The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

Spending time in nature is one potential way to cope with the negative physical and psychological health impacts from major stressful life events. In 2020, a large fraction of the global population was impacted by restrictions to contain the spread of the COVID‐19 outbreak, a period characterised by marked health risks and behavioural changes. Here we explore whether people responded to this stressor by spending more time in nature and investigate the reasons for any changes. We surveyed 1,002 people in Brisbane, Australia in 2020, to measure the change in use of green space during the restrictions period and benefits people associated with visiting them. About 36% of participants increased their urban green space use, but 26% reduced it, indicating a great deal of flux. Furthermore, 45% of the previous non‐users of urban green space began using it for the first time during the restrictions period. Older people were less likely to increase their green space use and those with a backyard were more likely to increase their use of green spaces. Participants' change in use occurred regardless of the amount of green space available in close proximity to their households. In addition, we did not find a relationship between nature‐relatedness and change in use. People's reasons for green space use shifted during the pandemic‐related restrictions period, with many emphasising improvement of personal well‐being rather than consolidating community capital. Most participants indicated an increase in the importance of the psychological and physical benefits obtained from urban green spaces. We conclude that increased urban green space use during moments of stress such as the COVID‐19 pandemic has the potential to ameliorate some of the negative effects of the stressor, but that the capacity and desire to spend more time in green space varies markedly across society. Sufficient urban green space provision for all sections of society will maximise the opportunity to employ a nature‐based coping mechanism during times of personal or community stress.

Humans may have evolved a need to connect with nature, and nature provides substantial cultural and social values to humans. However, quantifying the connection between humans and nature at a global scale remains challenging. We lack answers to fundamental questions: how do humans experience nature in different contexts (daily routines, fun activities, weddings, honeymoons, other celebrations, and vacations) and how do nature experiences differ across countries? We answer these questions by coupling social media and artificial intelligence using 31,534 social media photographs across 185 countries. We find that nature was more likely to appear in photographs taken during a fun activity, honeymoon, or vacation compared to photographs of daily routines. More importantly, the proportion of photographs with nature taken during fun activities is associated with national life satisfaction scores. This study provides global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis by showing a connection between humans and nature that contributes to life satisfaction and highlights how nature serves as background to many of our positive memories.

Changing human behaviour and social systems are key to reversing the global biodiversity crisis. Pro‐environmental behaviour is guided by values and connection with nature, but because they have mostly been studied separately, the interplay between values and nature connection in influencing pro‐environmental behaviour remains unclear. In particular, it is uncertain whether people who hold anthropocentric values have a less positive connection with nature than those who hold ecocentric values, and whether nature protection behaviours differ between people with different values or strengths of connection to nature. We used a stratified survey of 2100 respondents across Australia to measure orientation towards nature. We created segments based on individual values and connection with nature and characterised each segment based on demographics, nature‐exposure, pro‐environmental behaviours, support for environmental policies and political alignment. We discovered that a quarter of respondents had anthropocentric values alongside a strong connection with nature. Moreover, of those with a strong connection with nature, people with anthropocentric values more frequently undertook certain pro‐environmental behaviours than those with ecocentric values. Our findings indicate that the strong expression of pro‐environmental behaviour is not limited to people with ecocentric values. Rather, people with different values and strengths of connection to nature engage in different types of impactful nature protection behaviours, challenging stereotypes about those with anthropocentric values. These results further suggest that behavioural intervention strategies could be tailored to reach sectors of society with various combinations of values and strengths of connection to nature, thus maximising the expression of pro‐environmental behaviour across the entire population. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.