances in the field were made by authors like Arturo Escobar's “Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South” [69], Marisol de la Cadena and Blaser's “The Uncommons: An Introduction” [70], and their books “Earth Beings. Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds” [71] and “Storytelling Globalization from the Chaco and Beyond” [72]. Drawing on Latour's work, Escobar, like Blaser, insists that, rather than speaking of multiculturalism, ecological transition require that diverse knowledge be taken seriously, not as different perspectives or ways of “seeing things,” but as different ways of “making the world,” which is why it is critical to recognize “multinaturalism” as a starting point.

Methods

This systematic literature review enabled us to identify academic publications based on the main concepts of nature–environment–society–culture relations. It was based on the search for interdisciplinary studies from socio-environmental, biological, philosophical, sociological, environmental, educational, and anthropological perspectives, considering the plurality of social representations and perceptions that emerged from different cultures and their individuals. The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [73].

The research strategy to understand which are the sociocultural representations of nature and environment across different sociocultural contexts was run on the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar since they are scholarly databases that include documents from different publishers [74, 75]. The authors are aware that most, if not all, countries in the Global South cannot access those commercial databases [76]. They are costly for most universities outside the Global North and represent journals and ideologies that do not encompass or reflect other "natures" and "societies." However, this intentional decision was made to identify these databases' hegemonic narratives and reflect on how they restrict a fair ecological transition.

The multi-stranded search had different searches combined with the Boolean operator OR/AND. The search examined the title, abstract, author keywords, and keywords plus (Table 1).

Table 1 Databases and queries used in the systematic literature review

Since the aim was to consider the diversity of perceptions and representations, there were no restrictions regarding the publication date, document type, or language. In the case of non-English papers, they were identified during the initial search and subjected to a two-step process. First, we obtained translations of the titles and abstracts of these papers into English. This allowed us to assess the paper's relevance to our research based on the available information. Second, after obtaining translations, the relevance of non-English papers was assessed using the same criteria as for English-language papers. We examined whether the content of the paper pertained to the intersection of “Nature,” “Environment,” “Representation,” “Understanding,” “Definition,” and “Perception.”

The titles and abstracts of bibliographic records were downloaded and imported into Mendeley's bibliographic management software before all duplicate records were deleted. The search was conducted on May 18, 2022, and the flowchart of procedures taken to select relevant studies to be included in this review is shown in Fig. 1. The search returned 27169 documents, and 29 documents were added to the database by searching Google Scholar and Scopus and screening the cited references of the retrieved initial results (hand search). In the case of hand search, we evaluate the documents using the same inclusion criteria applied to the electronically sourced papers. During the hand search, we meticulously examined various sources beyond electronic databases. This included scrutinizing the reference lists of articles and books we identified as relevant through our initial search. We also explored vital journals and conference proceedings, particularly those known for publishing seminal work. After duplicates were removed, we screened 3706 papers. We assessed whether the content of the materials was pertinent to our research objectives, focusing on the portrayal and understanding of “nature” and “environment” in a social context. The next step consisted of screening both titles and abstracts of documents to select those presenting social representations of nature and the environment and, when possible, those describing nature–society relations. The following inclusion criteria were defined to screen the documents. Documents simply mentioning nature or environment concepts without exploring their meanings were excluded, such as documents that were unavailable to consult, i.e., those that are behind paywalls or those that are not accessible online or through the researcher's institution. Additionally, papers that are out of print or not accessible due to restrictions on access imposed by publishers or copyright holders could also be considered unavailable for consultation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Procedures for literature search and selection—adapted from Moher et al. [73]

Full texts of the remaining 318 documents were carefully read to retrieve the information related to representations of nature and the environment. During this process, 157 more documents were excluded as they were unavailable or did not include details related to the social representations of nature and the environment.

Despite being aware that some other related documents may exist that have not been identified through our approach, the aim was to systematize the evidence regarding this diversity of perceptions, considering social representations of nature and environment but also the society-nature relations presented in the scientific literature in these databases. Also, the number of documents reviewed is considerable in identifying the plurality of representations and perceptions, which means adding more papers may not necessarily lead to new or different results.

The information retrieved from the analysed studies was organized in a Microsoft Excel sheet such as the database, title, author(s) name(s), year, author(s) affiliation country(ies), study area(s), study scientific area, objectives, methodology and target group (available in supplementary material). Precise and reflexive information was also collected, namely, if nature and environment concepts are conceptualized in the same way, the social representations of nature, the social representations of the environment, and how society-nature relations are described.

The VOSviewer software [77] was used to conduct a bibliometric analysis, and a keyword's minimum number of occurrences was set at 5 to reflect its importance and relatedness to other keywords, automatically generating the figures. Of the 1018 keywords, 25 meet the threshold. Each circle represents a keyword, and the size of the circle varies according to the frequency of the keyword (i.e., the larger the circle, the higher the frequency). The distance between circles and the established networking represented by lines characterizes the relation between keywords (i.e., keywords that are closer and have stronger links are more closely related). Colours are determined by the cluster to which the keyword belongs, which was automatically originated by the VOSviewer software based on the previous input information. The analysis was divided into two phases, and seven distinct colour groups can be observed with different sizes, reflecting the link and strength of keywords.

A manually inductive content-analysis method was adopted to perform a qualitative synthesis of the information collected [78] wherein the authors immersed themselves in the data to identify patterns, themes, and categories through a bottom-up, iterative process without predefined categories. Despite being a time-consuming task, when conducting a systematic review where existing knowledge is somewhat fragmented and dispersed and, as is the case of this review, inductive content analysis is considered a desirable method since no previous assumptions are considered and bias is reduced [79]. However, this qualitative analysis involves subjectivity processes in that the researchers define the categories. The coding of each document integrated into this review was discussed among all the authors.

Results

Global overview

An overview of the 161 documents included in this review revealed that the majority have been published by authors affiliated with North American (36%) or European institutions (33.5%). Regarding Fig. 2, nature and environment representations are mainly described from a Western viewpoint. Africa and Central America represent only 5% of the studies included in this review. On the contrary, regarding the geographical contexts of the studies, the percentage of those conducted in South America and Africa almost doubled, from 5% to 9.3%. In the studies analysed, 72 (44.7%) conceptualized nature in the same way as the environment, and only 33 (20.5%) conceptualized these concepts differently (Fig. 3). Of the 161 studies, it was impossible to identify a clear position on these concepts in 56 (34.8%).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Number (n) and percentage (%) of studies published per continent included in the review

Fig. 3
figure 3

Percentage of studies (%) by continent and how if they conceptualized Nature and Environment concepts in the same way

Regarding the type of document, a balance can be observed between empirical research studies (51%) and essays (including perspectives/opinion pieces) (49%). It should be noted that despite a considerable number of essays having been considered, their relevance as a source is recognized, namely as a source of a deep analysis that aims to connect empirical studies and define or advance a theoretical position. The number of publications in this area spanned from 1969–2022 (about five decades) and has increased consistently since 2012, reaching the maximum in 2019 (Fig. 4). This trend matches the date of the publication of the conceptual framework for the IPBES [59], which aimed to enhance “a positive transformation in the elements and interlinkages that are the causes of detrimental changes in biodiversity and ecosystems and subsequent loss of their benefits to present and future generations” [80].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Percentage of studies (%) by year of publication

Concerning the empirical research, it can be observed from Fig. 5 that most of the studies adopted a document analysis approach (45.2%). This qualitative approach aims to interpret the sources to give voice and meaning to an assessment topic [81]. Also, 21.6% adopt a mixed-method approach to deal with nature representations, meaning that one approach may not be enough to embrace the complexity of this topic.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Percentage of empirical research studies (%) by methodological approach

In a dynamic field like nature and environment representations, where new concepts and perspectives may be continually evolving, it can be helpful to analyse the co-occurrence of keywords used in the documents reviewed. Also, performing this analysis may reveal gaps in the literature where specific keywords or themes are not well-connected or are underrepresented.

The first cluster relates to the co-occurrence network of the keyword map (Fig. 6). The red cluster joined keywords like ecocriticism, ecology, environmentalism, history, place, and sustainability. The green cluster comprises keywords such as Anthropocene, climate change, culture, environmental ethics, and perception. The blue cluster includes keywords such as children, animals, environmental education, health, and nature. The conservation, landscape, nature conservation, and social representations materialize the yellow cluster. The last cluster, purple, is made of keywords like discourse, environment, representation, and sustainable development. The second analysis aimed to examine the network of keywords spanned through time (Fig. 7), revealing that the environment keyword was used before the keyword nature.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Co-occurrence network of keyword map, generated using the software VOSviewer 1.6.11

Fig. 7
figure 7

Co-occurrence network of keyword map spanned through the time, generated using the software VOSviewer 1.6.11

Qualitative analysis of the studies

After the overview of the documents included in this review, a manually inductive content-analysis method was adopted to identify the main categories that emerged. From the qualitative analysis of the 161 studies, a first attempt to categorise these studies identified three significant categories, anchored in designations that echo from previous attempts (such as Muhar et al. [82] and Van der Born [83]), and which will be analysed in more detail in the following sections: (i) nature against society, in a logic of opposition [84], dualism; (ii) nature subordinated to society, in a logic of domination [85], although integrated into the society; (iii) nature united with society, in a logic of interdependence [86]. Figure 8 was constructed using a qualitative analysis of the three categories identified from the literature review and seeks to systematize in a relational logic the multiple interactions between: ethical claim, nature understanding, and society–nature relations. Assuming that the boundaries between the categories are not watertight—for example, the objectification of nature occurs in the category of opposition as well as in domination—but rather communicable, this exercise seeks to highlight the need to foster interdependent relationships between all elements that make up each ecosystem, human and non-human, so that the ecological transition can be successful.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Model of analysis considering the three categories that emerged from the reviewed studies, their characteristics and according to their ethical claim, nature representation, and how society-nature relations are described

The story of opposition emerges in the category of nature against society, showing nature as distinct from and frequently at odds with human society. This viewpoint emphasizes historical and cultural narratives that depict nature as a realm to be conquered or controlled by human efforts. While this division may appear to be a precondition for society's dominance over nature, it is critical to recognize that these notions are not incompatible. Instead, the concept of opposition allows for investigating how society's attitudes and actions towards nature can perpetuate destructive practices like exploitation and environmental destruction. On the other hand, the nature category subordinated to society delves into power dynamics, where nature is seen as subordinate to human interests and desires. This concept encompasses notions of controlling, exploiting, and manipulating natural resources for human benefit. While separation may facilitate domination, it is crucial to acknowledge that domination can occur even in contexts where there is an acknowledgment of the interconnectedness between nature and society. Understanding domination involves examining the various mechanisms through which power is exercised over nature, including economic, political, and cultural systems.

In contrast, the category of nature united with society—interdependence—emphasizes the links and mutual reliance between humans and non-humans. This viewpoint acknowledges that humans are essential components of ecosystems, and their well-being is inextricably linked to environmental health. While antagonism and domination may imply a one-sided interaction between humans and nature, interdependence recognizes that both elements impact each other in multiple ways. Exploring interdependence enables the exploration of long-term approaches to human–nature relationships that prioritize mutual respect, cooperation, and coexistence over dominance or antagonism.

An analysis of these three categories' distribution by the year of their publication reveals some noticeable tendencies in the portrayal of nature in scientific production throughout different periods and categories (Fig. 9). The fraction of publications portraying nature as opposed to society varies with time, with maxima in 1980–1989, 1970–1979, and 2020. The percentage of publications showing nature as subordinate to society appears to be declining over time, with a notable drop from 1980–1989 to 2000–2009. This tendency indicates a lessening emphasis on human dominance over nature in scientific discourse. Finally, from 2000–2009 to 2010–2019, the percentage of publications depicting nature as intertwined with society fluctuated but increased. This shows that scientific literature has increasingly recognized the connectivity and mutual dependency of human societies and the natural world in recent decades. These tendencies point to changing viewpoints on the interaction between nature and society in scientific discourse across time.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Distribution of the three categories that emerged from the reviewed studies (%) according to their year of publication

Nature against society—opposition

The “Opposition” category represents 19.9% of the studies analysed in this review. Most (84.4%) of these studies were conducted in Europe and North America, a set of studies that do not distinguish the concepts of nature and environment (46.9%). In this category, nature is conceptualized as something that has no human intervention [87,88,89,90], in the sense of being wild [91, 92], untouched, pristine [93,94,95,96], undisturbed [97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104], the place of the non-humans [105]. This perspective finds support in a colonialist perspective, in which Europeans, associated with the “society” side, saw themselves as separate from an externalized “nature,” seen as the outside of humans [106]. In this context, colonization found support in the idea of 'rescue' of the non-European world from a state of association with primitive nature and its transformation into a state of civilization and culture [103, 107].

In these studies, nature is represented as the “world” where uncivilized creatures live [108], physically and intellectually. Some studies reproduced an idea of dangerous nature [109], harbouring ruthless exploiters and criminals who must be banished from the land [110], a destructive entity [111], supporting the defeat of nature as societal progress [112]. This portrays indigenous people as “uncivilized” humanity, commonly represented as free, wild, mystical, and even as sexually promiscuous and violent (as in tribal warfare, cannibalism and headhunting), “all explicitly associate such "natives" with nature, as humans in their supposedly untamed, uncontrolled free state” [24]. Therefore, it is a place for the "ignoble savage," irresponsible beings that, from a paternalistic viewpoint, must be domesticated and controlled since they are primitive [113]. Here, non-human nature is present only as a form of absence and nullity and does not present an ethical challenge or claim [114]. In this set of studies, the relationship between humans and nature is understood as one where it is impossible ever to achieve the kind of reciprocity available in human society. Whatever form our respect for nature takes will always be different from our relationships with those we consider human [115].

Nature subordinated to society—domination

Despite being linked with the “Opposition” category, namely, through the logic of the superiority of humans over non-humans, the “Domination” category has some nuances. It represents 47.2% of the studies analysed. In this set of studies, 57.9% were developed in Europe and North America, and 15.8% were developed in Central and South America. It is also significant that, like in the previous category, 44.7% of the articles accessed do not distinguish between nature and environment, using both concepts interchangeably. In this vision, nature appears represented in a logic of exploitation and at the disposal of human will and desires [116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127], considering nature as a source of human survival that must be dominated to meet humanity’s needs [128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142]. Despite being separated ideas, there exists a potential risk where in the imperative to survive can inadvertently foster a mindset wherein nature is perceived solely as a means of human survival, leading to a viewpoint that it must be subjugated to fulfil humanity's needs. Nature is a resource that maintains the human way of life, associated with the ecosystem services concept [143,144,145,146,147], a capitalist dogma that deprives nature of its agency while propagating endless growth and human supremacy [148]. From the documents previously analysed, nature becomes commodified, valued primarily for its utility in meeting human needs and desires, rather than respected for its inherent worth and complexity. Moreover, this capitalist perspective fosters a narrative of promoting the belief that exploiting natural resources is essential for economic progress and human well-being, often overlooking the long-term consequences of such actions on ecosystems and biodiversity.

In this category, nature is represented by two interlinked logics of domination: in the first logic, nature is a resource intended for human exploitation and for the generation of wealth in the name of societal progress, where environmental degradation or destruction—ecocide—is treated as an economic externality to be managed [149, 150]. This understanding of nature facilitates mechanisms of exploitation and poverty, taking advantage of the favourable environmental, economic, and sociocultural conditions existing in the regions to extract minerals and other riches of nature [151]. As an object distant from humans, nature is only valued and protected because it can enhance humans’ quality of life or provide material resources for humankind, translating the instrumental value [152,153,154]. Nevertheless, within this category, the socioenvironmental conflicts gained particular relevance [155,156,157] as an “arena of citizen activism” [158] of a dispute over the management of the use of natural resources, putting local understandings of nature and scientific knowledge that foster social conflicts face to face, namely in what configures “domination” and what does not. Several studies documented experiences and complexities, mostly with farmers, which justify the dominion for using and developing nature through farming methods and technologies. Often, dominion is used alongside or within an understanding of stewardship [153, 159,160,161], which exhorts responsibility towards nature, seeing farmers as co-creators with God, able to make creation more than it was [162, 163]. Therefore, and considering this, it is understood that they are not damaging the environment [164].

On the other hand, nature also brings to the discussion an association with structural traditional systems of domination. Controlling nature and controlling women are anchored in the same logic of domination. Women and the environment are exploited and dominated by white, middle-class men in Western society [165]. In fact, when looking at history and some communities worldwide, women are more dependent on nature under the sexual division of labour: women are primarily responsible for gathering fuel, fodder and wild foods and growing subsistence crops for survival [19]. The elements of nature, non-humans, are used as tools by those who dominate and abuse to punish and control others [166]. From another dimension, the idealization of beauty is anchored in gendered ideals that disallow the agency of both nature and women. They are the others positioned outside [167]. Similarly, postcolonial states were consistently willing to sacrifice the environment and people with low incomes to further a longer-term vision of commercial growth and industrial modernity [168]. This logic appropriate nature as a space of conflict and exploitation of low-income people as subordinate actors, fragile and strictly vulnerable to environmental changes [169].

In a second logic, nature is a sign of God, from whom He holds power under His submission: created and controlled by God [170, 171]. Human beings seek to merge harmoniously with nature as they transform it into an environment [172, 173], being their power over non-humans guided and constrained by God's supreme authority [174, 175]. While God creates and governs all creation, God is not equally close to all. The lower creatures can approach divine goodness only through their relationship with the higher ones, in this case, humans [176, 177]. As rational creatures, humans are superior to other animals and all inanimate creations [178]. Their proximity to the divine makes’ humans more perfect and dominant over other creatures. It is here that the concept of “domesticated nature” can be integrated and translated into gardens, a Biblical representation of the Garden of Eden [179], which symbolizes successful control over nature [128, 180]. The combination of these two dimensions makes it clear that the concept of nature is often used to moralize and exclude [181]. In this sense, the environment is understood in these studies as the human background, a planned and improved nature [118, 182], and a domain of ideas and entities accessible only with science and technology, the scientific aspect of nature [183, 184].

Nature united with society—interdependence

The third category, “Interdependence,” represents 32.9% of the analysed studies. In this category, the most significant presence of studies undertaken in Central and South America are visible (18.9%), despite those developed in Europe and North America continuing to be the majority (64.2%). It is also the set of studies where environment and nature concepts are not used interchangeably (37.7%). Endowed with works that seek to promote a theoretical and interdisciplinary debate, they represent nature as a real, living entity: an entity with agency and transformative power [52, 185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197], since nature, or “Mother Nature,” is a unity of which humanity is an integral part [198,199,200,201,202,203]. These studies reject a dichotomous view between nature–society and nature–culture, as they argue that we live in a symbiotic community that is a large, unique, and underappreciated sphere of life, where nature and humanity are essentially integrated at the spiritual and moral plans [5, 204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217], a “conjoint constitution” stated by Freudenburg et al. [218]. These studies demonstrate that acknowledging our interconnectedness with nature might instil a sense of appreciation, responsibility, and stewardship for the natural world. This viewpoint emphasizes the ecological need to maintain nature and the ethical imperative of respecting and nurturing the complex web of life that supports us.

It is also in this group of studies that a fruitful debate on the rights of nature can be identified, perhaps because it includes researchers from Latin America, where the first amendment to the constitution is identified, consecrating the Rights of Nature (Ecuador) with rights and limits to be respected: in this perspective, nature is viewed as a coherent whole, with each entity having inherent rights and boundaries that must be maintained. Any violation of any element's right to exist within this interconnected system is considered a breach of both the individual entity and the fundamental integrity of the natural order [219,220,221,222,223,224,225]. In this topic, interdependent communities of humans and non-humans are defended, expressed in rivers, rocks, mountains, and trees, representing a spiritual and affective connection [226,227,228,229]. No less important is the reference to the value of nature, which is valid by itself, regardless of its usefulness for or recognition of humans, approaching the concept of relational values, rejecting the instrumental view and services of nature [230].

Understanding nature and human relationships with the environment are cultural expressions used to define who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be at this place and in this common home [231]. This category contends that the way cultures engage with nature mimics how they interact with one another [232]. This idea is especially prevalent in societies where clans are identified with various animals, and there is a notion that humans and animals can turn into one another. In these communities, animals are said to hold the spirits of humans, gods, and creators, and several cultural beliefs link nature and human culture. Being socially constructed, the plurality of meanings regarding the concept of “nature” should be valued, rejecting a standard definition that limits our possibilities to understand societies: the concept of “natures” appears as a possibility since the most significant problem lies in trying to define the nature concept first, neglecting to understand how societies and communities reason about it [233,234,235,236]. Considering this, nature is seen as a cohesion factor; it conveys interaction, creates links, and takes down symbolic barriers [237]. From this range of studies, it is concluded that nature is not subordinated to humans but works with them, influencing them in a way that highlights the limits of anthropocentric narratives.

Discussion

Reproduction of western representations and the hiding of plural visions

Implementing an ecological transition may result in a risk of considering that Europe is a homogenous territory. Moreover, this is not only limited to nationality. Within the same country, region, city, and even street, a plurality of ways of living related to nature and environment can be found, influenced by socioeconomic conditions, cultural/religious specificities, labour conditions, or even gender. Nevertheless, suppose we want to just refer to nationality, this premise can be grounded in the fact that Europe is marked by cultural diversity and foreign-born populations: the median share of immigrants in the population is 12.2% [238]. By recognizing this evidence, we must consider the diversity of perceptions and representations towards nature and the environment to make the ecological transition a truly ecological transformational change that is effective, fair, and inclusive.

Moreover, by recognising and considering this variability, we may avoid imposing standard answers that may not be appropriate or acceptable in all settings. Instead, we can adapt interventions to meet unique needs and values, improving their efficacy and relevance. Set against this background, providing an overview of the diversity of perceptions and representations towards nature and the environment and identifying the underlying processes that support these viewpoints is critical for developing policies and initiatives that resonate with a wide range of stakeholders while effectively addressing their needs and concerns. It also enables us to understand how historical legacies, social inequities, and power dynamics shape people's perceptions and behaviours towards nature, which may raise the opportunity to encourage meaningful debate and collaboration among stakeholders.

Non-Western science and knowledge marginalization began in ancient Greece [239]. It intensified during the Renaissance period—between the XIV and XVI centuries—when a few European nations were considered the home—and legitimate owners—of modern science, framed by the scientific revolution [240, 241]. The spread of Western science, dominating the scientific circuits, had several consequences, namely legitimating what is knowledge and neglecting what remained. This process had implications for ways of knowing and organizing society and, importantly, how to respond to the ecological crisis [242].

The results achieved in this review of the literature produced unveil a pattern of inequality inscribed in systems of scientific knowledge [243], reproducing structural inequalities and favouring historically dominant groups [244, 245], namely from Anglophone and Western nations, which contribute to shape our understanding of nature and, in some cases, justify various technological interventions in the environment [7]. Therefore, the documents included in this review may represent those circulating in the international scientific publications’ channels. However, it should be emphasized that scientific production on this topic is not limited to these studies. On the other hand, this does not mean there is no knowledge production in the non-Western world. It exists, but their knowledge and epistemologies have been put aside to the periphery, outside of the circuits of Western scientific production and publication, which are dominant [246]. Most of all countries in the Global South cannot access those mercantile databases, and they are costly for most universities outside the Global North. This has different implications for the ecological transition: First, because views of nature are intricately tied to varied belief systems based on various sociocultural contexts, restricting access to these databases may contribute to a lack of diversity in societal perceptions of nature. This disparity in access precludes scholars in the Global South from engaging with a wide set of ideas and empirical facts, potentially leading to ideological uniformity [247, 248]; second, the dominance of Western scientific perspectives poses considerable challenges for researchers from emerging countries. It not only inhibits their capacity to publish in high-quality international journals but also impedes their ability to investigate and address local environmental issues [249]. In short, limited access to scientific publication databases exacerbates existing inequities in knowledge generation and transmission, inhibiting the formation of various perspectives and stifling the promotion of sustainable practices required for the worldwide ecological transition. Addressing this inequality is critical for increasing inclusivity, equity, and efficacy in global initiatives to promote environmental sustainability.

When we look at the percentage of studies in each category, two of the three categories—opposition and domination (67.1% of the analysed studies)—represent the dominant Western view of nature, which prevails in the studies analysed. This vision, anchored in an anthropocentric vision where nature is exterior to humanity [5, 8], understood the environment as something that does not belong, which is in line with Serre’s statement “…the word environment, commonly used in this context (…) [,] assumes that we humans are at the center of a system of nature” [250]. The environment in the Western world is humanity’s reservoir of potential resources to satisfy the needs and desires associated with capitalism.

Environment precedes nature: the anthropocentric paradigm

The bibliometric analysis of the keywords presented in the documents reviewed allows us to construct and visualize their co-occurrence networks. In a first attempt, the connection between the clusters allows some reflections: looking at the green cluster, the interlinks between the keywords support the discussion around the anthropogenic impact on climate, i.e., climate change, which is directly connected with the human culture and the ethics towards the environment [251]. Moving to the blue cluster, it is visible that the focus of the discussion remains on children’s contact with nature, mainly represented by animals (non-humans). As Herrmann et al. [252], “anthropocentrism is not an initial step in conceptual development, but is instead an acquired perspective, one that emerges between 3 and 5 years of age in children raised in urban environments.” [252], suggesting the need for early contact with nature, especially in urban areas, to develop a sense of interdependencies and ecocentrism.

The yellow cluster represents the emphasis on nature conservation and the social representations linked to it, which may reflect an anthropocentric viewpoint where nature is conserved for human purposes—conserved for whom? [253, 254]. There is a need to resignify what it means to conserve and integrate moral arguments instead of only considering perceived human interests, and this change needs to be considered in the ecological transition.

Finally, the red cluster is centred on environmental discourse and sustainable development, where the environment is central to humanity’s survival and sustaining life patterns. From this overview, the absence of issues regarding rights of nature is noticeable. This may reflect that social representations of nature and environment, both society–nature relations, have been framed by an anthropocentric outlook where an instrumental view prevails [255]. As stated by Kotzé and Adelan [256], the sustainable development narrative cannot be considered “socio-ecologically friendly” since, despite their “well-meaning intentions,” it is anchored in the facilitation of continuous exploitation of economic activities, exacerbating inequalities and socio-environmental injustices, without “protecting all life forms.” Other authors, such as Beery and Wolf-Watz [52], explore this issue stating that the environment, defined as "nature," is often depicted as a geographically unspecified force possessing the intrinsic ability to influence human attitudes and conduct. Building on this premise, they suggest substituting the elusive notion of "nature" with the more relational concept of "place." Therefore, the implementation of Ecological Transition may also be an opportunity to rethink and resignify the sustainable development concept to avoid the exploitation and degradation of humans and non-humans, especially the vulnerable living ones. However, as stated before, this first overview can be related to the predominant presence of Western publications, a consequence of the search in the selected databases.

Nature representations categories and their implications for the ecological transition

The nature representations categories proposed in this review—“Opposition”, “Domination”, and “Interdependencies”—should not be considered closed. Instead, they should be seen as a reflexive exercise whose aim is to help articulate the complexity around society–nature relations. Nevertheless, beyond that, these categories may be helpful when framing the barriers and drivers towards the ecological transition, especially in a multicultural European territory or territories. Despite being a plan for Europe and the world, the ecological transition may face specificities which, as explained before, vary according to the sociocultural–environmental–political–economic characteristics.

The ecological crisis that we all face, although with different degrees of intensity, has been triggered by the well-known Cartesian separation between society and nature. This separation—described in the opposition category—has removed the agency of nature and assigned the need to rescue her and all its elements—some classes of humans and non-humans—from the incivility that they lived. However, this colonialism strategy is not over. So, we can identify this as one of the barriers to the ecological transition since extractivism and expropriation also favours the economic and capitalist system. However, beyond this barrier, the epistemological and ontological artificial separation between humans and non-humans may be the greatest threat to a just transition. How is it possible to reimagine a sustainable future without considering all forms of life? How is it possible to have a successful, just, and inclusive transition where only some rights are recognized, humans and non-humans? Is not a reconceptualization of nature at the heart of this ecological transition? Although it may seem like a past viewpoint, this understanding of society–nature relations is perpetuated and needs to be addressed appropriately.

With different nuances but supported by the same logic of the superiority of humans over non-humans, the domination category also challenges the ecological transition. Firstly, because the domination of natural elements or non-humans is still visible at practical and theoretical levels; secondly, because it is the basis of the society–nature paradox: we, as a species, cannot survive without nature, and we need the benefits that are provided for this purpose; However, this need should not be a vital justification for the abuse and extractive logic that has guided our relationship with nature. Beyond this paradox, this category is framed in crucial challenges that should not be neglected.

The high dependence on new-renewable resources is a barrier to the ecological transition, and the economies are also highly dependent on it. Moreover, this makes the choice to adopt a sustainable life pattern difficult for the social groups experiencing economic privation. Capitalism is also at the core of the Domination category, and it is also the biggest threat to this transition—decision-making has been in the hands of those who support this economic model. However, this transition is also an economic shift, a new way of investing that not only considers the final product regardless of the process and associated damages. The social and economic model sustained by this Domination category—capitalism—has diminished the Earth’s carrying capacity. So, there is a call, in this transition, to reimagine new ways of co-living on the Planet. This should be accomplished by revaluing public open spaces and community care and shared responsibilities instead of individualizing and privatising circuits. This refers to the decision-making in ecological transition that should not be based on the logic of equality but equity, with fairness and democracy: what, how, and whom.

This need to reimagine sustainable and inclusive futures for all living beings found a higher opportunity in the interdependencies category. Recognizing interdependencies between all elements of nature, humans and non-humans, makes the transition easier since adopting sustainable life patterns is driven by respecting all life forms, especially those more vulnerable. Despite these drivers, this category may face some barriers towards the ecological transition: firstly, the reconceptualization of work, since the transition does not condone extractive industries of non-renewable resources so a new way of labour division is needed, by distributing paid jobs and wealth more fairly; secondly, this viewpoint also faces the barrier of the undemocratic economy, where a decision is taken without considering citizens and their different viewpoints—here the ecological transition should insist on the need to reinvent the democratic innovation and citizen participation in environmental decision-making; and together with the regeneration of labour and economic sectors, the redistribution of power is crucial to avoid that ecological transition is, once again, a strategy that only benefits a few. Nevertheless, this depends on political will.

Limitations

Some limitations concerning the search parameters employed in this study need to be pointed out. As described, reliance on specific search terms imposes significant constraints and increases the chance of overlooking large quantities of relevant material. This limitation underlines the possibilities of untapped research areas, as well as the potential benefit of future investigations that employ a more expansive and varied search technique to give a thorough understanding of the subject matter. However, due to the number of studies screened and those included in this review, it can be stated that an overview is provided, namely, nature-society relationships.

Conclusions

Through the systematic literature review where 161 documents were analysed, the aim was to conduct a systematic analysis of how nature and environment were represented in scientific production and how nature–society–culture relations were described in the leading scientific databases, without losing sight of the place of these relationships in the ecological transition. Considering this attempt to categorize the perceptions and representations of nature and the environment, it is important to highlight the dominant view in science, profoundly extractivist and Western, which contributed to an impoverishment of knowledge and the hiding of plural visions. This results in a weakening in response to ecological challenges as it disregards other possibilities of relationship with nature and its cycles, hindered the necessary processes of societal transformation, ecological and epistemic, with obvious environmental and climatic, political, social, economic, and ethical consequences.

Allied with the previous reflection, there is the fact that the concept of nature is not universal since opposing and conflicting views on nature coexist simultaneously. Thus, we propose to use the concept of “natures” in the plural as a way of considering the different possibilities of social constructions about the concept and the socio-psycho-cultural contexts in which they are elaborated, as initially developed by Donna Haraway as “natureculture” to highlight the essential bond between nature and culture, emphasizing their interconnectedness and how the physical and symbolic realms, human bodies and language, narratives and realities are intertwined, and also from the connectedness theory [26, 52, 257, 258]. From the analysed production, the concept of nature has been used as a form of exclusion and moralization of certain groups, humans and non-humans, subjugating them to power relations that place dominant and dominated on opposite sides. On the other hand, disruptive voices contradict this vision and consider nature as a living and autonomous entity independent of human action endowed with agency.

Considering the documents analysed, the idea of humanity's superiority over nature has been, in a way, founded on the notion of protection that symbolically translates to an anthropocentric point of view. The category of Interdependencies proposes a change in how we relate to nature, where a logic of dependence—where the human being cannot be separated from nature—replaces the paternalistic idea of protection. Moreover, when considering this paradigm shift in a diverse European territory, both from the point of view of its biophysical characteristics and from the point of view of its multiculturalism, which allows different possibilities of sociocultural mosaics at different scales, only by integrating the plurality of knowledge and visions and the characteristics of the territories, will it be possible to expect the possibility of a fair, plural and transformative Ecological Transition.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A et al (2013) Exploring empirical typologies of human-nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc Urban Plan 120:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Raymond CM, Singh GG, Benessaiah K et al (2013) Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. Bioscience 63:536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Born RJG van den (2007) Thinking nature: everyday philosophy of nature in the Netherlands. RU Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Heelsum

    Google Scholar 

  4. Descola P (1992) Societies of nature and the nature of society. In: Kuper A (ed) Conceptualizing society. Routledge, London, pp 107–125

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aldeia J, Alves F (2019) Against the environment problems in society/nature relations. Front Sociol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Descola P (2005) Par-delà nature et culture. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  7. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Escobar A (1999) Whose knowledge, whose nature? biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  10. Isabelle S (2020) We are divided. e-flux J. Vol 114 December. https://www.eflux.com/journal/114/366189/we-are-divided/

  11. Isabelle S (2012) Reclaiming animism. e-flux J. Vol 36 July. https://www.eflux.com/journal/36/61245/reclaiming-animism

  12. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social. an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Latour B (2004) Whose cosmos, which cosmopolitics? Common Knowl 10:450–462. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754x-10-3-450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alves F, Vidal DG (2024) Plural nature ( s ): an overview of their sociocultural construction. Encyclopedia 4:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4010001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ribeiro H (2004) Saúde pública e meio ambiente: evolução do conhecimento e da prática, alguns aspectos éticos. Saúde e Soc 13:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-12902004000100008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Adenle AA, Azadi H, Arbiol J (2015) Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world. J Environ Manage 161:261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leal Filho W, Azeiteiro UM, Alves F (2016) Climate change and health an overview of the issues and needs. In: Filho WL, Azeiteiro U, Alves F (eds) Climate change management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vidal DG, Oliveira GM, Pontes M et al (2022) The influence of social and economic environment on health. In: Prata JC, Isabel A (eds) One health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 205–229

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Locke C (1999) Constructing a gender policy for joint forest management in India. Dev Chang 30:265–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing mythologies. Zed Books Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Said EW (2004) Orientalismo. representações ocidentais do oriente. Edições Cotovia, Lda, Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hall S (2001) The west and the rest: discourse and power. In: Hall S, Gieben B (eds) Formations of modernity. Polity, Cambridge, pp 275–320

    Google Scholar 

  23. Valentim CS (2012) A exclusividade e a exceção: uma análise da relação entre seres e saberes na lunda colonial. O Cabo Dos Trab Rev Electrónica Dos Programas Doutor Do CES/ FEUC/ FLUC 3:24–62

    Google Scholar 

  24. O’Brien WE (2002) The nature of shifting cultivation: Stories of harmony, degradation, and redemption. Hum Ecol 30:483–502. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021146006931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cronon W (1996) The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ Hist Durh N C 1:7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beery T, Stahl Olafsson A, Gentin S et al (2023) Disconnection from nature: expanding our understanding of human–nature relations. People Nat 5:470–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T et al (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Anderson CB et al (2023) Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuper A (1992) Conceptualising society. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. Latour B (1991) Nous n’avons jamais été modernes essai d’anthropologie symétrique. La Découverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nash L (2005) The agency of nature or the nature of agency? Environ Hist Durh N C 10:67–69

    Google Scholar 

  32. Blaser M (2009) The threat of the yrmo: the political ontology of a sustainable hunting program. Am Anthropol 111:10–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R et al (2013) Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 11:343–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. our human planet. Island Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. Nottingham. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bieling C, Eser U, Plieninger T (2020) Towards a better understanding of values in sustainability transformations: ethical perspectives on landscape stewardship. Ecosyst People 16:188–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1786165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bieling C, Plieninger T (2013) Recording manifestations of cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landsc Res 38:649–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.691469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cordeiro ÂGA (2021) Valores ambientais e os serviços dos ecossistemas. Rev Int Educ Saúde E Ambient 4:8–23. https://doi.org/10.37334/riesa.v4i1.60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework-connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fish R, Church A, Willis C et al (2016) Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosyst Serv 21:329–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv 21:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hanspach J, Jamila Haider L, Oteros-Rozas E et al (2020) Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People Nat 2:643–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Madeira AM (2016) Perceção pública dos serviços de ecossistema prestados pelo montado, com ênfase nos serviços culturais. University of Lisboa, Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vidal DG, Dias RC, Oliveira GM et al (2022) A review on the cultural ecosystem services: provision of urban green spaces perception, use and health benefits. In: Leal Filho W, Vidal DG, Dinis MAP, Dias RC (eds) Sustainable policies and practices in energy, environment and health research. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vidal DG, Teixeira CP, Dias RC et al (2021) Stay close to urban green spaces: current evidence on cultural ecosystem services provision. Eur J Publ Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab120.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vidal DG, Fernandes CO, Viterbo LMF et al (2020) Espaços verdes urbanos e saúde mental uma revisão sistemática da literatura. In: Pereira H, Monteiro S, Esgalhado G et al (eds) Actas do 13° congresso nacional de psicologia da saúde. ISPA, Lisboa, pp 427–436

    Google Scholar 

  48. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P et al (2001) Ecology: biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064088

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sauvé L (2005) Currents in environmental education: mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Can J Environ Educ 10:11–37

    Google Scholar 

  52. Beery TH, Wolf-Watz D (2014) Nature to place: rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. J Environ Psychol 40:198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Beery T, Jørgensen KA (2018) Children in nature: sensory engagement and the experience of biodiversity. Environ Educ Res 24:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Beery T (2014) People in nature: relational discourse for outdoor educators. Res Outdoor Educ 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/roe.2014.0001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van HG, Kimmerer RW, Hausdoerffer J (2021) Kinship belonging in a world of relations. Center for Humans Nature, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  56. Chawla L (1999) Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ 31:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U (2018) Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:A1–A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Leopold A (1968) A sand county almanac and sketches here and there, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  59. IPBES (2013) Conceptual framework for the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES, Cape Town

  60. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359:270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Latour B (2007) Reassembling the social. an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. Alves F, Araújo MJ, Azeiteiro U (2012) Cidadania ambiental e participação: o diálogo e articulação entre distintos saberes-poderes. Saúde Em Debate 36:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Alves F, Leal Filho W, Casaleiro P et al (2020) Climate change policies and agendas: facing implementation challenges and guiding responses. Environ Sci Polic 104:190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. de Santos B, S, (2014) Epistemologies of the south: justice against epistemicide. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  65. de Santos B, S, Meneses MP, (2019) Knowledges born in the struggle: constructing the epistemologies of the global south. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. de Santos B, S, Martins BS, (2021) The pluriverse of human rights: the diversity of struggles for dignity. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Bain PG, Bongiorno R (2020) It’s not too late to do the right thing: moral motivations for climate change action. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Monbiot G (2017) Out of the wreckage: a new politics for an age of crisis. Verso, New York

    Google Scholar 

  69. Escobar A (2016) Thinking-feeling with the earth: territorial struggles and the ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the south. AIBR Rev Antropol Iberoam 11:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1115/aibr.110102e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Blaser M, De La Cadena M (2017) The uncommons: an introduction. Anthropologica 59:185–193. https://doi.org/10.3138/anth.59.2.t01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. la Cadena MD (2015) Earth beings. ecologies of practice across andean worlds. Duke University Press, Durham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. Blaser M (2010) Storytelling globalization from the chaco and beyond. Duke University Press, Durham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Torres AFC, Alburez-Gutierrez D (2022) North and south: naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119373119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tandon A (2021) Analysis: the lack of diversity in climate-science research. In: CarbonBrief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-lack-of-diversity-in-climate-science-research/. 1 Jun 2023

  76. Irfanullah H (2021) Open access and global south: it is more than a matter of inclusion. in: sch. kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/01/28/open-access-and-global-south-it-is-more-than-a-matter-of-inclusion/. 1 Mar 2024

  77. van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Mayring P (2014) Qualitative content analysis. theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. GESIS Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Klagenfurt

    Google Scholar 

  79. Moldavska A, Welo T (2017) The concept of sustainable manufacturing and its definitions: a content-analysis based literature review. J Clean Prod 166:744–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. IPBES (2022) Conceptual framework: rationale for a conceptual framework for the platform. https://ipbes.net/conceptual-framework. 21 Oct 2022

  81. Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9:27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Muhar A, Raymond CM, van den Born RJG et al (2018) A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. J Environ Plan Manag 61:756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Van den Born RJG (2006) Implicit philosophy: images of the people-nature relationship in the Dutch population. In: Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, De GWT (eds) Visions of nature: a scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. LIT-Verlag, Münster, pp 61–84

    Google Scholar 

  84. Haila Y (2000) Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biol Philos 15:155–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006625830102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Warren KJ (2000) Ecofeminist philosophy: a western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zent EL (2013) Joti ecogony Venezuelan amazon. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Hovardas T, Stamou GP (2006) Structural and narrative reconstruction of rural residents’ representations of “nature”, “wildlife”, and “landscape.” Biodivers Conserv 15:1745–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-5021-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wohlwill JF (1983) The concept of nature. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF (eds) Behavior and the natural environment. Springer, Boston, pp 5–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  89. Froude VA, Rennie HG, Bornman JF (2010) The nature of natural: defining natural character for the New Zealand context. N Z J Ecol 34:332–341

    Google Scholar 

  90. Valcuende JM, Quintero V, Cortés JA (2013) Discursive nature in protected areas. AIBR Rev Antropol Iberoam 6:27–56. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.060103e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Evanoff RJ (2005) Reconciling realism and constructivism in environmental ethics. Environ Values 14:61–81. https://doi.org/10.3197/0963271053306113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Fraijo-Sing BS, Beltrán Sierra NI, Tapia-Fonllem C, Valenzuela Peñúñuri R (2020) Pictographic representations of the word “nature” in preschool education children. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Youngs Y (2012) Editing nature in grand canyon national park postcards. Geogr Rev 102:486–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2012.00171.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Schroeder H (2005) The meaning of “nature”: insights from cognitive linguistics. proc. 2005 northwest. Recreat Res Symp 341:196–203

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ghaffari M, Hall EL (2004) Robotics and nature: from primitive creatures to human intelligence. Intell Robot Comput Vis XXII Algorithms, Tech Act Vis 5608:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.571381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lemoni R, Lefkaditou A, Stamou AG et al (2013) Views of nature and the human-nature relations: an analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in greek primary school textbooks-diachronic considerations. Res Sci Educ 43:117–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9250-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Rutherford W, Shafer EL (1969) Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two adirondack forest stands. J For 67:415–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/67.6.415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Ullrich JR, Ullrich MF (1976) A multidimensional scaling analysis of perceived similarities of rivers in western Montana. Percept Mot Skills 43:575–584. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1976.43.2.575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Talbot JF, Kaplan S (1986) Perspectives on wilderness: Re-examining the value of extended wilderness experiences. J Environ Psychol 6:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80021-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kheraj S (2007) Restoring nature: ecology, memory, and the storm history of vancouver’s stanley park. Can Hist Rev 88:577–612. https://doi.org/10.3138/chr.88.4.577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Edgington RH (2008) “Be receptive to the good earth”: Health, nature, and labor in countercultural back-to-the-land settlements. Agric Hist 82:279–308. https://doi.org/10.3098/ah.2008.82.3.279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Stamou AG, Lefkaditou A, Schizas D, Stamou GP (2009) The discourse of environmental information: representations of nature and forms of rhetoric in the information center of a Greek reserve. Sci Commun 31:187–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009335347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Guyot S (2011) The eco-frontier paradigm: rethinking the links between space, nature and politics. Geopolitics 16:675–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2010.538878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Castrechini A, Pol E, Guàrdia-Olmos J (2014) Media representations of environmental issues: from scientific to political discourse. Rev Eur Psychol Appl 64:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Simmons IG (1998) “To civility and to man’s use”: history, culture, and nature. Geogr Rev 88:114–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/215874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Perez-Marin M (2016) El discurso ambiental en Colombia: una mirada desde el análisis crítico del discurso. CHASQUI, Rev Latinoam Comun 131:139–158

    Google Scholar 

  107. Liu SC, Lin H, shyang, (2014) Undergraduate students’ ideas about nature and human-nature relationships: an empirical analysis of environmental worldviews. Environ Educ Res 20:412–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.816266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Robinson K, Jorgensen B (2013) From blindness to sight environmental epistemology in 1990s disney films. IEEE Int Prof Commun Conf. IEEE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  109. Adams S, Savahl S (2015) Children’s perceptions of the natural environment: a South African perspective. Child Geogr 13:196–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.829659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Worster D (1977) Nature’s economy: the roots of ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  111. Lawrence M (2016) Nature and the non-human in andrea arnold’s wuthering heights. J Br Cine Telev 13:177–194. https://doi.org/10.3366/jbctv.2016.0306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Hajdu P (2009) Fighting nature: the example of two Hungarian short story writers. Neohelicon 36:311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-009-0002-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Mathisen SR (2010) Indigenous spirituality in the touristic borderzone: virtual performances of sámi shamanism in Sápmi park. Temenos Nord J Comp Relig 46:53–72. https://doi.org/10.33356/temenos.6941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Shields R (2018) Bare nature. Sp Cult 21:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331217736741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Dienstag JF (2021) Dignity, difference, and the representation of nature. Polit Theor 49:613–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591720966284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Luke TW (1997) At the end of nature: cyborgs, “humachines”, and environments in postmodernity. Environ Plan A 29:1367–1380. https://doi.org/10.1068/a291367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Jewitt S (2000) Mothering earth? gender and environmental protection in the Jharkhand, India. J Peasant Stud 27:94–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150008438733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Husband WB (2006) “Correcting nature’s mistakes”: transforming the environment and soviet children’s literature, 1928–1941. Environ Hist Durh N C 11:300–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/11.2.300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Prévot-Julliard AC, Julliard R, Clayton S (2015) Historical evidence for nature disconnection in a 70 year time series of disney animated films. Public Underst Sci 24:672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513519042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Hull RB, Robertson DP, Kendra A (2001) Public understandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Soc Nat Resour 14:325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920151080273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Smith LC (2022) The Powers of Rivers. GeoHumanities 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566x.2021.2011765

  122. Prendergast KS, Garcia JE, Howard SR et al (2021) Bee representations in human art and culture through the ages. Art Percept 10:1–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-bja10031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. De Vreese R, Van Herzele A, Dendoncker N et al (2019) Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept? Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Sousa E, Quintino V, Teixeira J, Rodrigues AM (2017) A portrait of biodiversity in children’s trade books. Soc Anim 25:257–279. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Gugssa MA, Aasetre J, Debele ML (2021) Views of “nature”, the “environment” and the “human-nature” relationships in Ethiopian primary school textbooks. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 30:148–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Williams R (1972) Ideas of nature. In: Renthall J (ed) Economy, the shaping enquiry. Longman, London, pp 67–85

    Google Scholar 

  127. Jørgensen FA, Karlsdottir UB, Marald E et al (2013) Entangled environments: historians and nature in the nordic countries. Hist Tidsskr 92:9–34. https://doi.org/10.1826/issn1504-2944-2013-01-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J Environ Psychol 27:215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Figgins G, Holland P (2012) Red deer in New Zealand: game animal, economic resource or environmental pest? N Z Geog 68:36–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7939.2012.01219.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. King TJ (2015) Encrypted landscapes, nation-states: the Australian national botanic gardens, canberra. Sp Cult 18:171–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331214524495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. de Giacomini MJ, Beling Loose E (2015) Representações sociais da natureza e jornalismo especializado: contribuições para repensar a educação ambiental. Polis 14:325–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Veselkova N, Vandyshev M, Pryamikova E (2016) The discourse of nature in young towns. Russ Sociol Rev 15:112–133. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2016-1-112-133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Bravi CA (2016) Representaciones sociales de la inundación. del hecho físico a la mirada social. In: Bravi CA (ed) REDES COM-REVISTA estud PARA EL desarro soc LA comun. Universidad de Sevilla, Andalusia, pp 133–164

    Google Scholar 

  134. Abarghouei Fard H, Saboonchi P (2020) Landscape as symbolic nature; contemplation of the representative role of natural elements in the formation of the landscape of “kamu” village. Manzar 12:28–37. https://doi.org/10.2203/manzar.2020.226462.2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Thomsen TB (2018) Foggy signs: dark ecological queerings in lars von trier’s antichrist. J Scand Cine 8:123–134. https://doi.org/10.1386/jsca.8.2.123_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Neto JS, Lima RM (2016) Rights of nature: the “biocentric spin” in the 2008 constitution of Ecuador. Veredas Do Direito Direito Ambient E Desenvolv Sustentável 13:111–131. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v13i25.673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Rey-Goyeneche JA, Alexander P (2021) Wolves in the Amazon? Child perceptions of a distant natural environment in an English primary school. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 30:132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2020.1797099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Šorytė D, Pakalniškienė V (2019) Why it is important to protect the environment: reasons given by children. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 28:228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2019.1582771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01943.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Shangpliang RM (2008) The place of nature in the culture of the khasis. Man India 88:547–558

    Google Scholar 

  141. Till KE (2001) New urbanism and nature: green marketing and the neotraditional community. Urban Geogr 22:220–248. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.22.3.220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Miranda GF, Robaina JVL (2017) O conceito de natureza na educação do campo. Rev Bras Educ Do Campo 2:793–810. https://doi.org/10.20873/uft.2525-4863.2017v2n2p793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Meyer S (2010) Crises heterotopias and nature’s healing influence in chinchilla (nanette van rooyen). Tydskr VIR Lett 47:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Liechti K, Wallner A, Wiesmann U (2010) Linking a world heritage site to sustainable regional development-contested natures in a local negotiation process. Soc Nat Resour 23:726–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802449011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Horton LR (2009) Buying up nature: economic and social impacts of costa rica’s ecotourism boom. Lat Am Perspect 36:93–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X09334299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. van Holstein E, Head L (2018) Shifting settler-colonial discourses of environmentalism: representations of indigeneity and migration in Australian conservation. Geoforum 94:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Yarde TN (2013) Sensing the natural in the caribbean’s nature island: perceptions of nature in dominica. Sense Soc 8:149–164. https://doi.org/10.2752/174589313X13589681980731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Lahl K (2019) Spatial narratives of fear and longing. representations of nature in video games. Ars Humanit 13:285–299. https://doi.org/10.4312/ars.13.2.285-299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Natarajan U, Khoday K (2014) Locating nature: making and unmaking international law. Leiden J Int Law 27:573–593. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156514000211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Burke BJ, Welch-Devine M, Gustafson S (2015) Nature talk in an appalachian newspaper: what environmental discourse analysis reveals about efforts to address exurbanization and climate change. Hum Organ 74:185–196. https://doi.org/10.1773/0018-7259-74.2.185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Guida AM, de Melo GAP (2020) Decolonialidade da Natureza: para um olhar nítido como um girassol. Ltinerários 51:65–80

    Google Scholar 

  152. Ferguson T (2008) ‘Nature’ and the ‘environment’ in jamaica’s primary school curriculum guides. Environ Educ Res 14:559–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802345966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Laschefski KA, Dutra C, Doula SM (2012) A legislação ambiental como foco de conflitos: uma análise a partir das representações sociais da natureza dos pequenos agricultores em Minas Gerais, Brasil. Soc Nat 24:405–417. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1982-45132012000300003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. do Couto Chipoletti Esteves PE, Goncalves PW, (2015) The nature representations presents in the national curriculum parameters: a collaboration to the natural sciences contents analysis. Perspect Em Dialogo-Revista Educ E Soc 2:36–54

    Google Scholar 

  155. Linnros HD, Hallin PO (2001) The discursive nature of environmental conflicts: the case of the öresund link. Area 33:391–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Broderick K (2007) Getting a handle on social-ecological systems in catchments: the nature and importance of environmental perception. Aust Geogr 38:297–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180701639299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Elliot G (2017) Young adults’ concepts of nature realized online: nature 2.0. Ecopsychology 9:143–153. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Bhan M, Trisal N (2017) Fluid landscapes, sovereign nature: conservation and counterinsurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Crit Anthropol 37:67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X16671786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Ruiz-Ballesteros E, Valcuende MJ, Quintero V et al (2009) Naturalizing the environment: Perceptual frames, senses and resistance. J Mater Cult 14:147–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183509103056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Woods M (2003) Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in mid Wales. Sociol Ruralis 43:271–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Vandergeest P (1996) Mapping nature: territorialization of forest rights in Thailand. Soc Nat Resour 9:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929609380962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Armstrong S (2016) Dominion in christian farming. Relig Stud Theol 35:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1558/rsth.32549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Gervais M (2016) Croyants de nature ? sociologie religieuse de l’agriculture paysanne. Etud Rurales 197:175–194

    Google Scholar 

  164. McHenry H (1998) Wild flowers in the wrong field are weeds! examining farmers’ constructions of conservation. Environ Plan A 30:1039–1053. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Aitken SC, Zonn LE (1993) Weir(d) sex: representation of gender-environment relations in peter weir’s picnic at hanging rock and gallipoli. Environ Plan D Soc Sp 11:191–212. https://doi.org/10.1068/d110191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Harris ML (2016) Ecowomanism: an introduction. Worldview Environ Cult Relig 20:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685357-02001002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Bennett KE (2014) Beautiful landscapes in drag, the material performance of hypernature. J Landsc Archit 9:42–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2015.968416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Williams G, Mawdsley E (2006) Postcolonial environmental justice: government and governance in India. Geoforum 37:660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Dutra E, Silva S, Bandeira AM, Tavares GG, Murari L (2017) The cerrado of goiás in the literature of bernardo élis, from a viewpoint of environmental history. Hist Ciencias Saude Manguinhos 24:93–110. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702016005000024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Riviere C (1992) Attitudes africaines face à l’environnement. ANTHROPOS 87:365–378

    Google Scholar 

  171. Richardson KA (1995) The naturalness of creation and redemptive interests in theology, science, and technology. Zygon® 30:281–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1995.tb00070.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Schnell I (1997) Nature and environment in the socialist-zionist pioneers’ perceptions: a sense of desolation. Cult Geogr 4:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/147447409700400105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Ciccantell PS (1999) It’s all about power: The political economy and ecology of redefining the Brazilian Amazon. Sociol Q 40:293–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1999.tb00549.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  174. Peterson A (2000) In and of the world? christian theological anthropology and environmental ethics. J Agric Environ Ethic 12:237–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009503215606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Velassery S, Patra R (2016) Ecology and its spiritual significance: a christian reading. J Indian Counc Philos Res 33:61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-015-0038-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Kaltner J (2015) Nature as muslim: applying a qur’anic concept to the bible. Islam Christ Relations 26:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2014.964523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Sekerák M (2019) „Zelenanie sa“ katolíckej sociálnej náuky: humánna ekológia* [“greening” of catholic social teaching: a human ecology]. Stud Theol 21:179–199. https://doi.org/10.5507/sth.2019.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Li D, Qiu ZH (2013) The study on ecological ethics of" unity of man and nature". Adv Mater Res 807–809:906–909

    Google Scholar 

  179. Kleese D (2002) Contested natures: wolves in late modernity. Soc Nat Resour 15:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419202753570800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Vieira P (2017) The nature of portuguese cinema: environment on the silver screen. J Lusoph Stud 2:112–133. https://doi.org/10.21471/jls.v2i1.157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Eden S (2001) Environmental issues: nature versus the environment? Prog Hum Geogr 25:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201668419089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Yilmaz F, Kahraman AD (2015) Science and nature perception in the images and pictures of the children. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 176:650–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Jasanoff S (2010) A new climate for society. Theory Cult Soc 27:233–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Munõz-Rodríguez JM, Morales-Romo N, Martín RDT (2019) Socio-educational implications for sustainable development based on mental models of environmental representation. Pedagog Soc. https://doi.org/10.7179/PSRI_2019.34.09

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Pollini J (2013) Bruno latour and the ontological dissolution of nature in the social sciences: a critical review. Environ Values 22:25–42. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13528328798192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Retnowati A, Anantasari E, Marfai MA, Dittmann A (2014) Environmental ethics in local knowledge responding to climate change: an understanding of seasonal traditional calendar pranotomongso and its phenology in karst area of gunungkidul, yogyakarta. Indones Procedia Environ Sci 20:785–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Duarte AJO (2018) Ecologia humana: a natureza enquanto divindade arquetípica. Rev Ártemis 25:309. https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1807-8214.2018v25n1.36673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Solar RE (2021) Del poema que se inunda, devastado: raúl zurita. dimensiones ecológicas, aproximaciones ecocríticas y episteme urbanoambiental. Alea Estud Neolatinos 23:84–100. https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-106X/202123184100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Čapek SM (2010) Foregrounding nature: an invitation to think about shifting nature-city boundaries. City Communy 9:208–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2010.01327.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Blatt H (2019) ‘Albyon, þat þo was an ile’: feminist materiality and nature in the albina narrative. Postmedieval 10:304–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41280-019-00139-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Vieira N, Brito C, Garcia AC et al (2020) The Whale in the Cape Verde islands: seascapes as a cultural construction from the viewpoint of history, literature. Local Art Herit Humanit 9:90. https://doi.org/10.3390/h9030090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Tillmann S, Button B, Coen SE, Gilliland JA (2019) ‘Nature makes people happy, that’s what it sort of means:’ children’s definitions and perceptions of nature in rural northwestern Ontario. Child Geogr 17:705–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1550572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Hartig T (1993) Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 25:17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(93)90120-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Starik M (1995) Should trees have managerial standing? toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. J Bus Ethics 14:207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Mthatiwa S (2014) Nature and identity in the poetry of bart wolffe. Res Afr Lit 45:70–88. https://doi.org/10.2979/reseafrilite.45.4.70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Millington N (2013) Post-industrial imaginaries: nature, representation and ruin in detroit, michigan. Int J Urban Reg Res 37:279–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Aslanimehr P, Eva Marsal G, Weber B, Knapp F (2018) Nature gives and nature takes: a qualitative comparison between Canadian and German children about their concepts of “nature.” Child Philos 14:483–515. https://doi.org/10.1295/childphilo.2018.30037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Watanabe M (1974) The conception of nature in Japanese culture. Science 183:279–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.183.4122.279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  199. Magallanes-Blanco C (2015) Talking about our mother: indigenous videos on nature and the environment. Commun Cult Crit 8:199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. Kodir A, Wibowo AP, Puspitasari D, Paksi CDK (2018) Women and nature: from social construction towards environmental protection. Proc Annu Civ Educ Conf 251:22–26

    Google Scholar 

  201. Onwudinjo K (2015) A critical perspective on the image of the environment in tanure ojaide’s the tales of the harmattan. Int J Humanit Cult Stud 2:505–518

    Google Scholar 

  202. Tavilla I (2018) Ethical performaceness of medieval cosmology: the integrated vision of man and nature in hildegard of bingen symbolic mysticism. Eur J Sci Theol 14:25–39

    Google Scholar 

  203. Pohl L, Helbrecht I (2022) The love of nature: imaginary environments and the production of ontological security in postnatural times. Geo Geogr Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Tickell C (1993) Gaia: goddess or thermostat. BioSystems 31:93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647(93)90036-C

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  205. Whatmore S, Boucher S (1993) Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of “environmental planning gain.” Trans Inst Br Geogr 18:166–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/622360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  206. Mausner C (1996) A kaleidoscope model: defining natural environments. J Environ Psychol 16:335–348. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. Frank DJ (1997) Science, nature, and the globalization of the environment, 1870–1990. Soc Forces 76:409. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  208. McIsaac GF, Brün M (1999) Natural environment and human culture: defining terms and understanding worldviews. J Environ Qual 28:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800010001x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  209. O’Rourke E (1999) Changing identities, changing landscapes: human-land relations in transition in the Aspre, Roussillon. Ecumene 6:29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/096746089900600102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Salmón E (2000) Kincentric ecology: indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecol Appl 10:1327–1332. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Costanza R, Graumlich LJ, Steffen W et al (2007) Sustainability or collapse: what can we learn from integrating the history of humans and the rest of nature? Ambio 36:522–527. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[522:SOCWCW]2.0.CO;2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  212. Yarova A (2020) “I am the eternal green man”: holistic ecology in reading patrick ness’s a monster calls. Child Lit Educ 51:466–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-019-09388-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  213. Di Bianco L (2020) Ecocinema ars et praxis: alice rohrwacher’s lazzaro felice. Italianist 40:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614340.2020.1764726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Jia Z, Yang D, Wu M et al (2016) An analysis of the relationship between human and nature in moby dick. Proc 6TH Int Conf Soc NETWORK Commun Educ 77:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  215. Bravo Silva S (2019) The matsés maloca construction of a collective dwelling in the amazon. Arq 2019:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  216. Gilebbi M (2020) Posthuman sorrentino: youth and the great beauty as ecocinema. Trajectories Ital Cine MediaPaolo Sorrentino Cine Telev 7:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1386/9781789383751_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  217. Saunders FP (2013) Seeing and doing conservation differently: a discussion of landscape aesthetics, wilderness, and biodiversity conservation. J Environ Dev 22:3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496512459960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Freudenburg WR, Frickel S, Gramling R (1995) Beyond the nature/society divide: Learning to think about a mountain. Sociol Forum 10:361–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02095827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  219. Lauderdale P (2008) Indigenous peoples in the face of globalization. Am Behav Sci 51:1836–1843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208318934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  220. Huanca YKA (2019) Non-western epistemology and the understanding of the pachamama (environment) within the world(s) of the aymara identity. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democr 8:6–22. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i3.1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Mentz S (2010) Strange weather in king lear. Shakespeare 6:139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450911003790216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. Dwivedi PS (2021) Exploring ethics and aesthetics of eco-caring in uttararĀmacarita. J Dharma 46:129–144

    Google Scholar 

  223. Previato T (2018) Geografie del sacro e salvaguardia ambientale. un’applicazione dell’ecologia di genere alle comunità etniche della frontiera sino-tibetana. Stor Delle Donne. https://doi.org/10.13128/SDD-25665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Note N (2009) Why it definitely matters how we encounter nature. Environ Ethics 31:279–296. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200931331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  225. Probst M (2021) Mit klassenkämpfen ins anthropozän naturverhältnisse im französischsprachigen anarchismus, circa 1870–1914. Gesch Ges 46:606–633. https://doi.org/10.1310/GEGE.2020.46.4.606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. Horowitz LS (2001) Perceptions of nature and responses to environmental degradation in New Caledonia. Ethnology 40:237–250. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Thevenin JMR, Thevenin TBB, Irigaray C (2021) Sacralização da natureza e o uso religioso da ayahuasca: percepção e ética ambiental da floresta amazônica aos centros urbanos. Rev Acta Geogr 15:1–27. https://doi.org/10.5654/acta.v15i38.5444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  228. Mocellim AD (2021) Holismo, panteísmo e redeificação do mundo. Simbiotica 8:217–234. https://doi.org/10.47456/simbitica.v8i2.36385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  229. Silva DS, dos Santos JM (2019) Ecopercepções: representações sociais da natureza no universo infantil. Educ. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984644433823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  230. Breitenbach A (2009) Environment ethics according to kant an analogical understanding of the value of nature by angela breitenbach (cambridge ). Dtsch Z Philos 57:377–395. https://doi.org/10.1524/dzph.2009.0034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. Greider T, Garkovich L (1994) Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociol 59:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Rikoon JS (1996) Imagined culture and cultural imaging: cultural implications of the USDA-SCS “harmony”; campaign. Soc Nat Resour 9:583–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929609380997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  233. Lamb KL (1996) The problem of defining nature first: a philosophical critique of environmental ethics. Soc Sci J 33:475–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0362-3319(96)90019-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  234. Llosa C (2019) Transformaciones socio-territoriales en disputa. El caso del cerro perito moreno (Patagonia Argentina). Bol Geogr 2:61–77

    Google Scholar 

  235. Newman L, Dale A (2013) Celebrating the mundane: nature and the built environment. Environ Values 22:401–413. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13648087563827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  236. Kloek ME, Buijs AE, Boersema JJ, Schouten MGC (2018) Cultural echoes in Dutch immigrants’ and non-immigrants’ understandings and values of nature. J Environ Plan Manag 61:818–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1319803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  237. Houdayer H (2015) The ecological reception of nature by serge moscovici. Societes 130:63–71

    Google Scholar 

  238. Pew Research Center (2016) Immigrant share of population jumps in some european countries. In: Immigr. Trends. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/15/immigrant-share-of-population-jumps-in-some-european-countries/. 26 Jan 2023

  239. Orthia LA (2020) Strategies for including communication of non-western and indigenous knowledges in science communication histories. J Sci Commun DOI. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19020202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  240. Basalla G (1967) The spread of western science. Science 156:611–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  241. Raj K (2017) Thinking without the scientific revolution: global interactions and the construction of knowledge. J Early Mod Hist 21:445–458. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700658-12342572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  242. Akena FA (2012) Critical analysis of the production of western knowledge and its implications for indigenous knowledge and decolonization. J Black Stud 43:599–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712440448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  243. Hanafi S, Arvanitis R (2014) The marginalization of the arab language in social science: structural constraints and dependency by choice. Curr Sociol 62:723–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114531504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  244. Alatas SF (2003) Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Curr Sociol 51:599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  245. Keim W (2008) Social sciences internationally: the problem of marginalisation and its consequences for the discipline of sociology. Afr Sociol Rev 12:22–48

    Google Scholar 

  246. Adas M (2008) Colonialism and science. In: Selin H (ed) Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 604–609

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  247. Iaccarino M (2003) Science and culture. western science could learn a thing or two from the way science is done in other cultures. EMBO Rep 4:220–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.embor781

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  248. Mazzocchi F (2006) Western science and traditional knowledge: despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Rep 7:463–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400693

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  249. Bou Zeineddine F, Saab R, Lášticová B et al (2022) “Some uninteresting data from a faraway country”: Inequity and coloniality in international social psychological publications. J Soc Issues 78:320–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  250. Serres M (1998) The natural contract. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor

    Google Scholar 

  251. Gardiner SM, Hartzell-Nichols L (2012) Ethics and global climate change. Nat Educ Knowl 3:5

    Google Scholar 

  252. Herrmann P, Waxman SR, Medin DL (2010) Anthropocentrism is not the first step in children’s reasoning about the natural world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:9979–9984. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004440107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  253. Martin JL, Maris V, Simberloff DS (2016) The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:6105–6112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525003113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  254. Taylor B, Chapron G, Kopnina H et al (2020) The need for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 34:1089–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  255. Alves F, Costa PM, Novelli L, Vidal DG (2023) The rights of nature and the human right to nature: an overview of the European legal system and challenges for the ecological transition. Front Environ Sci 11:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1175143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  256. Kotzé LJ, Adelman S (2022) Environmental law and the unsustainability of sustainable development: a tale of disenchantment and of hope. Law Crit. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-022-09323-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  257. Haraway D (2004) The haraway reader. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  258. Haraway D (2003) The companion species manifesto: dogs, people, and significant othernes. Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the members of the research group Societies and Environmental Sustainability of the Centre for Functional Ecology of the University of Coimbra with an extension and University Aberta for their invaluable insights and discussions about the topic explored in this paper. These exchanges have greatly enriched our understanding of the sociocultural construction of nature. We are also thankful to our partners in the Phoenix Project, whose collaborative discussions have contributed to a deep exploration of this topic. The authors are grateful for the important comments and suggestions made by the Editor and the Reviewers to improve the paper.

Funding

This work was developed in the scope of the “Phoenix: the rise of citizens voices for a greener Europe” project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement NO. 101037328. The authors also acknowledge the support of the R&D Unit Centre for Functional Ecology—Science for People & the Planet (CFE), with reference UIDB/04004/2020 and DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04004/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04004/2020), financed by FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC) with and extension at the University Aberta, the Associate Laboratory TERRA, with reference LA/P/0092/2020 and CAPES with reference 88887.832797/2023-00 (CAPES-PRINT) from the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ) within the scope of the Institutional Internationalization Program (Notice nº41/2017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Fátima Alves and Diogo Guedes Vidal conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; Diogo Guedes Vidal collected the data; Fátima Alves and Diogo Guedes Vidal analysed the data; Fátima Alves, Diogo Guedes Vidal e Cristina Sá Valentim participated in the writing of the manuscript. Helena Freitas is the project's principal investigator at the University of Coimbra, and Fátima Alves is the coordinator of the task in which this study is integrated. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication. The authors' order reflects the contribution level to this paper; therefore, Fátima Alves and Diogo Guedes Vidal should be considered the first authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diogo Guedes Vidal.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vidal, D.G., Alves, F., Valentim, C.S. et al. Natures instead of nature—plural perceptions and representations of nature and its challenges for ecological transition: a systematic review of the scientific production. Environ Sci Eur 36, 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00934-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00934-5

Keywords