The modern divide between culture and nature is made within a “social classification logic” that naturalises social hierarchies based on unequal power relations [1], which has served to establish identities, places, and worlds that are strategically meant to be opposites and rivals [2]. Within this modern discourse, Western environmental law (post the French Revolution) has been based on an anthropocentric representation of nature as a commodity, that is, non-human beings (plants, forests, oceans, rivers, mountains, minerals, water, soil, and animals, among many others) are seen as objects to be used, and even destroyed, to satisfy the individual needs and desires of their owners ^[3][4][3,4]. Recently, there has been a growing emphasis in environmental philosophy and ethics on safeguarding nature and the environment, forming the foundation of the prevalent Western and Euro-American environmental legal framework [5]. Both national and international human rights laws acknowledge individuals’ entitlement to access natural resources, green spaces, and a clean, healthy environment [6]. However, the translation of the human right to nature into environmental laws, while directed at conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services, maintains the prevailing anthropocentric viewpoint. This approach continues to separate humans from non-humans by prioritizing the protection of nature based on human interests and wellbeing [7]: essentially safeguarding nature solely for human benefit. In essence, this perspective perceives nature primarily as a source of “natural resources” meant for human advantage, illustrating a perspective rooted in economic values [8]. The key point remains: it is not possible to survive without nature, and humans need the resources provided for this purpose. But this does not justify the abusive and extractive logic that has guided humanity’s relationship with nature.

As our scientific understanding progresses, there is a growing acknowledgement of how complex and ever changing ecosystems are, shaped significantly by environmental factors and appreciated for their inherent value [9]. Consequently, these terms—ecosystems, environment, and nature—are often used interchangeably, blurring their distinctions in both everyday language and scholarly discussions [10]. However, the notion of “ecosystem services” poses a challenge by suggesting a Western-centric, human-centered view, framing nature and the environment as providers of essential “services” for human use [11]. Addressing this issue, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) proposed a different language in 2013, offering an alternative framework to recognize and categorize ecosystem services [12]. Specifically, IPBES introduced the concept of “Nature’s Contributions to People” [13], aiming for a more inclusive and respectful approach toward diverse representations of nature. This perspective does not portray nature as serving humans, but instead suggests a holistic viewpoint, less centered on utility and more attentive to nature’s agency and intrinsic worth. There is, therefore, a possibility of achieving this coexistence and interdependence, which should be harmonious, based on the references, principles, and virtues associated with the relationship between non-humans and humans.

Nature/environment and society/culture are not separate entities, but are instead intertwined in complex relationships. Nature and the environment consist of social and cultural practices that are created and signified by individual and collective actions in specific contexts [14]. As such, notions of nature and the environment are not equal. Nature, often perceived as the physical world, transcends mere natural elements. This concept is contextually dependent and subject to varied interpretations influenced by socio-cultural contexts [15]. Different societies construct their understanding of ‘nature’ based on their cultural backgrounds and historical legacies [16], since human interaction with nature is deeply entwined with societal perceptions, cultural norms, and historical narratives [15]. Thus, societies construct and define what constitutes ‘nature’, and this construction is influenced by societal values and beliefs. While ‘environment’ encompasses natural and human-made elements, representing the broader context within which nature exists ^[15][16][15,16], encapsulating the physical, social, and cultural milieu influenced by human actions. The relationship established between society and the environment is marked by power dynamics, where dominant groups shape perceptions and interactions with the environment, which often leads to inequalities and exploitative practices within environmental contexts. Considering culture as the shared beliefs, customs, values, traditions, language, arts, and social behaviours of a particular group or society, which, therefore, shape individuals’ perceptions, behaviours, and interactions within a community, through a dynamic process over time, we can see that nature and environment concepts are deeply ingrained in, and are influenced by, societal practices and norms [17]. These perceptions influence societal practices, environmental policies, and conservation efforts [18]. Biodiversity, encompassing the variety of life forms on Earth, is intrinsically linked to cultural perspectives and human–environment interactions, since cultural constructions influence biodiversity conservation practices and shape attitudes toward preserving ecological diversity [19].

Those concepts lose their Western meaning in a context where the separation between humans and non-humans is irrelevant, for example [20]. Acknowledging the deep interdependence between nature and society highlights the importance of understanding the plurality of perceptions and representations of nature and environment in contrast to the hegemonic socio-ecological narrative ^[21][22][23][21,22,23]. The need for this understanding is in line with the current debate on the contemporary environmental, climate, and ecological crisis. Four prominent challenges, therefore, need to be addressed:

• Recognise the agency and interdependence of both humans and non-humans to gain a deeper insight into social practices, as highlighted by Latour [24]. There are many possible ways to address this challenge, such as: (a) promoting interdisciplinary research that integrates ecological and social sciences for a holistic understanding of interactions between humans and nature; (b) conducting ethnographic research that involves studying and documenting the relationships between humans and non-humans in specific social contexts, as well as promoting participatory research, where all may express their visions. This can provide insights into the roles of non-human entities in shaping practices and cultural norms; (c) learning from indigenous cultures and their traditional knowledge, which acknowledges the agency and interdependence of humans and non-humans; (d) exploring environmental ethics that consider the intrinsic value of non-human entities in order to develop more ethical decision making in social practices that affect the environment; (e) advocating for, and implementing, sustainable practices that take into account the needs and agency of non-human elements, including, for example, sustainable agriculture, wildlife conservation, and responsible resource management; (f) creating public awareness campaigns that highlight the importance of recognizing the agency and interdependence of both humans and non-humans, using, for example, multimedia, art, education, storytelling, among others, to convey these concepts; (g) advocating for policies and governance structures that integrate the interests of non-human entities and prioritize their wellbeing alongside human interests, recognizing by law their rights in order to guarantee that they are truly protected, acknowledging ecosystems as active participants, and fostering sustainable practices and conservation efforts;
• Recognise different forms of social engagement within communities and their connection to the socio-cultural world and nature. This requires the adoption of grassroots policies to combat the impacts of climate change, as proposed by Alves et al. [25]. It is necessary to support grassroots movements and community-led initiatives to combat climate change impacts, but also to encourage participatory approaches in policy making to harness community knowledge and values;
• Formulate and implement policies that effectively take into account the unique socio-cultural characteristics and needs of local communities, as well as the localised consequences of socio-ecological crises, as proposed by Alves et al. [26]. This implies crafting policies reflecting local socio-cultural nuances and their implications on environmental initiatives and engaging local communities in policy design and implementation for context-specific and effective strategies;
• Include diverse forms of knowledge, language, and actors in deliberative and participatory contexts. This includes traditional, scientific, ecological, local, artistic, popular, and lay knowledge. It also means recognising the knowledge that emerges from the struggles of social movements for human dignity. Accepting this challenge means recognising and valuing alternative ways of being and, consequently, the epistemological diversity of the world, as opposed to dominant ways of knowing ^{[27][28][29][30]}[27,28,29,30]. This challenge indicates the establishment of deliberative contexts valuing traditional, scientific, and local knowledge for informed decision making through affirming various knowledge sources and alternative ways of knowing in environmental discussions, as well as the need to articulate them.

Addressing these challenges lays the groundwork for long-term environmental resilience and societal wellbeing. Considering this background, this entry aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the socio-cultural construction of nature and its implications for contemporary environmental challenges. By tracing the historical development of the concept and highlighting its relevance to contemporary socio-environmental issues, it emphasizes the complex historical, cultural, and philosophical underpinnings of the relationship between humans and nature. It also encourages a critical analysis of the prevailing dichotomy between nature and society, emphasizing its impact on social structures and the environment. The main aim is, thus, to advocate for a transformative change in societal and cultural attitudes and approaches to environmental conservation.

The structure of this entry is as follows: after the introduction, the historical development of the concept of the socio-cultural construction of nature is traced, starting from ancient Greek philosophy and progressing through various intellectual movements. It then considers the implications of the historical division between nature and society, emphasising the Western capitalist, colonial, and patriarchal dimensions that have perpetuated this division. After that, a discussion is provided that explores how this division has contributed to the exploitation of nature and the socio-environmental crisis currently facing society and emphasizes the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of humans and non-humans in addressing these challenges. The paper concludes with a summary of the key points discussed in the text, highlighting the need to acknowledge the influence of culture, society, and history on our understanding of nature to promote transformative change by moving beyond the limitations of the nature–culture divide to a more interconnected perspective.