# The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Chelsey Geralda Armstrong, Julián Caviedes, José Tomás Ibarra, Dana Lepofsky, Alex Mcalvay, Zsolt Molnár, R. Mónica Moraes, Guillaume Odonne, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Chelsey Geralda Armstrong, Julián Caviedes, José Tomás Ibarra, et al.. The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology. Journal of Ethno-biology and Ethnomedicine, 2024, 20 (1), pp.53. 10.1186/s13002-024-00693-w. hal-04689509

HAL Id: hal-04689509

https://amu.hal.science/hal-04689509v1

Submitted on 18 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
ANALYSIS

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares¹,²*, Irene Teixidor-Toneu³, Chelsey Geralda Armstrong⁴, Julián Caviedes²,⁵,
José Tomás Ibarra⁵,⁶,⁷, Dana Lepofsky⁸, Alex C. McAlvay⁹, Zsolt Molnár¹⁰, R. Mónica Moraes¹¹,¹²,
Guillaume Odonne¹³, Melissa R. Poe¹⁴, Abolfazl Sharifian Bahraman¹⁵ and Nancy J. Turner¹⁶

**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.

**Keywords** Global environmental change, Glocalization, Indigenous and local knowledge, Scalability, Sustainability

**Introduction**

Ethnobiology is a rapidly growing field gaining prominence in global discussions about the future of our planet [1–3] because it demonstrates the interconnectedness of our biosphere and offers solutions to global problems of social and environmental injustices [5–8]. However, one of ethnobiology’s core strengths is that it is a locally grounded discipline—both in terms of data gathering and interpretation [9–11]. 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

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares
alvaro.fernandezllamazares@uab.cat
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
aimed at demonstrating patterns at larger scales and, in
consequence, eschews the discipline's potentially global
contribution (in contrast with, for example, macroecol-
ogy and macroevolution research; [16]). Not surprisingly,
the landmark global assessment report of the Intergov-
ernmental 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]. Upscal-
ing observations made through ethnobiological practice
and understanding interactions across spatial and tempo-
ral 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 ecol-
ogy where scholars have developed rigorous compara-
tive, geospatial, and statistical approaches to reveal global
trends and patterns in systematic ways (e.g. [21–23]).
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 discus-
sion 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 distri-
bution 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 ethno-
biologies” by presenting conceptual and methodologi-
cal approaches to continue building relevance “from the
ground up” in ways that explicitly embrace and honour
contextual complexities, and at the same time incorpo-
rate a deliberate global outlook. We highlight four path-
ways 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 inter-
penetration 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 connec-
tions, as well as a thorough description of some of the
key epistemic, ethical, and methodological challenges
involved in such upscaling. While our research is explic-
itly grounded in the discipline of ethnobiology [35], our
analysis is also relevant to other disciplines conducted
within explicit place-based foci, such as human ecol-
ogy, historical ecology, or environmental anthropology,
among others (e.g. [2, 36, 37]).

Opportunities for developing global
ethnobiologies

Here, we present four complementary pathways to ena-
ble scalability of place-based ethnobiological data and
research. Each pathway is relevant to different sets of
ethnobiological inquiries, but all are based on the aggre-
gation 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 world-
wide are incredibly diverse, representing unique his-
torical, 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, documen-
taries, artistic interventions, global dialogues, and sci-
ence-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 ethno-biologists 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. [68–70]). 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. [73–75]). 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 [94–96]. 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).

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 territorial 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
<table><caption>**Table 1** Three examples of ethnobiological projects that illustrate best practices and potential challenges of scaling up from local to global</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Project</td><td>Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems for Health—a global approach</td><td>Building up grassroots collaborative networks across the Pacific</td></tr><tr><td>Aspirations</td><td>To improve the nutritional status, health, and well-being of Indigenous Peoples worldwide<br>To document the close relationship between food and ecosystem sustainability for maintaining Indigenous Peoples' food systems worldwide</td><td>To give global attention to sustainability, effectiveness, and revitalization of biocultural mariculture traditions, and to understand how these traditions are situated within current local, regional, and global social-ecological contexts</td></tr><tr><td>Best practices for upscaling</td><td>Connection with FAO<br>Local-to-global dialogues across knowledge systems<br>Close collaboration with Indigenous communities, and active participation by local knowledge keepers and food specialists<br>Training and knowledge exchange across academic and local communities relating to food, nutrition, culture, and environment<br>Support communities in advocating for spaces/ places where local foods can be safely, affordably, and sustainably obtained</td><td>In-person and virtual knowledge exchanges featuring place-based contexts within a global network<br>Creation of compelling, accessible website that highlights both local diversity and regional connectivity among traditional marine management systems<br>Systematic analyses of diverse aquaculture systems<br>Honouring local knowledge as part of regional network of knowledge<br>Ensuring opportunities for cross-generational learning (e.g. elders-to-youth)<br>Operating from foundational values and protocols shared more globally among Indigenous knowledge holders (such as reciprocity and relationality with land and ancestors; as opposed to extractive interactions)</td></tr><tr><td>Challenges of upscaling</td><td>Indigenous knowledge emerges from very different epistemological contexts than Western science, which poses challenges for global aggregation<br>Regional unevenness in existing documentation of Indigenous food systems<br>Sufficient and sustained funding support is a critical limiting factor on ensuring the participation of Indigenous knowledge holders</td><td>Logistical and environmental costs of bringing people together from a vast region<br>Capacity within groups to maintain linkages among groups<br>Access to and appropriateness of using new communication technologies (e.g. videoconferencing, digital storymaps) may be misaligned with cultural or sacred forms of expression<br>Institutional and individual barriers to operating with cultural values and protocols common to Indigenous knowledge holders (such as short funding terms, transactional university spending policies, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>Scaling up pathways employed *</td><td>1, 2, 3<br>[97–99]</td><td>1, 2, 4<br>[100, 101]</td></tr><tr><td>Sources</td><td></td><td>2, 1, 3<br>[102]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Note that conversations that crosscut communities are foundational to scaling up in all cases (see Fig. 1 and Additional file 1 for further details on each of these projects)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>* See text for a discussion of the four pathways for scaling up from local to global</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 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, Hawaii 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</figcaption></figure>

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 [105–108]. 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 [107–109]. 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 ethno-biological 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. [124–127]). 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].

**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

**Supplementary Information**

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00693-w.

**Additional file 1.** Full description of three examples of global ethnobiological research.

**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.

**Author contributions**

AFLL 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.

**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).

**Availability of data and materials**

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

**Declarations**

**Ethics approval and consent to participate**

Not applicable.

**Consent for publication**

Not applicable.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**Author details**

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

²Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. ³IMBE, Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Univ, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France. ⁴Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. ⁵ECOS (Ecosystem - Complexity - Society) Co-Laboratory, Center for Local Development (CEDEL) & Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research (CIIR), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Villarrica, Chile. ⁶Cape Horn International Center for Global Change Studies and Biocultural Conservation (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile. ⁷Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Systems & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC), Santiago, Chile. ⁸Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. ⁹Institute of Economic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, USA. ¹⁰HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary. ¹¹Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz, Bolivia.

¹²Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, La Paz, Bolivia. ¹³UAR 3456 LEEISA (Laboratoire Ecologie, Evolution, Interactions Des Systèmes Amazoniens), CNRS, Université de Guyane, IFREMER, Cayenne, France. ¹⁴University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. ¹⁵Range and Watershed Management Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran. ¹⁶School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Received: 4 April 2024 Accepted: 14 May 2024

Published online: 18 May 2024

**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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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/ec.2017-07-6.7-1-8.

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.

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

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.

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. Curr Op Env Sust. 2019;39:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

22. Owen JR, Kemp D, Lechner AM, Harris J, Zhang R, Lébre 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.

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.adve9557.

24. Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridge-water 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.

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-envir-on-012220-012127.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 ethnomodelling: emic (local), etc (global), and dialogical (glocal). Rev Latinoamer Etnomat. 2015;8(2):364-80.

35. Hunn E. Ethnobiology in four phases. J Ethnobiol. 2007;27(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771_2007_27_1_elfp_2.0_co_2.

36. Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijen-dorffer 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

55. Bird RB, Codding BF. Promise and peril of ecological and evolutionary modelling using cross-cultural datasets. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;6:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01579-w.

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

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.

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.

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.

60. Narchi NE, Cornier S, Melaku Canu D, Aguilar-Rosas LE, Bender MG, Jacqueline 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):e9070. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax9070.

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.

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.

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.

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.

71. Sóukand 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.

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.

75. Tareau M-A, Currier 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.

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.

78. Reyes-García V, Guêze 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.

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.

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.

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, Carpadine 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.

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.

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

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

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.

87. Pratzler 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.envman.2022.116966.

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.

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.

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. Animikii. 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.

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.

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 review. Ecol Soc. 2020;25(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11305-250103.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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 KH, 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

## Publisher's Note

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