The dominant discourse surrounding environmental issues, particularly within international organizations and scientific literature, often utilizes a Western-centric understanding of "nature" as separate from humanity, frequently framing human activity as inherently destructive. This view, exemplified by statements like "Humanity is waging war on nature," overlooks the rich tapestry of worldviews regarding the relationship between humans and the natural world in various cultures. The paper argues that the widespread use of the English word "nature" in global reports and policy recommendations risks imposing a singular worldview and neglecting diverse non-English knowledge systems. The authors aim to address this gap by presenting a detailed analysis of the diverse conceptualizations of "nature" in East and South-East Asia, highlighting the potential for misinterpretations and miscommunications arising from linguistic and cultural differences. Understanding these diverse perspectives is crucial for developing effective and culturally appropriate environmental policies both locally and internationally. The paper aims to make these diverse conceptions accessible to an English-speaking audience and contribute to calls for greater linguistic inclusivity and pluralism in environmental governance.

The paper draws upon existing literature on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which suggests that language shapes thought and decision-making. It also reviews studies demonstrating how using a foreign language can reduce cognitive biases. Additionally, it references works that explore the historical and etymological development of the concept of "nature" in Western thought, tracing its roots from ancient Greek *phusis* and Latin *natura*. The authors acknowledge a scarcity of literature specifically focused on the philosophical analysis of "nature" in many of the languages under consideration. To supplement the limited academic literature, the researchers incorporate insights from linguistic anthropology, philosophical anthropology, discourse analysis, and analyses of texts and debates in environmental law. The authors emphasize that relying solely on Western-centric interpretations of "Asian" traditions, as often found in environmental philosophy literature, is insufficient for their objectives.

The research encompassed eleven languages from East and South-East Asia: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Cebuano, Lumad, Indonesian, Burmese, Nepali, Khmer, and Mongolian. The researchers employed a qualitative approach, engaging with native or local experts in environmental humanities through the Network of Asian Environmental Philosophy. These experts contributed by completing a structured form or writing paragraphs about the meanings and nuances of words used to translate "nature" in their respective languages and cultures. A series of online workshops facilitated the discussion and refinement of the findings. The methodology acknowledged and accommodated the diverse research contexts, employing different approaches tailored to each language and cultural tradition. For languages like Chinese and Japanese with rich existing literature on environmental philosophy and etymology, the researchers utilized a historical approach. In contrast, for languages with limited relevant literature, such as Indonesian, Filipino, and Vietnamese, the methodology relied on interviews with experts, discourse analysis, and an analysis of texts and debates in environmental law. The authors justify this heterogeneous methodological approach, emphasizing that a standardized approach would fail to capture the nuances and subtleties of each linguistic and cultural context. Primary sources in the languages of study were prioritized and complemented with secondary sources in other languages for cross-referencing and validation. The researchers specifically avoided relying on Western reinterpretations of "Asian" traditions, focusing instead on primary interpretations within their native contexts.

The study revealed a significant divergence between the narrow, Western-centric understanding of "nature" commonly used in global environmental governance and the diverse conceptualizations found in East and South-East Asia. The English word "nature", often used in a dichotomous manner (human/nature, natural/artificial), contrasts sharply with the nuances found in other languages. The findings are presented for each language with a focus on the semantic and contextual variation of terms used to represent "nature." For example, while the Chinese term *zìrán* is currently widely used to translate "nature," its historical usage varied significantly across Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, demonstrating an evolution influenced by Western concepts. Similarly, Japanese *shizen* encompasses multiple meanings reflecting different philosophical and religious traditions, including its pre-modern usage distinct from current usage in environmental science. The Vietnamese terms *Thiên nhiên* and *Tự nhiên* reflect a complex interplay of indigenous, Chinese, and Western influences. Mongolian *baigali* is deeply intertwined with shamanistic beliefs, linking humans intrinsically to nature through mythology. Nepali *prakriti*, rooted in Sanskrit and Hindu philosophy, incorporates humans but excludes spirits and gods. Burmese *Thabawa*, meaning "as it is," encompasses three worlds (material, animal, and phenomenal) with varying inclusions/exclusions of humans and spirits. Khmer *Thommocheat* is heavily influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism and also includes humans within the broader concept of nature. Indonesian *alam* has roots in Malay and Arabic, incorporating both natural and supernatural realms. The Filipino word *kalikasan* and Cebuano *kinaiyahan* suggest an intimate relationship between humans and the natural world, while the Lumad concepts (*puwaason*/ *kulaw-wan*) emphasize the land's sacredness and life-giving nature. The study systematically demonstrates that the narrow, Western definition of nature as separate from humanity is not consistently reflected in many of the analyzed languages and cultures.

The findings challenge the homogenizing effect of using a single English term, "nature," to describe the multifaceted human-nature relationship in global environmental policy. The diverse conceptualizations highlighted in this study reveal deep-seated differences in ontological, cosmological, and ethical frameworks that influence how humans perceive and interact with their environment. The paper suggests that imposing a Western-centric understanding of "nature" can lead to ineffective and culturally insensitive environmental policies. The varied inclusion and exclusion of humans, spirits, and deities in the different conceptualizations of nature demonstrate that the "human/nature dichotomy" is not a universal concept, challenging the commonly held view that humans are separate from and destructive to nature. This highlights the need for context-specific approaches in environmental policy-making, recognizing the diverse cultural understandings of the relationship between humans and their environment. The concept of “design for context”, therefore, should extend beyond physical, institutional, and social factors to encompass conceptual and cultural aspects.

This research underscores the crucial need for greater inclusivity in global environmental governance. By highlighting the rich diversity of conceptualizations of nature in East and South-East Asia, the paper advocates for the direct involvement of experts from various traditions of thought in international science-policy initiatives. The authors emphasize that simply translating the English term "nature" is insufficient; a deeper engagement with the nuances of these diverse perspectives is necessary for the development of effective and culturally sensitive environmental policies. Future research should delve more deeply into the specific implications of these diverse perspectives for environmental policy and practice, exploring how these conceptualizations can inform the design and implementation of more effective and equitable sustainability initiatives.

The study acknowledges limitations stemming from the inherently complex and nuanced nature of the subject matter. The selection of languages and experts, while aiming for broad representation, may not capture the full spectrum of cultural diversity within the region. The researchers also acknowledge the challenges of accessing relevant literature in various languages and the limitations imposed by relying on expert interpretations. While the multi-stage approach with experts aimed at mitigating this limitation, it is still a caveat of this study. The study's focus on a specific geographic region might not fully extrapolate to other parts of the world. Despite these limitations, the study serves as a valuable contribution to the field, prompting further research and promoting greater awareness of the diverse ways humans perceive their relationship with the natural world.