# Human-nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and local knowledge systems

Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Ricardo Alvarez Abel, Gantuya Batdelger, Elicia Bell, Sophie Caillon, Mauricio Cantor, Joel Correia, Sandra Díaz, Jonathan Fisk, et al.

► To cite this version:

Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Ricardo Alvarez Abel, Gantuya Batdelger, Elicia Bell, et al.. Human-nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and local knowledge systems. People and Nature, 2025, 7 (5), pp.922-933. 10.1002/pan3.70036. hal-05123443

HAL Id: hal-05123443

https://amu.hal.science/hal-05123443v1

Submitted on 16 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished 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_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

GUEST EDITORIAL

Examining Human-Nature Relationships Through the Lens of Reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and Local Knowledge

# Human-nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and local knowledge systems

Irene Teixidor-Toneu¹ ID

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares²,³ ID

Ricardo Alvarez Abel⁴ ID

Gantuya Batdelger⁵,⁶,⁷ ID

Elicia Bell⁸ ID

Sophie Caillon⁹ ID

Mauricio Cantor¹⁰,¹¹,¹² ID

Joel E. Correia¹³ ID

Sandra Díaz¹⁴,¹⁵ ID

Jonathan Fisk¹⁶ ID

Alexander Greene¹⁷ ID

Spencer Greening¹⁸,¹⁹ ID

Simon Hoyte²⁰ ID

Raivo Kalle²¹ ID

Gabriela Loayza²² ID

Giulia Mattalia³,²³ ID

Rommel Montúfar²² ID

Jaime Ojeda²⁴,²⁵ ID

Suwichan Phatthanaphraiwan²⁶ ID

Ismael Vaccaro²⁷ ID

Natalie C. Ban²⁴ ID

Correspondence

Irene Teixidor-Toneu

Email: irene.teixidortoneu@ird.fr

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares

Email: alvaro.fernandezllamazares@uab.cat

Natalie C. Ban

Email: nban@uvic.ca

Funding information

Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Grant/
Award Number: 402299/00; Social
Science and Humanities Research Council
of Canada; HORIZON EUROPE European
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
101117423; Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada;
ANID/BASAL, Grant/Award Number:
FB210018; University of Victoria;
Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Grant/
Award Number: RYC2021-034198-I;
Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e
Desenvolvimento Tecnológico, Grant/
Award Number: CNPq 445301/2020-
1; Fondation Aix-Marseille Universite,
Grant/Award Number: AMX-22-CPJ-05;
National Geographic Society Education
Foundation, Grant/Award Number: NGS-
101549R-23

Handling Editor: Caroline Howe

Abstract

1. In the context of climate change, biodiversity decline and social injustice, reciprocity emerges as a way of living and being in this world that holds transformative potential. Concepts of reciprocity vary and are enacted in specific cultural practices grounded in Indigenous and local knowledge systems.

2. This editorial synthesises first-hand evidence of how practising reciprocity can result in positive reciprocal contributions between people and nature. It also offers a theoretical justification of why considering reciprocity can lead to more equitable, inclusive and effective conservation and sustainability policy and practices, contributing to curving the colonial baggage of academic inquiry and development action.

3. Nurturing reciprocal relations between people, especially between academics and Indigenous Peoples and local communities, is a necessary first step to identifying pathways whereby living in harmony with nature can be achieved.

KEYWORDS

Indigenous and local knowledge, reciprocal relations, reciprocity, social-ecological systems
## 1 | CONTEXT

Climate change, biodiversity decline and social injustice threaten planetary well-being (IPBES, 2019a; IPCC, 2022). The window of opportunity to take action to address these interwoven crises is narrowing (Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019b). Well-established evidence shows that slowing biodiversity loss and climate change urgently requires transformative change—meaning a fundamental system-wide reorganisation across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values (Díaz et al., 2020; Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2021). The importance of putting in place the seeds for this foundational, system-wide move away from ‘business as usual’ models towards transformative action has been firmly emphasised in global policy discussions. For example, the landmark Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment concluded that the current social-ecological crisis can only be addressed through deep structural interventions targeting key leverage points in the current decision-making systems (Chan et al., 2020; IPBES, 2019a). Similarly, the Convention on Biological Diversity has implemented a new work programme towards fulfilling its 2050 Vision of ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’ (Reyes-Garcia et al., 2021). This entails a pervasive shift across sectors in how human-nature relations and their multiple expressions in lands and seas are recognised and sustained in environmental science, policy, education and practice (Cariño & Farhan Ferrari, 2021; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2021). This Special Feature, entitled ‘Examining human-nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: insights from Indigenous and Local Knowledge’, explores the concept of reciprocity as a way of living and being in this world that holds transformative potential.

Even amid ongoing crises and challenges in our interactions with other living beings, reciprocity—and in particular positive reciprocal contributions between people and nature (Ojeda et al., 2022)—emerges as a property of social-ecological systems. The seminal work ‘Braiding Sweetgrass’ by Potawatomi scholar Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013) laid the foundation for the scholarly study of reciprocity with the natural world. Reciprocity arises from the complex experiences, interactions and actions resulting in relations of mutual caretaking between nature and society (Diver et al., 2019). Most of them provide first-hand evidence of how enacting reciprocity can result in positive social and ecological outcomes, and in many cases, these relationships have been ongoing for millennia. They showcase concepts of reciprocity as reflected in specific cultural practices grounded in Indigenous and local knowledge systems, provide evidence of how reciprocity works and offer a theoretical justification of why considering reciprocity is important for more equitable, inclusive and effective conservation and sustainability policy and practices. In this editorial, we summarise the key themes emerging from these articles, linking them to other bodies of literature and highlight their relevance for policy development.

## 2 | RECIPROCITY: CONCEPTS AND CULTURAL NORMS

Reciprocity can take many different shapes and forms (Vaccaro, 2024), and Table 1 illustrates the numerous definitions provided in the papers in this Special Feature. For many Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP and LC), reciprocity often entails asking for permission, taking only what is needed, sharing what is taken and giving thanks or giving back, be it through ritual or material practices (Seaton, 2013; Varanasi, 2020). In many Indigenous worldviews, reciprocity helps ensure health and security through human efforts in alignment with spiritual forces, landscapes and the species therein. For example, reciprocity can be a legal responsibility, tenet or norm, and moral ethics. Identity, morals, values, spirituality, sense of fairness and legal responsibilities can all be interwoven into ecological relationality and reciprocity with the landscape, as is the case for Ts'msyen (Tsimshian) people of the northwest coast of North America (Greening, 2024). In Baka culture (Cameroon; Figure 1a), a sense of indebtedness is unnecessary because it is everyone's duty to share, and sharing is often perceived as an opportunity to demonstrate one's moral ethics, care and affection (Hoyte & Mangombe, 2024). Relationality, relational values and strong attachment underpin both Baka relations with nature and with each other. Reciprocity with the natural world is thus embedded in ideology and practice, as well as emotion (Zent & Zent, 2022). Despite the wide diversity of IP and LC around the world, reciprocity is central to many of their worldviews. It often emerges as a hallmark of many cultures (e.g. Kimmerer, 2013; Turner, 2005) where humans are usually perceived as inseparable from other beings and part of nature in a continuity that spans the past, present and future (Descola, 2005; Greening, 2024; Viveiros de Castro, 1992). In many cultures, reciprocity is understood as an interpersonal and communal responsibility to ensure the welfare of the community and the social-ecological system as a whole, where ancestors and those yet to be born are equally considered (Fernández-Llamazares & Virtanen, 2020). Because human and non-human relationships are respected and refined over deep time, societies create social, spiritual and political structures that reflect these relations (Fowler & Lepofsky, 2011; Nadasdy, 2007).

Reciprocity is opposite to perspectives emphasising unidirectional flows of contributions, services or benefits from nature to people. It thereby stands in stark contrast to the unilateral, exploitative and growth-oriented globalised capitalist societies (Armstrong & Brown, 2019). IP and LC often have practices ensuring fair resource distribution. In Baka and other hunter-gatherer cultures, sharing on demand—where people can request and receive both consumable and non-consumable items—prevents unfair resource accumulation (Hoyte & Mangombe, 2024). The narratives of IP and LC are also rich with stories about how excesses are punished with disasters affecting the community and the world beyond the individual. In Mongolia (Figure 1b), local people believe that when communities stray from reciprocal practices—like maintaining sustainable herd sizes—the natural
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Citations from articles in this Special Feature that provide explicit definitions of reciprocity.</caption><thead><tr><td>Citation</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alvarez et al. (2025)</td><td>'Reciprocal contributions encompass actions, interactions, and experiences between people and other elements of nature (recognising that people are an integral part of nature). These interactions result in positive feedback loops that benefit both people and nature, directly or indirectly, at different dimensions and levels (Ojeda et al., 2022). Although reciprocity could have a functional purpose (Mattalia et al., 2024), it holds biocultural, ontological, and cosmogonic significance'</td></tr><tr><td>Armstrong et al. (2024)</td><td>'Reciprocity is variously defined as a social, psychological, or cultural norm that involves a mutual exchange of benefits and favours. It can also be more broadly regarded as responsibility to living beings, according to the customs, expectations, and ideologies of a social group'. 'Reciprocity is NOT to be understood as something functional, transactional, or even consequentialist, rather as a moral duty of reciprocity guided by relational and spiritual views of the land'</td></tr><tr><td>Correia et al. (2025)</td><td>'Reciprocity is a form of praxis—theory informed action—based on intergenerational knowledge transmission and adaptive management of vital resources in the face of radical territorial change...reciprocity cannot be understood only as a concept but that it is intimately tied to material practice and dynamic relations that bring the human and non-human worlds together'</td></tr><tr><td>Díaz and Pascual (2025)</td><td>'Reciprocity is used in the broadest sense, to refer to the mutual interactions, positive and/or negative, between living entities with the capacity to act autonomously on each other, of which conscious agency at both ends is but a special case'</td></tr><tr><td>Fisk et al. (2025)</td><td>'Reciprocity is a norm that is essential for collective action between actors. When reciprocating actors establish a positive and mutually benefiting relationship, this creates trust among actors and eventually high levels of cooperation'</td></tr><tr><td>Hoyte and Mangombe (2024)</td><td>'Reciprocity as a circular system made up of direct or indirect human-human and/or human- non-human interactions, interactions, and experiences (Kimmerer, 2020; Ojeda et al., 2022)'</td></tr><tr><td>Kalle et al. (2024)</td><td>'Reciprocity is an 'obligate symbiosis', the relationship established by the continuous exchange, give and take, between society and the environment (Kimmerer, 2013; Miltenburg et al., 2022)'</td></tr><tr><td>Ojeda et al. (2024, 2025)</td><td>'Kimmerer (2013) characterises reciprocity as "a culture of gratitude, in where everyone knows that gifts will follow the circle of reciprocity and flow back to you again"'</td></tr><tr><td>Phatthanaphraiwan and Greene (2025)</td><td>'Reciprocity has different meanings in different disciplines, but we use it here in a relational sense to describe a two-directional exchange of giving and taking, an exchange characterized by mutual care'. 'Reciprocity [...] serves as a connective fibre that flows between all beings, thus tying together the various actors, actions and states of being in the relational network'</td></tr></tbody></table>

environment suffers, leading to intensified *dzud*, severe winter events that often result in widespread livestock loss and harm to humans (Batdelger et al., 2025). In the Chiloé Archipelago, conflicts over algae or seafood are believed to provoke negative responses from supernatural entities leading to poverty across species, including humans (Alvarez et al., 2025). The cultivation and care for medicinal plants in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon not only foster social-ecological well-being (Figure 1c; Correia et al., 2025) but also can result in punishment if someone consumes certain plants without respecting necessary protocols. Because of their direct observations of the impacts of human activity in nature, IP and LC can also adapt their practices to ensure sustainable use of resources. In Salanguillo, western Ecuador, deforestation and forest degradation fuelled by international market pressure on forest resources had negative consequences on the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. The physiognomic change of the forests caused water shortages in the lower parts of the commune, affecting crop irrigation and productivity, leading to the community's establishment of conservation agreements (Loayza et al., 2024). All these examples show how communities actively avoid greed and misuse of natural resources. Yet, reciprocity is not only a human

value: It arises organically within the tapestry of people's direct relationships with nature.

### 3 | RECIPROCITY RESULTS IN CO-PRODUCTION OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

The maintenance of reciprocal relations underpins the sustainable use of plants, fungi, animals, and other elements of nature, either consciously or unconsciously. Humans can play (and according to the worldviews of many IP and LC, *should* play) an active role in protecting or supporting other components of nature, for example, through practices to maintain and enhance certain species or through ensuring the health of territories. Reciprocity is often the backbone of contributions that many communities make to their environment, and through this they become active participants in co-producing landscapes and seascapes alongside a multitude of other beings (Comberti et al., 2015). A corollary to this is that the mutual well-being of the land and people is dependent on the ongoing expression of reciprocity between them (Kimmerer, 2017). The very
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 1 (a) Ferdinand, a young Baka man, collects forest mushrooms to share (South region, Cameroon) © Simon Hoyte; (b) Women herders are milking yaks (Khangai soum, Arkhangai Province, Mongolia) © Zsolt Molnár; (c) A tree reflects on yoco in a serving bowl (Siekopai Remolino community, Rio Aguarico, Ecuador) © Joel E. Correia; (d) Paula Barros in a *corralito de pirén* (Apiao Island, Chile). *Corralitos de pirenes* involve modifying the intertidal area of smaller islands, adding small boulder mounds that harbour biodiversity and allow the reproduction of a small fish called *pille* (*Patagonotothen* spp.) by serving as a protected habitat for its eggs (*pirenes*) © Ricardo Alvarez Abel; (e) A *loko i'a* (fishpond) in Waimânalo, O'ahu © Jonathan Fisk; (f) Jhony Constante, a community ranger selectively harvesting *tagua* seeds (Salanguillo, Ecuador) © Gabriela Loayza; (g) A Maasai man collects elephant (*Loxodonta africana*) dung for medicinal use, illustrating the ethnobiological mutualism inherent in human-wildlife coexistence, even amid conflicts (Monduli District, Tanzania) © Elicia Bell; (h) Artisanal fisherman Luis Levil cleaning a southern hake (Strait of Magellan, Patagonia, Chile). After completing the fishing operations, fish offal is discarded and consumed by various seabird species © Katrina Pyne; (i) Cooperative fishing between artisanal fishers and wild Lahile's bottlenose dolphins is founded on the mutual understanding of behavioural cues and foraging synchrony that ensures fishing success for both parties (Laguna, southern Brazil; Cantor et al., 2023) © Fabio G. Daura-Jorge; (j) Spencer Greening on a successful mountain goat hunt in Gitga'at Territory © Adam Foss.
notion of reciprocity as we discuss it here is one in which biophysical
processes and characteristics cannot be disassociated from human
influence and vice versa (Rozzi, 2015). In other words, as people
interact with their biophysical environments, those environments
provide positive or negative feedbacks based upon the nature of
the interactions. These relationships can serve as catalysts for care
ethics, attachment emotions, spirituality and biocultural memory
(Anderson, 2014). Reciprocal contributions can take various forms,
such as increasing the numbers of certain species in specific places
(e.g. abalone transplants in Haida Gwaii, Canada; Ojeda et al., 2025)
and limiting the numbers of others (e.g. seagulls and cormorants in
Kihnu Island, Estonia, Kalle et al., 2024), making physical changes
to habitats (e.g. benthic arrangements and *corralitos deirenes* in
the Chiloé Archipelago, Chile; Alvarez et al., 2025; Figure 1d; low-
intensity cultural burns by Tribes in California and Oregon; Fisk
et al., 2025; preventing woodland encroachment and enhancing
rangeland biodiversity through Maasai livestock grazing practices in
Northern Tanzania; Mapinduzi et al., 2003), creating new habitats
(e.g. abalone *condos* in Haida Gwaii, Ojeda et al., 2025; nesting
boxes in Kihnu Island, Estonia, Kalle et al., 2024; loko i'a, fishponds,
in Hawai'i; Fisk et al., 2025; Figure 1e) or maintaining ecological
processes (e.g. leaving *tagua* palm seeds on the forest soil to allow
regeneration of populations and provide food to dispersers; Loayza
et al., 2024; Figure 1f). Moreover, protecting species in certain
areas (e.g. sacred natural sites) allows protected and other species
to disperse outward to areas where hunting or resource gathering
is allowed (Phatthanaphraiwai & Greene, 2025). Expanding this
further, human-wildlife coexistence (sustainable resource sharing
through mutual risk adaptation; Carter & Linnell, 2016) is reinforced
by beliefs in respect, reciprocity and kinship that foster tolerance,
including towards species essential to ecosystem structure
and function, even when they may pose serious risks to human
livelihoods or safety (Figure 1g). Through reciprocal contributions,
aspects of ecosystem structure and function are co-produced with
humans. Tending the land and sea and fulfilling reciprocity duties is
perceived as a necessity by many IP and LC, as a land uncared for,
unused and unacknowledged will impoverish (Fache & Moizo, 2015;
Zent et al., 2022).

While many of the articles in this Special Feature highlight
Indigenous Peoples and their practices (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2025;
Correia et al., 2025; Fisk et al., 2025), others show that non-
Indigenous, local communities and other place-based knowledge
holders also establish reciprocal relations with elements of nature.
For example, in Chile's marine Patagonia, artisanal fishermen, both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous, implement 'underwater arrange-
ments' that allow the restoration of overexploited ecosystems
(Alvarez et al., 2025). In France, commercial arnica harvesters, an ar-
omatic plant used in various pharmaceutical and cosmetic products,
implement several practices of care (Locqueville et al., 2025). French
arnica harvesters trade off economic value (harvested volume) for
social and cultural values such as having positive relationships with
the environment (avoiding degradation and maintaining the land-
scape to preserve the harvested resource) and with other actors

(assuring land access and co-creating the landscape; Locqueville
et al., 2025). Similarly, artisanal hake fishers in Patagonia express
that their work can generate reciprocal contributions with seabirds
(Ojeda et al., 2024). Albatrosses and petrels offer companionship
during long days at sea, and fishers, in turn, feed them hake offal, cre-
ating psychological as well as ecological benefits (Ojeda et al., 2024;
Figure 1h). In southern Brazil, both long-term and more recent arti-
sanal net-casting fishers have maintained a traditional cooperative
fishing tactic with wild dolphins in which both species mutually ben-
efit (Cantor et al., 2024; Figure 1i). Fishers and dolphins have greater
access to material (fish) and non-material gains (social connections)
when fishing together than when fishing independently (Cantor
et al., 2023). This type of reciprocity goes beyond profit-driven inter-
actions to embrace a holistic view of sustainability that strengthens
bonds between people and the places they depend on.

4 | EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES UNDERPINNING RECIPROCITY

Harnessing the transformative potential of reciprocity in sustainabil-
ity policies (including climate adaptation and mitigation as well as
biodiversity conservation) is contingent to acknowledging the cen-
tral role of culture in human-nature relations. Nature is a socially and
culturally constructed idea, and every conception of nature means
different things to different groups of people at different historical
moments (Arnold, 1996). Human groups, each with their own cul-
tural background, have different approaches to the conceptualisa-
tion of nature, which in turn influences the way they deploy their
agency in it (Vaccaro, 2024). Many IP and LC cosmologies and foun-
dational ontologies across the world do not discriminate between
humans and nature (Descola, 1986, 2005; Viveiros de Castro, 1992),
in sharp contrast with the Western nature-culture dualism. This is
the case for many of the study cases in the Special Feature (e.g.
Armstrong et al., 2024; Greening, 2024; Hoyte & Mangombe, 2024;
Phatthanaphraiwai & Greene, 2025). In these cosmologies, humans
are conceived as a group of beings among many, inseparable from
other groups of beings: 'humans do not occupy a privileged posi-
tion in the universe as they do in Buddhist cosmology, nor do they
hold dominion over other beings and natural resources as they are
often considered to in Christian cosmology' (Phatthanaphraiwai &
Greene, 2025).

More-than-human agency, personhood and sociality (for example, plants and animals giving themselves to be used by humans) are at the forefront of many IP and LC worldviews (Baker, 2020; Turner et al., 2022). The environment is often perceived as unconditionally giving, with natural resources being gifts offered to humans (e.g. Greening, 2024; Figure 1j). Further, the environment or its constituting elements can be perceived as relatives. This relationship between the human and the non-human has been conceptualised as 'kincentric ecology' (Bird-David, 1999; Salmón, 2000). From this perspective, plants, animals and fungi are not seen as food or material
sources, but rather as vital participants in a relational web that con-
nects humans and animals to spirits, ancestors and other beings.
For example, in Baka knowledge systems, individuals of each type
of being ('species') only exist through their interactions with many
other beings and their shared environment, which they all constantly
change (Hoyte & Mangombe, 2024). This contrasts with positions
dominant in Western science, in which human agency is an external
'driver or factor' of non-human ecology and evolution (e.g. Bliege
Bird & Nimmo, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2017).

Knowledge and its production are inseparable from paradigms
and moral codes (Greening, 2024). The ontological and epistemolog-
ical foundations of many IP and LC worldviews, rich with reciprocity
values, question the feasibility of reconciling them with Western
environmental management practices and regulations, which are
based on a Cartesian understanding of the world. For example, Kalle
et al. (2024) show that pan-European nature regulations (including
banning bird egg collection, visiting islets, etc.) had a drastic negative
effect on the preservation of Kihnu culture, which is a UNESCO-
listed Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, as well as on seabird
populations, with seagulls and cormorants becoming pests. Western
environmental management leans heavily on materialistic principles,
giving primacy to physical substances to the exclusion of emotional,
spiritual and other immaterial realities (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2024).
By contrast, 'Two-Eyed Seeing' (Etuaptmumk), conceived by Mi'kmaw
Elder Albert Marshall, provides a pathway to plurality between
Indigenous (or other place-based) knowledge and Western science.
This approach differs from knowledge assimilation and enables co-
production of knowledge and effective governance decisions (Reid
et al., 2021). Reconciliation can be attempted by deploying transdis-
ciplinary approaches and welcoming a diversity of voices within ac-
ademia and natural resource management, building bridges between
knowledge holders and systems to study and support reciprocity.

5 | METHODOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND INNOVATION IN ADDRESSING RECIPROCITY

Embracing and studying reciprocity can be done through research
processes that establish reciprocal collaborations with diverse
partners and actors (Reo, 2019; Turner et al., 2022). Most of the
articles in this Special Feature are either led by or co-authored by
Indigenous or Local scholars or non-academic collaborators. For ex-
ample, Kalle et al. (2024) is co-authored by a community member
without prior academic background who participated in data col-
lection and interpretation to fully integrate their emic perspective.
Loayza et al. (2024) employed a transdisciplinary approach that in-
volved academics, NGOs, the private sector, and Indigenous leaders,
alongside a multidisciplinary and mixed-method strategy, to identify
reciprocity across symbolic, biophysical and political dimensions.
Additionally, Alvarez et al. (2025) apply relational ethnography,
aligning with the concept of *diálogo de saberes* (lit. knowledge dia-
logues; Leff, 2004), which emphasises collaborative exchange and

the co-production of knowledge across diverse systems. By creat-
ing spaces where knowledge holders contribute as both participants
and co-authors, this research approach transcends traditional roles,
fostering a more integrative and collaborative process.

Several of the articles also employ innovative methodological ap-
proaches in ways that could be interpreted as embodying the idea of
reciprocity. For example, Correia et al. (2025) developed a dynamic
knowledge co-creation process guided by Indigenous practitioners
to write with an 'ecology of knowledges' (de Sousa Santos, 2007)
that interweaves insights from practitioners and academic sources.
Bell et al. (2025) use cultural exchanges between Maasai commu-
nities in Tanzania and First Nations in British Colombia and the
Yukon, and participatory videography, to support co-learning. While
most of the articles investigate the perspectives of people, Ojeda
et al. (2024) apply two lenses to reflect the views of both hake fish-
ers, and uniquely, the perspective from the species that are part of
the hake-human interaction (in this case, seabirds, and especially al-
batrosses). This is approached by employing methods in behavioural
ecology. Greening (2024) uses autoethnographic narrative and sto-
rytelling, focusing on his 'own journey of being groomed into be-
coming a mountain goat hunter within the hereditary governance
system of his community, and how this process revealed a method-
ology to achieve relationality and reciprocity on the landscape while
harvesting'.

6 | RECIPROCITY FOR FAIRER AND MORE EFFECTIVE POLICY

While the role of IP and LC is increasingly recognised in academic
and international policy arenas, a lack of recognition by national gov-
ernments and some academic fora persists (McElwee et al., 2020;
Tormos-Aponte, 2021). Lack of awareness is fourfold: epistemologi-
cal (different knowledge production and validation methods), on-
tological (different assumptions of reality), ethical (different moral
responsibilities between human and non-human beings) and political
(different positions of power to enforce perspectives in collabora-
tive practices, Ludwig & El-Hani, 2020). IP and LC stewardship can
be at least equally effective than state-governed protected areas in
safeguarding biodiversity (Schuster et al., 2019; Simkins et al., 2024;
Sze et al., 2022). However, nature protection discourses and poli-
cies are often inadequate for IPs and LC because they ignore the
'relationships and responsibilities to the natural world critical for
well-being and collective continuance' (Dennis & Bell, 2020, p.
380). Co-creating knowledge across systems risks neglecting spir-
itual views of the land or the tenets of reciprocity, 'cherry-picking'
aspects of Indigenous and Local knowledge that fit Western sci-
ence paradigms (Armstrong et al., 2024; Tengö et al., 2017; Turner
& Spalding, 2013). Since many aspects of Western and IP and LC
knowledge systems are incommensurable, Western academy must
unlearn colonial tropes to avoid assimilation, commodification, mis-
translation and decontextualisation when learning from IP and LC
worldviews (McAlvay et al., 2021; Tilley, 2017). This is paramount
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

as IP and LC are too often dispossessed by supposedly 'sustainable' policy and conservation, which creates further conflicts.

IP and LC suffer discrimination, land dispossession and a lack of understanding of their cultures by government officials that impede reciprocity values from being appropriately enacted in environmental stewardship (Armstrong et al., 2024; Fisk et al., 2025; Phatthanaphraiwan & Greene, 2025). This case is best illustrated by the Karen Indigenous communities in Thailand. Karen communities have inhabited their territories for over 200 years, long before such regions were declared conservation areas by the state. The government's designation of these areas as protected territories, often overlapping with traditional residential and agricultural lands, has resulted in restricted access to opportunities and rights for utilising Indigenous knowledge and wisdom in natural resource management (Ratchai & Thipmanee, 2024; Supang, 2024; Suporn, 2009). This has significantly diminished the community's capacity to sustain their cultural practices and their long-standing, balanced stewardship of natural resources.

Several papers in this Special Feature argue that transformative action must begin immediately, and can be enabled, strengthened and accelerated with the collaborative application of conservation and management models that practise justice and fully embrace ideals of reciprocity. Biocultural approaches to conservation are often implemented to guide transformative action to reclaim, reinvent, restore, reconcile and regenerate reciprocal connections with nature (Mattalia et al., 2024). These approaches offer substantial potential in embedding the concept of reciprocity in decision-making (Kalle et al., 2024). Díaz and Pascual (2025) highlight how reciprocity is embedded in the IPBES conceptual framework, providing an invaluable tool to draw more attention to the human shaping of (and practices of care towards) the rest of the living world. The transformative nature of these approaches is evident in their systems-wide perspective, explicitly highlighting the interconnections between nature and culture and the interwoven feedback loops between ecological dynamics and human quality of life (Reo, 2019; Sterling et al., 2017). Many Indigenous communities around the world are also advancing and sharing different stewardship approaches for nurturing positive, reciprocal and responsible relationships between humans and their non-human kin (FPP et al., 2020; ICCA Consortium, 2021; Swiderska et al., 2020). In fact, protocols of responsibility, reciprocity and respect towards non-humans are often enshrined in Indigenous law (e.g. Artelle et al., 2018; Atleo, 2011). For example, in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Cofán, Siona and Siekopai communities are working to revitalise the cultural use of the vine yoco, which simultaneously strengthens inter-generational knowledge transmission and cultural heritage while playing an increasingly important role in contemporary territorial defence and community-led biocultural conservation (Correia et al., 2025). To accomplish the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2050 vision of 'Living in Harmony with Nature', global biodiversity institutions, supported by member states, should not only acknowledge the central role that reciprocity can play in supporting the transformative change so widely called upon, but also integrate it in their actions (Díaz & Pascual, 2025).

## 7 | WAYS FORWARD: NURTURING HEALTHY RELATIONS

Diverse groups of researchers have proposed that reciprocity should be instated as an ethos to domains such as science (Brewer & Johnson, 2023), education (Sabourin, 2013), food production (Miltenburg et al., 2022), land management (Dennis & Bell, 2020) and relations with Indigenous Peoples (Manosalvas et al., 2021). Reciprocity is a lens through which to evaluate and enact our relationships with other components of nature (Díaz & Pascual, 2025), our legal obligations to land and the rights of all living beings and relations (Armstrong et al., 2024; Fisk et al., 2025; Kanngieser & Todd, 2020). Reciprocity and relationality with nature are enabled by becoming educated in these relations, actively living and participating in these relationships in daily life and tending to spiritual and moral ethics (Greening, 2024). Reciprocity can fill academic knowledge gaps, curve epistemic injustice and contribute to transformative change for more harmonious human-nature relations. The question is how do we get there?

Reciprocity requires healthy relations between people and with nature. Given how histories of biological conservation and economic development have often adversely impacted IP and LC, building healthy relations with communities is a necessary first step to identifying pathways whereby living in harmony with nature can be achieved. While there are numerous efforts underway to strengthen relationships between non-Indigenous academics and Indigenous Peoples (e.g. Bannister, 2018; Reo, 2019; Wheeler et al., 2020), there is much room for improvement, learning and unlearning. As showcased here, increased collaboration between actors with different backgrounds and the implementation of reciprocal practices as management options can help improve current conventional approaches, normalising these practices and encouraging their proliferation (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2025). First, reciprocity between actors can be promoted as a core principle in science, education, land management, and relationships with IP and LC, NGOs, policymakers and practitioners. This requires recognising and recovering (or adopting) diverse ontological considerations about the world (and the languages in which they are expressed). Second, reciprocal contributions between people and nature can be valued and advocated, becoming part of governmental nature conservation commitments. Reciprocity is embedded in and manifested through stewardship practices. Giving more visibility to stewardship practices carried out by IP, LC and other knowledge holders such as small-scale farmers or foragers, in academia, the science-policy interface (Díaz & Pascual, 2025) and nature conservation policy could help support reciprocal relations, in addition to considerably enriching the evidence basis underpinning better relationships with nature. Academia and policy commonly focus on nature as resources but have often overlooked the relationships people establish and the practices they carry to maintain and enhance different aspects of nature. Future research should thus focus more on reciprocal contributions. Without falling into the exercise of validating other knowledge systems with scientific knowledge (Tengö et al., 2017), it is important to show that
they often, albeit not always, converge. Additionally, it is crucial to
acknowledge that some—not all—of these practices and values en-
coding reciprocity are under risk of attrition worldwide, concomitant
to broader patterns of knowledge erosion and cultural assimilation
(Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2021; Scheidel et al., 2023). Climate
and other global changes induce land changes that may reshape re-
ciprocal relations in the future. It is therefore crucial to support the
ongoing efforts of IP and LC around the world to maintain their cul-
tural values and reciprocal ways of knowing and being.

Beyond reciprocity, committing to sharing properly whatever is taken with the variety of non-humans with whom we co-inhabit the world is a powerful mechanism to achieve social and environmental justice. This implies the rejection of resource accumulation for some and nothing for others (Lewis, 2008). Karen peoples in Thailand put forward ideas for co-constructing futures: 'If we can only receive by giving, then we must begin to give' (Phatthanaphraiwai & Greene, 2025). The ecological and social challenges we collectively, albeit differentially, confront today in the form of climate change, biodiversity decline and social injustice were created over hundreds of years of appropriation, structural violence on Indigenous, Afro-descendant and other frontline communities globally (Correia, 2024). To guide sustainability management in more ethical and equitable ways, we need to address these relations by recognising the existent inherited prejudice, power asymmetry and hierarchical status. Hence, it is necessary to imagine that rebuilding healthy relations will also take time. Whyte's (2020) work on the paradox of climate justice exemplifies this, as he notes that climate action must happen quickly but that a just approach requires slowing down and building trust with Indigenous Peoples who have lost faith in such endeavours. Working with this challenge requires centring IP and LC leadership and real participation in decision-making processes (Esbach et al., 2025). It also requires compromise that often means de-centring academic knowledges so that local expertise based on generations of adaptive management and stewardship can equally inform conservation practice and resource governance strategies. The tools and pathways already exist. It is now paramount to leverage academic resources and funding along with local expertise, science and Indigenous knowledge to build these healthy relations so they can nurture new pathways for truly sustainable and justice-focused social-ecological reciprocity.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares and Natalie C. Ban conceived the idea and wrote a first draft of the manuscript. All co-authors contributed insights and text to the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version.

## AFFILIATIONS

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We dedicate this work to all the knowledge holders, thinkers, philosophers, scholars, friends and grandparents who have taught us about reciprocity. This work is for all of them. We thank each and every one of the reviewers who have generously revised the articles compiled in this Special Feature and the People and Nature editorial office team for their support. I.T.-T. has received financial support from the IRD ANR-CPJ contract number 402299/00 and from the French government under the France 2030 investment plan, as part of the Initiative d'Excellence d'Aix-Marseille Université—A*MIDEX (AMX-22-CPJ-05). Á.F.-L. was supported by a Ramón y Cajal grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC2021-034198-I) and the European Union (ERC, IEK-CHANGES, 101117423). R.K. was supported by the Estonian Research Council (grant agreement no. STP37). J.O. has received support from the ANID/BASAL FB210018 fund. N.C.B. was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the University of Victoria. M.C. received a National Geographic Society grant (NGS-101549R-23) and support from the Long-Term Ecological Research Program PELD-SELA funded by the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CNPq 445301/2020-1).

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. I.T.-T. and Á.F.-L. are Associate Editors for People and Nature, but were not involved in the peer review and decision-making process of this article.

<footnote n="1">¹IMBE, Aix Marseille University, Avignon University, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France; ²Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia (BABVE), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain; ³Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain; ⁴Programa Austral Patagonia, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia,</footnote>

<footnote>Chile; ⁵Institute of Botany and Ecology, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary; ⁶Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Doctoral School of Biology, Institute of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary; ⁷Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Mongolian Academy of Science, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; ⁸Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; ⁹UMR 5175 CEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France; ¹⁰Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, Marine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon, USA; ¹¹Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; ¹²Centro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, PR, Brazil; ¹³Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University Ringgold standard institution, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; ¹⁴Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), Córdoba, Argentina; ¹⁵Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina; ¹⁶University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA; ¹⁷Laboratory of Ecology, Evolution and Interactions of Amazonian Systems (LEEISA), French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), Cayenne, France; ¹⁸Gitga'at First Nation, Harley Bay, British Columbia, Canada; ¹⁹Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; ²⁰Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK; ²¹Estonian Literary Museum, Tartu, Estonia; ²²WasiLab, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador; ²³New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA; ²⁴School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; ²⁵Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile; ²⁶School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand and ²⁷Institució Milà i Fontanals de Investigacions en Humanitats-CSIC, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This article does not include any data.

ORCID

Irene Teixidor-Toneu ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7122-2044

Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7813-0222

Ricardo Alvarez Abel ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2089-2037

Gantuya Batdelger ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3382-2815

Elicia Bell ID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2586-9129

Sophie Caillon ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1804-2212

Mauricio Cantor ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0019-5106

Joel E. Correia ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-4381

Sandra Diaz ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0012-4612

Jonathan Fisk ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3563-7779

Alexander Greene ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4164-1579

Spencer Greening ID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9532-8592

Simon Hoyte ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-2232

Raivo Kalle ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2175-8617

Giulia Mattalia ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-7007

Rommel Montúfar ID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-4889

Ismael Vaccaro ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7551-4845

Natalie C. Ban ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4682-2144

REFERENCES

Alvarez, A. R., Caniullán, D., Catín, J., Cheuquenao, P., Coñuecar-Llancapani, Y., Diestre, F., Jara, P., Millatureo, N., Vargas, D., & Ojeda, J. (2025). Reciprocal contributions: Indigenous perspectives and voices on marine-coastal experiences in the channels of northern Patagonia, Chile. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70004

Anderson, E. N. (2014). *Caring for place: Ecology, ideology, and emotion*. Routledge, Left Coast Press.

Armstrong, C. G., & Brown, C. (2019). Frontiers are frontlines: Ethnobiological science against ongoing colonialism. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, 39, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.14

Armstrong, C. G., Grenz, J., Zyp-Loring, J., LaFontaine, J., Johnson, L. M., & Turner, N. J. (2024). Ethnoecological perspectives on environmental stewardship: Tenets and basis of reciprocity in Gitxan and nłeʔkepm (Nlaka’pamux) territories. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10641

Arnold, D. (1996). *The problem of nature: Environment and culture in historical perspective*. John Wiley & Sons.

Artelle, K. A., Stephenson, J., Bragg, C., Housty, J. A., Housty, W. G., Kawharu, M., & Turner, N. J. (2018). Values-led management: The guidance of place-based values in environmental relationships of the past, present, and future. *Ecology and Society*, 23(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10357-230335

Atleo, E. R. (2011). *Principles of Tsawalk: An indigenous approach to global crisis*. UBC Press.

Baker, J. M. (2020). Do berries listen? Berries as indicators, ancestors, and agents in Canada's oil sands region. *Ethnos*, 86, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020.1765829

Bannister, K. (2018). From ethical codes to ethics as praxis: An invitation. *Ethnobiology Letters*, 9(1), 13–26.

Batdelger, G., Batjav, B., & Molnár, Z. (2025). The relevance of traditional knowledge for modern landscape management: Comparing

past and current herding practices in Mongolia. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10784

Bell, E., Tremblay, C., Carodenuto, S., Downie, B., Dearden, P., Kileli, O. E., & McDougall, S. (2025). Indigenous knowledge-bridging to support ecological stewardship in Canada and Tanzania. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Bird-David, N. (1999). "Animism" Revisited. *Current Anthropology*, 40, 67-92. https://doi.org/10.1086/200061

Bliege Bird, R., & Nimmo, D. (2018). Restore the lost ecological functions of people. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 2(7), 1050–1052.

Brewer, J. P., & Johnson, J. T. (2023). Reciprocity: An ethos “more than human”. *GeoHumanities*, 9(2), 315–332.

Cantor, M., Farine, D. R., & Daura-Jorge, F. G. (2023). Foraging synchrony drives resilience in human-dolphin mutualism. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 120(6), e2207739120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207739120

Cantor, M., Santos-Silva, B., Daura-Jorge, F., Machado, A. M., de Rosa, D., Peterson, D., Simões-Lopes, P., Valle-Pereira, J., Zank, S., & Hanazaki, N. (2024). Changes in the users of the social-ecological system around a reciprocal human-dolphin relationship. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10679

Cariño, J., & Farhan Ferrari, M. (2021). Negotiating the futures of nature and cultures: Perspectives from indigenous peoples and local communities about the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, 41, 193–209.

Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 31(8), 575–578.

Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A. K., Agard, J., de Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington-Leigh, C., ... Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. *People and Nature*, 2(3), 693–717.

Comberti, C., Thornton, T., de Echeverria, V. W., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. *Global Environmental Change*, 34, 247–262.

Correia, J. E. (2024). Land matters: How indigenous land restitution can inform climate change loss and damage policy and chart a path toward an otherwise climate justice. *Climate and Development*, 16, 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2024.2378027

Correia, J. E., Lucitante, J. P., Weiss, L., Narváez, N., Lucitante, L., Biaguaje, A., Piaguaje, Y., Suale, A., Payaguaje, A., Piaguaje, E., Simmons, C., & Esbach, M. (2025). Stimulating reciprocity: How human-plant relations support indigenous cultural revitalization and stewardship in the Ecuadorian Amazon. *People and Nature*. In Press.

de Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Para além do pensamento abyssal: Das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. *Novos Estudios*, 79, 71–94.

Dennis, M. K., & Bell, F. M. L. (2020). Indigenous women, water protectors, and reciprocal responsibilities. *Social Work*, 65(4), 378–386.

Descola, P. (1986). *La Nature Domestique: Symbolisme et praxis dans l'écologie des Achuar*. Edition de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Fondation Singer.

Descola, P. (2005). *Par delà nature et culture*. Editions Gallimard.

Díaz, S., & Pascual, U. (2025). Reciprocity towards nature in the biodiversity science-policy interface. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., ... Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. *Science*, 366, eeaax3100.

Díaz, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Purvis, A., Verburg, P. H., Obura, D., Leadley, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., De Meester, L., Dulloo, M., Martín-López,
B., Shaw, M., Visconti, P., Broadgate, W., Bruford, M., Burgess, N., Cavender-Bares, J., Declerck, F., Fernández-Palacios, J., Garibaldi, L., & Zanne, A. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. *Science*, **370**, 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530

Diver, S., Vaughan, M., Baker-Médard, M., & Lukacs, H. (2019). Recognizing "reciprocal relations" to restore community access to land and water. *International Journal of the Commons*, **13**(1), 400–429.

Esbach, M., Correia, J. E., Valdivia, G., & Lu, F. (2025). Amazonian conservation across archipelagos of Indigenous territories. *Conservation Biology*, **39**(2), e14407. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14407

Fache, E., & Moizo, B. (2015). Do burning practices contribute to caring for country? Contemporary uses of fire for conservation purposes in indigenous Australia. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, **35**(1), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-35.1.163

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Armstrong, C. G., Brondizio, E. S., Gavin, M. G., Lyver, P. O'B., Nocholas, G. P., Pascua, P., Reo, N. J., Reyes-García, V., Turner, N. J., Gavin, M. C., Nicholas, G. P., Yletyinen, J., Anderson, E. N., Balée, W., Cariño, J., David-Chavez, D. M., ... Vaughan, M. B. (2021). Scientists' warning to humanity on threats to indigenous and local knowledge systems. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, **41**(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., & Virtanen, P. K. (2020). Game masters and Amazonian indigenous views on sustainability. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, **43**, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2020.01.004

Fisk, J. J., Leong, K. M., Berl, R., E, W., Long, J., Jacobs, L., van Eeden, L., Adams, M. M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Murphy, J., Gavin, M., Williams, C., Salerno, J., Verschuuren, B., Bennett, N., Idohou, R., & Mawyer, A. (2025). Cultivating reciprocity and supporting Indigenous lifeways through the cultural transformation of natural resource management in North America. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Fowler, C. S., & Lepofsky, D. (2011). Traditional resource and environmental management. In E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, & N. J. Turner (Eds.), *Ethnobiology* (pp. 285–304). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

FPP (Forest Peoples Programme), International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women's Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). *Local biodiversity outlooks 2*. Moreton-in-Marsh, Forest Peoples Programme, England.

Greening, S. (2024). Gugwilx'ya'ansk and goats: Indigenous perspective on governance, management, and relationality in mountain goat (Mati) hunting in Gitga'at territory. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10688

Hoyte, S., & Mangombe, F. (2024). No thanks: How an ideology of sharing, not reciprocating, ensures abundance in the forests of southeastern Cameroon. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10734

ICCA Consortium. (2021). *Territories of life report*. ICCA Consortium.

IPBES. (2019a). *Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat.

IPBES. (2019b). In S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, & P. Balvanera (Eds.), *Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. IPBES Secretariat.

IPCC. (2022). *Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability*. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/978109325844

Kalle, R., Svanberg, I., Leas, M., Prakofjewa, J., Sartori, M., Danto, A., Schiavone, A., Pehlak, H., Plaan, J., Pieroni, A., & Soukand, R. (2024). Commons are cared for: Coexistence between humans and wild birds on the Island of Kihnu, Estonia. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10669

Kangieser, A., & Todd, Z. (2020). From environmental case study to environmental kin study. *History and Theory*, **59**(3), 385–393.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). *Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teaching of plants* (1st ed.). Milkweed Editions.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2017). The covenant of reciprocity. In J. Hart (Ed.), *The Wiley Blackwell companion to religion and ecology* (pp. 368–381). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Leff, E. (2004). Racionalidad ambiental y diálogo de saberes: significancia y sentido en la construcción de un future sustentable. *POLIS Revista Latinoamericana*, 2(7), 1–27.

Lewis, J. (2008). Managing abundance, not chasing scarcity: The real challenge for the 21st century. *Radical Anthropology*, **6**, 11–19.

Loayza, G., Pozo, S., Lascano, M., Bilhaut, A. G., Krainer, A., Teixidor-Toneu, I., & Montúfar, R. (2024). Dynamic reciprocal contributions between Indigenous communities and cultural keystone species: A study case in Western Ecuador. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10684

Locqueville, J., McKey, D., MacDonald, K., Coq, S., & Caillon, S. (2025). Navigating human-plant reciprocity: Commercial harvesting of a medicinal plant fosters multi-actor landscape management. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Ludwig, D., & El-Hani, C. N. (2020). Philosophy of ethnobiology: Understanding knowledge integration and its limitations. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, **40**(1), 3–20.

Manosalvas, R., Hoogesteger, J., & Boelens, R. (2021). Contractual reciprocity and the re-making of community hydrosocial territories: The case of La Chimba in the Ecuadorian páramos. *Water*, **13**(11), 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111600

Mapinduzi, A. L., Oba, G., Weladji, R. B., & Colman, J. E. (2003). Use of indigenous ecological knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. *African Journal of Ecology*, **41**(4), 329–336.

Mattalia, G., McAlvay, A., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Luckawiecki, J., Moola, F., Asfaw, Z., Cámara-Leret, R., Diaz, S., Franco, F. M., Halpern, B. S., O'Hara, C., Renard, D., Uprety, Y., Wall, J., Zafra-Calvo, N., & Reyes-García, V. (2024). Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10653

McAlvay, A. C., Armstrong, C. G., Baker, J., Elk, L. B., Bosco, S., Hanazaki, N., Joseph, L., Martínez-Cruz, T. E., Nesbitt, M., Palmer, M. A., de Almeida, W. C. P., Anderson, J., Asfaw, Z., Borokini, I. T., Cano-Contreras, E. J., Hoyte, S., Hudson, M., Ladio, A. H., Odonne, G., ... Vandebroek, I. (2021). Ethnobiolgoy phase VI: Decolonizing institutions, projects, and scholarship. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, **41**(2), 170–191.

McElwee, P., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Bates, P., Galvin, K., Guèze, M., Liu, J., Molnár, Z., Ngo, H. T., Reyes-García, V., Roy Chowdhury, R., Samakov, A., Shrestha, U. B., Díaz, S., & Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, **57**(9), 1666–1676.
Miltonburg, E., Tait Neufeld, H., & Anderson, K. (2022). Relationality, responsibility and reciprocity: Cultivating indigenous food sovereignty within urban environments. *Nutrients*, 14(9), 1737. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14091737

Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal sociality. *American Ethnologist*, 34, 25–43.

Ojeda, J., McNeill, G. D., Guujaaw, N., Yakgujanaas, J., Rhodes, C., & Ban, N. (2025). Reciprocal contributions in marine indigenous stewardship: The case of Haida abalone gathering. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Ojeda, J., Morello, F., Suazo, C., Astorga, M., Salomon, A., & Ban, N. (2024). Two lenses for exploring relationships between seabirds and fishes: Unveiling reciprocal contributions. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10703

Ojeda, J., Salomon, A. K., Rowe, J. K., & Ban, N. C. (2022). Reciprocal contributions between people and nature: A conceptual intervention. *BioScience*, 72(10), 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac053

Phatthanaphraiwai, S., & Greene, A. (2025). Wild taro and the spirit of the rain: Reciprocal relations in the Karen highlands of northern Thailand. *People and Nature*. In Press.

Ratchai, S. R., & Thipmanee, P. (2024). Legal challenges regarding land tenure for agricultural utilization within conservation Forest areas. *Journal of Graduate Studies*, 11(3), 786–798.

Reid, A. J., Lauren, E. E., John-Francis, L., Nathan, Y., Scott, G. H., Chris, T. D., Steven, J. C., Natalie, C. B., & Albert, M. (2021). Two-Eyed seeing: An indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. *Fish and Fisheries*, 22(2), 243–261.

Reo, N. J. (2019). Inawendiwin and relational accountability in Anishnaabeg studies: The crux of the biscuit. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, 39, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.65

Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, A., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Benyei, P., Bussmann, R. W., Diamond, S. K., García-Del-Amo, D., Guadilla-Sáez, S., Hanazaki, N., Kosoy, N., Lavides, M., Luz, A. C., McElwee, P., Meretsky, V. J., Newberry, T., Molnár, Z., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Salpeteur, M., Wyndham, F. S., ... Brondizio, E. S. (2021). Recognizing Indigenous peoples' and local communities' rights and agency in the post-2020 biodiversity agenda. *Ambio*, 51, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7

Rozzi, R. (2015). Implications of the biocultural ethic for earth stewardship. In R. Rozzi, F. Chapin, J. B. Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, & R. H. J. May (Eds.), *Earth stewardship: Linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice* (pp. 87–112). Springer.

Sabourin, E. (2013). Education, gift and reciprocity: A preliminary discussion. *International Journal of Lifelong Education*, 32(3), 301–317.

Salmón, E. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. *Ecological Applications*, 10(5), 1327–1332. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:keipot]2.0.co;2

Scheidel, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Bara, A. H., Del Bene, D., David-Chavez, D. M., Fanari, E., Garba, I., Hanaček, K., Liu, J., Martínez-Alier, J., Navas, G., Reyes-García, V., Roy, B., Temper, L., Thiri, M. A., Tran, D., Walter, M., & Whyte, K. P. (2023). Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous peoples' lifeways, lands, and rights. *Science Advances*, 9(23), eade9557. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade9557

Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J., & Arcese, P. (2019). Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 101, 1–6.

Seaton, B. (2013). Siding with the woldr: Reciprocal expressions of human and nature in an impending era of loneliness. *Emotion, Space and Society*, 6, 73–80.

Simkins, A. T., Donald, P. F., Beresford, A. E., Butchart, S. H. M., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garnett, S. T., & Buchanan, G. M. (2024).

Rates of tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas within Indigenous peoples' lands. *Conservation Biology*, 38(3), e14195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14195

Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell, J., Albert, S., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., Blair, M., Boseto, D., Burrows, K., Bynum, N., Caillon, S., Caselle, J. E., Claudet, J., Cullman, G., Dacks, R., ... Jupiter, S. D. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 1, 1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6

Sullivan, A. P., Bird, D. W., & Perry, G. H. (2017). Human behaviour as a long-term ecological driver of non-human evolution. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 1(3), 0065. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0065

Supang, C. (2024). Disclosure of research findings on the 'Forest reclamation policy' leading communities toward 'sudden poverty'. *Greenpeace Article*. https://www.greenpeace.org/thailand/story/51957/climate-bcg-khamphalai-study-impacts-from-reclaim-fores-t-policy/

Suporn, P. (2009). Impacts from Forest area utilization of local communities to habitat utilization of wildlife: A case study of Kaeng Krachan National Park. *Environment and Natural Resources Journal*, 7(1), 84–93.

Swiderska, K., Argumedo, A., & Pimbert, M. (2020). *Biocultural heritage territories: Key to halting biodiversity loss*. IIED.

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2022). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous lands pan-tropically. *Nature Sustainability*, 5, 123–130.

Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 26, 17–25.

Tilley, L. (2017). Resisting piractic method by doing research otherwise. *Sociology*, 51(1), 27–42.

Tormos-Aponte, F. (2021). The influence of indigenous peoples in global climate governance. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 52, 125–131.

Turner, N., & Spalding, P. R. (2013). "We might go back to this"; Drawing on the past to meet the future in northwestern North American Indigenous communities. *Ecology and Society*, 18(4), 29.

Turner, N. J. (2005). *The Earth's blanket: Traditional teachings for sustainable living*. D & M Publishers.

Turner, N. J., Cuerrier, A., & Joseph, L. (2022). Well grounded: Indigenous peoples' knowledge, ethnobiology and sustainability. *People and Nature*, 4(3), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10321

Vaccaro, I. (2024). Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect. *People and Nature*. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10685

Varanasi, U. (2020). Focusing attention on reciprocity between nature and humans can be the key to reinvigorating planetary health. *Ecopsychology*, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2020.0011

Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch, G. M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar, M., Gautam, A. P., Williams, M., Mungatana, E., Karim, M. S., Muradian, R., Gerber, L. R., Lui, G., Liu, J., Spangenberg, J. H., & Zaleski, D. (2021). Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights for sustainable development. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 53, 20–28.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (1992). *From the enemy's point of view: Humanity and divinity in an Amazonian society*. University of Chicago Press.

Wheeler, H. C., Danielsen, F., Fidel, M., Hausner, V., Horstkotte, T., Johnson, N., Lee, O., Mukherjee, N., Amos, A., Ashthorn, H., Ballari, Ø., Behe, C., Breton-Honeyman, K., Retter, G. B., Buschman, V., Jakobsen, P., Johnson, F., Lyberth, B., Parrott, J. A., ... Vronski,
N. (2020). The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. *People and Nature, 2*(3), 544–556.

Whyte, K. (2020). Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11*(1), e603. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.603

Zent, E., & Zent, S. (2022). Love sustains live: *Jkyo jkwainī* and allied strategies in caring for the earth. *Journal of Ethnobiology, 42*(1), 86–104.

Zent, E., Zent, S., Jtute, L., Jtitekyo, A., Jtute, J., Ijtö, L., Jkwayo, I., Yaluja, M., Juae, I., Jono, N., Molö, A., Amikoja, A., Melomaja, A., Aubojkyo, A., Bowijte, K., Yewi, A., Yewi, J.-Y., Jtitekyo, B., Jkai, ... Bowijte, L. (2022). Trekking the Amazon with love and care. *Ethnobiology Letters, 13*(1), 29–40.

**How to cite this article:** Teixidor-Toneu, I., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Alvarez Abel, R., Batdelger, G., Bell, E., Caillon, S., Cantor, M., Correia, J. E., Díaz, S., Fisk, J., Greene, A., Greening, S., Hoyte, S., Kalle, R., Loayza, G., Mattalia, G., Montúfar, R., Ojeda, J., Phatthanaphraiwan, S., ... Ban, N. C. (2025). Human-nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and local knowledge systems. *People and Nature, 7*, 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70036