Inheriting wisdom: transfer of traditional, scientific, and ecological knowledge in fishing communities in Mexico

The complementary use and transfer of empirical and scientific knowledge are essential for the holistic and sustainable management of fishing resources. To understand how both types of knowledge are transferred in fishing communities in three regions of Mexico, we conducted 120 in-depth interviews with young people, adults, and older adults who participated in various activities within fishing value networks. During the interviews, we identified who participated in transferring knowledge within communities, what lessons were passed on, what knowledge has been lost, and what scientific topics are known within the communities. We also investigated the sector’s most used means of communication to further explore the transfer of scientific and technical knowledge and the fundamental roles of external actors in transferring knowledge within communities. The information was coded, categorized, and analyzed for each question. The interviewees valued the continuity of inheriting traditional knowledge, which included teaching practical skills, such as fishing techniques and navigation, and transmitting values, traditions, and ways of understanding and relating to the marine environment. The interviewees perceived knowledge transfer as a bidirectional exchange of knowledge, ideas, and practices among generations. Furthermore, they recognized the value of external actors with scientific and technical knowledge in promoting innovation and adapting to new challenges. The combination of knowledge and perspectives enriches fisheries management and marine environmental conservation. Promoting the transfer of traditional and scientific knowledge is fundamental to building a future where fishing and marine life coexist in harmony and prosperity. The responsibility of supporting this integration falls on fishing communities and external actors. Working together in this collaborative learning process is the key to achieving sustainable resource management and ensuring the continuity of this valuable tradition for future generations. In doing so, these communities’ cultural and ecological richness can be preserved, ensuring a lasting balance between people and the sea.

1 Introduction

Fishing is a principal global activity, providing 17% of animal protein to almost half of the world’s population (FAO, 2020). It also generates significant employment and income and contributes to the socioeconomic development of coastal communities (FAO, 2020). Approximately 500 million people depend entirely or partially on small-scale marine fisheries, which produce a catch valued at USD 58 billion (Schuhbauer and Sumalia, 2016; FAO, 2018; FAO, Duke University, and World Fish, 2023). Fishing communities are instrumental in upholding the sustainability of marine resources, ensuring food security, and fostering economic development in coastal regions worldwide; this influence is especially pronounced within oceanic island nations and rural coastal communities across Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Bell et al., 2018; Salas et al., 2019; FAO, 2020; García-Lorenzo et al., 2021; March and Failler, 2022). As stewards of the oceans, these communities rely on marine resources for their livelihoods and actively contribute to their conservation and management (Fulton et al., 2019; Quintana and Basurto, 2021). As primary stakeholders, they possess invaluable traditional knowledge and expertise in marine resource management acquired through generations of interaction with the oceans. This local knowledge is often crucial for understanding ecosystem dynamics, migratory patterns, and sustainable fishing practices (Narchi et al., 2014; Narchi et al., 2024). However, these communities face continuous challenges from resource overexploitation, socioenvironmental change, and economic pressure. In this context, it is vital to promote agents of change in future generations and encourage knowledge transfer to ensure the future of these communities is sustainable and prosperous (Espinoza-Tenorio et al., 2022).

Small-scale fisher’s knowledge determines how to access fishing resources, what environments are most suitable for their activities, how to interact with ecosystems, and how to conduct sustainable management (Berkes, 2013). Fishers have deep-rooted connections with their environments and deeply understand the natural world (Begossi et al., 2016; Garavito-Bermudez and Lundholm, 2017; Garavito-Bermudez, 2020a; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2020; Garavito-Bermudez and Boonstra, 2022). In addition, they hold fundamental knowledge of fishing techniques, capture areas, and tool-building and understand environmental dynamics from traditional knowledge passed down through the generations (Garavito-Bermudez, 2020b; Garavito-Bermudez and Boonstra, 2022; Ovung et al., 2022). This knowledge enables individuals to fully utilize their local environments, considering the ecological dynamics of their coasts and the natural resources available (Maharja et al., 2023).

Traditional ecological knowledge refers to the “cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, transmitted culturally from generation to generation, of the relationships of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes, 1993). This knowledge includes language, naming and classification systems, resource-use practices, rituals, spirituality, and worldviews (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014). Scientific knowledge is established through methodical observation and experimentation conducted using a rigorous scientific method to explain observed events (Carey and Smith, 1993; Sells et al., 2018). This knowledge is transmitted among researchers through oral tradition and written technical language texts. These texts must be presented with precision and reproducibility to ensure the information can be analyzed and discussed in the context of refuted hypotheses (Nagel, 1961). In both cases, the information is a valuable resource necessary to solve problems, make decisions, and develop adaptive capabilities (Mazzocchi, 2006; Ogar et al., 2020).

A dialogue between traditional and scientific ecological knowledge holders can lead to new perspectives and help advance scientific research and effective management responses for coastal areas and natural resource use (International Council for Science, 2002). Therefore, researchers should try to understand traditional communities’ cultures, concepts, customs, and regional rituals. This involves immersing themselves in community life, learning from traditional ecological knowledge held by community members, and sharing that knowledge with the scientific community (Patzlaff and Peixoto, 2009; Hurlbert et al., 2019; IUCN, 2022). To address the uncertainty and complexity surrounding current environmental problems and their possible solutions, scientific and traditional knowledge, specifically in decision-making, has to be incorporated (Wheeler and Root-Bernstein, 2020). To achieve this, both types of knowledge must be available, legitimized, and transmitted from generation to generation. However, within fishing communities and external actors’ involvement, the processes and pathways through which information is transferred are insufficiently documented and may vary between communities and age groups. Specifically, when considering the dynamics, traditions, and processes unique to each community, the ways and means by which individuals perceive and transmit information can be influenced by various factors.

In studies focused on the transfer of cultural and traditional knowledge, four transfer types have been identified (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, 1981; Calvet-Mir et al., 2016): (1) vertical (parent to child), (2) oblique (one older generation to another), (3) horizontal (within the same generation), and (4) retroactive (younger generations to older generations). The transfer of scientific and technical knowledge can also occur by actors external to a community through various forms of media (Mattalia et al., 2020; Garavito-Bermudez, 2020a,b; Okui et al., 2021).

In Mexico, coastal communities are characterized by a long fishing tradition (Cisneros-Montemayor and Cisneros-Mata, 2018). Throughout their history, fishers have faced both favorable and challenging fishing and climatic conditions and diverse sociocultural, political, and economic contexts (Álvarez et al., 2018; Cisneros-Montemayor and Cisneros-Mata, 2018; Delgado-Ramírez et al., 2023). Thus, through the generations, fishers have generated and transmitted knowledge that has allowed them to respond to these challenges to ensure the continuity of their fishing cultures and livelihoods.

Limited research has been conducted on transmitting traditional and scientific fishing knowledge among and to community members (e.g., Young et al., 2016; Garavito-Bermudez, 2020a; Garavito-Bermudez and Boonstra, 2022). Here, we aim to answer how traditional and scientific fishing knowledge is transferred by identifying what is transferred, what has been lost, and what conservation and sustainability issues have been identified in communities. We investigated which media are most used by the small-scale fishing sector to obtain scientific and technical knowledge. Furthermore, we explored the extent to which external actors transfer knowledge within communities.

2 Materials and methods

The interviewees were selected using non-probabilistic methods by adapting and combining chain reference techniques, such as snowballing, directed sampling, and purposive sampling. These systematic methods consist of selecting a specific population within the target group to recruit an adequate number of interviewees with the qualities and knowledge necessary to provide information on the topic of interest (Watters and Biernacki, 1989; Salganik and Heckathorn, 2004; Etikan et al., 2016).

We identified and selected a local community member to create a sampling recruitment network through the chain referral method. The first interviewees had previously collaborated with the authors and other external groups (e.g., conservation and fisheries governmental agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations) that share scientific knowledge on different topics. This community member, called a “locator,” helped introduce the research team and explain the general idea of the research project to encourage participation. Each interviewer was introduced to the community or fishing cooperative leaders via a formal letter issued by Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. which explained the purpose of the research and formally requested permission to spend time in the community and interview people.

2.1 Interviews

Between 2019 and 2020, we conducted 120 interviews in the communities of Isla Natividad, Ensenada, and Bahía Tortugas on the Pacific coast of Baja California (55 interviews); Punta Chueca (an Indigenous community; 44 interviews) in the Gulf of California; and Cozumel, Punta Allen, Chetumal, and Punta Herrero in the Mexican Caribbean region (21 interviews; Figure 1). The interview process was conducted using a mixed questionnaire divided into two sections (Supplementary material 1). Section I employed closed questions to characterize the interviewees. Section II used semi-structured questions to identify the types of traditional and scientific ecological knowledge transferred within communities. We also asked about who participates in these transfers, what topics related to fisheries, ecology, and conservation are most well-known in communities, and what media the sector most uses to learn about these topics. To apply for the interview, a date (day, time, and place) was set with the interviewee. The interviews were conducted in person and lasted between 30 and 75 min. The ethical standards of informed participation established in the Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE 2006) were respected. Participation in the study was voluntary, and interviewees had complete freedom to refuse to answer specific questions, refuse to participate, or end their participation at any time without needing to provide a reason and without facing any sanctions or consequences. The process should be executed in a formal and clear manner, ensuring that all questions posed by the interviewees are thoroughly addressed.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Locations of communities where the interviews were conducted.

2.2 Data analysis

Data collected during the interviews were captured and analyzed in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, United States) and SankeyMATIC (Bogart, 2018). Excel was used to analyze quantitative and categorical variables. The responses from the interviews were categorized and analyzed using SankeyMATIC to create flow diagrams that show the topics discussed and how the interviewees learned about them. The analysis was divided into three age groups: youth (18–29 years), adults (30–59 years), and elders (60+ years).

To protect the participants’ identities, a structured approach was used for data coding and categorization. Each participant was given a unique code based on their gender (M for man or W for woman), their community of origin (represented by two letters), and an individual identifier (a sequential number for men and women). This coding system ensured confidentiality while allowing for organized data analysis (Supplementary material 2).

In terms of reliability and validity, all participants provided informed consent and agreed to the privacy policy regarding their personal information. The coding system was consistently applied across all participants, ensuring reliability in data handling. Using these codes did not compromise the accuracy of the responses, preserving the validity of the data by maintaining alignment between participants’ identities and their input during the interviews. Thirty-two topics were selected to investigate how scientific and technical knowledge is transferred in coastal communities (Supplementary material 3). The topics were chosen from the Leadership Program designed by COBI (Fernandez-Rivera Melo et al., 2022). Fernandez-Rivera Melo et al. (2022) conducted semi-structured interviews with fishers (n = 38) and people from organizations and institutions outside the communities with experience in fishing, conservation, and gender issues (n = 21). The group of external participants included 13 representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs), six government institutions, and two academic institutions. Finally, it is important to note that because the study was conducted in communities where the authors work, any reference to Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. in the interviews was excluded from the analysis.

3 Results

We interviewed 79 men and 41 women in communities across three regions of Mexico (Figure 2). The interviewees’ ages ranged from 17 to 75 years. Young people between the ages of 17 and 29 years constituted 26% of the interviewees (19 M and 12 W), 69% were adults between the ages of 30 and 59 years (56 M and 27 W), and 5% were older adults of 60 years or older (4 M and 2 W). The interviewees conducted various activities related to the fishing value network and within their communities. In all, 46% participated in production (55 M), 15% in post-production (12 M and 6 W), 12% in complementary activities (3 M and 11 W), and 28% were not identified as part of the value network (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Institutions or organizations that transferred scientific knowledge in the communities of this study.

3.1 Who and what is transferred from traditional knowledge?

Traditional knowledge was mainly transferred by parents (vertical transfer 36%), people close to the family nucleus (grandparents, uncles, and aunts) and elders (oblique transfer 36%), siblings, cousins, spouses, and peers (horizontal transfer 28%; Figure 3, Table 1). All interviewees acquired traditional ecological knowledge by observing or talking with family members and colleagues. None of the interviewees mentioned the transfer of knowledge from younger generations (retroactive transfer).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Modes in which knowledge is transferred (A) in the three study regions and percentage of times the transferred themes were mentioned (B).

Table 1

Table 1. Examples of the answers to the applied questions.

According to the interviewees, the themes that were transferred between generations focused on areas related to fishing, including (1) fishing techniques (the sets of methods, tools, and procedures used by fishers to catch fish), (2) fishing gear (the types of hooks, nets, traps, and diving equipment), (3) key fishing areas (fishing zones and seasons), (4) navigation (routes, knowledge of positions, landmarks, and star movements to orientation), (5) oceanographic processes (winds, waves, currents, storms, and their relationships to the presence of species and the ability of fishers to navigate safely), (6) management tools (closed seasons, minimum catch sizes, and no-take fishing zones), (7) fishing gear and vessel construction and repair, and (8) the importance of fishing activities as a socioeconomic means of life.

3.2 The loss and preservation of traditional knowledge

Of the total number of people interviewed, 58% considered that traditional ecological knowledge had been lost. In this case, it could include the lost knowledge of celestial navigation, marking fishing sites using landmarks, such as hills or natural formations, or using ancient fishing techniques. In contrast, around 37% of the respondents believed that fishing knowledge had not been lost. They pointed out that new knowledge has been acquired, and technology has reinforced certain practices, such as the proper care and management of different species. The remaining 5% were unsure whether fishing knowledge had been lost. Of those who believed fishing knowledge had been lost, 10% attributed this loss to the influence of technology and the disconnection between generations. Among the reasons mentioned for the loss, it was notable that younger generations have faced different social, economic, and development conditions than previous generations, leading to a loss of knowledge related to camaraderie, cooperation, and the common good, as has been reported by Espinoza-Tenorio et al. (2022). A reduction in knowledge of the natural cycles of species and their environments, such as species distributions and abundance, and their importance for sustainable resource management was also noted. Finally, 5% of adults mentioned that more fishers are now only interested in making money, which has decreased passion and care for fishing as a livelihood.

It is crucial to note that all the interviewees emphasized the importance of passing down their knowledge to the next generation. They expressed their willingness to share their expertise on fishing techniques, traditional fishing gear, resource conservation, sustainable fishing practices, and the potential risks of working at sea to prevent physical injury. Furthermore, 20% of the interviewees emphasized the importance of cooperativism. Two adults mentioned that sharing positive and negative experiences is essential for preparing younger generations for the challenges they will face while fishing.

From the interviews, we found that 83% of adults and older adults believed young people could transfer knowledge to them. In this regard, one of the most frequently mentioned topics was the use of technology. Indeed, 56% of adults and older adults highlighted that they could learn about using the internet, email, computers, and navigation equipment (e.g., GPS and echo sounders) from young people. Furthermore, 20% mentioned that young people hold knowledge of fishing techniques and gear for previously unexploited species in their communities and would like to learn from them, and 17% believed young people could teach them about conservation and sustainable resource use. Finally, 7% indicated young people have nothing to teach them.

3.3 Knowledge of conservation and sustainability issues

Of the 32 topics consulted (Table 1), 80% of interviewees had seen, heard, or read about global warming (96%), gender equality (88%), El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects (88%), protected natural areas (92%), and marine reserves (83%) (Figure 4). However, little was known about 14 topics, which were mentioned by less than 50% of interviewees. These topics included payments for ecosystem services (21%), ecosystem services (28%), trophic networks (28%), ocean acidification (30%), functional species (30%), maximum sustainable yield (33%), ecosystem-based management (33%), citizen science (34%), oceanographic processes (35%), ecological connectivity (35%), resilience (40%), vulnerability (40%), and adaptation (40%) (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Topics mentioned by the interviewees. Men (M), Women (W); Older adults (O), Adults (A), and Young people (Y). Topics: (1) global warming, (2) protected natural areas, (3) gender equality, (4) El Niño effects, (5) marine reserves, (6) decision-making, (7) vulnerable species, (8) fishery certifications and ecolabels, (9) participation in resource management, (10) fishing refuge zones, (11) fishery improvement projects, (12) ecological fishery knowledge, (13) fishery management tools, (14) larval distributions and recruitment, (15) resource variability, (16) impacts of temperature and oxygen on fisheries, (17) criteria for certification standards, (18) gender roles, (19) vulnerability, (20) adaptation, (21) resilience fishery sector, (22) science communication, (23) ecological connectivity, (24) oceanographic processes, (25) citizen science, (26) ecosystem-based management, (27) maximum sustainable yield, (28) functional species, (29) ocean acidification, (30) trophic networks, (31) ecosystem services, (32) payments for ecosystem services.

3.4 Communication channels used to learn about fishing, conservation, and gender issues

The interviewees used various media forms to learn about conservation and sustainable fishing, including audiovisual media (39%), radio (22%), digital media (18%), and printed media (21%) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Communication channels used by the interviewees to learn about topics of interest in their communities. Older adults (O), Adults (A), and Young people (Y).

Young people preferred digital media, followed by print and audiovisual media. Adults tended to prefer print media, followed by digital and audiovisual media. Lastly, older adults did not use digital media. Instead, they preferred print and audiovisual media (Figure 5). Among the options for print media, brochures (69%), posters (36%), and newspapers (33%) were the most popular. In the digital sphere, YouTube (37%), websites (28%), email (21%), and Facebook (20%) were the most frequently used. Of the options for audiovisual media, documentaries (64%) were most frequently mentioned by the interviewees (Figure 5).

3.5 Knowledge transfer from external sources

Interviewees mentioned various organizations and institutions that shared information on conservation and sustainable fishing within the communities. CSOs were mentioned most frequently (83%), followed by government institutions (65%), fishing cooperatives (40%), academic institutions (30%), and companies (4%) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Profiles of the interviewees.

In total, 24 CSOs (excluding Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.) were mentioned, including Ocean Revolution (21%), Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas (18%), Prescott College (14%), and Smartfish (11%). In addition, 14 academic institutions were mentioned, such as Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (UABC, 29%), Stanford University (26%), Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE, 16%), and Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur (UABCS, 12%). Eighteen government institutions were mentioned, with Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) 38%, followed by Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca (CONAPESCA, 12%), Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI, 14%), and the Instituto Mexicano de Investigación para la Pesca y Acuacultura (IMIPAS, 11%). Sixteen groups and organizations in the fishing sector were mentioned, including the fishing cooperatives Buzos y Pescadores de la Baja California (27%), Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas Pesqueras (FEDECOOP, 17%), and Producción Pesquera Ensenada (14%). Lastly, only people from northwestern communities mentioned companies that share knowledge with communities. Some companies mentioned were Exportadora de Sal S.A., Ecosturismo Kujimá, Ocean Garden, and PADI (Supplementary material 4).

4 Discussion

Transferring traditional and scientific ecological knowledge is essential for sociocultural and human development. This dynamic process helps preserve cultural heritage, allows people to adapt to local and global change, and improves the quality of life within communities.

Various studies have been developed at the global level to understand how traditional ecological knowledge is transferred, who transfers it, what topics are transferred, and what knowledge is lost between generations. However, these have mainly been conducted in Indigenous communities and have focused on traditional botanical knowledge (Saynes-Vasquez et al., 2016; Kitolelei et al., 2021; Narváez-Elizondo et al., 2021; Okui et al., 2021; Akhmar et al., 2023; Teshome et al., 2023). Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted on fisheries and knowledge transfer in non-indigenous fishing communities (Garavito-Bermudez, 2020a,b; Garavito-Bermudez and Boonstra, 2022). This study constitutes the first approach to evaluating the transfer of traditional ecological knowledge in small-scale fishing communities in Mexico.

The results show that knowledge transfer occurred in the three regions through only three of the four modes described by Calvet-Mir et al. (2016): (1) vertical transfer, (2) oblique transfer, and (3) horizontal transfer. Traditional ecological knowledge that was transferred encompassed fishing techniques and the use of gear, the construction and repair of fishing gear, species cycles, and navigation. None of the interviewees mentioned transferred knowledge from the youth. However, 20% of the adults expressed interest in learning about technological issues and new fisheries resources from young people (retroactively transferred).

A principal element that was transferred within communities was fishing as a profession. All interviewees declared that they had inherited this occupation from close relatives (vertical transmission) (Table 1). This transfer of the fishing profession has been documented in other fishing communities, and it is conducted by direct relatives, including grandfathers, grandmothers, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, or older siblings (Garavito-Bermudez, 2020a).

Other studies on the transmission of traditional knowledge have observed a tendency for it to diminish or disappear over successive generations (Tang and Gavin, 2016; Aswani et al., 2018). This topic was brought up as a concern of adults and older adults, specifically the loss of the ability to navigate without instrumentation, the loss of ancestral fishing techniques, and the loss of an understanding of the relationships between oceanographic processes and biological species cycles (Table 1). The adult interviewees attributed knowledge loss to two reasons: high dependence on technology for navigation and disconnection between generations, as young people live full-time connected to cell phones or the internet and no longer acquire the knowledge of older people.

Knowledge is crucial for making informed decisions, personal development, empowerment, and professionalization within the fishing sector. It enables individuals to grow and tackle challenges that arise locally and globally. Knowledge transfer is essential for generating, maintaining, and updating current knowledge. In the three studied regions, knowledge transfer took place between community members and external actors who possessed scientific and technical knowledge. In addition, interviewees used audiovisual, printed, and digital media to access knowledge of interest. The studies have suggested that the knowledge acquired throughout a person’s life comes from a mixture of experiences and the diverse ways information is transferred over time (Aunger, 2000; Soldati and Albuquerque, 2016; Reyes-García et al., 2019).

Knowledge transfer is fundamental to the professionalization of people dedicated to fishing. The exchange of knowledge on selective fishing techniques, fishing gear, maneuvers, navigation, oceanographic processes, biological cycles, and fishery management tools notably contributes to preserving biodiversity and ensuring resource availability in the long term (Table 1). In addition, professionalization results in improved skills and technical knowledge, which translates into greater efficiency, allowing people in the sector to improve their performance, reduce environmental impacts, and limit waste. Training in occupational safety and techniques to prevent accidents and reduce risk at sea is also essential to professionalization, as it helps protect the lives and well-being of fishers so that they conduct their work safely. Furthermore, fishers can comply with regulations and contribute to marine conservation by being better informed about fishing regulations and laws.

Professionalization also opens opportunities for adopting new technologies and innovative approaches in fisheries. Fishers can learn about more efficient capture methods or the use of technology for navigation, how to face challenges, such as climate change, how to develop more secure administration, purchasing, and sales processes, and how to share decision-making information. Furthermore, professionalization elevates the status and recognition of fishers and their work in society, which encourages their work to be valued as vital for food security and the economies of many coastal communities.

People from various coastal communities in Mexico pointed out that institutions, organizations, researchers, and students come to their communities to conduct social, economic, or environmental studies. However, once information is collected, it is rarely returned to communities in the form of results. Instead, data tends to remain in theses and scientific articles, many of which are written in English and are difficult for local communities to access. Nonetheless, some governmental entities, CSOs, and academic actors have implemented social responsibility programs to return information to communities using different methods, such as face-to-face talks, workshops, brochures, reports, informative articles, posters, infographics, and videos that are distributed within communities and through social networks (e.g., Meza-Monge et al., 2015; Cuevas et al., 2021; CONAPESCA, 2022; CONANP, 2021; ECOSUR, 2022).

Promoting the dissemination of research results in communities by using the local language, organizing meetings to address concerns, and facilitating the expression of community opinions are responsibilities that agencies, researchers, and CSOs must assume. Likewise, identifying local perceptions regarding research and developing a common language between communities and researchers are tasks researchers and CSOs must conduct. Furthermore, creating a dialogue network to share perceptions among residents, traditional communities, academic actors, and public managers is the responsibility of researchers, local actors, CSOs, and public managers (Mfutso-Bengo et al., 2008).

Returning project and research results to communities is a mutually beneficial practice for both communities and researchers (Hintz and Dean, 2020). This practice reinforces the importance of community participants’ roles in citizen science. Moreover, it provides useful information for local decision-making, increases awareness of the effectiveness of research participation, and improves trust in the research and researchers (Fulton et al., 2019).

To ensure that the information generated by external actors is transferred to communities, it is important to tailor the material according to the age group and preferred means of receiving the information. The results show that young people tend to use digital media more (YouTube, websites, and Facebook), while adults prefer printed media (brochures and posters) and digital media (YouTube). In contrast, older adults prefer brochures, posters, and documentaries but need something digital.

5 Conclusion

In fishing communities, the continued transfer of traditional ecological, scientific, and technical knowledge through committed and trained agents of change who can address current and future challenges is vital. These agents must deeply understand the environmental, economic, and social problems that affect their communities and must be able to make informed and strategic decisions for the common good. These agents must transmit acquired knowledge, involve other fishers, and promote collective empowerment instead of only focusing on individual empowerment.

Training agents of change in future generations guarantees the continuity and renewal of fishing communities. As current generation agents retire, a new generation of leaders must emerge capable of effectively taking on leadership roles and addressing emerging challenges. To this end, knowledge transfer plays a vital role in the sustainability of fishing communities.

People in the communities in this study have accumulated traditional knowledge and practices over generations, which are fundamental to understanding marine ecosystems, climate patterns, species life cycles, and sustainable fishing practices. This ancestral knowledge is an invaluable treasure that provides a solid foundation for managing marine resources and conserving biodiversity properly. Combining traditional knowledge with scientific and technical knowledge is essential to addressing the complex challenges facing fishing communities and ensuring their future prosperity.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

FF-R: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. JT: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. GC-G: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. IA-C: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Conceptualization. MV-C: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. AE-T: Writing – review & editing, Visualization.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza (FMCN), French Facility for Global Environment, German International Cooperation Agency (GIZ), International Community Foundation, Marisla Foundation, Paul M. Angell, Sac-Tun, Sandler Family Foundation, Summit Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Stanford University (NSF 2108566) and Duke University (NSF 2009821).

Acknowledgments

We thank the people who shared information for this study. This study would not have been possible without the support of Alberto Mellado, Carmen Valdez, and Sergio Marcos, who interviewed the participants. We also wish to thank the fishing cooperatives that helped identify potential interviewees, in particular, Cooperativa Asociación de Organizaciones Indígenas, El Canal del Infiernillo, Romero Punta Chueca, Haxol Ihom, Buzos y Pescadores de la Baja California, Campo Tecomate, Vigia Chico, José María Azcorra, Andrés Quintana Roo, Banco Chinchorro, and Cozumel.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2024.1386259/full#supplementary-material

References

Akhmar, A. M., Rahman, F., Supratman,, Hasyim, H., and Nawir, M. (2023). The cultural transmission of traditional ecological knowledge in Cerekang, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. SAGE Open 13, 1–17. doi: 10.1177/21582440231194160

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez, P., Delgado, C., Seingier, G., and Espejel, I. (2018). Historia Ambiental del comanejo adaptativo en dos regiones pesqueras del noroeste mexicano. Rel. Est. Hist. Soc. 39, 41–67. doi: 10.24901/rehs.v39i153.390

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aswani, S., Lemahieu, A., and Sauer, W. H. H. (2018). Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PLoS One 13:e0195440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195440

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aunger, R. (2000). The life history of culture learning in a face-to-face society. Ethos 28, 445–481. doi: 10.1525/eth.2000.28.3.445

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Begossi, A., Salivonchyk, S., Lopes, P. F. M., and Silvano, R. A. M. (2016). Fishers’ knowledge on the coast of Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 12, 3–34. doi: 10.1186/s13002-016-0091-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bell, J. D., Cisneros-Montemayor, A., Hanich, Q., Johnson, J. E., Lehodey, P., Moore, B. R., et al. (2018). Adaptations to maintain the contributions of small-scale fisheries to food security in the Pacific Islands. Mar. Pol 88, 303–314. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berkes, F. (1993). “Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective” in Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. ed. J. T. Inglis (Ottawa: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre).

Google Scholar

Berkes, F. (2013). “Religious traditions and biodiversity” in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition), Ed. S. A. Levin (Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier), 380–388.

Google Scholar

Bogart, S . (2018). A Sankey diagram builder for everyone. Available at: https://sankeymatic.com/ (Accessed November, 2023).

Google Scholar

Calvet-Mir, L., Riu-Bosoms, C., González-Puente, M., Ruíz-Mallén, I., Reyes-García, V., and Molina, J. L. (2016). The transmission of home garden knowledge: safeguarding biocultural diversity and enhancing social-ecological resilience. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 556–571. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1094711

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carey, S., and Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific technologies. Educ. Psychol. 28, 235–251. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

Cisneros-Montemayor, A., and Cisneros-Mata, M. (2018). A medio siglo de manejo pesquero en el noroeste de méxico, el futuro de la pesca como sistema socioecológico. Rel. Est. Hist. Soc. 39, 99–127. doi: 10.24901/rehs.v39i153.392

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Zetina-Rejón, M. J., Espinosa-Romero, M. J., Cisneros-Mata, M. A., Singh, G. G., and Fernández-rivera Melo, F. J. (2020). Evaluating ecosystem impacts of data-limited artisanal fisheries through ecosystem modelling and traditional fisher knowledge. Ocean Coast. Manag. 195:105291. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105291

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

CONANP . (2021). Available at: https://www.facebook.com/CONANPmx/photos/a.210487145653073/3689804331054653/?type=3&ref=embed_post. (Accessed November 2023).

Google Scholar

CONAPESCA . (2022). Available at: https://www.gob.mx/conapesca/articulos/continua-conapesca-con-el-plan-de-capacitacion-y-concientizacion-para-embarcaciones-menores?idiom=es (Accessed November 2023).

Google Scholar

Cuevas, G., Fernández-Rivera Melo, F. J., Gastélum-Nava, E., Rocha, L., Chávez, J. F., and Munguía, K. (2021). Recursos pesqueros: conocer para proteger y conservar. Biodiversitas 155, 12–16.

Google Scholar

Delgado-Ramírez, C. E., Ota, Y., and Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. (2023). Fishing as a livelihood, a way of life, or just a job: considering the complexity of “fishing communities” in research and policy. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 33, 265–280. doi: 10.1007/s11160-022-09721-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

ECOSUR . (2022). Available at: https://www.ecosur.mx/ecosur-desarrolla-tecnologia-para-apoyar-la-actividad-pesquera/ (Accessed November 2023).

Google Scholar

Espinoza-Tenorio, A., Ehuan-Noh, R. G., Cuevas-Gomez, G. A., Narchi, N. E., Ramos-Muñoz, D. E., Fernandez-Rivera Melo, F. J., et al. (2022). Between uncertainty and hope: young leaders as agents of change in sustainable small-scale fisheries. Ambio 51, 1287–1301. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01639-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., and Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 5, 1–4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018- meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Google Scholar

FAO (2020). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Google Scholar

FAO, Duke University, and World Fish (2023). Illuminating hidden harvests–the contributions of small-scale fisheries to sustainable development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations..

Google Scholar

Fernandez-Rivera Melo, F. J., Lopez-Ercilla, I., Torre, J., Fitzmaurice-Cahluni, F., Solano, N., Fulton, S., et al. (2022). “De lo individual a lo colectivo: programa de liderazgo comunitario pesquero para revertir la tragedia de los comunes” in Comunidades con voz. El futuro de la pesca artesanal en Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Eds. L. Saavedra-Díaz and M. C. Diazgranados (Santa Marta, Magdalena: Universidad de Magdalena), 117–153.

Google Scholar

Fulton, S., Lopez-Sagástegui, C., Weaver, A. H., Fitzmaurice-Cahluni, F., Galindo, C., Fernandez-Rivera Melo, F., et al. (2019). Untapped potential of citizen science in Mexican small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:517. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00517

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garavito-Bermudez, D. (2020a). Biocultural learning: beyond ecological knowledge transfer. J. Env. Plan. Manag. 63, 1791–1810. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1688651

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garavito-Bermudez, D. (2020b). A biographical approach to the study of biocultural learning. Adult Edu. Discour. 21, 105–124. doi: 10.34768/dma.vi21.491

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garavito-Bermudez, D., and Boonstra, W. J. (2022). Knowing through fishing: exploring the connection between fishers’ ecological knowledge and fishing styles. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 66, 1841–1860. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2043257

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garavito-Bermudez, D., and Lundholm, C. (2017). Exploring interconnections between local ecological knowledge, professional identity and sense of place among Swedish fishers. Env. Edu. Res. 23, 627–655. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1146662

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Lorenzo, I., Ahson, D., and Varela-Lafuente, M. (2021). Community-based fisheries organisations and sustainable development: lessons learned from a comparison between European and Asian countries. Mar. Policy 132:104672. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104672

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hintz, E. A., and Dean, M. (2020). Best practices for returning research findings to participants: methodological and ethical considerations for communication researchers. Commun. Met. Meas. 14, 38–54. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2019.1650165

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hurlbert, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Davin, E., Johnson, F. X., Mena, C. F., Morton, J., et al. (2019). “Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development” in Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. eds. P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, and D. C. Roberts (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 673–802.

Google Scholar

International Council for Science . (2002). ICSU series on science for sustainable development no. 4: Science. Traditional knowledge and sustainable development.

Google Scholar

IUCN . (2022). Application of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in IUCN red list assessments: white paper. Version 1. Adopted by the IUCN SSC red list committee and IUCN CEESP-SSC sustainable use and livelihoods specialist group steering committee. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/ilk. (Accessed March, 2024).

Google Scholar

Kitolelei, S., Thaman, R., Veitayaki, J., Breckwoldt, A., and Piovano, S. (2021). Na Vuku Makawa ni Qoli: indigenous fishing knowledge (IFK) in Fiji and the Pacific. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:684303. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.684303

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maharja, C., Radisti, A. P., Ritcher, I., Crummy, A., Devine, D., Gajardo, L. J. A., et al. (2023). “Chapter 17- the people of the seas and the seas of the people” in Oceans and human health. 2nd ed Ed. L. E. Fleming, and L. B. Alcantara, W.H. Gerwick, H.C Goh, M o. Gribble, B. Maycock, H. Solo-Gabriele (Kidlington, Oxford: Academic Press), 499–530.

Google Scholar

March, A., and Failler, P. (2022). Small-scale fisheries development in Africa: lessons learned and best practices for enhancing food security and livelihoods. Mar. Pol. 136:104925. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104925

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mattalia, G., Stryamets, N., Pieroni, A., and Sõukand, R. (2020). Knowledge transmission patterns at the border: ethnobotany of Hutsuls living in the Carpathian Mountains of Bukovina (SW Ukraine and NE Romania). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 16:41. doi: 10.1186/s13002-020-00391-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mazzocchi, F. (2006). Western science and traditional knowledge. Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Rep. 7, 463–466. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400693

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meza-Monge, A., Espinosa-Romero, M. J., and Torre, J. (2015). Difundiendo los Instrumentos Legales para el Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Jaiba en Sonora. México. Cienc. Pesq. 23, 91–100.

Google Scholar

Mfutso-Bengo, J., Masiye, F., Molyneux, M., Ndebele, P., and Chilungo, A. (2008). Why do people refuse to take part in biomedical research studies? Evidence from a resource-poor area. Malawi Med. J. 20, 57–63. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v20i2.10958

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt-Brace & World Inc.

Google Scholar

Narchi, N. E., Cornier, S., Canu, D. M., Aguilar Rosas, L. E., Bender, M. G., Jacquelin, C., et al. (2014). Marine ethnobiology a rather neglected area, which can provide an important contribution to ocean and coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 89, 117–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Narchi, N., Précoma de la Mora, M., Torre, J., and Garibay, I. (2024). Medición cíclica del uso de recursos bióticos: una metodología para la reconstrucción de calendarios etnobiológicos. Rev. Etnobiol. 22, 135–160.

Google Scholar

Narváez-Elizondo, R. E., González-Elizondo, M., Castro-Castro, A., González-Elizondo, M. S., Tena-Flores, J. A., and Chairez-Hernández, I. (2021). Comparison of traditional knowledge about edible plants among young southern Tepehuans of Durango. Mexico. Bot. Sci. 99, 834–849. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2792

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ogar, E., Pecl, G., and Mustonen, T. (2020). Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3, 162–165. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Okui, K., Sawada, Y., and Yoshida, T. (2021). “Wisdom of the elders” or “loss of experience” as a mechanism to explain the decline in traditional ecological knowledge: a case study on Awaji Island. Jpn. Hum. Ecol. 49, 353–362. doi: 10.1007/s10745-021-00237-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ovung, E. Y., Kithan, L. M., Brearley, F. Q., and Tripathi, S. K. (2022). Indigenous community fishing practices in Nagaland. Eastern Indian Himalayas. Sustain. 14:7049. doi: 10.3390/su14127049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Patzlaff, R. G., and Peixoto, A. L. (2009). A Pesquisa em Etnobotânica e o retorno do conhecimento sistematizado à comunidade: um assunto complexo. Hist. Cienc. Saude-Manguinhos. 16, 237–246. doi: 10.1590/S0104-59702009000100014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Quintana, A. C., and Basurto, X. (2021). Community based conservation strategies to end open access: the case of fish refuges in Mexico. Cons. Sci. Prac. 3:e28. doi: 10.1111/csp2.283

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reyes-García, V., García-del-Amo, D., Benyei, P., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Gravani, K., Junqueira, A. B., et al. (2019). A collaborative approach to bring insights from local observations of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Curr. Opin. Envion. Sustain. 39, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salas, S., Barragán-Paladines, M. J., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2019). Viability and sustainability of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. MARE Publication Series. Cham: Springer.

Google Scholar

Salganik, M. J., and Heckathorn, D. D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol. Methodol. 34, 193–240. doi: 10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saynes-Vasquez, A., Vibrans, H., Vergara-Silva, F., and Caballero, J. (2016). Intracultural differences in local botanical knowledge and knowledge loss among the Mexican isthmus Zapotecs. PLoS One 11:e0151693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151693

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuhbauer, A., and Sumalia, R. U. (2016). Economic viability and small-scale fisheries: a review. Ecol. Econ. 124, 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014). Global biodiversity outlook 4. Montréal: United Nations Environment Programme.

Google Scholar

Sells, N., Bassing, S. B., Barker, K. J., Forshee, S. C., Keever, A. C., Goerz, J. W., et al. (2018). Increased scientific rigor will improve reliability of research and effectiveness of management. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 485–494. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21413

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Soldati, G. T., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2016). Are the evolutionary implications of vertical transmission of knowledge conservative? Ethnobiol. Conser. 5, 1–9. doi: 10.15451/ec2016-6-5.2-1-09

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tang, R., and Gavin, M. C. (2016). A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses. Conserv. Soc. 14, 57–70. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.182799

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Teshome, M., Kebede, F., and Yohannes, T. (2023). An ethnobotanical survey of indigenous knowledge on medicinal plants used by communities to treat various diseases around Ensaro District, North Shewa Zone of Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Hindawi Sci. 2023:5575405. doi: 10.1155/2023/5575405

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Watters, J. K., and Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc. Probl. 36, 416–430. doi: 10.2307/800824

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wheeler, H. C., and Root-Bernstein, M. (2020). Informing decision-making with indigenous and local knowledge and science. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1634–1643. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13734

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Young, N., Nguyen, V. M., Corriveau, M., Cooke, S. J., and Hinch, S. G. (2016). Knowledge user’s perspective and advice on how to improve knowledge exhchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery. Env. Sci. Pol. 66, 170–178. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar