Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine volume 20, Article number: 53 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

While ethnobiology is a discipline that focuses on the local, it has an outstanding, but not yet fully realized potential to address global issues. Part of this unrealized potential is that universalistic approaches often do not fully recognize culturally grounded perspectives and there are multiple challenges with scaling up place-based research. However, scalability is paramount to ensure that the intimate and context-specific diversity of human–environmental relationships and understandings are recognized in global-scale planning and policy development. Here, we identify four pathways to enable the scalability of place-based ethnobiological research from the ground up: local-to-global dialogues, aggregation of published data, multi-sited studies, and geospatial analyses. We also discuss some major challenges and consideration to encourage continuous reflexivity in these endeavours and to ensure that scalability does not contribute to unnecessarily decontextualizing, co-opting, or overwriting the epistemologies of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. As ethnobiology navigates multiple scales of time and space and seeks to increase its breadth, this study shows that the use of deliberately global approaches, when carefully nested within rich field-based and ecological and ethnographically grounded data, can contribute to: (1) upscaling case-specific insights to unveil global patterns and dynamics in the biocultural contexts of Indigenous Peoples and local communities; (2) bringing ethnobiological knowledge into resolutions that can influence global environmental research and policy agendas; and (3) enriching ethnobiology’s field-based ethos with a deliberate global analytical focus.

Introduction

Ethnobiology is a rapidly growing field gaining prominence in global discussions about the future of our planet [1,2,3] because it demonstrates the interconnectedness of our biosphere and offers solutions to global problems of social and environmental injustices [5,6,7,8]. However, one of ethnobiology’s core strengths is that it is a locally grounded discipline—both in terms of data gathering and interpretation [9,10,11]. With the international policy community waking up to the value of ethnobiology to address global social-ecological issues [12, 13], many ethnobiologists are often faced with the challenge of communicating the global relevance of their locally based research. How can ethnobiology retain its strength as a locally grounded discipline while scaling up to amplify its clear potential relevance at the global scale?

Ethnobiology’s place-based and context-specific focus has yielded rich descriptions of place-specific human–environment inter-relations at local scales (see [3]). However, case study research can be limited in its broader applicability when linkages are not made to social and ecological contexts at larger scales [14, 15]. The almost exclusive focus on the local context has slowed efforts aimed at demonstrating patterns at larger scales and, in consequence, eschews the discipline’s potentially global contribution (in contrast with, for example, macroecology and macroevolution research; [16]). Not surprisingly, the landmark global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) identified the “syntheses of Indigenous and local knowledge about the status and trends of nature” as a global knowledge gap [17]. Upscaling observations made through ethnobiological practice and understanding interactions across spatial and temporal scales is necessary to realize ethnobiology’s potential to contribute to global sustainability [3, 18]. For example, aggregating results of locally based research can provide insights and help inform more effective governmental monitoring, planning, and policy development across scales [12, 19].

We contend that to continue addressing the major global societal challenges of our time, our discipline should find ways to effectively promote the scalability of place-based ethnobiological evidence and perspectives. Without losing the importance and richness of in-depth local epistemologies, practices, and their documentation [10, 11], we believe that ethnobiology should continue to upscale case-specific insights and strive to create global knowledge that can unveil general patterns and dynamics across different ethnobiological realities [20]. This call to action follows that of other fields such as political ecology where scholars have developed rigorous comparative, geospatial, and statistical approaches to reveal global trends and patterns in systematic ways (e.g. [21,22,23]). Such scalability is paramount in ensuring that global discussions about the future of our planet are directly connected with on-the-ground realities of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, diverse epistemologies, and human–environment interactions [19, 24, 25].

There have been criticisms of the theoretical and hypothesis-driven shortcomings of ethnobiology since at least the 1970s [26], but the multi-faceted, inter- and transdisciplinary nature of this field complicates discussion of theory-building and comparative research [27]. Despite this, ethnobiologists have long been engaged in many globally relevant research avenues from a wide range of disciplinary homes (e.g. through the application of different ethnobotanical indices [20, 26]). Some of the areas where ethnobiological evidence has been robustly built at global scales include studies on the global distribution of plants used by humans (e.g. [28]), animal and plant domestication (e.g. [29]), the commonalities and differences between distinct systems of ethnobiological classification around the world (e.g. [30]), and the co-evolutionary dynamics between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity (e.g. [31]).

In this article, we set the ground for “global ethnobiologies” by presenting conceptual and methodological approaches to continue building relevance “from the ground up” in ways that explicitly embrace and honour contextual complexities, and at the same time incorporate a deliberate global outlook. We highlight four pathways that can bridge the gap between local contexts and global realities. Theoretically, our analysis builds on the notion of glocalization in contemporary social theory [32]. The concept of “glocality” encompasses the interpenetration of global and local spheres [33], which is relevant to the spaces where ethnobiology operates [8, 18, 34]. Drawing on this theoretical body, we provide examples of ethnobiological research and projects that are leading the way in promoting local-to-global connections, as well as a thorough description of some of the key epistemic, ethical, and methodological challenges involved in such upscaling. While our research is explicitly grounded in the discipline of ethnobiology [35], our analysis is also relevant to other disciplines conducted within explicit place-based foci, such as human ecology, historical ecology, or environmental anthropology, among others (e.g. [2, 36, 37]).

Opportunities for developing global ethnobiologies

Here, we present four complementary pathways to enable scalability of place-based ethnobiological data and research. Each pathway is relevant to different sets of ethnobiological inquiries, but all are based on the aggregation across scales of place-based, culturally grounded research data.

Scaling up by connecting through dialogue on-the-ground realities and global research and decision-making

While Indigenous Peoples and local communities worldwide are incredibly diverse, representing unique historical, cultural, and ecological contexts, many also experience common threats and challenges to their livelihoods and well-being, often relating, directly or indirectly, to ongoing settler and extractive colonialism and environmental loss and deterioration (e.g. [38, 39]). When locally based ethnobiological research is shared through scientific and popular publications, documentaries, artistic interventions, global dialogues, and science-policy platforms with researchers and communities globally, its value is multiplied manyfold. For instance, sharing perspectives through these fora is essential to developing effective and equitable policy responses to the climate crisis and the erosion of biocultural diversity [40]. Dialogic approaches like art, literature, and other forms of knowledge mobilization can be facilitated through numerous different organizations and institutions operating at the global scale (e.g. [17, 41, 42]).

Global dialogues, bringing together scientists and Indigenous and local knowledge holders, hold promise for connecting different knowledge systems across spatial and temporal scales and for identifying general patterns and commonalities across different biocultural contexts (e.g. [40, 41]). This moves toward creating broader policy-relevant knowledge that is also context sensitive and can enhance the ability of communities to thrive [43, 44]. The multiple evidence-based approach, for example, is often used as a method for multi-scale triangulation [41, 45]. Such research strategies require actively navigating convergences and divergences across knowledge systems, and putting a strong emphasis on the complementarities, synergies, and cross-fertilization of information derived from different scales and methods [24]. These processes usually involve multiple engagements between ethnobiologists and Indigenous and local knowledge holders working together to provide a comprehensive evidence base that can be used to inform global governance processes in meaningful ways [24, 46]. For instance, by compiling local testimonies, oral histories, articulating local governance structures, and synthesizing in-depth narratives from case studies from all over the world, numerous works have provided qualitative evidence to inform policy-makers of the impacts of environmental change or pollution on the lifeways of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (e.g. [47, 48]).

Scaling up by aggregating published ethnobiological data

Aggregation of published data to build thematic databases, whether analysed using descriptive statistics or more complex meta-analyses, can also promote the global relevance of Indigenous and local knowledge (e.g. [15]). Compilations of published data linking cultural and environmental diversity have resulted in the creation of open-access online databases such as the recently compiled global overview of culturally important species [13], the Ethno-ornithology World Atlas (EWA; www.ewatlas.net), and global conservation surveys of all palm species with documented ethnobotanical uses [49]. As a case in point, the data collected in D-PLACE, a Database of Places, Language, Culture, and Environment, a corpus of information for over 1400 human societies [50], highlights studies at the intersection of environment and religious diversity [51], the global geography of human subsistence [52], or drivers of global variation in land ownership [53]. Such datasets compile place-based, georeferenced evidence with rigorous ground-truthing (sensu [54]). They harmonize data from distinct sources that use diverse vocabulary, focus on different temporal and spatial scales, and explicitly account for spatial and historical dependencies between groups. The creation and use of cross-cultural databases in anthropology [50, 55, 56], along with current efforts to underscore the potential of quantitative methods in ethnobiology [20], can guide and inspire new research for global ethnobiology complementing necessary inductive approaches at all scales.

There is an increasing number of ethnobiological studies relying on published data to reveal commonalities and overarching patterns in peoples’ experiences across broad regional scales [28, 57, 58]. For example, collaborative research has provided the first-ever global analysis of biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation practised by Indigenous Peoples and local communities worldwide [59], and a global overview of ethnothalassic interactions between coastal communities and marine ecosystems [60]. Other examples of such ethnobiological research describe the global impacts of climate change among subsistence-oriented societies [61], or the impact of under-documentation of Indigenous and local knowledge on policy-making [62, 63]. While building and using global databases is not straightforward, and awareness of associated issues should guide their use (see an analysis of limitations in [55, 56]), they can inspire avenues for bringing together local case studies to make intercultural inferences in globally relevant, yet ethnographically grounded, ways.

Scaling up through multi-sited and cross-cultural research design

Scaling up from local to regional and global scales is also possible through multi-sited research design, comparing observations and data collected from across field sites using paired research protocols [64]. Multi-sited studies are linked by common research questions, data collection methods, and analyses (e.g. [65]). Multi-sited research is routinely mobilized to understand the diversity and consistency of various aspects of ethnobiological systems across time and space and to infer the processes leading to temporal or spatial change (e.g. [66, 67]). For example, inter-regional specific studies can highlight cross-cultural similarities based on criteria such as age, gender, profession, and wealth (e.g. [68,69,70]). Syntheses of floristic, linguistic, and political contexts of contiguous social or ethnolinguistic communities are also conducted (e.g. [71, 72]), as well as studies on the evolution and adaptation of medicinal plant uses in the context of migrations (e.g. [73,74,75]). Cross-cultural research adds depth and richness to ethnobiological data and contributes to hypothesis testing and theory building within the discipline [76, 77].

We envision an expansion of such approaches by designing multi-sited studies across larger spatial scales. While designing multi-sited studies across regional or global scales requires substantial coordination and funding, data collection and analyses should be facilitated by use of a consistent, data sovereign, and thoughtfully designed protocols. Protocols developed for cross-cultural research are a compelling pathway for bringing ethnobiology into global resolutions (e.g. [78, 79]). This is because such protocols are often based on pre-defined broad domains or groupings that are comparable cross-culturally, but based on locally adapted and culturally specific categories and metrics [80]. While multi-sited studies have so far mostly used concepts and classifications largely based on western scientific domains of inquiry, multi-sited research projects led entirely by Indigenous communities are emerging (e.g. Kogi territorial diagnosis “Shikwakala”; https://www.tchendukua.org/shikwakala). Moreover, the opportunity to involve community members as co-researchers in these studies can bolster the establishment of horizontal cooperation and equity conditions [81], which may further ensure that the scaling up process is accountable, and does not unnecessarily reduce or decontextualize culturally specific knowledge.

Scaling up by applying global-scale geospatial analyses

Ethnobiologists are increasingly partnering with conservation biologists and geographers to map and characterize the different ecological values of Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ land-based stewardship from local to global levels (e.g. [82, 83]). While the case for the global significance of Indigenous stewardship has been developed by Indigenous scholars and philosophers for decades, if not longer (e.g. [84, 85]), geospatial analysis is increasingly used to visualize and quantify the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to global biodiversity conservation [83, 86, 87]. These advances, based on the best available evidence, are being employed to support current policy discussions around the role of Indigenous Peoples in global biodiversity maintenance [17, 88]. In particular, these data are being used to support Indigenous Peoples’ advocacy in international negotiations leading to the newly established Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity [19, 89].

Such approaches have so far demonstrated that Indigenous Peoples manage or have tenure rights over more than a quarter of the world’s terrestrial surface, intersecting with at least 37% of all remaining natural lands across the Earth [90], and 36% of the world’s most ecologically intact forests [91]. Recent geospatial analyses of mammal diversity across mapped Indigenous Peoples’ lands globally have determined that at least 60% of all the terrestrial mammal species for which there is reliable habitat data depend on these territories [92]), and that they account for 30% of the global non-human primate distribution range [93]. Although Indigenous Peoples’ lands are by no means immune to biodiversity loss [23], several global studies show that these territories host more species than equivalent protected areas and are at least equally effective in buffering against deforestation [94,95,96]. All these studies have led to increasing appreciation of, and interest towards, the specific practices, efforts, and knowledge systems that underpin the ecological integrity of these territories at the global level [25, 90].

Challenges in global ethnobiological endeavours

Given that ethnobiological knowledge is often grounded within specific temporal and spatial scales, scaling up these cultural practices, to become regionally and globally relevant, risks alienating, marginalizing, or muting local insights, challenges, and perspectives. In this section, we consider some of the main tensions that have made scalability from local to global applications a challenge for ethnobiology. We also illustrate recommendations to navigate such tensions with three examples out of a growing number of ongoing projects and initiatives that are enhancing the regional and global reach of the discipline in iterative and reflexive ways (Table 1).

Table 1 Three examples of ethnobiological projects that illustrate best practices and potential challenges of scaling up from local to global
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Photographs representing the three projects presented in Table 1. A Wild berries, such as blueberries, huckleberries and cranberries in the genus Vaccinium, are a nutritious food for many Indigenous Peoples. Shown here are evergreen huckleberries (Vaccinium ovatum), and red huckleberries, (V. parvifolium) from the west coast of Canada. Credit: Nancy J. Turner. B Indigenous knowledge holders and partner organizations participating in the Cross-Pacific Indigenous Aquaculture Collaborative Network (https://www.seagardens.net/) collectively work to restore a 100-foot segment of rock wall in a traditional loko i’a (fishpond system) on Oahu, Hawai’i in 2020, as part of a series of knowledge exchanges bringing communities together. Credit: Melissa Poe. C Herders in Hungary use their forage indicators in context-specific management decisions, with a variety of objectives to optimize grazing under different social and ecological circumstances. Credit: Sándor Karácsony

Full size image

A core challenge is that as projects are scaled up to provide larger, statistically significant sample sizes for comparative studies, it becomes increasingly difficult to have the project driven and steered by individual communities. That is, because western scientists in the Global North will often have the financial resources to support large-scale projects, they often assume directorial or coordinator roles with the power to control decision-making. As Wolverton et al. [103] highlight in environmental archaeology, but equally applicable to all ethnobiology, these power dynamics leave western scientists, “to tell the story of the past for another people, thus potentially causing harm, or promoting the goals of the scientist without any real benefit for the community”. Several ethnobiological studies have been driven by a researcher’s abstract curiosity or funding priorities at a given time rather than community interests [11]. While we strive for theoretical and methodological rigour and development in our field, any globally relevant theory or praxes should align and directly complement with calls to prioritize community-led research attuned to local interests [7]. Building sincere and lateral partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities is critical to ensure that global ethnobiology is aligned with the goals and values of community (e.g. [104]). Additionally, funding agencies have an important role to play in supporting efforts to amplify the global relevance of locally based research. Providing strategic funding for interdisciplinary work on “global ethnobiologies” (e.g. through the creation of applied funding streams, framing calls for long-term interdisciplinary work, seed funding for supporting collaborative networks) will help in making ethnobiology realize its full global potential. Several research networks (e.g. Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society, Knowledge Action Networks of Future Earth) have been established to help bring place-based social-ecological research into global resolutions [36], and can offer inspiration to the broader field of ethnobiology.

Another core challenge relates to “open data” and the question of data sovereignty [105,106,107,108]. Open-source data is beneficial for researchers doing global comparative work (e.g. Forest Data Partnership), but has come with attendant challenges to Indigenous Peoples and local communities' inherent rights and data sovereignty [108, 109]. In some cases, Indigenous data sovereignty movements are a direct response to the push for responsible open data or for the repatriation/rematriation and return of data previously extracted from community (i.e., #databack) [106]. Platforms like Mukurtu (https://mukurtu.org) make some data publicly accessible but allow for “graded access” codes to build a platform that fosters relationships of respect and trust. Similar approaches have been employed by linguists to great effect with the DELAMAN archive network (https://www.delaman.org) which has allowed great global comparative work, while also safeguarding secret, sacred, or otherwise private data. A similar centralized, graded access database for ethnobiology could be useful, but there are caveats that need to be dealt with and attenuated by ethnobiologists, namely the occasional incompatibility of “open” and “protected” data. It is important to note that access decisions should never be made by outside researchers alone, and that community input is vital to these endeavours [107,108,109]. The open source platform OpenTEK from the LICCI Project (https://opentek.eu/licci) is proactively using Traditional Knowledge labels to deal with these issues (see also http://digitalsqewlets.ca/traditional-knowledge_connaissances_traditionnelles-eng.php). A number of ethnobiologists managing biocultural collections at different institutions are working to deal with this issue of open data and data sovereignty as well (e.g. EWA https://ewatlas.net/ with ethno-ornithological data; [7, 107]). Developing mechanisms for community oversight of data collection, management, accessioning, and use, is a constantly moving target requiring deep collaboration and ongoing consent—ethnobiologists should be mindful that community members are often under-sourced and overworked and should be supported for taking on oversight roles [108]. For example, establishing community review boards or working with community members to develop guidelines for data sharing and use is a viable option for some projects, but should come with extensive resources to support those community members [109] and enable their participation in research projects [81]. It is also important to acknowledge that not all communities will always be interested in leading or engaging in such efforts, as they might have other more pressing social issues to deal with. Without question, any globally relevant comparative ethnobiological data management tools must adhere to basic data sovereignty principles (e.g. Ownership, Control, Access, Possession or OCAP®) including ethical principles of redress, compensation where appropriate, and recognition of the intellectual property rights of all Indigenous and local communities [108, 110].

Finally, although quantitative ethnobiology represents a fundamental aspect of the discipline, studies on human–environment interactions are largely based on qualitative data collection and analysis [111, 112]. While quantitative studies offer an enormous potential in informing policy [23], qualitative approaches often better capture the holistic aspects of Indigenous and local knowledge systems that are difficult to articulate with reductionist quantitative science [113, 114]. However, in qualitative studies, sometimes detailed descriptions of research designs and methodologies are insufficient for later comparison [115]. The methodological diversity that has always characterized the field of ethnobiology poses in itself a challenge for the global scalability of ethnobiological evidence, given that insights from a particular place and context cannot always be exported or scaled up [36]. Even when descriptions are sufficient, divergences on how data were collected, reported or interpreted can hamper large-scale comparison and quantification (e.g. [44]). On the other hand, the search for quantifiable, universal formats that are amenable to integration into global datasets come with some methodological challenges. These include the potential to crowd out empirical and contextually rich case studies, ignoring outliers, erasing epistemic, cultural, and geographic differences, and flattening vital heterogeneity and complexity [44, 116]. Importantly, all these different approaches should be seen as complementary, while acknowledging that both quantitative and qualitative data can work in synergistic and mutually enriching ways [111, 117, 118].

Conclusions

There are many recent examples in which large groups of ethnobiological researchers (often dispersed across institutions and world regions) have self-organized to pool intellectual and material resources in pursuit of common research goals, upscaling ethnobiological evidence and data to address global social-ecological issues (Table 1). While some of these approaches have a long pedigree in ethnobiological science (e.g. cross-cultural research; [67, 68, 119]), not all of them have been mainstreamed as potential pathways to solidify the global relevance of ethnobiology. Such global assessments should be constructed from the ground up, by collaborating with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and by utilizing existing case studies within local and regional contexts and grounding their multi-sited, cross-cultural analyses in rich contextual insights emerging from primary field-based evidence [59, 120, 121]. It is paramount to ensure that the growth of global, multi-sited ethnobiology does neither replace nor co-opt locally grounded research, and does not sacrifice depth for breadth [122]. When weighing the pros and cons of such global endeavours, we conclude that in many cases of scaling up, the risks are worth the potential contributions, when ethical considerations are carefully examined and communities are involved at all levels. In other words, ethnobiology thrives when the process of scaling up builds on, and is informed by, rich place-based research. There is evidence that the foundation of most—if not all—ethical and powerful ethnobiological studies start and end with meaningful cross-cultural discussions and local-to-global exchanges, which offer an enormous potential for giving global recognition and visibility to Indigenous and local knowledge holders [1, 3, 8].

Developing global overviews allows for deeper empirical understanding of drivers and pathways of change (e.g. [38, 123]). Such overviews can lead to more effective policies and approaches to address them, whether this might mean the development of specific legislation and regulations, or support of particular conservation, restoration, or environmental management practices (e.g. [124,125,126,127]). Some of these approaches draw inspiration from middle range theories (i.e., generalizations that describe causal mechanisms within certain contextual bonds; see [128]), and theory on processes of glocalization (i.e., simultaneous occurrence of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies in contemporary ethnobiological systems; [33]). The methodological approaches highlighted in this paper offer a strong potential for identifying global patterns in ethnobiological systems and praxes, improving causal inferences in ethnobiology, and expanding global knowledge of the factors, pathways, and mechanisms associated with different social-ecological processes around the world [25]. There is also value in the fact that methods developed in specific local contexts can be adopted by other communities to overcome parallel challenges (e.g. [129]).

Ethnobiologists are ideally suited to make linkages across scales in socially and culturally appropriate ways [130, 131], given the discipline’s strategic position at the confluence of different disciplines and ways of knowing [47, 132, 133]. Ethnobiologists usually have the language, interdisciplinary training, and cross-cultural perspective to do this in ways that other scholars may not [10, 134]. However, in making ethnobiology globally relevant, ethnobiologists must continually affirm their responsibilities to the Indigenous Peoples and local communities they work with, for, or are part of [135]. This encompasses a range of ethical concerns such as data sovereignty, appropriately acknowledging knowledge sources and data access [7]. It also is grounded on the discipline’s obligation to produce the most robust data possible so that it can stand up in court-of-law or as the foundation for better policies for both people and nature [8, 136, 137].

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable. Three examples illustrating our propositions are presented in detail as Additional file 1.

Abbreviations

EWA:

Ethno-ornithology world atlas

IPBES:

Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services

OCAP®:

First nations principles of ownership, control, access and possession

References

  1. Vandebroek I, Pieroni A, Stepp JR, Hanazaki N, Ladio AH, Alves RRN, et al. Reshaping the future of ethnobiology research after the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Pl. 2020;6:723–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0691-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonçalves-Souza T, Rômulo A, Nóbrega R, Albuquerque PU, Soares Ferreira JW. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into ecology, evolution, and conservation. Front Ecol Evolution. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.1015457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turner NJ, Cuerrier A, Joseph L. Well grounded: Indigenous peoples’ knowledge, ethnobiology and sustainability. Peop Nat. 2022;4(3):627–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wyndham FS, Lepofsky D, Tiffany S. Taking stock in ethnobiology: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? J Ethnobiol. 2011;31:110–27. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-31.1.110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolverton S. Ethnobiology 5: interdisciplinarity in an era of rapid environmental change. Ethnobiol Lett. 2013;4:21–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hidayati S, Franco FM, Bussmann RW. Ready for phase 5—current status of ethnobiology in Southeast Asia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. McAlvay A, Armstrong CG, Baker J, Black Elk L, Bosco S, Hanazaki N, et al. Ethnobiology phase VI: decolonizing institutions, projects, and scholarship. J Ethnobiol. 2021;41(2):170–91. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Albuquerque U, Maroyi A, Ladio AH, Pieroni A, Abbasi AM, Arais Toledo B, et al. Advancing ethnobiology for the ecological transition and a more inclusive and just world: a comprehensive framework for the next 20 years. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00661-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson EN, Pearsall DM, Hunn ES, Turner NJ. Ethnobiology. Wiley Blackwell. 2011.

  10. Ladio AH. Ethnobiology and research on global environmental change: what distinctive contribution can we make? Ethnobiol Cons. 2017;6(7):1–8. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2017-07-6.7-1-8.

  11. Luczaj L. Descriptive ethnobotanical studies are needed for the rescue operation of documenting traditional knowledge. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00604-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Molnár Z, Aumeruddy-Thomas Y, Babai D, Díaz S, Garnett ST, Hill R, et al. Towards richer knowledge partnerships between ecology and ethnoecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2024;39(2):109–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reyes-García V. Beyond artificial academic debates: for a diverse, inclusive, and impactful ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00611-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Benyei P, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Gravani K, Junqueira AB, et al. A collaborative approach to bring insights from local indicators of climate change impacts into global climate research. Cur Op Env Sust. 2019;39:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coe MA, Gaoue OG. Cultural keystone species revisited: are we asking the right questions? J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2020;16:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00422-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerr JT, Kharouba HM, Currie DJ. The macroecological contribution to global change solutions. Science. 2007;316(5831):1581–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133267.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. IPBES (2019) Global Assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Brondizio, E.S., Díaz, S., Settele, J., Ngo, H.T. (eds). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-947851-20-1

  18. Schröter M, Berbés-Blázquez M, Albert C, Hill R, Krause T, Loos J, et al. Science on ecosystems and people to support the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. Ecosyst People. 2023;19(1):2220913. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2220913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cariño J, Farhan FM. Negotiating the futures of nature and cultures: perspectives from Indigenous peoples and local communities about the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. J Ethnobiol. 2021;41(2):192–208. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaoue OG, Moutouama JK, Coe MA, Bond MO, Green E, Sero NJ, Bezeng BS, Yessoufou K. Methodological advances for hypothesis-driven ethnobiology. Biol Rev. 2021;96(5):2281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Butt N, Lambrick F, Menton M, Renwick A. The supply chain of violence. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:742–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0349-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Owen JR, Kemp D, Lechner AM, Harris J, Zhang R, Lèbre É. Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples. Nat Sustain. 2022;6:203–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00994-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scheidel A, Fernández-Llamazares A, Bara AH, Del Bene D, David-Chavez DM, Fanari E, et al. Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands and rights. Sci Adv. 2023;9(23):eade9557. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade9557.

  24. Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, et al. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Op Env Sust. 2020;43:8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brondizio ES, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bates P, Cariño J, Fernández-Llamazares Á, et al. Locally-based, regionally-manifested, and globally-relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Ann Rev Env Resourc. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gaoue O, Coe MA, Bond M, Hart G, Seyler BC, McMillen H. Theories and major hypotheses in ethnobotany. Econ Bot. 2017;71:269–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-017-9389-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nazarea VD. Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. University of Arizona Press. 1999

  28. Pironon S, Ondo I, Diazgranados M, Allkin R, Baquero AC, Cámara-Leret R, et al. The global distribution of plants used by humans. Science. 2024;383:293–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg8028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lins Neto EMdF, Peroni N, Casas A, Parra F, Aguirre X, Guillén S, Albuquerque UP. Brazilian and Mexican experiences in the study of incipient domestication. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-33.

  30. Atran S, Medin D, Ross N. Evolution and devolution of knowledge: a tale of two biologies. J R Anthropol Inst. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00195.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maffi L. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Ann Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Roudometof V. Glocalization: a critical introduction. New York: Routledge; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Haller T, Breu T, De Moor T, Rohr C, Znoj H. The Commons in a Glocal World: Global Connections and Local Responses. Routledge. 2019.

  34. Orey DC, Rosa M. Three approaches in the research field of ethnomodeling: emic (local), etic (global), and dialogical (glocal). Rev Latinoamer Etnomat. 2015;8(2):364–80.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hunn E. Ethnobiology in four phases. J Ethnobiol. 2007;27(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771_2007_27_1_eifp_2.0.co_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijendorffer IR, Jacobs S, et al. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Op Env Sust. 2017;29:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Armstrong CG, Shoemaker AC, McKechnie I, Ekblom A, Szabó P, Lane PJ, et al. Anthropological contributions to historical ecology: 50 questions, infinite prospects. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0171883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Fernández-Llamazares Á, Lepofsky D, Armstrong CG, Brondizio ES, Gavin MC, Lertzman K, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on threats to Indigenous and local knowledge systems. J Ethnobiol. 2021;41(2):144–69. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press. 2021.

  40. McElwee P, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Babai D, Bates P, Galvin K, et al. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES global assessment. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57(9):1666–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Op Env Sust. 2017;26–27:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to IPCC Sixth Assessment. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.

  43. Sterling EJ, Filardi C, Toomey A, Sigouin A, Betley E, Gazit N, et al. Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1798–806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Diaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martin-Lopez B, Watson RT, Molnar Z, et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 2018;359(6373):270–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tengö M, Brondízio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio. 2014;43:579–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Nabhan GP, Chambers K, Tecklin D, Perramond E, Sheridan TE. Ethnobiology for a diverse world—defining new disciplinary trajectories: mixing political ecology with ethnobiology. J Ethnobiol. 2011;31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-31.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakashima DJ, Galloway K, McLean M, Thrulstrup HD, Ramos Castillo A, Rubis J. Weathering uncertainty: traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation. Paris: UNESCO; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fernández-Llamazares Á, Garteizgogeascoa M, Basu N, Brondízio ES, Cabeza M, Martínez-Alier J, McElwee P, Reyes-García V. A state-of-the-art review of Indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integr Env Assess Manage. 2020;16(3):324–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bellot S, Lu Y, Antonelli A, Baker WJ, Dransfield J, Forest F, et al. The likely extinction of hundreds of palm species threatens their contributions to people and ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;6:1710–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01858-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kirby KR, Gray RD, Greenhill SJ, Jordan FM, Gomes-Ng S, Bibiko H-J, et al. D-PLACE: a global database of cultural, linguistic, and environmental diversity. PLoS ONE. 2015;11(7): e0158391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Botero CA, Gardner B, Kirby KR, Bulbulia J, Gavin MC, Gray RD. The ecology of religious beliefs. PNAS. 2014;111(47):16784–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408701111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Gavin MC, Kavanagh PH, Haynie HJ, Bowern C, Ember CR, Gray RD, et al. The global geography of human subsistence. R Soc Open Science. 2018;5: 171897. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kavanagh PH, Haynie HJ, Kushnick G, Vilela B, Tuff T, Bowern C, et al. Drivers of global variation in land ownership. Ecography. 2021;44(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05205.10.1111/ecog.05205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Abraão MB, Nelson BW, Baniwa JC, Yu DW, Shepard GH Jr. Ethnobotanical ground-truthing: Indigenous knowledge, floristic inventories and satellite imagery in the upper Rio Negro. Brazil J Biogeography. 2008;35:2237–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01975.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bird RB, Codding BF. Promise and peril of ecological and evolutionary modelling using cross-cultural datasets. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;6:6–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01579-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Watts J, Jackson JC, Arnison C, Hamerslag EM, Shaver JH, Purzycki BG. Building quantitative cross-cultural databases from ethnographic records: promise, problems and principles. Cross-Cult Res. 2021;56(1):62–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211065720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Prober SM, O’Connor MH, Walsh FJ. Australian Aboriginal peoples’ seasonal knowledge: a potential basis for shared understanding in environmental management. Ecol Soc. 2011;16(2):12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sharifian A, Wario HT, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z, Cabeza M. Dynamics of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: a global state-of-the-art review. Ecol Soc. 2022;27(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12918-270114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hill R, Nates-Parra G, Quezada-Euán JJG, Buchori D, LeBuhn G, Maués MM, et al. Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:214–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0244-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Narchi NE, Cornier S, Melaku Canu D, Aguilar-Rosas LE, Bender MG, Jacquelin C, Thiba M, Moura GGM, de Wit R. Marine ethnobiology a rather neglected area, which can provide an important contribution to ocean and coastal management. Oce Coast Manag. 2014;89:117–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Savo V, Lepofsky D, Benner JP, Kohfeld KE, Bailey J, Lertzman K. Observations of climate change among subsistence-oriented communities around the world. Nat Clim Chan. 2016;6:462–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Cámara-Leret R, Paniagua-Zambrana N, Balslev H, Macía MJ. Ethnobotanical knowledge is vastly under-documented in Northwestern South America. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1): e85794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085794.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Cámara-Leret R, Dennehy Z. Information gaps in Indigenous and local knowledge for science-policy assessments. Nat Sust. 2019;2:736–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0324-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Álvrez-Fernández S, Benyei P, Calvet-Mir L, Junqueira AB, et al. Indigenous peoples and local communities report ongoing and widespread climate change impacts on local social-ecological systems. Commun Earth Environ. 2024;5:29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01164-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Koster J, McElreath R, Hill K, Yu D, Shepard G, van Vliet N, et al. The life history of human foraging: cross-cultural and individual variation. Sci Adv. 2020;6(26):9070. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax9070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McCarter, Gavin MC. Assessing variation and diversity of ethnomedical knowledge: a case study from Malekula Island, Vanuatu. Econ Bot. 2015;69:251–61.

  67. Pieroni A, Giusti ME, Quave CL. Cross-cultural ethnobiology in the Western Balkans: medical ethnobotany and ethnozoology among Albanians and Serbs in the Pešter Plateau, Sandžak. South-Western Serbia Hum Ecol. 2011;39(3):333–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9401-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Leonti M, Sticher O, Heinrich M. Antiquity of medicinal plant usage in two macro-mayan ethnic groups. J Ethnopharmacol. 2003;88:119–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(03)00188-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Collins S, Martins X, Mitchell A, Tezhome A, Arnason JT. Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Econ Bot. 2006;60:347–61. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2006)60[347:QEOTET]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mustafa B, Hajdari A, Pieroni A, Pulaj B, Koro X, Quave CL. A cross-cultural comparison of folk plant uses among Albanians, Bosniaks, Gorani and Turks living in south Kosovo. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0023-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Sõukand R, Pieroni A. The importance of a border: Medical, veterinary, and wild food ethnobotany of the Hutsuls living on the Romanian and Ukrainian sides of Bukovina. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016;185:17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.03.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tareau M-A, Bonnefond A, Palisse M, Odonne G. Phytotherapies in motion. French Guiana as a case study for multicultural ethnobotanical hybridizations. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2020;16: e54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00404-1

  73. Pieroni A, Vandebroek I, eds. Traveling Cultures and Plants: The Ethnobiology and Ethnopharmacy of Human Migrations. 1st ed. Berghahn Books. 2009.

  74. Tareau M-A, Greene A, Palisse M, Odonne G. Migrant pharmacopoeias: an ethnobotanical survey of four Caribbean communities in Amazonia (French Guiana). Econ Bot. 2022;76(2):176–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-021-09529-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Tareau M-A, Cuerrier A, Parent A-A, Dejouhanet L, Palisse M, Odonne G. Divergence and convergence in traditional plant-based medicinal practices of haitian migrants in montreal. Miami and Cayenne Hum Ecol. 2022;50(2):331–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-022-00314-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Albuquerque UP, Muniz Medeiros P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis applied to ethnobiological research. Ethnobiol Cons. 2012;1:6. https://doi.org/10.15451/EC2012-8-1.6-1-08.

  77. Vandebroek I. Cultural comparisons in ethnobiological research. In: Albuquerque UP, Alves R, editors. Introduction to Ethnobiology. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 265–71.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Reyes-García V, Guèze M, Díaz-Reviriego I, Duda R, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Gallois S, et al. The adaptive nature of culture. A cross-cultural analysis of the returns of local environmental knowledge in three Indigenous societies. Curr Anthropol. 2016;57(6):761–84. https://doi.org/10.1086/689307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Reyes-García V, Álvarez-Fernández S, Benyei P, García-del-Amo D, Junqueira AB, Labeyrie V, et al. Local indicators of climate change impacts described by Indigenous peoples and local communities: Study protocol. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(1): e0279847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Manzano P, Burgas D, Cadahía L, Eronen JT, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Bencherif S, et al. Towards a holistic understanding of pastoralism. One Earth. 2021;4(5):651–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Moraes MR. Current knowledge encounters in ethnobiological studies fit equilibrium systems / Los conocimientos de estudios etnobiológicos se ajustan a sistemas de equilibrio. Ethnobot Res Applic 2018;17(2):1–3. https://doi.org/10.17348/era.17.2.1-3.

  82. Renwick AR, Robinson CJ, Garnett ST, Leiper I, Possingham HP, Carwadine J. Mapping Indigenous land management for threatened species conservation. An Australian case-study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3): e0173876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173876.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Sze JS, Carrasco LR, Childs D, Edwards DP. Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nat Sustain. 2021;5:123–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Salmón E. Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecol Applic. 2000;10(5):1327–32. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Umeek EA. Principles of Tsawalk. An Indigenous Approach to a Global Crisis. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Beattie M, Fa JE, Leiper I, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Zander KK, Garnett ST. Even after armed conflict, the environmental quality of Indigenous Peoples’ lands in biodiversity hotspots surpasses that of non-Indigenous lands. Biol Conserv. 2023;286: 110288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Pratzer M, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Meyfroidt P, Krueger T, Baumann M, Granett ST, Kuemmerle T. Agricultural intensification, Indigenous stewardship and land sparing in tropical dry forests. Nat Sustainab. 2023;6:671–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01073-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. FPP (Forest Peoples Programme), International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2. Moreton-in-Marsh, Forest Peoples Programme, England. Available at: www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.

  89. ICCA Consortium, “Territories of Life Report”. ICCA Consortium. 2021. https://report.territoriesoflife.org

  90. Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z, Robinson CJ, et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat Sustainabil. 2018;1:369–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Fa JE, Watson JEM, Leiper I, Potapov P, Evans TD, Burgess ND, et al. Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Front Ecol Env. 2020;18(3):135–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. O’Bryan CJ, Garnett ST, Fa JE, Leiper I, Rehbein J, Fernández-Llamazares Á, et al. The importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of terrestrial vertebrates. Cons Biol. 2021;35(3):1002–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Estrada A, Garber PA, Gouveia S, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Ascensão F, Fuentes A, et al. Global importance of Indigenous Peoples, their lands, and knowledge systems for saving the world’s primates from extinction. Sci Adv. 2022;8(32):eabn2927. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn2927.

  94. Sze J, Childs DZ, Carrasco R, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Garnett ST, Edwards DP. Indigenous peoples’ lands are critical for protecting vertebrate biodiversity across the tropics. Glob Change Biol. 2023;30: e16981. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16981.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Schuster R, Germain RR, Bennett JR, Reo NJ, Arcese P. Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;101:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Simkins AT, Donald PF, Beresford AE, Butchart SHM, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, et al. Rates of tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas within Indigenous peoples’ lands. Conserv Biol. 2024;e14195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14195.

  97. Kuhnlein HV, Erasmus B, Spigelski D, editors. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity, and Environment for Nutrition and Health. Montreal, QC: Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment, McGill University; Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009.

  98. Kuhnlein HV, Erasmus B, Spigelski D, Burlingame B, editors. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems for Health: Interventions for Health Promotion and Policy. Montreal, QC: Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment, McGill University; Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013.

  99. FAO. The white/wiphala paper on Indigenous peoples’ food systems. Rome. 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en.

  100. Pacific Sea Garden Collective. Sea Gardens Across the Pacific: Reawakening Ancestral Mariculture Innovations. Version 1. Washington Sea Grant at the University of Washington. 2022. https://doi.org/10.6069/ZJB9-CG30

  101. Levy J. Diversity and Resilience of Sea Gardens Across the Pacific Ocean. Masters Thesis. School of Resource and Environmental Management Faculty of Environment, Simon Fraser University. 2023.

  102. Sharifian A, Gantuya B, Wario HT, Kotowski MA, Barani H, Manzano P, et al. Global principles in local traditional knowledge: a review of forage plant-livestock-herder interactions. J Env Manag. 2023;328: 116966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wolverton S, Figueroa RM, Armstrong CG. Integrating historical ecology and environmental justice. J Ethnobiol. 2023;43(1):57–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231162196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Ibarra JT, Caviedes J, Marchant C, Mathez-Stiefel S, Navarro-Manquilef S, Sarmiento FO. Mountain social-ecological resilience requires transdisciplinarity with Indigenous and local worldviews. Trends Ecol Evol. 2023;38(11):1005–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. McClure K. Value, Access, and Use of Ethnobotanical Databases in Ethnopharmacology: Methods, Ethical Research, and a Case Study on the Aurukun Ethnobiology Database Project. PhD Thesis. University of Kansas. 2015.

  106. Animikii. #Databack: Asserting and Supporting Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Animikki. 2022.

  107. Reyes-García V, Tofighi-Niaki A, Austin BJ, Benyei P, Danielsen F, Fernández-Llamazares Á, et al. Data sovereignty in community-based environmental monitoring: toward equitable environmental data governance. BioScience2022;72:714–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac048.

  108. McCartney AM, Head MA, Tsosie KS, Sterner B, Glass JR, Paez S, Geary J, Hudson M. Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity. NPJ Biodivers. 2023;2:8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00013-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Carroll SR, Herczog E, Hudson M, Russell K, Stall S. Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci Data. 2021;8:108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Frankel S. 2023. The Overlap of Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge. In: Wilkof N, Basheer S, Calboli I, editors. Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights. Oxford: Oxford Academic. 2nd edition online. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844477.003.0021.

  111. Albuquerque UP, Paiva de Lucena RF, Fernandez Cruz da Cunha LV, Nóbrega Alves RR. Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Springer and Humana Press. 2nd edition. 2019.

  112. Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: a literature reivew. Ecol Soc. 2020;25(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11305-250103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Whyte KP, Brewer JP, Johnson JT. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sust Sci. 2016;11(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Charnley S, Carothers C, Satterfield T, Levine A, Poe MR, et al. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Env Sci Policy. 2017;73:80–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Davis A, Ruddle K. Constructing confidence: Rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecol Applic. 2010;20(3):880–94. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0422.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Wyborn C, Evans MC. Conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;5:1322–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01540-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Saslis-Lagoudakis H, Rønsted N, Clarke AC, Hawkins JA. Evolutionary approaches to ethnobiology. In: Albuquerque U, De Medeiros P, Casas A, editors. Evolutionary ethnobiology. Springer: Cham; 2015. p. 59–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  118. Odonne G, Tareau M-A, van Andel T. Geopolitics of bitterness: deciphering the history and cultural biogeography of Quassia amara L. J Ethnopharmacol. 2021;267: e113546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Pieroni A, Giusti ME, De Pasquale C, Lenzarini C, Censorii E, González-Tejero MR, et al. Circum-Mediterranean cultural heritage and medicinal plant uses in traditional animal healthcare: a field survey in eight selected areas within the RUBIA project. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006;2:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Chaplin-Kramer R, Brauman KA, Cavender-Bares J, Díaz S, Teixeira Duarte G, Enquist BJ, et al. Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;6:118–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01605-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Welch J, Brondizio ES, Coimbra Jr CEA. Remote spatial analysis lacking ethnographic grounding mischaracterizes sustainability of Indigenous burning regime. Biota Neotrop. 2022;22(1): e20211220. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2021-1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Sheridan M. Roots of Power: The Political Ecology of Boundary Plants. Routledge. 2024.

  123. Kennedy C, Fariss B, Oakleaf JR, Garnett ST, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Fa JE, et al. Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. One Earth. 2023;6:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Artelle KA, Zurba M, Bhattacharrya J, Chan DE, Brown K, Housty J, Moola F. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol Cons. 2019;240: 108284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Pardo-de-Santayana M, Macía MJ. The benefits of traditional knowledge. Nature. 2015;518:487–488. https://doi.org/10.1038/518487a.

  126. Lucero T, Ibarra JT, Rojas I. Linking people and riparian forests: a sociocultural and ecological approach to plan integrative restoration in farmlands. Restor Ecol. 2023;32(1): e13986. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Benyei P, Arreola G, Reyes-García. Storing and sharing: A review of indigenous and local knowledge conservation initiatives. Ambio. 2020;49:218–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01153-6.

  128. Meyfroidt P, Chowdhury R, de Bremond A, Ellis EC, Erb K-H, Filatova T, et al. Middle-range theories of land system change. Glob Environ Change. 2018;53:52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Sylvester O, García Segura A, Ashencaen Crabtree S, Man Z, Parker J. Applying an Indigenous methodology to a North-South, cross-cultural collaboration: successes and remaining challenges. AlterNative. 2020;16(1):45–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180120903500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Acosta JM, Alves AGC. Construyendo una metodología interdisciplinaria y socialmente apropiada. Arch Zootec. 2007;56(1):777–82.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Carney M, Diedrich M, Blong JC, d’Alpoim Guedes J, Fulkerson TJ, Kite T, et al. Northwest native plants: A digital space for paleoethnobotanical knowledges and biocultural heritage. Herit. 2022;5(1):297–310. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Wolverton S, Nolan JM, Ahmed W. Ethnobiology, political ecology and conservation. J Ethnobiol. 2014;34(2):125–52. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.2.125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Quinlan MB, Quinlan RJ. Ethnobiology in one health. Ethnobiol Lett. 2016;7(1): 59–61. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.7.1.2016.680.

  134. Lepofsky D, Feeney K. Ten principles of ethnobiology: an interview with amadeo rea. In: Quinlan M, Lepofsky D, editors. Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea. Denton: Society of Ethnobiology; 2013. p. 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Armstrong CG, McAlvay AC. Introduction to special section on action ethnobiology. J Ethnobiol. 2019;39:3–13. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Turner NJ, editor. Plants, people and places: the roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in Indigenous peoples’ land rights in canada and beyond. Montreal, QC, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2020.

  137. Quave C, Pieroni A. A reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge informs resilient food security and health strategies in the Balkans. Nat Plants. 2015;1:14021. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2014.21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge all the Indigenous Peoples and local communities with whom we have had the privilege of collaborating. None of this research would have been possible without their generous sharing of knowledge, wisdom and experience over the years. We also thank Prof. Harriet Kuhnlein for comments to an earlier version of this manuscript.

Funding

ÁFLL was funded by an ERC Starting Grant from the European Union (ERC, IEK-CHANGES, 101117423) and a Ramón y Cajal research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC2021-034198-I). Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union and the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither of the European Union nor the grant authority can be held responsible for them. This work contributes to ICTA-UAB “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). ITT received funding from the IRD ANR-CPJ contract number 402299/00. JTI and JC acknowledge the funding from ANID/Fondecyt Regular (1240070 and 1200291), CIIR (ANID/FONDAP 15110006), CHIC (ANID PIA/BASAL PFB210018), and CAPES (ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002). ZM received funding from the project NKFI K 131837 “Fine-scale landscape ecology: linking vegetation change with interacting indirect and direct drivers using traditional ecological knowledge and oral history”, and GO received funding from an “Investissement d’Avenir” grant managed by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Labex CEBA: anr-10-labx-25–01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia (BABVE), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

    Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares

  2. Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

    Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares & Julián Caviedes

  3. IMBE, Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Univ, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France

    Irene Teixidor-Toneu

  4. Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Chelsey Geralda Armstrong

  5. ECOS (Ecosystem – Complexity – Society) Co-Laboratory, Center for Local Development (CEDEL) & Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (CIIR), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Villarrica, Chile

    Julián Caviedes & José Tomás Ibarra

  6. Cape Horn International Center for Global Change Studies and Biocultural Conservation (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile

    José Tomás Ibarra

  7. Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Systems & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC), Santiago, Chile

    José Tomás Ibarra

  8. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Dana Lepofsky

  9. Institute of Economic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, USA

    Alex C. McAlvay

  10. HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary

    Zsolt Molnár

  11. Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz, Bolivia

    R. Mónica Moraes

  12. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, La Paz, Bolivia

    R. Mónica Moraes

  13. UAR 3456 LEEISA (Laboratoire Ecologie, Evolution, Interactions Des Systèmes Amazoniens), CNRS, Université de Guyane, IFREMER, Cayenne, France

    Guillaume Odonne

  14. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Melissa R. Poe

  15. Range and Watershed Management Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

    Abolfazl Sharifian Bahraman

  16. School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Nancy J. Turner

Authors
  1. Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irene Teixidor-Toneu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chelsey Geralda Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julián Caviedes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Tomás Ibarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dana Lepofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alex C. McAlvay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zsolt Molnár
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. R. Mónica Moraes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Guillaume Odonne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Melissa R. Poe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Abolfazl Sharifian Bahraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Nancy J. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ÁFLL and ITT led the writing team, and all authors contributed critically to the writing of this manuscript. DL, MRP, NJT, ASB and ZM contributed to the three case studies and led the development of Table 1.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Full description of three examples of global ethnobiological research.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Armstrong, C.G. et al. The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 20, 53 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00693-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00693-w

Keywords

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

ISSN: 1746-4269

Contact us