The knowledge, values, and practices of Indigenous peoples and local communities offer ways to understand and better address social-environmental problems. The article reviews the state of the literature on this topic by focusing on six pathways by which Indigenous peoples and local communities engage with management of and relationships to nature. These are () undertaking territorial management practices and customary governance, () contributing to nature conservation and restoration efforts with regional to global implications, () co-constructing knowledge for assessments and monitoring, () countering the drivers of unsustainable resource use and resisting environmental injustices, () playing key roles in environmental governance across scales, and () offering alternative conceptualizations of the interrelations between people and nature. The review shows that through these pathways Indigenous peoples and local communities are making significant contributions to managing the health of local and regional ecosystems, to producing knowledge based in diverse values of nature, confronting societal pressures and environmental burdens, and leading and partnering in environmental governance. These contributions have local to global implications but have yet to be fully recognized in conservation and development polices, and by society at large.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ES Brondízio, J Settele, S Díaz, HT Ngo Bonn, Ger.: IPBES Secr.
  2. 2. 
    IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 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, ES Brondízio, HT Ngo, M Guèze et al. Bonn, Ger.: IPBES Secr.
  3. 3. 
    Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo H, Agard J et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Agrawal A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev. Change 26:413–39
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M et al. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26:17–25
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Tengö M, Brondízio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–91
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Tuhiwai Smith L 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and Indigenous Peoples London: Zed Books
  9. 9. 
    McGregor D, Restoule JP, Johnston R. 2018. Indigenous Research: Theories, Practices, and Relationships Toronto: Can. Sch. Press
  10. 10. 
    For. Peoples Progr., Cent. Distinct. Indig. Local Knowl., Indig. Women's Biodiver. Netw., Int. Indig. Forum Biodivers, Secr. Convention Biol. Divers 2020.. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2 (LBO-2): The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures. A Complement to the Fifth Edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Moreton-in-Marsh, Engl.: For. Peoples Progr https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/lbo-2-en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    UN (United Nations) 2019. State of the World's Indigenous Peoples: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Vol. 4 New York: UN https://social.un.org/unpfii/sowip-vol4-web.pdf
  12. 12. 
    ILO (Int. Labour Organ.) 2019. Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169: towards an inclusive, sustainable and just future Rep., ILO Geneva:
  13. 13. 
    IWGIA (Int. Work Group Indig. Aff.) 2020. The Indigenous World 2020 D Mamo Copenhagen: IWGIA
  14. 14. 
    Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1:369–74
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Sajeva G, Borrini-Feyerabend G, Niederberger T. 2019. Meanings and more.… Policy Brief 7, ICCA Consort. Genolier, Switz./Cenesta Tehran, Iran: https://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ICCA-Briefing-Note-7-Final-for-websites.pdf
  16. 16. 
    Johnsen KI, Mathiesen SD, Eira IMG. 2017. Sámi reindeer governance in Norway as competing knowledge systems: a participatory study. Ecol. Soc. 22:433
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Heinimann A, Mertz O, Frolking S, Christensen AE, Hurni K et al. 2017. A global view of shifting cultivation: recent, current, and future extent. PLOS ONE 12:e0184479
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    World Herit. Cent 2014. Engaging local communities in stewardship of world heritage: a methodology based on the COMPACT experience World Herit. Pap. 4 UNESCO Paris: https://whc.unesco.org/en/series/40/
  19. 19. 
    Hernández-Morcillo M, Hoberg J, Oteros-Rozas E, Plieninger T, Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V. 2014. Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: status quo and insights for the environmental policy agenda. Environment 56:13–17
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    CBD (Convention Biol. Divers.) 2011. Report of the Expert Group Meeting of Local Community Representatives within the context of article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity Doc. UNEP/CBD/WG8J/7/8/Add.1* UNEP CBD, Montreal: October 31–Nov 4. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/wg8j-07/official/wg8j-07-08-add1-en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    CBD (Convention Biol. Divers.) 2011. Identification of common characteristics of local communities. Doc. UNEP/CBD/AHEG/LCR/INF/1 UNEP CBD, Montreal: July 14–16. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/aheg-lcr-01/information/aheg-lcr-01-inf-01-en.pdf
  22. 22. 
    CBD (Convention Biol. Divers.) 2011. Guidance for the discussions concerning local communities within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Doc. UNEP/CBD/AHEG/LCR/1/2 UNEP CBD, Montreal: July 14–16. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/aheg-lcr-01/official/aheg-lcr-01-02-en.pdf
  23. 23. 
    Hill R, Adem C, Alangui W, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Xue D. 2020. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43:8–20
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Ford JD, Maillet M, Pouliot V, Meredith T, Cavanaugh AIHACC Research Team 2016. Adaptation and Indigenous Peoples in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Clim. Change 139:3–4429–43
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    UN (United Nations) 2020. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Doc. A/HRC/45/34, Hum. Rights Council UN, Geneva: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G20/151/15/PDF/G2015115.pdf?OpenElement
  26. 26. 
    McElwee P, Fernández-Llamazares A, Thorpe M, Whyte K, Middleton B et al. 2018. Indigenous ecologies. The Oxford Bibliography of Ecology D Gibson New York: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199830060-0199
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    McGregor D, Whitaker S, Sritharan M. 2020. Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43:35–40
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Lyver PO'B, Timoti P, Davis T, Tylianakis JM. 2019. Biocultural hysteresis inhibits adaptation to environmental change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34:771–80
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Pascua P, McMillen H, Ticktin T, Vaughan M, Winter KB. 2017. Beyond services: a process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Serv 26:465–75
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Whyte KP. 2013. Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. Clim. Change 120:517–30
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Lepofsky D. 2009. The past, present, and future of traditional resource and environmental management. J. Ethnobiol. 29:161–66
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Samakov A, Berkes F. 2017. Spiritual commons: sacred sites as core of community-conserved areas in Kyrgyzstan. Int. J. Commons 11:1422–44
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Berkes F. 2018. Sacred Ecology New York: Routledge. , 4th ed..
  34. 34. 
    Rafidison MV, Rakouth B, Carrière SM, Kjellberg F, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y. 2020. Local knowledge, practices and uses relating to isolated Ficus trees in Betsileo rural landscapes in Madagascar: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 29:1027–58
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Molnár ZS, Kelemen A, Kun R, Máté J, Sáfián L et al. 2020. Knowledge co-production with traditional herders on cattle grazing behaviour for better management of species-rich grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 57:1677–87
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Bliege Bird R 2015. Disturbance, complexity, scale: new approaches to the study of human–environment interactions. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:241–57
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Zimmerer KS, de Haan S 2019. Agrobiodiversity: Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future Cambridge, MA: MIT Press https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11989.001.0001
  38. 38. 
    Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Moukhli M, Haouane H, Khadari B. 2017. Ongoing domestication and diversification in grafted olive-oleaster agroecosystems in Northern Morocco. Reg. Environ. Change 17:1315–28
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Armstrong C, Miller J, McAlvay AC, Ritchie PM, Lepofsky D. 2021. Historical Indigenous land-use explains plant functional trait diversity. Ecol. Soc. 26:26
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Ellis EC, Gauthier N, Goldewijk KK, Bliege Bird R, Boivin N et al. 2021. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. PNAS 118:17e2023483118
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Babai D, Molnár ZS. 2014. Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in the Carpathians. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182:123–30
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Clement CR, Franco-Moraes J. 2020. Domesticated nature: the culturally constructed niche of humanity. Participatory Biodiversity Conservation—Concepts, Experiences, and Perspectives C Baldauf Cham, Switz: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41686-7_3
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    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 Ecol. Manag. 260:81399–406
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Levis C, Flores Bernardo M, Moreira Priscila A, Luize Bruno G, Alves Rubana P et al. 2018. How people domesticated Amazonian forests. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5:171
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Brondízio ES. 2008. The Amazonian Caboclo and the Açaí Palm: Forest Farmers in the Global Market New York: New York Botanical Garden Press
  46. 46. 
    Michon G. 2015. Agriculteurs à l'ombre des forêts du monde. Agroforesteries vernaculaires (Farming in the shade of forests throughout the world. Vernacular Agroforesteries) Arles, Paris: IRD ed., Actes SUD
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Ellis EC, Klein Goldewijk K, Siebert S, Lightman D, Ramankutty N. 2010. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19:589–606
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Marshall F, Reid REB, Goldstein S, Storozum M, Wreschnig A et al. 2018. Ancient herders enriched and restructured African grasslands. Nature 561:7723387–90
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Beaufort B. 2017. La fabrique des plantes globales: une géographie de la mondialisation des végétaux du Nouveau Monde et particulièrement de l'Amazonie. PhD Thesis Univ. Sorbonne Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Carneiro da Cunha M, Barbosa Magalhães S, Adams C(organizers) 2021. Povos tradicionais e biodiversidade no Brasil: contribuições dos povos indígenas, quilombolas e comunidades tradicionais para a biodiversidade, políticas e ameaças (Traditional peoples and biodiversity in Brazil—contributions of indigenous peoples, quilombolas and traditional communities to biodiversity, policies and threats), L Emperaire (coordinator). Rep. Seção 7, SBPC, São Paulo. http://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/livro/povostradicionais7.pdf
  51. 51. 
    Natcher DC, Brunet ND. 2020. Extractive resource industries and indigenous community-based monitoring: Cooperation or cooptation?. Extr. Ind. Soc. 7:1279–82
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Benyei P, Arreola G, Reyes-García V. 2020. Storing and sharing: a review of indigenous and local knowledge conservation initiatives. Ambio 49:218–30
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Kohler F, Brondízio ES. 2017. Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs. Conserv. Biol. 31:2245–51
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Sterling E, Filardi C, Toomey A, Sigouin A, Betley E et al. 2017. Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:1798–806
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Galvin KA, Beeton TA, Luizza MW. 2018. African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecol. Soc. 23:339
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Galvin KA, Backman D, Luizza MW, Beeton TA. 2020. African community-based conservancies: innovative governance for whom?. Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations: Before and After Borders J Levin 147–72 Cham, Switz: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Virtanen PK, Siragusa L, Guttorm H 2020. Indigenous conceptualizations of ‘sustainability.’ Curr. . Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43:A1–2
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Jax K, Calestani M, MA Chan K, Eser U, Keune H et al. 2018. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature's contributions to human well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35:22–29
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Lyver PO'B, Timoti P, Jones CJ, Richardson SJ, Tahi BL, Greenhalgh S. 2017. An indigenous community-based monitoring system for assessing forest health in New Zealand. Biodiversity Conserv 26:133183–212
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Dubertret F, Alden Wily L 2015. Percent of Indigenous and Community Lands. Data file from LandMark: The Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands. Landmarkmap.org. http://www.landmarkmap.org/data/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Waldron A, Adams V, Allan J, Arnell A, Asner G et al. 2020. Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications: working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Indep. Rep., Natl Geogr./WYSS Campaign Nat: https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf
  62. 62. 
    Fernández Llamazares A, Terraube J, Gavin M, Pyhala A, Siani S et al. 2020. Reframing the wilderness concept can bolster collaborative conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35:750–53
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Hurtt GC, Chini L, Sahajpal R, Frolking S, Bodirsky BL et al. 2020. Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. 13:5425–64
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    ESA (Eur. Space Agency) 2017. Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep. Land Cover CCI Paris: http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Fa J, Watson J, Leiper I, Potapov P, Evans T et al. 2020. Importance of indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact forest landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18:135–40
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Walker WS, Gorelik SR, Baccini A, Aragon-Osejo JL, Josse C et al. 2020. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. PNAS 117:63015–25
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Wilder BT, O'Meara C, Monti L, Nabhan GP. 2016. The importance of indigenous knowledge in curbing the loss of language and biodiversity. BioScience 66:6499–509
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Ens E, Scott ML, Rangers YM, Moritz C, Pirzl R. 2016. Putting indigenous conservation policy into practice delivers biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodivers. Conserv. 25:2889–906
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    O'Bryan CJ, Garnett ST, Fa JE, Leiper I, Rehbein J et al. 2021. The importance of Indigenous Peoples' lands for the conservation of terrestrial mammals. Conserv. Biol 35:10028
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Schuster R, Germain RR, Bennett JR, Reo NJ, Secord DL, Arcese P. 2019. Biodiversity on Indigenous lands equals that in protected areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 101:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    For. Peoples Progr., Int. Indig. Forum Biodivers., Secr. Convention Biol. Divers 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 Moreton-in-Marsh, Engl.: For. Peoples Progr https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/12/lbo-english-web.pdf
  72. 72. 
    Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, McElwee P, Molnár Z, Öllerer K et al. 2019. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27:13–8
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Chazdon R, Wilson SJ, Brondízio ES, Guariguata MR, Herbohn J 2020. Land Use Policy: Special Section on Governing Forest Landscape Restoration Amsterdam: Elsevier https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/land-use-policy/vol/104/suppl/C#article-1
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Welch J, Brondízio ES, Coimbra C, Hetrick S. 2013. Indigenous burning as conservation practice: neotropical Savanna recovery amid agribusiness deforestation in Central Brazil. PLOS ONE 8:12e81226
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Reyes-García V, Andres-Conejero O, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Díaz-Reviriego I, Molina JL 2019. A road to conflict: stakeholder's and social network analysis of the media portrayals of a social-environmental conflict in Bolivia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32:4452–72
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Sanches RA, Futemma CRT, Alves HQ. 2021. Indigenous territories and governance of forest restoration in the Xingu River (Brazil). Land Use Policy 104:104755
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Wehi PM, Lord JM 2017. Importance of including cultural practices in ecological restoration. Conserv. Biol. 31:51109–18
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Corrigan C, Robinson CJ, Burgess ND, Kingston N, Hockings M 2018. Global review of social indicators used in protected area management evaluation. Conserv. Lett. 11:2e12397
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, H-O Pörtner et al. Geneva: IPCC
  80. 80. 
    Herse MS, Lyver PO'B, Scott N, McIntosh AR, Coats SC et al. 2020. Engaging indigenous peoples and local communities in environmental management could alleviate scale mismatches in social–ecological systems. BioScience 70:8699–707
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Ban NC, Frid A, Reid M, Edgar B, Shaw D, Siwallace P. 2018. Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2:1680–83
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Wheeler HC, Danielsen F, Fidel M, Hausner V, Horstkotte T et al. 2020. The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People Nat 2:3544–56
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Dounias E, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y. 2017. Children's ethnobiological knowledge: an introduction. AnthropoChildren 7: https://popups.uliege.be/2034-8517/index.php?id=2799
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Radu LH, Pashagumskum E. 2014. Land, life, and knowledge in Chisasibi: intergenerational healing in the bush. Decolon. Indig. Educ. Soc 3:386–105
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Bartmes N, Shukla S. 2020. Re-envisioning land-based pedagogies as a transformative third space: perspectives from university academics, students, and Indigenous knowledge holders from Manitoba, Canada. Diaspora, Indig., Minor. Educ 14:3146–61
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Reo NJ. 2019. Inawendiwin and relational accountability in Anishnaabeg studies: the crux of the biscuit. J. Ethnobiol. 39:65–75
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Crate SA. 2019. Ohuokhai: transmitter of biocultural heritage for Sakha of northeastern Siberia. J. Ethnobiol. 39:409–24
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Post JC. 2019. Songs, settings, sociality: human and ecological well-being in Western Mongolia. J. Ethnobiol. 39:371–91
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Nunn PD, Reid NJ. 2016. Aboriginal memories of inundation of the Australian coast dating from more than 7000 years ago. Aust. Geogr. 47:111–47
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Turner NJ, Gregory R, Brooks C, Failing L, Satterfield T. 2008. From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications of invisible losses to First Nations communities. Ecol. Soc. 13:7
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Scheidel A, Del Bene D, Liu J, Navas G, Mingorría S et al. 2020. Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. Glob. Environ. Change 63:102104
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Fernández-Llamazares Á, Garteizgogeascoa M, Basu N, Brondízio ES, Cabeza M et al. 2020. A state-of-the-art review of indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16:3324–41
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Shrestha BB, Shrestha UB, Sharma KP, Thapa-Parajuli RB, Devkota A, Siwakoti M. 2019. Community perception and prioritization of invasive alien plants in Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape, Nepal. J. Environ. Manag 229:38–47
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL et al. 2019. Explaining people's perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 229:10–26
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Savo V, Lepofsky D, Benner J, Kohfeld KE, Bailey J, Lertzman K. 2016. Observations of climate change among subsistence-oriented communities around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6:462–73
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska 2020. Food sovereignty and self-governance: Inuit role in managing Arctic marine resources Rep., Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, Anchorage https://secureservercdn.net/
  97. 97. 
    Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Guèze M, Garcés A, Mallo M et al. 2016. Local indicators of climate change: the potential contribution of local knowledge to climate research. WIREs Clim. Change 7:1109–24
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Molnár Zs, Babai D. 2021. Inviting ecologists to delve deeper into traditional ecological knowledge. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Turreira-García N, Lund JF, Domínguez P, Carrillo-Anglés E, Brummer MC et al. 2018. What's in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring. Ecol. Soc. 23:224
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    LandMark 2018. LandMark: The Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands. LandMark http://www.landmarkmap.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Tebtebba 2018. Enhancing Indigenous Peoples' Development Through Community-Based Monitoring and Information Systems (CBMIS) Baguio, Philipp: Tebtebba https://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/resources-menu/publications-menu/books/60-enhancing-indigenous-peoples-development-through-cbmis
  102. 102. 
    Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D et al. 2016. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Change 6:4349–53
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    McElwee PD, Fernández-Llamazares A, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Babai D, Bates P et al. 2020. Integrating indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) into large-scale ecological assessments: the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 57:1666–76
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    UNEP (United Nations Environ. Progr.) 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity DA Posey Nairobi: UNEP https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9190/Cultural_Spiritual_thebible.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
  105. 105. 
    CAFF (Conserv. Arct. Flora Fauna) 2013. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment 2013: Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity Rep., CAFF Akureyri, Icel: https://www.caff.is/assessment-series/arctic-biodiversity-assessment/233-arctic-biodiversity-assessment-2013
  106. 106. 
    Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT et al. 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science 359:6373270–72
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Brauman KA, Garibaldi LA, Polasky S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Brancalion PHS et al. 2020. Global trends in nature's contributions to people. PNAS 117:32799–805
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E et al. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 26–27:7–16
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Brondízio ES, Díaz S, Settele J, Ngo HT, Guèze M et al. 2019. Assessing a planet in transformation: rationale and approach of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ES Brondízio, J Settele, S Díaz, HT Ngo 3–70 Bonn, Ger.: IPBES Secr.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Gaup Eira I, Oskal A, Hanssen-Bauer I, Mathiesen SD. 2018. Snow cover and the loss of traditional indigenous knowledge. Nat. Clim. Change 8:924–36
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Finer M, Babbitt B, Novoa S, Ferrarese F, Pappalardo SE et al. 2015. Future of oil and gas development in the western Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:024003
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Reed G, Brunet ND, Longboat S, Natcher DC. 2021. Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance. Conserv. Biol. 35:179–89
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Le Tourneau FM 2015. The sustainability challenges of indigenous territories in Brazil's Amazonia. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 14:213–20
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Reo NJ, Whyte K, Ranco D, Brandt J, Blackmer E, Elliott B. 2017. Invasive species, Indigenous stewards, and vulnerability discourse. Am. Indian Q. 41:3201–23
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Duenn P, Salpeteur M, Reyes-García V. 2017. Rabari shepherds and the mad tree: the dynamics of local ecological knowledge in the context of Prosopis juliflora invasion in Gujarat, India. J. Ethnobiol 37:561–80
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Bodmer R, Mayor P, Antunez M, Fang T, Chota K et al. 2020. Wild meat species, climate change, and indigenous Amazonians. J. Ethnobiol. 40:2218–33
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Wachenje B. 2020. Defending tomorrow: the climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders. Rep., Global Witn. London: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow
  118. 118. 
    Knight R. 2019. The challenges of protecting community land rights: an investigation into community responses to requests for land and resources. Rep., Namati Washington, DC: https://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Challenge-of-Protecting-Community-Land-Rights_web.pdf
  119. 119. 
    Curtice K, Choo E 2020. Indigenous populations: left behind in the COVID-19 response. Lancet 395:102391753
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Walters G, Pathak Broome N, Cracco M, Dash T, Dudley N et al. 2021. COVID-19, Indigenous peoples, local communities and natural resource governance. PARKS 27:57–72
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Barbosa LG, Alves MAS, Grelle CEV. 2021. Actions against sustainability: dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil. Land Use Policy 104:105384
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Russo Lopes G, Bastos Lima MG 2020. Necropolitics in the Jungle: COVID-19 and the marginalisation of Brazil's forest peoples. Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 39:92–97
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    de Castro F, Lopes GR, Brondízio ES 2020. The Brazilian Amazon in times of COVID-19: from crisis to transformation?. Ambiente Soc 23:e0123
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Martinez-Alier J, Temper L, Del Bene D, Scheidel A. 2016. Is there a global environmental justice movement?. J. Peasant Stud. 43:731–55
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Mingorría S. 2021. Communitarian weavings: agrarian commons of the Maya-Q'eqchi’ against the expansion of monocultures in the Polochic Valley, Guatemala. Latin Am. Caribb. Ethnic Stud. 16:190–211
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Fernández-Llamazares A, Helle J, Eklund J, Balmford A, Moraes M et al. 2018. New law puts Bolivian biodiversity hotspot on road to deforestation. Curr. Biol. 28:1R15–16
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Temper L, Martínez-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. Ecol. Econ. 96:79–87
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Cámara-Leret R, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J 2019. Indigenous knowledge networks in the face of global change. PNAS 116:9913–18
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Armstrong CG, McAlvay AC. 2019. Introduction to Special Section on Action Ethnobiology. J. Ethnobiol 39:13–13
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Januchowski-Hartley SR, Hilborn A, Crocker KC, Murphy A. 2016. Scientists stand with Standing Rock. Science 353:63071506
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Vierros MK, Harrison AL, Sloat MR, Ortuño Crespo G, Moore JW et al. 2020. Considering Indigenous Peoples and local communities in governance of the global ocean commons. Mar. Policy 119:104039
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Wallbott L. 2014. Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: “importing power” and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecol. Soc. 19:121
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Galloway McLean K, Johnston S, Ramos Castillo A 2012. The role of Indigenous Peoples in global environmental governance: looking through the lens of climate change. Green Economy and Good Governance for Sustainable Development: Opportunities, Promises and Concerns JA Puppim de Oliveira 245–66 Tokyo: United Nations Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Nasiritousi N, Hjerpe M, Linnér BO. 2016. The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. Int. Environ. Agreem.: Politics Law Econ. 16:1109–26
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Terán MY. 2016. The Nagoya Protocol and Indigenous Peoples. Int. Indigenous Policy J. 7:2). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.6
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    GEF (Glob. Environ. Facil.) 2015. Progress report on the Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPIF) Doc. GEF/C.47/Inf.10 GEF Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Lyver PO'B, Akins A, Phipps H, Kahui V, Towns DR, Moller H. 2016. Key biocultural values to guide restoration action and planning in New Zealand. Restor. Ecol. 24:314–23
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Schroeder D, Chennells R, Louw C, Snyders L, Hodges T. 2019. The Rooibos Benefit Sharing Agreement—breaking new ground with respect, honesty, fairness, and care. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 29:2285–301
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Basu N, Horvat M, Evers DC, Zastenskaya I, Weihe P, Tempowski J. 2018. A state-of-the-science review of mercury biomarkers in human populations worldwide between 2000 and 2018. Environ. Health Perspect. 126:10106001
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Koivurova T, Heinämäki L. 2006. The participation of Indigenous Peoples in international norm-making in the Arctic. Polar Record 42:221101–9
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Leifsen E, Sánchez-Vázquez L, Reyes MG. 2017. Claiming prior consultation, monitoring environmental impact: counterwork by the use of formal instruments of participatory governance in Ecuador's emerging mining sector. Third World Q 38:51092–109
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Suiseeya KRM, Zanotti L. 2019. Making influence visible: innovating ethnography at the Paris Climate Summit. Glob. Environ. Politics 19:238–60
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Shawoo Z, Thornton T. 2019. The UN local communities and Indigenous peoples’ platform: a traditional ecological knowledge-based evaluation. WIREs Clim. Change 10:e575
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Suiseeya KRM. 2017. Contesting justice in global forest governance: the promises and pitfalls of REDD+. Conserv. Soc. 15:189–200
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Manrique D, Corral S, Pereira N. 2018. Climate-related displacements of coastal communities in the Arctic: engaging traditional knowledge in adaptation strategies and policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 85:90–100
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Hanspach J, Haider LJ, Oteros-Rozas E, Olafsson AS, Gulsrud NM et al. 2020. Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People Nat 2:3643–59
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Diver S. 2017. Negotiating indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: insights from the Xáxli'p Community Forest. Environ. Sci. Policy 73:July1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Pilbeam V, Kerkhoff L, Weir T. 2019. Conservation decision-making in Palau: an example of the parallel working of scientific and traditional ecological knowledge. Environ. Manag. 5:564–79
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Artelle KA, Zurba M, Bhattacharyya J, Chan DE, Brown K et al. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv. 240:108284
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Reid RS, Nkedianye D, Said MY, Kaelo D, Neselle M et al. 2016. Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. PNAS 113:174579–84
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Cariño J. 2005. Indigenous peoples' right to free, prior, informed consent: reflections on concepts and practice. Arizona J. Int. Comp. Law 22:19–39
    [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Wilson NJ, Inkster J. 2018. Respecting water: indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 1:4516–38
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    Martin A, Coolsaet B, Corbera E, Dawson NM, Fraser JA et al. 2016. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv. 197:254–61
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 154. 
    Brondízio ES, Andersson K, de Castro F, Futemma C, Salk C et al. 2021. Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in the Brazilian Amazon. Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 49:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 155. 
    UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environ. Progr. World Conserv. Monit. Cent.), IUCN (Int. Union Conserv. Nat.) 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016: how protected areas contribute to achieving global targets for biodiversity Rep., UNEP-WCMC, IUCN Cambridge, UK, Gland, Switz: https://wdpa.s3.amazonaws.com/Protected_Planet_Reports/2445%20Global%20Protected%20Planet%202016_WEB.pdf
  156. 156. 
    Caillon S, Cullman G, Verschuuren B, Sterling EJ. 2017. Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecol. Soc. 22:27
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    Gambon H, Rist S. 2019. Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the Pilón Lajas indigenous territory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Hum. Organ. 78:54–63
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    Cariño-Fangloy J, Dulawan M, Macay V, Regpala ME, Ruiz L. 2015. Indigenous Earth Wisdom: A Documentation of the Cosmologies of the Indigenous Peoples of the Cordillera Baguio, Philipp.: Maryknoll Ecol. Sanctuary
  159. 159. 
    Marchand ME, Vogt KA, Suntana AA 2016. The River of Life: Sustainable Practices of Native Americans and Indigenous Peoples East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Press
  160. 160. 
    Frainer A, Mustonen T, Hugu S, Andreeva T, Arttijeff EM et al. 2020. Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars of biodiversity. PNAS 117:26539–43
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    Gavin MC, McCarter J, Mead A, Berkes F, Stepp JR et al. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30:140–45
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    Maffi L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthr. 34:599–617
    [Google Scholar]
  163. 163. 
    Charpleix L. 2017. The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: place-based law in a legally pluralistic society. Geogr. J. 184:119–30
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    O'Donnell E, Poelina A, Pelizzon A, Clark C. 2020. Stop burying the lede: the essential role of Indigenous law(s) in creating rights of mature. Transnatl. Environ. Law 9:3403–27
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    Borràs S. 2016. New transitions from human rights to the environment to the rights of nature. Transnatl. Environ. Law 5:1113–43
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Godoy R, Reyes-García V, Broesch J, Fitzpatrick IC, Giovannini P et al. 2009. Long-term (secular) change of ethnobotanical knowledge of useful plants: separating cohort and age effects. J. Anthropol. Res. 65:151–67
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Reyes-García V, Vadez V, Huanca T, Leonard WR, McDade T. 2007. Economic development and local ecological knowledge: a deadlock? Quantitative research from a native Amazonian society. Hum. Ecol 35:3371–77
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Ford JD, King N, Galappaththi EK, Pearce T, McDowell G, Harper SL. 2020. The resilience of Indigenous peoples to environmental change. One Earth 2:532–43
    [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    Spiller C, Pio E, Erakovic L, Henare M. 2011. Wise up: creating organizational wisdom through an ethic of Kaitiakitanga. J. Bus. Ethics 104:2223–35
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Verbos AK, Humphries M. 2014. A Native American relational ethic: an indigenous perspective on teaching human responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 123:11–9
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Bussmann RW, Paniagua-Zambrana NY, Wood N, Njapit SO, Ole Njapit JN et al. 2018. Knowledge loss and change between 2002 and 2017—a revisit of plant use of the Maasai of Sekenani Valley, Maasai Mara, Kenya. Econ. Bot 72:207–16
    [Google Scholar]
  172. 172. 
    Fernández-Llamazares Á, Díaz-Reviriego I, Luz AC, Cabeza M, Pyhälä A, Reyes-García V. 2015. Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of local environmental knowledge. Glob. Environ. Change 31:272–84
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Brosi BJ, Balick MJ, Wolkow R, Lee R, Kostka M et al. 2007. Cultural erosion and biodiversity: canoe-making knowledge in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Conserv. Biol. 21:3875–79
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Kikvidze Z, Tevzadze G. 2015. Loss of traditional knowledge aggravates wolf–human conflict in Georgia (Caucasus) in the wake of socio-economic change. Ambio 44:452–57
    [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Reyes-García V, Guèze M, Luz AC, Paneque-Gálvez J, Macía MJ et al. 2013. Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary indigenous society. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34:249–57
    [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Western D, Tyrrell P, Brehony P, Russell S, Western G, Kamanga J. 2020. Conservation from the inside-out: winning space and a place for wildlife in working landscapes. People Nat 2:2279–91
    [Google Scholar]
  177. 177. 
    Hedges K, Kipila JO, Carriedo-Ostos R. 2020.. “ There are no trees here”: understanding perceived intergenerational erosion of traditional medicinal knowledge among Kenya Purko Maasai in Narok District. J. Ethnobiol. 40:535–51
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 178. 
    Kaunga JMO. 2016. The use of Indigenous traditional knowledge for ecological and bio-diverse resource management by the Laikipia Maasai and the Samburu. Indigenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Africa M Roué, N Césard, YC Adou Yao, A Oteng-Yeboah 6–17 Paris: UNESCO
    [Google Scholar]
  179. 179. 
    Turner NJ 2020. Plants, People and Places: The Roles of Ethnobotany and Ethnoecology in Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights in Canada and Beyond Montreal, QC, Can: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press
  180. 180. 
    Golan J, Athayde S, Olson EA, McAlvay A. 2019. Intellectual property rights and ethnobiology: an update on Posey's call to action. J. Ethnobiol. 39:90–109
    [Google Scholar]
  181. 181. 
    Lenard PT, Balint P. 2019. What is (the wrong of) cultural appropriation?. Ethnicities 20:2331–52
    [Google Scholar]
  182. 182. 
    Chan KMA, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J et al. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat 2:3693–717
    [Google Scholar]
  183. 183. 
    Tauli-Corpuz V, Alcorn J, Molnar A, Healy C, Barrow E. 2020. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev 130:104923
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 184. 
    Reyes-Garcia V, Fernández-Llamazares A, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Benyei P, Bussmann RW et al. 2021. Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error