Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-km8cc Total loading time: 1.094 Render date: 2022-12-09T18:38:59.886Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2019

Juliana Merçon*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Educación, Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
Susanne Vetter
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Rhodes University, South Africa
Maria Tengö
Affiliation:
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden
Michelle Cocks
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department, Rhodes University, South Africa
Patricia Balvanera
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 58190, Morelia, Mexico
Julieta A. Rosell
Affiliation:
Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510, Mexico City, Mexico
Bárbara Ayala-Orozco
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 58190, Morelia, Mexico
*
Author for correspondence: J. Merçon, E-mail: jmercon@uv.mx

Non-technical summary

Nature and culture are intricately linked and the rapid loss of both biological and cultural diversity around the globe has led to increasing concerns about its effects on sustainability. Important efforts to understand biocultural relations and bolster sustainable practices have been made by scientists, local communities, civil society organizations and policy makers. In spite of their efforts, a stronger articulation between sectors and biocultural discourses is needed for a broader transformative impact. Here, we analyse the connections between prominent biocultural discourses and discuss how the biocultural paradigm can contribute to both local and global sustainability.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

1. The emergence of a paradigm

The last decades have seen unprecedented changes to the Earth's biological and cultural components. From genes, species, ecosystems, landscapes and seascapes, to languages, practices, traditions, artistic expressions and belief, value, and knowledge systems, these diversities are facing rapid changes and, most importantly, rapid loss (Barnosky et al., Reference Barnosky, Matzke, Tomiya, Wogan, Swartz, Quental and Ferrer2011; Harmon & Loh, Reference Harmon and Loh2010; Maffi, Reference Maffi2005). Although the loss of biocultural diversity is usually associated with local effects on social-ecological systems, it is less clear how this loss could impact global sustainability. Important efforts to understand nature-culture relations and bolster sustainable practices at all scales have been made by scientists, local communities, civil society organizations and policy makers. In spite of their efforts, a stronger articulation between sectors and biocultural discourses is needed for a broader transformative impact. Here, we discuss how biocultural approaches, collectively referred to as the biocultural paradigm, can contribute to both local and global sustainability. Moreover, we analyse some of the main connections between the most prominent biocultural discourses in the context of sustainability. Finally, in order to encourage a greater articulation between science, practice and policy, we propose that discourses produced within the biocultural paradigm should integrate ontological, epistemic and ethico-political dimensions.

The term ‘paradigm’ is employed here to designate a common thinking field (shared forms of understanding, values and methods), which suggests ‘new puzzles’ and new approaches to solving them (Kuhn, Reference Kuhn1970). In this sense, the ‘biocultural paradigm’, as termed by Maffi (Reference Maffi, Pretty, Ball, Benton, Guivant, Lee, Orr and Ward2007) and Toledo (Reference Toledo2013), corresponds to a wide-ranging framework that poses novel questions and methodologies around the intricate connections between nature and culture. In its early version, the biocultural paradigm was deeply seated in the concept of biocultural diversity (Maffi, Reference Maffi, Pretty, Ball, Benton, Guivant, Lee, Orr and Ward2007), which arose in the 1990s to denote the inextricable link between areas of high biological and cultural diversity (Maffi & Woodley, Reference Maffi and Woodley2012; Posey, Reference Posey and Posey1999). Spurring early discussions, the Declaration of Belém (1988) raised alarm over the rapid decline in biological and cultural diversity and recognized the dependence of people on natural resources (Rapport & Maffi, Reference Rapport, Maffi, Pilgrim and Pretty2010). It also emphasized the importance of native people as stewards of the world's biodiversity (including genetic resources and the knowledge to manage them), and the inextricable links between all manifestations of life (biological, cultural and linguistic) (Maffi & Woodley, Reference Maffi and Woodley2012; Posey, Reference Posey and Posey1999). This declaration gave recognition and value to indigenous knowledge, including local indigenous specialists as authorities that need to be consulted in programs affecting indigenous communities, their resources and their environments. These ideas gained prominence in response to concerns about the rapid decline of biocultural diversity and the loss of intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge, practices and languages (Maffi, Reference Maffi2005; Maffi & Woodley, Reference Maffi and Woodley2012; Posey, Reference Posey and Posey1999), as evidenced in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; United Nations, 1992), and highlighted again in the 2010 Declaration on Bio-Cultural Diversity (United Nations, 2010).

Recognition of indigenous communities and their knowledge has been growing in the last three decades. Calls have been made for sustainable development approaches to be aligned with local cultural practices and for such communities to have greater control over their land, development and heritage (Brondizio & Tourneau, Reference Brondizio and Tourneau2016; Davidson-Hunt et al., Reference Davidson-Hunt, Turner, Te Pareake Mead, Cabrera-Lopez, Bolton, Idrobo and Robson2012; Garnett et al., Reference Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares, Molnár, Robinson and Leiper2018; Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Filardi, Toomey, Sigouin, Betley, Gazit and Bergamini2017). In 2018, marking the 30th anniversary of the Declaration of Belém, this city hosted again a large international meeting to discuss the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional populations and the sustainable use of biodiversity (www.ise2018belem.com). Attracting over 1600 participants from 45 countries, of whom 500 were indigenous, this event has been by far the largest gathering to date of researchers, scholars, students, indigenous peoples and other traditional communities, government agencies, civil society organizations, and social movements engaged in these discussions. The magnitude and resolutions of this event highlight the currency of these discussions and the crucial role of biocultural diversity for global sustainability. For example, it is known that indigenous peoples and traditional communities manage 95% of the world's genetic resources (Maffi & Woodley, Reference Maffi and Woodley2012) and act as stewards of approximately 40% of protected areas and ecologically intact systems worldwide (Garnett et al., Reference Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares, Molnár, Robinson and Leiper2018). The associated knowledge and local management practices thus become crucial given that the health, agriculture and economy of people around the world are partially or totally dependent on these resources and environments (Corona-M, Reference Corona-M2018).

2. Expanding the biocultural paradigm and its applications

While the concept of biocultural diversity has been commonly applied to indigenous and traditional communities, especially in the context of a ‘crisis narrative’ (Brosius & Hitchner, Reference Brosius and Hitchner2010), recent developments have significantly expanded its meanings to include other social and ecological contexts. Cocks (Reference Cocks2006) and Cocks and Wiersum (Reference Cocks and Wiersum2014) argue that the concept of biocultural diversity is equally applicable to social groups who do not adopt traditional lifestyles and do not live in largely pristine natural environments. Research amongst rural and urban communities in the Global South heavily impacted by hegemonic socio-economic processes shows that more modernized communities maintain cultural practices reliant on natural environments and high biodiversity (Cocks, Reference Cocks2006; Emperaire & Eloy, Reference Emperaire and Eloy2008) and that people retain cultural and spiritual values associated with natural landscapes and vegetation in rural and urban contexts (Cocks, Vetter, & Wiersum, Reference Cocks, Vetter and Wiersum2018; Cocks & Dold, Reference Cocks and Dold2012; Cocks et al., 2015, unpublished data). Along the same lines, Buizer, Elands, and Vierikko (Reference Buizer, Elands and Vierikko2016) have proposed that biocultural diversity should be considered as a reflexive and sensitizing concept that can be used to assess the different values and knowledge of different human groups living with biodiversity within different contexts. For these authors, biocultural diversity emphasizes the importance of urban green areas for the quality of life in growing cities. In this way, cultural interactions with nature form a crucial part of the city's cultural heritage and identity (Elands, Wiersum, Buijs, & Vierikko, Reference Elands, Wiersum, Buijs and Vierikko2015).

In the field of sustainability science, the biocultural paradigm overlaps strongly with the social-ecological systems framework. In particular, in early work on social-ecological systems (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, Reference Berkes, Colding and Folke2003; Berkes, Folke, & Colding, Reference Berkes, Folke and Colding2000), there is strong emphasis on the co-evolution and deep intertwinedness of humans and nature, which is mirrored in the concept of biocultural diversity (Gavin et al., Reference Gavin, McCarter, Mead, Berkes, Stepp, Peterson and Tang2015; Loh & Harmon, Reference Loh and Harmon2005; Maffi, Reference Maffi2005). Moreover, in resilience thinking, biocultural diversity is regarded as a crucial component of social-ecological systems and a key resource for surviving crises, adapting to change, and crafting new social-ecological systems in the future. As part of these discussions, it has been suggested that the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ can be usefully expanded to ‘nature's contributions to people’ (Díaz et al., Reference Díaz, Pascual, Stenseke, Martín-López, Watson, Molnár and Shirayama2018), highlighting the cultural context of co-construction of nature's benefits and emphasizing the role of biocultural diversity. Currently, the social-ecological systems approach and terminology is also used in a much broader sense, and the term ‘bioculture’ is employed to emphasize tightly intertwined and co-evolving social-ecological systems, cultural dimensions and implications in such systems (e.g. Barthel, Crumley, & Svedin, Reference Barthel, Crumley and Svedin2013; Haider, Reference Haider2017; Hirons et al., Reference Hirons, Boyd, McDermott, Asare, Morel, Mason and Norris2018; Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al., Reference Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, Kurashima, Francisco, Giardina, Louis, McMillen and Yogi2018).

The biocultural paradigm has also been adopted by intergovernmental organizations, programs and platforms (e.g. UNESCO, the Convention for Biological Diversity [CBD] and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES]). The concept of biocultural diversity was taken on by a joint UNESCO-CBD programme in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, to promote reciprocal knowledge exchange of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity, and to foster dialogue for sustainable development based on recognition of and respect for different knowledge systems, including the knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities (United Nations, 2010). Biocultural perspectives were then integrated into the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 that included 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, within which biocultural heritage was seen as a key promoter of resilience (United Nations, 2010). A plan of action on customary sustainable use of biological diversity was established to ensure the participation of indigenous and local communities in such a Strategic Plan (United Nations, 2010). The IPBES platform, created in 2012 to strengthen knowledge foundations for better policy through science, recognized from the onset the role of biocultural diversity in shaping nature, as reflected in its conceptual framework (Díaz et al., Reference Díaz, Demissew, Carabias, Joly, Lonsdale, Ash and Zlatanova2015). In this context, a Task Force was also created to foster the recognition of the knowledge that indigenous people and local communities possess, the way it is constructed and evolves over time, and its relevance for the governance of biodiversity from local to global levels.

In the Global South, particularly in Latin America, the biocultural paradigm has become instrumental for indigenous rights movements and the political agenda of environmental civil society organizations (Argumedo, Reference Argumedo2011; Martínez-Esponda et al., Reference Martínez-Esponda, Benítez, Ramos Pedrueza, García Maning, Bracamontes and Vázquez2017; Panduro, Reference Panduro2014). A unifying feature of this perspective is the claim that indigenous conservation knowledge, practices and territories (including food production, biocultural heritage and memory) are threatened by globalized capitalism and neo-colonial powers (Declaration of Ixtlán, 2017). Social movements find in the biocultural paradigm an essential political tool to demand land rights protection, focusing on diverse forms of life in concrete (often contested) territories. Related concepts in this context include biocultural heritage (‘patrimonio biocultural’ with its connotations of birthright and ownership) (Argumedo, Reference Argumedo, Amend, Brown, Kothari, Phillips and Stolton2008; Boege, Reference Boege2008, Reference Boege2015), biocultural memory (Toledo & Barrera-Bassols, Reference Toledo and Barrera-Bassols2008) and sociobiodiversity (Almeida, Reference Almeida2012).

A growing array of discourses and applications enlivens an evolving biocultural paradigm, which informs the study, practice and politics of the vital interconnections between culture and nature. However, the local contributions of this paradigm may be more easily deducible than its role in promoting global sustainability, as it is discussed below.

3. The biocultural paradigm's crucial role in global sustainability

The biocultural paradigm is inherently systemic and place-based, focusing on practices, knowledge, values and governance systems that relate specific human groups with their environment. As Sterling et al. (Reference Sterling, Filardi, Toomey, Sigouin, Betley, Gazit and Bergamini2017: p. 1800) note, “all biocultural approaches are social-ecological in nature, but not all social-ecological approaches frame interactions from locally relevant cultural perspectives”. Despite being associated with human-nature connections from local cultural viewpoints, we argue that the biocultural paradigm is decisive to global sustainability for at least four reasons.

3.1. Global sustainability strongly relies on diversity

Whilst biodiversity has been proven to be crucial for ecosystem functioning (Cardinale et al., Reference Cardinale, Duffy, Gonzalez, Hooper, Perrings, Venail and Naeem2012), cultural diversity constitutes an invaluable source of knowledge, ways of knowing and learning, governance mechanisms, management practices and innovations toward sustainability that provides options for the future of humanity and the Earth (Barthel et al., Reference Barthel, Crumley and Svedin2013; Maffi, Reference Maffi1998; Singh, Pretty, & Pilgrim, Reference Singh, Pretty and Pilgrim2010; Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Filardi, Toomey, Sigouin, Betley, Gazit and Bergamini2017; Tengö et al., Reference Tengö, Hill, Malmer, Raymond, Spierenburg, Danielsen and Folke2017). Biocultural diversity refers to the interdependence between biological and cultural diversity, indicating how significant ensembles of biological diversity are managed, conserved and even created (e.g. agrodiversity) by different cultural groups, many of which have had low environmental impact, thus offering significant stewardship examples of strong relevance for other groups across the globe (Berkes et al., Reference Berkes, Folke and Colding2000; Brondizio & Tourneau, Reference Brondizio and Tourneau2016; Garnett et al., Reference Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares, Molnár, Robinson and Leiper2018; Gavin et al., Reference Gavin, McCarter, Mead, Berkes, Stepp, Peterson and Tang2015). In a highly interconnected world, where local activities can affect and be affected by social-ecological dynamics occurring in other parts of the planet, such culture-based sustainable practices are of benefit to all humans, and facilitate alternative ways of being.

3.2. The biocultural paradigm emphasizes the connections between nature and human well-being, shifting the attention in sustainability debates from economic development to cultural values that guide non-instrumental relationships with nature

Relational values that focus on identity, well-being and a sense of stewardship/responsibility are found across a great variety of cultural groups and societal contexts (Chan et al., Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz, Gómez-Baggethun and Turner2016). Relational values have become iconic through cultural manifestations such as Ubuntu in South Africa, Sumak Kawsay in Latin America, Hālau ‘Ōhi‘a in Hawaii, the Gandhian Economy of Permanence in India, Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si’ and the Degrowth movement in Europe. These and other value systems that emphasize individual and collective well-being, and the fundamental dependence of well-being on the environment, tend to conserve and construct forms of relationship with nature and the human community that may potentially counter the negative impacts of the progressive commodification of nature and the loss of traditional governance systems (Acosta, Reference Acosta2016; Fuentes-George, Reference Fuentes-George2013; Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, Reference Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez2011; Gudynas, Reference Gudynas2015; Kothari, Demaria, & Acosta, Reference Kothari, Demaria and Acosta2014; McCauley, Reference McCauley2006).

3.3. The biocultural paradigm is a useful approach to address the social justice aspects of sustainability

Cultural groups contribute differently to environmental changes that currently challenge all humans. Although in the term ‘Anthropocene’ (Crutzen, Reference Crutzen2002) our species as a whole is identified as the major driver of global change, it is important to clarify that the alterations in the climate, water cycles, biodiversity and in various ecosystem dynamics are mainly caused by the forms and levels of production and consumption in industrial and post-industrial societies rather than all of humanity (Baskin, Reference Baskin2015; Malm & Hornborg, Reference Malm and Hornborg2014; Moore, Reference Moore2016, Reference Moore2017). The Great Acceleration (Steffen, Crutzen, & McNeill, Reference Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill2007) and its significant impacts both on economic wealth and the ecological crisis have been largely associated with the demands and activities of a small fraction of the human population. Steffen and collaborators (Reference Steffen, Broadgate, Deutsch, Gaffney and Ludwig2015) show, for example, that in 2010 the OECD countries accounted for 74% of global GDP while representing only 18% of the global population. Wiedman and collaborators (Reference Wiedmann, Schandl, Lenzen, Moran, Suh, West and Kanemoto2015) found that with every 10% increase in GDP the material footprint of nations increases by 6%, and that as wealth grows countries not only consume more materials from nature but also tend to rely more on those abroad through international trade. Biocultural perspectives highlight these disparities, as well as the economic, political and epistemic inequalities that lie at the basis of intercultural exchanges and environmental conflicts (Boege, Reference Boege2015; Leff, Reference Leff2017). Key areas of biocultural diversity are often under intense dispute, with a great number of local communities facing challenges such as land dispossession and large-scale development projects (Apgar, Ataria, & Allen, Reference Apgar, Ataria and Allen2011). Biocultural approaches can cast light on the contrasting values, knowledge systems and practices that underpin social-ecological conflicts and contribute, through collaborative and engaged research (Gavin et al., Reference Gavin, McCarter, Berkes, Mead, Sterling, Tang and Turner2018; Salomon et al., Reference Salomon, Lertzman, Brown, Wilson, Secord and McKechnie2018; Temper, Del Bene, & Martinez-Alier, Reference Temper, Del Bene and Martinez-Alier2015), to the construction of peace and justice, necessary conditions for any attempt toward local and global sustainability.

3.4. Global sustainability depends on the enactment of culturally pertinent policies that can be articulated across governance levels and actors

The lack of biocultural approaches in the formulation of top-down policies by governments operating at all scales may lead to the implementation of culturally inappropriate actions, which can result in unproductive and even harmful processes, generating the loss of control over place, resources, knowledge and practices (Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Filardi, Toomey, Sigouin, Betley, Gazit and Bergamini2017). The effectiveness of environmental governance depends on the direct involvement of local and indigenous populations in political platforms that reconcile different cultural perspectives (Brondizio & Tourneau, Reference Brondizio and Tourneau2016) and the right to self-determination via traditional governance systems (Lovera, Reference Lovera2010).

The adoption of the biocultural paradigm by academia, practitioners and policy makers may catalyse the joint construction of relevant knowledge, sustainable practices and policies by different social actors. This would imply a greater contribution to sustainability, from local to global scales. Fruitful collaboration between sectors relies, however, on the understanding of different biocultural conceptions, knowledge and applications put forward by distinct actors and their agendas. In the following section, we discuss some of the key features of four main biocultural discourses in the field of sustainability as well as some significant connections between them. These discourses emphasize distinct aspects of the biocultural paradigm's contributions to local and global sustainability, depending on their locus of production and objectives.

4. Biocultural discourses in academia, practice and policy

Discourses are both a product and a producer of power as they constitute a response to perceived needs in specific historical and political contexts, and have the potential to drive change by framing problems and solutions (Foucault, Reference Foucault1975). Understanding how different discourses shape human-nature interactions and promote change across actors at different scales is thus key for sustainability (Clement, Reference Clement2013; Hajer, Reference Hajer1995). Our purpose here is not to provide a thorough analysis of how biocultural discourses are constituted or have contributed to sustainability, but to briefly characterize them and discuss some of their connections in order to better understand the limits and potentialities of the biocultural paradigm.

Drawing on the authors’ involvement with distinct discursive fields, and on different sources of information (scientific and grey literature, websites, international policy documents, declarations, conferences), we identified four major biocultural discourses in the field of sustainability. Two of these discourses are represented by scholars working in the fields of (i) social-ecological systems and sustainability science and (ii) anthropology and ethnobiology. Another discourse has emerged among civil society organizations, social movements and engaged scholars ([iii] indigenous rights movements and political ecology) and the fourth in international policy arenas ([iv] intergovernmental bodies) (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of biocultural discourses in academia, practice and policy.

All of these approaches recognize the reciprocal links between cultural and biological diversity; however, some emphasize epistemic dimensions from a more ecological (i) or anthropological (ii) perspective, while others focus on ethico-political aspects from a bottom-up (iii) or top-down approach (iv). The strength of the connections between the discourses and their influence on each other vary, as shown in Figure 1 and further described below.

Fig. 1. Connections between biocultural discourses. Arrows indicate the degree of mutual influence between discourses. Some discourses influence each other more strongly (solid black arrows), whereas some have weaker connections (solid grey arrows). Some other connections reflect an unbalanced influence between discourses (arrows with color gradients; black arrowheads point to the discourse that is influenced to a larger degree, and grey arrowheads point to the discourse that is influenced to a lesser degree). A more detailed characterization of these connections is provided in the text.

The social-ecological systems and sustainability science discourse is scientific and often employs quantitative methodologies. Even though inclusive and transdisciplinary approaches are gradually increasing, social-ecological perspectives generally tend to place less emphasis on the role of power relations and social inequalities. Due to their scientific status and orientation towards policy influence, this type of narrative strongly informs international bodies (such as IPBES) and maintains synergic ties with other scholarly discourses, but is not significantly influenced by indigenous rights movements. The ties with anthropology and ethnobiology have a long history, where the social-ecological systems literature has drawn from these bodies of work, for example, on indigenous and local knowledge and institutions (e.g. Berkes et al., Reference Berkes, Colding and Folke2003; Gavin et al., Reference Gavin, McCarter, Mead, Berkes, Stepp, Peterson and Tang2015); on cultural aspects of ecosystem services (e.g. Comberti, Thornton, Wyllie de Echeverria, & Patterson, Reference Comberti, Thornton, Wyllie de Echeverria and Patterson2015; Pröpper & Haupts, Reference Pröpper and Haupts2014) and values, including relational values (e.g. Chan et al., Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz, Gómez-Baggethun and Turner2016; West et al., Reference West, Haider, Masterson, Enqvist, Svedin and Tengö2018).

Anthropological and ethnobiological discourses often draw on ethnographic and other forms of qualitative research. While biocultural diversity in this context was originally applied to the study of indigenous peoples in remote and more pristine areas, this perspective has extended the notion of bioculturality to modernized communities, and agricultural and urban contexts. The political emancipatory dimension of biocultural views is not a main focus of these discourses, although they argue strongly for indigenous knowledge and practices to be given prominence in development and policy. Anthropological and ethnobiological discourses have had some influence on indigenous movements and some impact on international policy. Stronger synergies are identified with social-ecological scientific discourses with which there is a shared academic basis and on-going cross-fertilization, with many scholars publishing in anthropology, ethnobiology and social-ecological realms (Buizer et al., Reference Buizer, Elands and Vierikko2016; Gavin et al., Reference Gavin, McCarter, Mead, Berkes, Stepp, Peterson and Tang2015; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Pinedo-Vasquez, Brondízio, Rabelo, Fernandes, Almeida and Dou2016).

Indigenous movements and political ecologists have produced biocultural discourses that focus primarily on ethico-political dimensions with a bottom-up approach. These discourses are strategically used to advocate for environmental and indigenous rights and are informed by ecological and anthropological biocultural knowledge, although the term ‘biocultural’ is not always explicitly employed. The focus on power relations and social inequities is largely expressed through the overt opposition to capitalist globalization and neo-colonialism, with an overall discredit of global intergovernmental initiatives because of their limited impact on national and local levels. The political nature of these discourses often implies a simplification of social-ecological knowledge and the essentialization of ethnic groups, that is, the idealization of the indigenous.

The biocultural discourses produced within and in relation to intergovernmental organizations, programs and platforms (e.g. UNESCO, CBD and IPBES) are also chiefly ethico-political, strongly informed by science, and have a top-down orientation. Strong links are maintained between these international bodies and social-ecological discourses (Díaz et al., Reference Díaz, Demissew, Carabias, Joly, Lonsdale, Ash and Zlatanova2015, Reference Díaz, Pascual, Stenseke, Martín-López, Watson, Molnár and Shirayama2018). Other academic discourses are also incorporated in international policy, but with lesser impact. While progress has been made to integrate indigenous knowledge, further steps are needed to truly bridge across knowledge systems (Tengö et al., Reference Tengö, Hill, Malmer, Raymond, Spierenburg, Danielsen and Folke2017). In some aspects of its work, the CBD has created platforms for engagement with representatives from indigenous peoples and local communities that have led to their biocultural perspectives gaining greater prominence and power. Despite such efforts, there is little adoption or effective application of the recommendations generated in these international arenas by national states and local authorities, whose decisions are heavily informed by competing economic narratives.

In sum, there is limited interaction between scientific, conservation-focused approaches of both international policy makers and academics (themselves in a position of power and privilege within the capitalist system) on one hand, and the overt political focus of indigenous rights movements who struggle for social justice and autonomy over land and the use of biocultural resources. As a matter of fact, abstract scientific approaches and decontextualized policy recommendations stand in stark contrast to civil society and social movements’ discourses, which derive from marginalized groups’ lived experiences of land dispossession and vulnerability in the face of the dominant economic, political and cultural models. In spite of these differences in form and focus, the biocultural discourses summarized above oppose the homogenizing effects of globalization and many of them assert the need for changes in how development and sustainability are both conceived and driven by official institutions and corporations. Some discursive synergies also include the claim for a broader participation of cultural groups in knowledge co-production and political decisions at all scales.

5. Ways forward toward a paradigm shift

The current plurality of biocultural discourses reflects the diversity of socio-cultural positions, communities of practice and political orientations involved in their construction and application. Some tensions between these stances are inevitable and can provide meaningful challenges for further dialogue and political changes. Without advocating complete integration or the disappearance of significant discursive differences, we propose here that biocultural approaches recognize and articulate the ontological dimension of biocultural diversity, an epistemological dimension through systems thinking, and an ethico-political dimension taking explicitly into account plural values, governance systems and power relations (Figure 2). These dimensions are essential to connect forms of understanding across actors and to strengthen actions toward global sustainability, as we show below.

Fig. 2. Ontological, epistemological and ethico-political dimensions of the biocultural paradigm are interconnected and manifested through cultural practices and power relations embedded in specific biocultural landscapes (Photo: Tony Dold).

The ontological dimension of the biocultural paradigm refers to the recognition of diverse ways of conceiving and experiencing nature and their cultural embeddedness. Acknowledging the diversity of ontological systems co-existing on the planet is a necessary condition for a full understanding of human-nature relationships. Many of these relationships, which are not completely conditioned by hegemonic culture, are particularly important given their historical invisibility but crucial contribution to local and global well-being and sustainability (Masterson et al. unpublished data). Making biocultural diversity visible in academia, practice and policy has implications on decisions and actions at different scales. The study of biocultural manifestations in urban contexts and the extension of the concept to non-indigenous groups enlarge the diversity spectrum and contribute to novel knowledge and applications. In any case, a broader attention to Global South experiences is key to reveal how a great number of (currently threatened) human-nature relations contribute to global sustainability.

Holistic or systems thinking broadly characterizes the biocultural paradigm's epistemology. This type of approach focuses on the interaction between socio-cultural and ecological components, acknowledging their interdependence and dynamic nature, as proposed by the social-ecological systems perspective (Berkes et al., Reference Berkes, Folke and Colding2000). Systemic forms of understanding involve the direct participation of indigenous and local knowledge holders through transdisciplinary processes, boundary work, action research and other forms of place-based collaborative knowledge production. Such engagement needs to be carried out in ways founded in respect, equity and usefulness for all involved (Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg, Reference Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer and Spierenburg2014; Tengö et al., Reference Tengö, Hill, Malmer, Raymond, Spierenburg, Danielsen and Folke2017). Collaboratively produced knowledge with a systemic perspective creates more holistic and complexity-oriented ways of understanding sustainability (Ayala-Orozco et al., Reference Ayala-Orozco, Rosell, Merçon, Bueno, Alatorre-Frenk, Langle-Flores and Lobato2018; Merçon, Ayala-Orozco, & Rosell, Reference Merçon, Ayala-Orozco and Rosell2018; Mistry & Berardi, Reference Mistry and Berardi2016) and may impact on the values, decisions and practices that constitute biocultural realities. This could lead to greater recognition and protection of biocultural systems as well as influence policies and sustainable practices beyond the local. To enable this potential and allow for real collaboration in contexts of power asymmetries, the study of and engagement with diverse biocultural knowledge systems should take a series of ethico-political and epistemological considerations into account, including, for example, the use of co-formulated biocultural protocols, dedicated implementation of Free Prior and Informed Consent, and support of indigenous-led initiatives and movements (Bavikatte & Robinson, Reference Bavikatte and Robinson2011; Ward, Reference Ward2011). Such change in perspective would demand a strong commitment and capacity building for a constructive engagement in high-level policy fora.

The ethico-political dimension encompasses values and governance regimes whose decisions impact on the ontological manifestation and understanding of biocultural systems and vice-versa. For example, the biocultural paradigm can cast light on how relational values and local governance systems contribute to nature conservation, thus providing elements for the legitimation at national and international levels of such systems in indigenous peoples’ struggles for self-determination (Brondizio & Tourneau, Reference Brondizio and Tourneau2016; Garnett et al., Reference Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares, Molnár, Robinson and Leiper2018; Rozzi, Reference Rozzi, Rozzi, Pickett, Palmer, Armesto and Callicott2013). Moreover, the development and implementation of full participatory mechanisms to include the values, governance systems, needs and knowledge of vulnerable groups in policy making may ensure more comprehensive understandings of biocultural systems and hence more culturally appropriate actions (Ruiz-Mallén, Corbera, Novkovic, Calvo-Boyero, & Reyes-García, Reference Ruiz-Mallén, Corbera, Novkovic, Calvo-Boyero and Reyes-García2013; Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Filardi, Toomey, Sigouin, Betley, Gazit and Bergamini2017).

Despite being present in the practices that sustain all dimensions (ontology, epistemology, ethics and politics), power relations have had little recognition in biocultural discourses (Table 1). As various scholars have demonstrated, neglecting the role of structural, actor-based and discursive power leads to partial and naive understandings of human-nature interactions (Boonstra, Reference Boonstra2016; Bryant, Reference Bryant1998; Meadowcroft, Reference Meadowcroft2009; Smith & Stirling, Reference Smith and Stirling2010; Zimmerer & Bassett, Reference Zimmerer and Bassett2003). Understanding biocultural systems from a power relations perspective is needed to account for different types of inequities that accentuate cultural groups’ vulnerability in the face of hegemonic cultural, political and economic forces. With such understanding, the biocultural paradigm can be used to counter globalization's homogenizing drivers and the loss of cultural practices, languages, knowledge, values and governance systems. This emancipatory nature of the biocultural paradigm places social and environmental justice at the core of global sustainability.

6. Conclusions

In a growingly globalized world, where the accelerated loss of biological and cultural components leads to profound inequitative social and ecological repercussions, biocultural approaches collectively represent a promising paradigm. By focusing on the connections between cultural and biological diversity, human well-being, social justice and the formulation of culturally pertinent policies, biocultural discourses hold great transformative potential. The full actualization of such potential relies, however, on the construction of bridges between current discourses, embodied by scientists, practitioners and policy makers who tend to emphasize distinct dimensions of the biocultural paradigm (ontological, epistemological or ethico-political). In this sense, the recognition and articulation, in theory, practice and policy, of biocultural diversity, holistic or systems thinking, plural values, governance systems and power relations contribute to a more encompassing and effective perspective. From local landscapes, urban spaces and social movements to academia and international policy, discursive bridging and inter-sectorial collaboration potentialize the crucial contributions of the biocultural paradigm to local and global sustainability.

Author ORCIDs

Juliana Merçon, 0000-0001-7249-1994

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the initial contribution of Karla Karina Pérez López for her support in the systematic literature review. JM, PB, JAR and BA-O are also thankful for the support of the Socioecosystems and Sustainability Network (Red de Socioecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, CONACyT, Mexico). MT acknowledges support from the Swedish Research Council. The initial discussions presented here were held at the Second Open Science Conference of the Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) of Future Earth, in Oaxaca, Mexico. Inspiration for this paper also came from the Multi-Actor Dialogues on Biocultural Diversity and Social-Ecological Resilience, held in Ixtlán, Oaxaca, and financially supported by Sida (through SwedBio) and PECS.

Author contributions

All authors participated, at some stage, in the conception and design of the article, as well as data gathering. JM, SV, MT, MC and PB wrote the article and all authors reviewed it.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Acosta, A. (2016). Repensar el mundo desde el Buen Vivir. Degrowth in Bewegung (En). Retrieved from: https://www.degrowth.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DIB_Buen-Vivir_es.pdfGoogle Scholar
Agnoletti, M., & Rotherham, I. D. (2015). Landscape and biocultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13), 31553165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1003-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, M. W. B. (2012). Sociodiversidade e desenvolvimento; considerações entre centro e margem. Reunião Brasileira de Antropologia, São Paulo, 28, 120.Google Scholar
Apgar, J. M., Ataria, J. M., & Allen, W. J. (2011). Managing beyond designations: Supporting endogenous processes for nurturing biocultural development. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(6), 555570. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.618250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argumedo, A. (2008). The Potato Park, Peru: Conserving agrobiodiversity in an Andean indigenous biocultural heritage area. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A., & S. Stolton, (eds), Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values (Vol. 1, pp. 4558). Heidelberg, Germany: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Kasparek Verlag.Google Scholar
Argumedo, A. (2011). Community biocultural protocols: Building mechanisms for access and benefit sharing among the communities of the Potato Park based on Quechua customary norms (summary report). International Institute for Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.orgGoogle Scholar
Ayala-Orozco, B., Rosell, J. A., Merçon, J., Bueno, I., Alatorre-Frenk, G., Langle-Flores, A., & Lobato, A. (2018). Challenges and strategies in place-based multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability: learning from experiences in the Global South. Sustainability, 10(9), 3217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., … Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 5157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barthel, S., Crumley, C., & Svedin, U. (2013). Bio-cultural refugia – Safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 11421152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. (2015). Paradigm dressed as epoch: the ideology of the Anthropocene. Environmental Values, 24(1), 929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavikatte, K., & Robinson, D. F. (2011). Hacia una historia de la ley de los pueblos a través de la jurisprudencia biocultural y el Protocolo de Nagoya sobre acceso y participación en los beneficios. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 7(1), 3554. Retrieved from http://www.lead-journal.org/content/11035a.pdfGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2000). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boege, E. (2008). El patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos indígenas de México: hacia la conservación in situ de la biodiversidad y agrodiversidad en los territorios indígenas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Google Scholar
Boege, E. (2015). Em direção a uma antropologia ambiental para a apropriação do patrimônio biocultural dos povos indígenas na América Latina. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 35. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.43906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, W. J. (2016). Conceptualizing power to study social-ecological interactions. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07966-210121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgewater, P. (2017). The intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) – a role for heritage? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(1), 6573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1232657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brondizio, E. S., & Tourneau, F.-M. L. (2016). Environmental governance for all. Science, 352(6291), 12721273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosius, J. P., & Hitchner, S. L. (2010). Cultural diversity and conservation. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 141168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01753.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, R. L. (1998). Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 22(1), 7994. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buizer, M., Elands, B., & Vierikko, K. (2016). Governing cities reflexively – The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 62, 713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., … Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 5967. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CEMDA (2018). Amparan a comunidades del Pueblo Maseual de la Sierra Nororiental de Puebla en contra de concesiones mineras. Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental. Retrieved from www.cemda.org.mx/amparan-a-comunidades-del-pueblo-maseual-de-la-sierra-nororiental-de-puebla-en-contra-de-concesiones-mineras/2018Google Scholar
Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., … Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 14621465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clement, F. (2013). For critical social-ecological system studies: integrating power and discourses to move beyond the right institutional fit. Environmental Conservation, 40(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocks, M. (2006). Biocultural diversity: Moving beyond the realm of “indigenous” and “local” people. Human Ecology, 34(2), 185200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9013-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocks, M., & Dold, T. (2012). Perceptions and values of local landscapes: Implications for the conservation of biocultural diversity and intangible heritage. In Forest-people Interfaces: Understanding Community Forestry and Biocultural Diversity (pp. 167179). https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-749-3_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocks, M., Vetter, S., & Wiersum, K. F. (2018). From universal to local: perspectives on cultural landscape heritage in South Africa. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(1), 3552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocks, M., & Wiersum, F. (2014). Reappraising the concept of biocultural diversity: A perspective from South Africa. Human Ecology, 42(5), 727737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9681-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wyllie de Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corona-M, E. (2018). Noticia: Belem + 30, un evento clave para el desarrollo de las etnociencias. Etnobiología. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6536865Google Scholar
Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/415023aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Turner, K. L., Te Pareake Mead, A., Cabrera-Lopez, J., Bolton, R., Idrobo, C. J., … Robson, J. P. (2012). Biocultural design: A new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. Sapiens, 5(2), 3245.Google Scholar
Declaration of Belem (1988). First International Congress of Ethnobiology. International Society for Ethnobiology. Retrieved from www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/global-coalition-2/declaration-of-belem/Google Scholar
Declaration of Ixtlán (2017). Workshop on Biocultural Diversity and Social-Ecological Resilience. II Conference of the Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS). Oaxaca, Mexico. 2017. Oaxaca, Mexico. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/declaration_ixtlan_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drahos, P. (2011). When cosmology meets property: indigenous people's innovation and intellectual property. Prometheus, 29(3), 233252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2011.638213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elands, B. H. M., Wiersum, K. F., Buijs, A. E., & Vierikko, K. (2015). Policy interpretations and manifestation of biocultural diversity in urbanized Europe: conservation of lived biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13), 33473366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0985-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emperaire, L., & Eloy, L. (2008). A cidade, um foco de diversidade agrícola no Rio Negro (Amazonas, Brasil)? Boletim Do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Ciências Humanas, 3(2), 195211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, A. (2010). Territorios de diferencia: lugar, movimientos, vida, redes. Popayán, Colombia: Envión Editores.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir, Naissance de la prison. Paris, France: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Fuentes-George, K. (2013). Neoliberalism, environmental justice, and the Convention on Biological Diversity: How problematizing the commodification of nature affects regime effectiveness. Global Environmental Politics, 13(4), 144163. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., … Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavin, M., McCarter, J., Berkes, F., Mead, A., Sterling, E., Tang, R., & Turner, N. (2018). Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability, 10(6), 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavin, M., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J., Peterson, D., & Tang, R. (2015). Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(3), 140145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 35(5), 613628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gudynas, E. (2015). Extractivismos: Ecología, economía y política de un modo de entender el desarrollo y la Naturaleza. La Paz: CLAES-CEDIB.Google Scholar
Haider, L. J. (2017). Development and Resilience: Re-thinking poverty and intervention in biocultural landscapes (PhD Dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harmon, D., & Loh, J. (2010). The index of linguistic diversity: A new quantitative measure of trends in the status of the world's languages. Language Documentation & Conservation, 4, 97151.Google Scholar
Hay-Edie, T., Howard, P., Martin, G., & McCandless, S. (2011). The roles of local, national and international designations in conserving biocultural diversity on a landscape scale. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(6), 527536. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.618244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., Talbot, L. D., & McIntyre-Tamwoy, S. (2011). Empowering indigenous peoples biocultural diversity through World Heritage cultural landscapes: A case study from the Australian humid tropical forests. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(6), 571591. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.618252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirons, M., Boyd, E., McDermott, C., Asare, R., Morel, A., Mason, J., … Norris, K. (2018). Understanding climate resilience in Ghanaian cocoa communities – Advancing a biocultural perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 63, 120129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., Kurashima, N., Francisco, K. S., Giardina, C. P., Louis, R. P., McMillen, H., … Yogi, D. (2018). Ritual + sustainability science? A portal into the science of aloha. Sustainability, 10(10), 3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kothari, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2014). Buen Vivir, degrowth and ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy. Development, 57(3), 362375. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd enl. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leff, E. (2017). Las relaciones de poder del conocimiento en el campo de la ecología política. Ambiente & Sociedade (Online), 20, 229262.Google Scholar
Loh, J., & Harmon, D. (2005). A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecological Indicators, 5(3), 231241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovera, S. (2010). Los pueblos indígenas empeoran desde las políticas REDD. Protocolos Comunitarios Bioculturales fortalecen los Beneficios de la Biodiversidad. Revista Compas. Desarrollo Endógeno, 17, 2224.Google Scholar
Maffi, L. (1998). Language: a resource for nature. Nature and Resources, 34(4), 1221.Google Scholar
Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 599617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffi, L. (2007). Biocultural diversity and sustainability. In Pretty, J., Ball, A. S., Benton, T. S., Guivant, J., Lee, D. R., Orr, D., … Ward, H. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Environment and Society (pp. 267278). Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffi, L., & Woodley, E. (2012). Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malm, A., & Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review, 1(1), 6269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Esponda, F. X., Benítez, M., Ramos Pedrueza, X., García Maning, G., Bracamontes, L. N., & Vázquez, B. Q. (2017). Derechos humanos y patrimonio biocultural. El sistema milpa como cimiento de una política de Estado cultural y ambientalmente sustentable (p. 136). México: Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental.Google Scholar
McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 2728. https://doi.org/10.1038/443027aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9097-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merçon, J., Ayala-Orozco, B., & Rosell, J. A. (2018). Experiencias de colaboración transdisciplinaria para la sustentabilidad. Mexico City: Copit Arxives.Google Scholar
Mistry, J., & Berardi, A. (2016). Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science, 352(6291), 12741275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J. W. (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland: PM Press.Google Scholar
Moore, J. W. (2017). The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3), 594630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 94899494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panduro, R. M. (2014). Regeneración de los paisajes bioculturales en la amazonía alta del Perú. LEISA. Revista de Agroecología, 30(3). Retrieved from www.leisa-al.org/web/index.php/volumen-30-numero-3/1058-regeneracion-de-los-paisajes-bioculturales-en-la-amazonia-alta-del-peruGoogle Scholar
Pimbert, M. (2017). Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity: Constructing and Contesting Knowledge. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, D. A. (1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. In Posey, D. A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity (pp. 119). London, UK: UNEP and Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, D. A. (2004). Indigenous Knowledge and Ethics: A Darrell Posey Reader. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pröpper, M., & Haupts, F. (2014). The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecological Economics, 108, 2835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapport, D., & Maffi, L. (2010). The dual erosion of biological and cultural diversity: Implications for the health of ecocultural systems. In Pilgrim, S. & Pretty, J. (eds), Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections (pp. 103119). London: Routledge and Earthscan.Google Scholar
Redford, K. H., & Painter, M. (2006). Natural Alliances Between Conservationists and Indigenous Peoples, Wildlife Conservation Society New York Paper No. 25. New York, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Rozzi, R. (2013). Biocultural ethics: from biocultural homogenization toward biocultural conservation. In Rozzi, R., Pickett, S., Palmer, C., Armesto, J., & Callicott, J. (eds), Linking Ecology and Ethics for a Changing World (pp. 932). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Mallén, I., Corbera, E., Novkovic, A., Calvo-Boyero, D., & Reyes-García, V. (2013). Adapting to Environmental Change in Latin America: Planning the Future from the Bottom-Up. Policy implications of COMBIOSERVE, an EU-funded research project on community-based conservation in Latin America. European Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://estevecorbera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/policy_brief_adapting_to_environmental_change_sept_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Salomon, A. K., Lertzman, K., Brown, K., Wilson, K. B., Secord, D., & McKechnie, I. (2018). Democratizing conservation science and practice. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09980-230144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R. K., Pretty, J., & Pilgrim, S. (2010). Traditional knowledge and biocultural diversity: Learning from tribal communities for sustainable development in northeast India. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(4), 511533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003722343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 8198. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO 36(8), 614621. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., … Bergamini, N. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 17981806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 255278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., … Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 1725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaman, R., Lyver, P., Mpande, R., Perez, E., Cariño, J., & Takeuchi, K. (2013). The Contribution of Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems to IPBES: Building Synergies with Science (IPBES Expert Meeting Report) (p. 49). Paris: UNESCO/UNU.Google Scholar
Toledo, V. M. (2013). El paradigma biocultural: crisis ecológica, modernidad y culturas tradicionales. Sociedad y Ambiente, 1, 5060.Google Scholar
Toledo, V. M., & Barrera-Bassols, N. (2008). La memoria biocultural: la importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial.Google Scholar
United Nations (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. New York, NY: Environmental Law and Institutions Programme Activity Centre, United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
United Nations (2010). A Proposed Joint Programme of Work on Biological and Cultural Diversity Lead by the Secretariat of the CBD and UNESCO. Retrieved from www.cbd.int/meetings/ICBCDGoogle Scholar
Vogt, N., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Brondízio, E. S., Rabelo, F. G., Fernandes, K., Almeida, O., … Dou, Y. (2016). Local ecological knowledge and incremental adaptation to changing flood patterns in the Amazon delta. Sustainability Science, 11(4), 611623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0352-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, T. (2011). The right to free, prior, and informed consent: Indigenous peoples’ participation rights within international law. Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, 10, 54.Google Scholar
West, S., Haider, L. J., Masterson, V., Enqvist, J. P., Svedin, U., & Tengö, M. (2018). Stewardship, care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 3038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., & Kanemoto, K. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 62716276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, K. B., Lincoln, N. K., & Berkes, F. (2018). The social-ecological keystone concept: A quantifiable metaphor for understanding the structure, function, and resilience of a biocultural system. Sustainability, 10(9), 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerer, K. S., & Bassett, T. J. (2003). Political ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of biocultural discourses in academia, practice and policy.

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Connections between biocultural discourses. Arrows indicate the degree of mutual influence between discourses. Some discourses influence each other more strongly (solid black arrows), whereas some have weaker connections (solid grey arrows). Some other connections reflect an unbalanced influence between discourses (arrows with color gradients; black arrowheads point to the discourse that is influenced to a larger degree, and grey arrowheads point to the discourse that is influenced to a lesser degree). A more detailed characterization of these connections is provided in the text.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Ontological, epistemological and ethico-political dimensions of the biocultural paradigm are interconnected and manifested through cultural practices and power relations embedded in specific biocultural landscapes (Photo: Tony Dold).

You have Access Open access
41
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *