Abstract
Social-ecological systems are complex and adaptive, for which their governance requires holistic understanding of the different components of the system and their relations, capacity to respond to change and uncertainty, and well-functioning institutional frameworks. Probably because Indigenous and local knowledge systems often entail these characteristics, lands and waters managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities experience a less rapid decline of biodiversity and continue to maintain their functions than other land and seascapes. In this chapter, I draw on published research to summarize how Indigenous and local knowledge systems (1) draw on conceptualizations of nature that contribute to the long-term maintenance of functioning social-ecological systems, (2) enhance our understanding of complex social-ecological systems, and (3) articulate resistance to social-ecological systems degradation. The chapter discusses why, although Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ contributions to complex social-ecological system management are growingly recognized, such contributions will not be fully realized unless Indigenous peoples and local communities are fully acknowledged as equal partners at different levels of environmental governance. The chapter concludes by suggesting that the post-normal science approach proposed by the Barcelona School offers principles to do so.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Indigenous peoples and local communities
- Knowledge systems
- Restoration
- Traditional ecological knowledge
1 Introduction
Social-ecological systems (SES) are complex and adaptive, for which their governance requires holistic understanding of the different components of the system and their relations, capacity to respond to change and uncertainty, and well-functioning institutional frameworks (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems, or the sophisticated sets of ecological knowledge, management practices, and customary institutions generated by different Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) with long histories of place-based living and time-honored traditions, often entail these characteristics (Berkes, 2017). ILK systems have traditionally guided many social-ecological interactions, resulting in the maintenance of the integrity of many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Cámara-Leret et al., 2019; Kimmerer, 2000). Given that many of the lands and waters that IPLC own or manage are critical for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation (Ens et al., 2016; Fa et al., 2020; Porter-Bolland et al., 2012), analyzing how ILK contributes to the governance of complex SES could help in achieving planetary sustainability.
Indigenous and local knowledge systems use a variety of languages to express multiple and complex values of nature, providing a good example of the need for multi-criteria evaluation proposed by the Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology (Munda, 2008). Many ILK systems capture and reflex human dependence on the interconnected web of life (e.g., Lyver et al., 2017; Reo, 2019). In many of such conceptualizations, humans are viewed as an integral component of nature (Coscieme et al., 2020), and nature is imbued with social, cultural, and spiritual values (Berkes, 2017). Moreover, IPLC conceptualizations of nature often draw on stewardship ethics based on mutual reciprocity between humans and nature, temporary custody for future generations, and health of and attachment to land (Pascual et al., 2017; Reo, 2019). These conceptualizations, which are dynamic and adapt to changes (McMillen et al., 2017), form the basis for land and seascape management (e.g., Joa et al., 2018). Indeed, the defense of the value systems that underpin such conceptualizations has resulted in a myriad of environmental conflicts, particularly when activities based in other valuation systems (e.g., extractive activities with a purely monetary valuation) are imposed on areas managed by IPLC (Scheidel et al., 2020).
In this chapter, I draw on published research to summarize how ILK (1) draws on conceptualizations of nature that contribute to the long-term maintenance of functioning SES, (2) enhances our understanding of complex SES, and (3) articulates resistance to SES degradation and promotes SES restoration. The chapter concludes elaborating on why, although IPLC contributions to complex SES management are growingly recognized, such contributions will not be fully realized unless IPLC are fully acknowledged as equal partners at different levels of environmental governance, as proposed by the post-normal science approach adopted by the Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology.
2 Conceptualizations of Nature Embedded in ILK Systems Contribute to Long-Term Maintenance of Complex SES
While acknowledging diversity, many examples show that IPLC conceptualizations of social-ecological relations often build on concepts such as attachment to land, interests in restoration, a powerful stewardship ethics, reciprocity between humans and nature, relational webs – including kinship – with natural elements, and continuity between nature and culture (Díaz et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2017). These conceptualizations are embedded in customary management practices, such as the protection of sacred forests and fresh or seawater areas or species or taboo enforcement, but also on selective cutting and burning or other biodiversity-enriching small-scale disturbances (Forest Peoples Programm et al., 2016; Guadilla-Sáez et al., 2019; Joa et al., 2018). Such customary management practices extend to the management of coastal ecosystems, including wetlands, mangroves, and seaweed and seagrass beds (Cinner & Aswani, 2007), and of areas particularly sensible to climate change, such as the Arctic (Johnson et al., 2015).
Many examples show that ILK-based SES management arrangements (e.g., traditional agriculture, aquaculture, fishery, and community forestry) contribute to biodiversity maintenance in production landscapes (Chaudhary et al., 2016), ecosystem restoration (Reyes-García et al., 2019a, b), pollution buffering (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020), and nutrient cycling (Malley et al., 2016). Examples of these practices include purposive burning to create diversity (Shaffer, 2010; Trauernicht et al., 2015), waste deposition practices resulting in soil carbon enrichment (Solomon et al., 2016), swidden cultivation systems able to maintain forest cover and plant diversity (Takasaki et al., 2022; Wangpakapattanawong et al., 2010), or weeding meadows to maintain grassland productivity and resilience (Babai & Molnár, 2014). Indeed, as a result of the application of these management systems, much of today’s world’s wild and domesticated biodiversity lies in areas traditionally owned, managed, used, and/or occupied by IPLC (Brondizio & Le Tourneau, 2016; Garnett et al., 2018). Moreover, despite increasing pressures from the expansion of commodity frontiers and resource extraction, biodiversity is declining less rapidly in land and seascapes owned or managed by IPLC than in other ecosystems (IPBES, 2019).
Despite IPLC contributions to the maintenance of global biodiversity, IPLC are often excluded for environmental governance and customary management practices are disappearing (Forest Peoples Programm et al., 2016; Witter et al., 2015). For instance, while more than 40% of government-protected areas overlap with IPLC lands, less than 1% of protected areas are formally governed by IPLC (Garnett et al., 2018). Moreover, in many areas, agricultural expansion, logging, or conservation activities limit or replace customary management practices (Hayes, 2010), with recent proposals to safeguard 30% (Dinerstein et al., 2019) or 50% (Wilson, 2016) of the planet from human use. Researchers have documented that the loss of traditional management systems affects the functionality and stability of the SES previously managed under such rules through landscape homogenization, the increase of invasive species presence, pollution, urbanization, or soil erosion (Fletcher et al., 2020; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020; Guadilla-Sáez et al., 2019). This, in turn, has cascading effects on other elements of the SES including reduced abundance and access to culturally valued resources (e.g., food) (Garibaldi, 2009; Kuhnlein, 2014) and deterioration of traditional governance systems and institutions (Oldekop et al., 2012; Sirén, 2017). The erosion of traditional management practices also weakens local conceptualizations of nature (Stocker et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2008), impacting relations with and responsibilities to other-than-human-beings and forces (e.g., Fernández-Llamazares & Virtanen, 2020).
3 ILK Enhances Our Understanding of Complex SES
Beyond the actual management of SES, ILK systems encode key information essential for our understanding of complex SES. Thus, ILK systems have been crucial to further scientific understanding of species ecological distribution ranges (Wilder et al., 2016) and historical population baselines and trends (Bender et al., 2013; Ziembicki et al., 2013), particularly in biologically diverse but little studied regions of the world. For example, ILK has contributed to fisheries science through mapping spawning grounds, understanding seascapes’ use and ecology, and documenting fisheries’ long-term trends (Lavides et al., 2016; Tesfamichael et al., 2014). In a way, the contributions of ILK systems to the generation of actionable knowledge for sustainability exemplifies the potential of the post-normal science approach for the management of complex issues (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). According to the post-normal science framework which has guided much of the research of the Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology, when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent – as is the case of environmental management – the normal scientific approach is insufficient and new norms of evidence and discourse need to be developed.
In that sense, over the years, ILK systems have contributed not only to provide an enriched picture of biodiversity functioning, but ILK systems have also aid in efforts to sustain nature (Tengö et al., 2014; Wilder et al., 2016). For example, around the world, different place-based, historical land-use practices have been used along with biological data to create more effective national plans to protect biodiversity while supporting local livelihood activities (Diamond & Ansharyani, 2018). Similarly, new knowledge co-produced by scientists and IPLC referring to carbon stocks assessment (Butt et al., 2015), wildlife monitoring (Luzar et al., 2011; Takasaki et al., 2022), or participatory mapping (Herlihy, 2003) has resulted in the development of adaptation strategies to highly variable social-ecological conditions. Moreover, ILK has also contributed to map, monitor, and report changes in SES, including the dynamics of agricultural systems (Coomes et al., 2015), resource over-exploitation (Forest Peoples Programm et al., 2016), invasive species expansion (Bart & Simon, 2013), climate change impacts (Reyes-García et al., 2019a, b), and pollution (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020; Orta-Martínez et al., 2007). For example, through a community-based monitoring program which started in 2006 and which builds on their detailed knowledge of the environment, Achuar and Quechua Indigenous Peoples of the Peruvian Amazon have been able to monitor, map and report oil spills impacts on soils, water, wildlife, and their own health (Cartró-Sabaté, 2018; Rosell-Melé et al., 2018; Yusta-García et al., 2017). Their knowledge has uncovered impacts that oil companies had never reported (e.g., concealed oil spills, illegal operations; Orta-Martínez & Finer, 2010), as well as animal geophagia of polluted soils, a behavior unknown to scientists (Cartró-Sabaté, 2018).
4 ILK Articulates Resistance to SES Degradation and SES Restoration
IPLC’s understandings of the interconnections in nature and of human dependence of the interconnected web of life are at the bases of many environmental conflicts through which Indigenous peoples aim to protect their territories from extractive and industrial development pressures (Scheidel et al., in press; Benyei et al., 2022). Drawing on their understanding of SES functioning and the changes such systems can endure, IPLC have been proactive in implementing innovative strategies to prevent, limit, or stop activities that potentially led to SES degradation (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020; Martinez-Alier et al., 2016), sometimes even facing violence for defending the land and resources (Scheidel et al., 2020). Thus, IPLC, through the world, have resisted mining operations, hydrocarbon exploration, infrastructure development, and toxic waste dumping (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016; Orta-Martínez & Finer, 2010; Reyes-García et al., 2020). Some of these actions have been preventive, such as the fight of the Dongria Kondh against bauxite mining in their sacred homelands in India, in which IPLC used their understanding of SES functioning to raise opposition before the activity started to operate (Temper & Martinez-Alier, 2013).
ILK is also at the basis of IPLC activities to restore lands and waters after these areas have been overexploited or degraded by extractive activities (Reyes-García et al., 2019a, b). For instance, some restoration efforts have used insights from local knowledge systems to identify what species to use and which sites to focus on in restoration efforts. ILK can provide baseline ecosystem information on cultural keystone species, i.e., culturally salient species that shape people’s identity (Garibaldi & Turner, 2004; Reyes-García et al., 2023), or cultural keystone places, i.e., particular places that are critically important for the flow of ecosystem service and to people’s lifeways (Cuerrier et al., 2015). For example, traditional fire management practices have been used to restore overgrown broad-crowned black oak tree stands in California (Long et al., 2003), and in Nepal many local communities contribute to safeguard and restore communal forests and watersheds, thus slowing deforestation, after the Nepali state devolved forests into community control in the 1970s (Paudyal et al., 2015). In some cases, restoration efforts have resulted in a change in the local political context, creating a space for Indigenous spiritual and cultural values to be further reflected in their participation in restoration efforts (Fox et al., 2017).
5 Conclusion
Around the world, a myriad of Indigenous and local knowledge systems have achieved the long-term management of functioning ecosystems, informed scientific efforts to maintain ecosystems, and prevented further SES degradation. And, nevertheless, the critical role of IPLC in SES management is not fully recognized in most conservation research, policy, and practice. This is so to the extent that IPLC continue to face challenges of representation in international climate and biodiversity conservation policy processes (Forest Peoples Programm et al., 2016; Witter et al., 2015) and, in some regions of the world, pressures and violence against them are growing (Scheidel et al., 2020). Moreover, ILK systems are globally eroding due to the negative impact of globalization, colonialism, and environmental change (Aswani et al., 2018; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2021), which endangers not only the very foundations of IPLC’ ways of life but also planetary sustainability.
The post-normal science approach proposed by the Barcelona School of Ecological Economics offers principles to bring IPLC to environmental governance. The approach proposes that different groups of interests (beyond scientists) can provide legitimate inputs to the co-production of knowledge for issues affecting them, for which it is first necessary to create the conditions to identify, involve, and engage the relevant communities (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Drawing in these insights, conservation institutions and governance systems could better reflect ILK contributions and IPLCs crucial roles and rights in planetary sustainability in two complementary ways. On the one side, strengthening frameworks that bridge scientific and Indigenous and local knowledge systems, ensuring collaborative and equitable relations between scientists and IPLC. Such frameworks are vital to the effective co-production of knowledge that enhances conservation strategies, sustainable resource policy and management, and the well-functioning of SES (Tengö et al., 2017; Orlove et al., Accepted). On the other side, these institutions should involve IPLC as partners in governance by promoting inclusive measures that substantially increase the sustainability of land-use practices and the effectiveness of protection (Brooks et al., 2012; Ens et al., 2016). Such measures include safeguarding IPLC knowledge ownership, supporting territorial rights, protecting threatened land defenders, respecting Indigenous laws and principles, and promoting customary management practices.
References
Aswani, S., Lemahieu, A., & Sauer, W. H. H. (2018). Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0195440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195440
Babai, D., & Molnár, Z. (2014). Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in the Carpathians. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 182, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.018
Bart, D., & Simon, M. (2013). Evaluating local knowledge to develop integrative invasive-species control strategies. Human Ecology, 41(5), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9610-z
Bender, M. G., Floeter, S. R., & Hanazaki, N. (2013). Do traditional fishers recognise reef fish species declines? Shifting environmental baselines in Eastern Brazil. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 20(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12006
Benyei, P., Calvet-Mir, L., Reyes-García, V., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2022). Indigenous and local knowledge’s role in social movement’s struggles against threats to community-based natural resource management systems: Insights from a qualitative meta-analysis. International Journal of the Commons, 16, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.5334/IJC.1154/
Berkes, F. (2017). Sacred ecology. Routledge.
Brondizio, E., & Le Tourneau, F.-M. (2016). Environmental governance for all. Science, 352(6291), 1272–1273.
Brooks, J. S., Waylen, K. A., & Mulder, M. B. (2012). How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(52), 21265. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1207141110
Butt, N., Epps, K., Overman, H., Iwamura, T., & Fragoso, J. M. V. (2015). Assessing carbon stocks using Indigenous peoples’ field measurements in Amazonian Guyana. Forest Ecology and Management, 338, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2014.11.014
Cámara-Leret, R., Fortuna, M. A., & Bascompte, J. (2019). Indigenous knowledge networks in the face of global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(20), 9913–9918. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821843116
Cartró-Sabaté, M. (2018). Amazo’n’Oil: Exposure to oil and lead for Amazonian wildlife. PhD thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Chaudhary, A., Burivalova, Z., Koh, L. P., & Hellweg, S. (2016). Impact of forest management on species richness: Global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 23954. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23954
Cinner, J. E., & Aswani, S. (2007). Integrating customary management into marine conservation. Biological Conservation, 140(3–4), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2007.08.008
Coomes, O. T., McGuire, S. J., Garine, E., Caillon, S., McKey, D., Demeulenaere, E., et al. (2015). Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy, 56, 41–50.
Coscieme, L., da Silva Hyldmo, H., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Palomo, I., Mwampamba, T. H., Selomane, O., et al. (2020). Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 104, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018
Cuerrier, A., Turner, N. J., Gomes, T. C., Garibaldi, A., & Downing, A. (2015). Cultural keystone places: Conservation and restoration in cultural landscapes. Journal of Ethnobiology, 35(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-35.3.427
Diamond, S. K., & Ansharyani, I. (2018). Mismatched priorities, smallholders, and climate adaptation strategies: Landuse scientists, it’s time to step up. Journal of Land Use Science, 13(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2018.1537313
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.11.002
Dinerstein, E., Vynne, C., Sala, E., Joshi, A. R., Fernando, S., Lovejoy, T. E., et al. (2019). A global deal for nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Science Advances, eaaw2869. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869
Ens, E., Scott, M. L., Rangers, Y. M., Moritz, C., & Pirzl, R. (2016). Putting Indigenous conservation policy into practice delivers biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(14), 2889–2906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1207-6
Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., et al. (2020). Importance of Indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact forest landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(3), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., & Virtanen, P. K. (2020). Game masters and Amazonian Indigenous views on sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.004
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., Brondizio, E. S., Cabeza, M., Martínez-Alier, J., et al. (2020). A state-of-the-art review of Indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 16(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4239
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Armstrong, C. G., Brondizio, E. S., Gavin, M. C., et al. (2021). Scientists’ warning to humanity on threats to Indigenous and local knowledge systems. Journal of Ethnobiology, 41(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144
Fletcher, M. S., Hall, T., & Alexandra, A. N. (2020). The loss of an Indigenous constructed landscape following British invasion of Australia: An insight into the deep human imprint on the Australian landscape. Ambio, 50, 138–149.
Forest Peoples Program, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2016). Local biodiversity outlooks. Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ contributions to the implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. A complement to the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook.
Fox, C. A., Reo, N. J., Turner, D. A., Cook, J. A., Dituri, F., Fessell, B., et al. (2017). “The river is us; the river is in our veins”: Re-defining river restoration in three Indigenous communities. Sustainability Science, 12(4), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0421-1
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Garibaldi, A. (2009). Moving from model to application: Cultural keystone species and reclamation in Fort McKay, Alberta. Journal of Ethnobiology, 29(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-29.2.323
Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. J. (2004). Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6
Guadilla-Sáez, S., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., & Reyes-García, V. (2019). The role of traditional management practices in shaping a diverse habitat mosaic in a mountain region of Northern Spain. Land Use Policy, 89, 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104235
Hayes, T. M. (2010). A challenge for environmental governance: Institutional change in a traditional common-property forest system. Policy Sciences, 43(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9083-5
Herlihy, P. H. (2003). Participatory research mapping of Indigenous lands in Darién, Panama. Human Organization, 62(4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.4.fu05tgkbvn2yvk8p
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, et al., Eds.). IPBES secretariat.
Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing social-ecological systems. In Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1465–1509). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0021(05)02030-7
Joa, B., Winkel, G., & Primmer, E. (2018). The unknown known – A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy, 79, 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.09.001
Johnson, N., Alessa, L., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Gearheard, S., Gofman-Wallingford, V., et al. (2015). The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to Arctic observing networks: Reflections on the state of the field. Arctic, 68(5), 28. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4447
Kimmerer, R. W. (2000). Native knowledge for native ecosystems. Journal of Forestry, 98(8), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOF/98.8.4
Kuhnlein, H. V. (2014). How ethnobiology can contribute to food security. Journal of Ethnobiology, 34(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.1.12
Lavides, M. N., Molina, E. P. V., de la Rosa, G. E., Mill, A. C., Rushton, S. P., Stead, S. M., & Polunin, N. V. C. (2016). Patterns of coral-reef finfish species disappearances inferred from fishers’ knowledge in global epicentre of marine shorefish diversity. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0155752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155752
Long, J., Tecle, A., & Burnette, B. (2003). Cultural foundations for ecological restoration on the White Mountain Apache reservation. Ecology and Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00591-080104
Luzar, J. B., Silvius, K. M., Overman, H., Giery, S. T., Read, J. M., & Fragoso, J. M. V. (2011). Large-scale environmental monitoring by Indigenous peoples. BioScience, 61(10), 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.10.7
Lyver, P. O. B., Timoti, P., Gormley, A. M., Jones, C. J., Richardson, S. J., Tahi, B. L., & Greenhalgh, S. (2017). Key Māori values strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 27, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.009
Malley, D. F., Watts, P. D., Ulrich, A. E., Malley, D. F., & Watts, P. D. (2016). Lake Winnipeg Basin: Advocacy, challenges and progress for sustainable phosphorus and eutrophication control. Science of the Total Environment, 542(Pt B), 1030–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.106
Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Scheidel, A. (2016). Is there a global environmental justice movement? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198
McMillen, H., Ticktin, T., & Springer, H. K. (2017). The future is behind us: Traditional ecological knowledge and resilience over time on Hawai‘i Island. Regional Environmental Change, 17(2), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1032-1
Munda, G. (2008). Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Springer.
Oldekop, J. A., Bebbington, A. J., Truelove, N. K., Holmes, G., Villamarín, S., & Preziosi, R. F. (2012). Environmental impacts and scarcity perception influence local institutions in Indigenous Amazonian Kichwa communities. Human Ecology, 40(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9455-2
Orlove, B., Dawson, N., Sherpa, P., Adelekan, I., Alangui, W., Carmona, R., Coen, D., Nelson, M., Reyes-García, V., Sanago, G., & Wilson, A. (Accepted, pending revisions). Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research. Ambio.
Orta-Martínez, M., & Finer, M. (2010). Oil frontiers and Indigenous resistance in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2010.04.022
Orta-Martínez, M., Napolitano, D. A., MacLennan, G. J., O’Callaghan, C., Ciborowski, S., & Fabregas, X. (2007). Impacts of petroleum activities for the Achuar people of the Peruvian Amazon: Summary of existing evidence and research gaps. Environmental Research Letters, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045006
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.006
Paudyal, K., Baral, H., Burkhard, B., Bhandari, S. P., & Keenan, R. J. (2015). Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 13, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., & Reyes-García, V. (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034
Reo, N. J. (2019). Inawendiwin and relational accountability in Anishnaabeg studies: The crux of the biscuit. Journal of Ethnobiology, 39(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.65
Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Wilson, S. J., & Brondizio, E. S. (2019a). The contributions of Indigenous peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894
Reyes-García, V., García-del-Amo, D., Benyei, P., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Gravani, K., Junqueira, A., et al. (2019b). A collaborative approach to bring insights from local indicators of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 39, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007
Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Bauchet, J., & Godoy, R. (2020). Variety of Indigenous peoples’ opinions of large infrastructure projects: The TIPNIS road in the Bolivian Amazon. World Development, 127, 104751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104751
Reyes-García, V., Cámara-Leret, R., Renard, D., Zafra-Calvo, N., O’Hara, C., Halpern, B. S., & Díaz, S. (2023). Biocultural vulnerability exposes threats of culturally important species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(2), e2217303120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217303120
Rosell-Melé, A., Moraleda-Cibrián, N., Cartró-Sabaté, M., Colomer-Ventura, F., Mayor, P., & Orta-Martínez, M. (2018). Oil pollution in soils and sediments from the Northern Peruvian Amazon. Science of the Total Environment, 610–611, 1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.208
Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorría, S., Demaria, F., et al. (2020). Environmental conflicts and defenders: A global overview. Global Environmental Change, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104
Scheidel, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Helen Bara, A., Del Bene, D., David-Chavez, D. M., et al. (in press). Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous peoples’ lifeways, lands and rights. Science Advances.
Shaffer, L. J. (2010). Indigenous fire use to manage savanna landscapes in southern Mozambique. Fire Ecology, 6(2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0602043
Sirén, A. H. (2017). Changing and partially successful local institutions for harvest of thatch palm leaves. Ambio, 46(7), 812–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0917-7
Solomon, D., Lehmann, J., Fraser, J. A., Leach, M., Amanor, K., Frausin, V., et al. (2016). Indigenous African soil enrichment as a climate-smart sustainable agriculture alternative. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1226
Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., et al. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(12), 1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6
Stocker, L., Collard, L., & Rooney, A. (2016). Aboriginal worldviews and colonisation: Implications for coastal sustainability. Local Environment, 21(7), 844–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1036414
Takasaki, Y., Coomes, O. T., Abizaid, C., & Kalacska, M. (2022). Landscape-scale concordance between local ecological knowledge for tropical wild species and remote sensing of land cover. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119, e2116446119.
Temper, L., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2013). The god of the mountain and Godavarman: Net Present Value, Indigenous territorial rights and sacredness in a bauxite mining conflict in India. Ecological Economics, 96, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.011
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., et al. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – Lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.005
Tesfamichael, D., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. (2014). Assessing changes in fisheries using fishers; knowledge to generate long time series of catch rates: A case study from the Red Sea. Ecology and Society, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06151-190118
Trauernicht, C., Brook, B. W., Murphy, B. P., Williamson, G. J., & Bowman, D. M. J. S. (2015). Local and global pyrogeographic evidence that Indigenous fire management creates pyrodiversity. Ecology and Evolution, 5(9), 1908–1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1494
Turner, N. J., Gregory, R., Brooks, C., Failing, L., & Satterfield, T. (2008). From invisibility to transparency: Identifying the implications. Ecology and Society, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02405-130207
Wangpakapattanawong, P., Kavinchan, N., Vaidhayakarn, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., & Elliott, S. (2010). Fallow to forest: Applying Indigenous and scientific knowledge of swidden cultivation to tropical forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(8), 1399–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.042
Wilder, B. T., O’Meara, C., Monti, L., & Nabhan, G. P. (2016). The importance of Indigenous knowledge in curbing the loss of language and biodiversity. BioScience, 66(6), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw026
Wilson, E. (2016). Half-Earth: How to save the biosphere. Half-Earth Our Planet’s Fight Life, 185–188.
Witter, R., Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Gruby, R. L., Hitchner, S., Maclin, E. M., Bourque, M., & Brosius, J. P. (2015). Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1060036
Yusta-García, R., Orta-Martínez, M., Mayor, P., González-Crespo, C., & Rosell-Melé, A. (2017). Water contamination from oil extraction activities in Northern Peruvian Amazonian rivers. Environmental Pollution, 225, 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.063
Ziembicki, M. R., Woinarski, J. C. Z., & Mackey, B. (2013). Evaluating the status of species using Indigenous knowledge: Novel evidence for major native mammal declines in northern Australia. Biological Conservation, 157, 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2012.07.004
Acknowledgments
The ideas presented here draw in multiple conversations over the years with colleagues and students. I am very grateful of the vivid, critical, and caring research environment created by all of them. Research leading to this chapter has received funding from the European Research Council under an ERC Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI). This research contributes to the “María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence” (CEX2019-000940-M).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reyes-García, V. (2023). Indigenous and Local Knowledge Contributions to Social-Ecological Systems’ Management. In: Villamayor-Tomas, S., Muradian, R. (eds) The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-22565-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-22566-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)