Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of "nature" in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges.

Leading societies toward a more sustainable, equitably shared, and environmentally just future requires elevating and strengthening conversations on the nonmaterial and perhaps unquantifiable values of nonhuman nature to humanity. Debates among conservationists relating to the appropriateness of valuing ecosystems in terms of their human utility have eclipsed the more important and impactful task of expressing conservation concerns in terms that are meaningful to diverse stakeholders. We considered the wide global diversity of perspectives on the biosocial complex—the relationships and interactions between all living species on Earth—and argue that humanity's best chance for effective conservation is to take a pluralistic approach that engages seriously with the worldviews of all stakeholders. Many worldviews—particularly those in indigenous cultures—place a higher value on the spiritual and nonmaterial aspects than what is often represented by the discourse surrounding Western conservation policy. Alternative framings of the biosocial complex that recognize nature's intrinsic value can be powerful motivators for social change and for local‐scale conservation efforts. At a national and international level, changing ethical framings of human relationships with nature have started influencing conceptions of human rights relating to the environment and of the rights of nature itself. This change has led to an increased role of the judiciary in promoting environmental sustainability and promoting justice for groups who are most often affected by environmental harms. We hope our essay will motivate the scientific community to change its own perception of what a sound and sustainable relationship between humanity and other species should be and will help citizens become active environmental subjects, connected to the ecosystems around them.

Le projet de recherche interdisciplinaire SynTerCalM soutenu par A* Midex, constitue un bel exemple de mobilisation des compétences d’Aix-Marseille Université sur un thème particulièrement sensible, l’état de pollution des Calanques Marseillaises. Derrière une image quelque peu idyllique, l’un des joyaux de notre patrimoine naturel Phocéen est aujourd’hui menacé par un ensemble de pollutions, héritage de son passé industriel, mais également de la proximité d’une agglomération de plus d’un million d’habitants. Outre le travail singulier des écologues, biologistes, chimistes, historiens, géographes, ou encore sociologues, ce projet replace le juriste au coeur de la protection du patrimoine Marseillais des Calanques, en s’interrogeant sur le rôle que le droit peut jouer aujourd’hui dans la recherche de solutions efficaces. Cet article aspire à démontrer comment le travail des chercheurs constitue une approche expérimentale qui pose les jalons d’une évolution du cadre juridique de la restauration écologique.

Urban development is often confronted with a lack of available space. Brownfield sites offer great potential for sustainable urban planning because of their often-central location and the benefits associated with their redevelopment. Although the interest in brownfield regeneration has led to a lot of research on this topic, there is not yet a comprehensive review of brownfield research. In this review, we analyze the research on brownfields and provide a picture of the published case studies. We focus primarily on brownfields research in the United States, Europe, and China. This exploratory research is based on an analysis of the published scientific literature available in the Web of Science database. Initially used in North America, the term brownfield quickly became popular in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe. However, with the exception of the United States, there is no specific legislation for these sites; their protection is often based indirectly on directives or laws related to soil pollution, biodiversity or the environment. The perception of the potential use of brownfield sites varies considerably from one part of the world to another, and international collaborations between researchers from different parts of the world remain limited. Most of the described reuses of brownfield sites are forms of soft reuse (53%), and the type of reuse of a site depends more on the surrounding urbanization levels and the specific region than on the past use of a brownfield site. Despite the continued interest in the rehabilitation of these sites, especially due to the increasing demand for nature in the city following the Covid-19 crisis, many questions regarding the future of brownfield sites remain unanswered. The factors influencing their successful redevelopment are unclear, and further research is urgently needed to ensure a truly sustainable re-use of these sites.

The concepts of 'artificialised land' and 'land take' refer to specific land use and land use changes, respectively. Initially introduced by agronomists, who sought to identify the causes of agricultural land loss, the implementation of these concepts required the identification of various land uses and changes between them. 1 This has resulted in a distinction between four main types of use: agricultural uses, forestry uses, areas considered 'natural' and the rest, comprising 'artificialised land'. The This article is based primarily on the results of a collective scientific report (ESCo) conducted by IFSTTAR and INRA at the request of the ministries responsible for Environment (MTES) and Agriculture (MAA) and ADEME. For the complete results, refer to the full report and summary, respectively:-Béchet (coord.), Le Bissonnais (coord.), Ruas (coord.), et al. (2017a). Sols artificialisés et processus d'artificialisation des sols, Déterminants, impacts et leviers d'action. Rapport d'expertise scientifique collective réalisée à la demande du MTES, du MAA et de l'ADEME, IFSTTAR & INRA (France), 609 p.; -Béchet, Le Bissonnais, Ruas (coord.), Schmitt B., Savini I., Desrousseaux M., et al. (2017b). Artificialised land and land take processes: drivers, impacts and potential responses. Summary of the collective scientific report, IFSTTAR-INRA (France), 127 p AU3 . 1 Slak and Vidal (1995).