Eromose E. Ebhuoma- Centre of Excellence, Adaptation and Resilience, Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA), Pretoria, South Africa
It is widely recognized that natural infrastructure plays a pivotal role in sustaining Indigenous communities globally. Natural infrastructure encompasses ecosystems and environments that either occur naturally or have been deliberately altered through human intervention to provide multiple benefits for the environment and human wellbeing. While there has been extensive scholarly discussion regarding the importance of natural infrastructure in securing the livelihoods of Indigenous populations in developing nations and passing down their critical knowledge from one generation to another, the literature has not explicitly analyzed how Indigenous knowledge has facilitated the protection and conservation of natural infrastructure. Also, there has been limited analysis of the economic benefits of their conservation efforts. This article, utilizing bibliometric analysis as its methodological approach, aims to unpack how Indigenous knowledge has facilitated the protection and conservation of natural infrastructure. Several key themes emerged from this bibliometric analysis, including Indigenous governance strategies aimed at mitigating deforestation and addressing climate change and collective action taken to preserve natural infrastructure. Among others, a positive economic consequence of all three themes lies in their ability to improve the livelihood of Indigenous peoples by creating opportunities to receive payment for ecosystem services.
1 Introduction
Globally, there is substantial evidence to suggest that climate change is not an abstract entity but a lived reality (Simatele and Simatele, 2015; Donkor et al., 2019; Droulia and Charalampopoulos, 2021; Ebhuoma and Leonard, 2021). In 2023, for example, the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, in Canada, experienced severe flooding, costing insured damage worth over C$170 million (US$125.5 million) in Nova Scotia alone (Insured bureau of Canada, 2023). Also, Canada is currently experiencing its worst wildfire season on record. All 13 provinces and territories in Canada have been affected, with large wildfire outbreaks in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Northern Territories. In August 2023, the entire capital city of Yellowknife, Northern Territories, was forced to evacuate due to fast encroaching wildfires (Schneyer, 2023). A somewhat similar occurrence has been witnessed in some European countries. Major wildfires burning for days in north-eastern Greece and on the fringes of the capital, Athens, have incinerated more tracts of forest and forced additional evacuations as firefighters struggled against strong winds and arid conditions (Becatoros, 2023). Also, Spain's Tenerife and Turkey's north-western Canakkale province have been adversely affected by wildfires, although to a considerably lesser degree than Greece. Developing countries have not been spared from the devastating events of climate change.
The literature indicates that developing countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are highly susceptible to the adverse impacts of climate change due to their geographical, socioeconomic, and environmental characteristics (Knox et al., 2012; Kilroy, 2014; Aryal et al., 2020; Rao et al., 2020). Both regions encompass diverse ecosystems, including forests, grasslands, deserts, and coastal areas, all susceptible to climate variability and change. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), climate change manifests through various phenomena such as rising temperatures, increasing droughts, sea-level rise, erratic rainfall patterns, and heavy rainfall resulting in flooding (Musavengane, 2019; Mavhura et al., 2021; Tantoh et al., 2022). Like their counterparts in Asia, local and Indigenous peoples are often the worst affected by climate change in SSA partly because of limited support systems and the fact that they rely extensively on the natural infrastructure to obtain their livelihoods (Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2019; Lawal et al., 2022; Nyadzi et al., 2022).
Natural infrastructure refers to an ecosystem or environment that occurs naturally or has been intentionally modified by human management to yield multiple advantages for both the environment and human wellbeing. It represents an actively controlled facet of the natural world, with the primary objective of delivering significant benefits, including but not limited to climate resilience, access to clean water, and the preservation of biodiversity [International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, 2023)]. This concept entails a deliberate and strategic approach to overseeing and preserving natural landscapes such as forests, wetlands, rivers, and coastal regions. To be classified as natural infrastructure, a specific region or system must fulfill three distinct criteria: first, it must possess a natural character or have been adapted to mimic natural conditions. For instance, this classification encompasses naturally existing wetlands and constructed wetlands, or floating treatment wetlands designed to replicate the functions of their natural counterparts. Second, it must be subject to targeted human intervention or management. Natural processes or systems that operate without deliberate human involvement do not fall under this category. This active management component distinguishes natural infrastructure, making it more beneficial than analogous natural systems found in neighboring areas or similar contexts. Third, it should provide augmented benefits, such as bolstering communities' resilience to climate-related challenges, improving water quality, and effectively retaining floodwaters (IISD, 2023).
The literature acknowledges that Indigenous peoples in developing countries such as Bangladesh, China, Thailand, Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania engage in ecological restoration and sustainable land conservation to ensure the overall health of the natural infrastructure that caters to their livelihood and spiritual wellbeing are protected (Msuya, 2007; Luo et al., 2009; Jimoh et al., 2012; Mukul and Saha, 2017; Chunhabunyatip et al., 2018; Nyadzi et al., 2022). These efforts ensure that Indigenous people's identities and knowledge systems are protected and passed on from generation to generation. Several pieces of literature have underscored the role of Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in facilitating climate change adaptation and ecosystem services protection in developing countries (Orlove et al., 2010). IKS refers to knowledge rooted in cultural identity, experiential with real-life scenarios and passed on from generation to generation, usually by word of mouth and repetitive engagements (Orlove et al., 2010). What is missing in the literature on IKS, however, is an article that underlines the mechanisms through which IKS continues to facilitate the protection of natural infrastructure in the face of a rapidly changing climate and a critical discussion of the economic implications for the continued protection of natural infrastructure.
Analyzing the economic implications in studies on Indigenous knowledge systems and the conservation of the natural infrastructure cannot be ignored based on three premises. Firstly, understanding the economic benefits of incorporating Indigenous knowledge into conservation efforts can reinforce the notion that its contribution to sustainable development cannot be overemphasized as it can promote policies and initiatives that prioritize the wellbeing of local communities while safeguarding the environment. Secondly, economic analysis of IKS to natural infrastructure conservation may provide valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of different conservation strategies by identifying which approaches may yield the highest return on investment regarding both ecological outcomes and community wellbeing. Thirdly, decision-makers, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international organizations, can make more informed choices when they understand the economic value of Indigenous knowledge in natural infrastructure conservation. This can generate more significant support for conservation projects and collaboration among different parties. Lastly, economic analyses of successful Indigenous knowledge-based conservation projects can serve as models for replication in other regions, contributing to the scalability and replication of effective strategies.
In light of the above, a bibliometric analysis of existing literature is conducted to unpack how Indigenous knowledge has facilitated the protection and conservation of natural infrastructure necessary for the continuity of livelihood activities in developing countries.
2 Methodology
A bibliometric analysis was conducted to analyze how Indigenous knowledge has facilitated the protection and conservation of natural infrastructure in developing countries. Bibliometric analysis techniques such as term co-occurrence and thematic analysis are increasingly used to provide overviews of the progress and state of knowledge in different research areas (Van Eck and Waltman, 2022). Additionally, this technique proved especially useful for handling vast amounts of data reported in academic papers that may be challenging to review using other methods, such as systematic reviews. The input data utilized for term co-occurrence analysis was sourced from Web of Science, a highly regarded database renowned for its meticulous indexing of top-tier scholarly publications. To retrieve relevant publications, a broad-based search string was developed using a combination of different variants of terms related to rainforests, climate change, and depletion. The search string was developed iteratively. In other words, an initial search string was tested, and new terms were added to it after checking the initially retrieved documents. This was continued until adding new terms to the string did not result in the retrieval of new relevant publications. The final search string used is as follows: [(“traditional knowledge” OR “local knowledge” OR “indigenous knowledge” OR “indigenous knowledge systems”) AND (“infrastructure” OR “forest protection” OR “culture infrastructure” OR “natural infrastructure” OR “natural environment” OR “asset protection” OR “green infrastructure”) AND (“developing countries” OR “Africa” OR “Asia”)].
On August 5, 2023, the search string was applied to search within the article title, abstract, and keywords in the indexed publications, regardless of their publication date. The search yielded 438 articles. After excluding the review articles, 142 articles were selected for further review. It is noteworthy to mention that articles dated 2009 and earlier were omitted, resulting in 126 articles which were then exported to Zotero for analysis in VOS viewer. The primary reason for selecting articles from 2010 onwards was to explore how relevant the concept of Indigenous knowledge has been in the last decade in terms of protecting and conserving natural infrastructure owing to the misconception of attributing Indigenous knowledge as archaic (Mapara, 2009). The resulting 142 articles underwent screening to ensure their suitability to meet the research objective. After narrowing down the selection to articles specifically from developing countries in Africa and Asia, and reading the abstracts and skimming through the articles, 53 articles were chosen for the final analysis, including studies conducted in South America (15 articles). Following this, a complete record and citation data of the selected articles to be used as input data for term co-occurrence analysis was downloaded and saved in Zotero, a referencing software. VOSviewer was chosen for the bibliometric analysis since it has a user-friendly interface and offers term co-occurrence outputs suitable for thematic analysis (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). The software can be used to do various analyses such as term co-occurrence analysis, co-citation analysis, and bibliographic coupling. This paper used the term co-occurrence since the aim is to determine the significant thematic areas addressed in the existing literature. The output of this analysis is a schematic where nodes represent key terms and links, indicating how they are connected to each other. The node size is proportional to the number of times a term has co-occurred with other terms in the network. Also, link width is proportional to the strength of the connections between terms. Terms that are strongly linked to each other form thematic research clusters that are shown in different colors on the term map (Figure 1). For more details on the processes for term co-occurrence analysis, kindly refer to the VOSviewer manual by Van Eck and Waltman (2022).
Figure 1. A bibliometric analysis showing themes related to Indigenous people protection and conservation of natural infrastructure in developing countries. The red cluster focuses in the role of management in conserving natural infrastructure. The blue cluster underscores the role of governance in protecting natural infrastructure within indigenous communities. The green cluster highlights the importance of weaving Indigenous knowledge and collective action, crucial for facilitating climate change adaptation and building resilience needed to protect natural infrastructure.
3 Results
3.1 Theme 1 (red cluster)— Conservation and management of natural infrastructure
Indigenous knowledge plays a crucial role in conserving and managing natural infrastructure and sustainable land-use practices in developing countries. Indigenous peoples' conservation and management techniques of natural infrastructure are often embedded in their cultural identities and spirituality (Chunhabunyatip et al., 2018; Lawal et al., 2022; Hakim et al., 2023). Indigenous peoples often possess an intricate understanding of the interconnectedness of various components of their ecosystems. This knowledge encompasses not only the biological aspects but also the cultural, spiritual, and social dimensions of the environment, as Indigenous peoples often see themselves as one with their natural infrastructure. The spiritual beliefs held by indigenous people have been a significant factor that has contributed significantly to natural infrastructure conservation in developing countries. In countries like Vietnam, Ghana, Thailand, and Indonesia, to mention but a few, Indigenous people's management and conservation of natural resources was underpinned by the belief that the spirits of their ancestors and gods reside in the forests. Consequently, the forests—deemed sacred or “holy” places—were respected and maintained by Indigenous peoples as abuse of the forest ecosystems may attract retribution from spiritual deities (Asante et al., 2017; Nguyen and Ross, 2017; Chunhabunyatip et al., 2018; Usop and Rajiani, 2021). To further buttress this point, Nguyen and Ross (2017, p. 143) stated:
“In Dao culture [Vietnam], there are three elements that link resident communities to the natural and Spirit worlds. Dao people engage with Water Spirits and Forest Spirits through their ceremonies. They believe that there is a close relationship between water and the forest. Any activities that violate forest and water sources will impact on the Spirit world and will be penalized.”
These Indigenous belief systems that revolve around assigning supernatural abilities to specific elements of the natural world, designating them as the abode of deities, appear to have played a substantial role in safeguarding and preserving vital natural resources like forests, water bodies, soil fertility, and wildlife from excessive use and misuse. It is, therefore, not surprising that scholars recommend that countries once rich in biodiversity with healthy conservation status and currently experiencing increasing natural resource degradation partly due to low public compliance with the existing state-based environmental regulations should adopt Indigenous and traditional norms and practices governing natural infrastructure as they achieved better public compliance during the pre-colonial era and even in contemporary times (e.g., Etemire and Sobere, 2020).
It is worth pointing out that Indigenous peoples have developed adaptive strategies that are tailored to the specific ecological conditions of their regions, another crucial factor responsible for the conservation and management of their natural infrastructure (e.g., see Nyong et al., 2007; Motsumi et al., 2012; Nkomwa et al., 2014; Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2019). These adaptive strategies—often finely attuned to natural variability and environmental changes—include insights about soil fertility management and crop diversification, contributing to sustainable land-use practices that can mitigate climate change and other environmental stressors (Mugambiwa, 2018). As highlighted in various Asian and SSA studies, Indigenous agricultural practices often prioritize water conservation and the integration of different crops and livestock in farmland to scale up soil fertility (e.g., Gupta et al., 2012; Gowing et al., 2020). In addition, soil conservation strategies like agroforestry, terracing, rotational grazing, controlled burning, and crop rotation maintain soil health and prevent erosion, contributing to sustainable land-use practices that can serve as models for modern agricultural approaches in facilitating the conservation and management of the natural infrastructure that Indigenous people rely upon for their livelihoods (Gupta et al., 2012; Gowing et al., 2020). By preserving diverse natural infrastructure, Indigenous knowledge supports long-term ecosystem stability by avoiding overexploitation of natural resources. This is crucial to preserving their cultural heritage and promoting a strong sense of environmental stewardship.
3.2 Theme 2 (blue cluster)—Indigenous governance to mitigate deforestation and climate change
Indigenous and traditional governance systems—agreements in Indigenous and local communities that are subject to moral enforcement systems—in developing countries often play a significant role in governing the natural infrastructure to mitigate deforestation and climate change while supporting Indigenous people in obtaining their livelihoods. Indigenous and traditional forms of governance are deeply rooted in the cultural, spiritual, and ecological knowledge of Indigenous communities, and they often offer sustainable approaches that balance conservation with the wellbeing of the people. These governance structures guide how resources, such as timber, non-timber forest products, and wildlife, are utilized and harvested (Erinosho, 2015; Asante et al., 2017; Chunhabunyatip et al., 2018; Usop and Rajiani, 2021). Indigenous communities often have established rules and practices that regulate when, where, and how certain resources can be used. This sustainable approach ensures that resources are not overexploited, preserving them for future generations and maintaining a consistent source of livelihood. To substantiate this viewpoint, writing from an African context, Erinosho (2015) asserted:
“From time immemorial, local or traditional communities have established rules for the control of, [and] access to, including the use of natural resources. For example, they prohibited the cutting of some trees [and even the killing of some animals] that were of spiritual importance; devised methods for gathering certain fruits and other by-products of trees; restricted access to sacred groves and mountains; designated certain periods of the year for fishing and hunting; and established use and access rules for water resource.”
Table 1 highlights how spiritual beliefs and taboos govern how Indigenous peoples in developing countries have been able to conserve forest resources and other natural infrastructure. As Table 1 shows, Indigenous spiritual beliefs often prioritize the conservation of biodiversity and the protection of sacred sites and culturally significant species, which ultimately helps to mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration (e.g., see Dar et al., 2019; Maru et al., 2023). This approach is aligned with the traditional belief that a balanced ecosystem is essential for their livelihoods. By protecting biodiversity, indigenous communities ensure the availability of resources like medicinal plants, food sources, and materials for crafts, which are essential for their wellbeing. A benefit of the Indigenous spiritual beliefs in preserving natural infrastructure is curbing deforestation. The ripple effect of this can be seen in how Indigenous peoples in Asia and African countries have benefited from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, plus the sustainable management of forests and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) projects (Lemaitre, 2011; Aguilar-Støen, 2017). In addition, Indigenous peoples have received payments for ecosystem services as part of the global climate change mitigation efforts in line with their efforts to tackle deforestation (Ravikumar et al., 2023). Through Indigenous governance—hinged on spiritual beliefs—in facilitating natural infrastructure protection, some Indigenous leaders were able to negotiate fair compensation for the role of forests in carbon sequestration, providing a supplementary source of income for Indigenous peoples.
Table 1. Indigenous guidelines used to protect natural Infrastructure in developing countries.
As earlier highlighted, Indigenous and traditional governance of natural resources often stifle deforestation by promoting community-based forest management, which in turn helps to mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration. Indigenous peoples and local communities hold at least 17%, or 293,061 million metric tons (Mt) of the total carbon stored (Viswanathan, 2023). Indigenous governance of natural resources allows Indigenous people to have direct control over resource use and management decisions, ensuring that their livelihood needs are met while preventing deforestation and degradation of their natural resources. Another vital advantage Indigenous governance of the natural infrastructure presents for Indigenous peoples, courtesy of their cultural heritage and unique ecosystems, is their ability to engage in ecotourism or cultural tourism. As acknowledged by Johnston (2000), a significant attribute to the success of ecotourism in Indigenous communities depends on seeking the approval of Indigenous community leaders to ensure that it aligns with the community's values, sustains the environment, and benefits residents economically and culturally. Studies in Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, and Thailand, for example, have shown the enormous financial benefits ecotourism has brought to Indigenous people (Zeppel, 2009; Kazuhiro, 2010; Das and Chatterjee, 2015; Zanamwe et al., 2018). Ecotourism in some Indigenous communities has created a ripple effect in visitors by reinvigorating their willingness to become better stewards of the natural environment.
It is, however, important to note that the effectiveness of Indigenous and traditional governance in supporting livelihoods and natural infrastructure conservation including wading off threats from deforestation to meet growing local and international economic needs for logs varies across different contexts and regions. For instance, the interconnectedness of the global economy can pose difficulties for Indigenous communities in regulating the use of their natural infrastructure because multinational corporations frequently function beyond the jurisdiction of local and Indigenous regulations in their quest to cater to the unprecedented increasing global demand for natural resources. Indigenous communities often face significant pressures for resource extraction, such as mining, logging, and agriculture, due to economic development priorities (Gilberthorpe and Hilson, 2016; Altamirano-Jiménez, 2021). These pressures can override Indigenous and traditional governance structures and rights in part through accumulation by dispossession. Notwithstanding, the world is witnessing resistance from the grassroots in some cases, such as protests, blockades, and other forms of direct action can draw attention to unsustainable natural resource extraction to disrupt the operations of local and multinational corporation (e.g., see Gedicks, 2015; Altamirano-Jiménez, 2021). These actions can garner support from environmental activists and sympathetic allies, which together with the power of the media, is amplifying the voices of Indigenous peoples and preventing local and multinational corporations from completely having their way. It is worth pointing out that land titling may be a viable way Indigenous communities are harnessing to combat the infiltration of Indigenous land to illegally harvest their natural infrastructure including catalyzing deforestation as it can significantly reduce land disturbance particularly in the short term. For example, in the Peruvian Amazon, deforestation was reduced by 81% in the year that followed titling (Viswanathan, 2023).
3.3 Theme 3 (green cluster)—Collective action to protect natural infrastructure
Indigenous people in developing countries often rely on collective action as a fundamental strategy to build adaptive capacity and resilience to protect and sustain their natural infrastructure in the face of climatic and non-climatic challenges (Mavhura et al., 2013; Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2017; Chanza and Musakwa, 2022). Collective action refers to the coordinated efforts by community members working together to address specific goals and challenges. As studies show, through collective action, Indigenous communities vehemently advocate for their rights to sovereignty over their land and resources (Gedicks, 2015; Altamirano-Jiménez, 2021). These efforts are crucial for securing legal recognition and protections, allowing them to manage their natural infrastructure sustainably. Indigenous knowledge is often embedded in communal decision-making processes. Indigenous communities foster collective action by sharing their traditional ecological knowledge and practices. Indigenous communities engage in discussions and consultations to collectively determine resource use, conservation strategies, and adaptation measures. This promotes ownership of decisions and ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, and their cultural identity is protected (Koot and Hitchcock, 2019). Collaborative management, where Indigenous communities are active participants, helps ensure the sustainability of natural infrastructure. Seeking collective input in issues pertaining to their welfare, including protecting and conserving their natural infrastructure, leads to locally grounded policies and practices that are more likely to be accepted and successful. As Whyte (2017) acknowledged, elders and community leaders play a vital role in leading and coordinating the collective decision-making process in Indigenous communities. By pooling their collective knowledge, Indigenous communities adapt their practices to changing weather conditions to protect and conserve their natural infrastructure (Fariss et al., 2023).
An important attribute of collective action lies in its contribution to preserving cultural traditions and practices that are closely linked to the effective management of natural infrastructure. By upholding cultural values and practices, Indigenous communities maintain a sense of identity and resilience in the face of climate change to protect their natural infrastructure (Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2019; Lawal et al., 2022). Indigenous people often establish community-based natural infrastructure management systems emphasizing shared responsibility for natural resources. By collectively managing forests, water sources, and other ecosystems, Indigenous peoples ensure sustainable practices that prevent overexploitation and degradation. It is noteworthy to mention that many Indigenous communities assert their territorial rights through collective stewardship of nature, which includes mapping and protecting the boundaries of their ancestral lands (Sletto, 2009; Wainwright and Bryan, 2009; Bryan, 2019). As highlighted in Section 3.2, Indigenous communities establish customary rules and norms that guide resource use and interactions with the environment. These rules are partly underpinned by collective efforts, which play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems (Dar et al., 2019; Maru et al., 2023).
Collective action supports disaster preparedness and response efforts to protect and conserve their natural infrastructure. Indigenous communities have historically developed strategies to deal with natural and anthropogenic-induced extreme weather conditions such as flooding and droughts. Through coordinated efforts, they share resources, information and support one another during times of crisis (Mavhura et al., 2013; Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2017). Another way through which Indigenous people use collective action to protect and conserve their natural infrastructure is by forming networks and alliances with other communities, NGOs, and governmental bodies to amplify their collective voice and influence policy decisions (Gedicks, 2015; Altamirano-Jiménez, 2021; Viswanathan, 2023).
An essential ingredient of collective action is trust-building, hinged on social capital. Studies highlight that trust-building activities in Indigenous communities such as folklore tales stories, among others, which are crucial to concretize the ideology of shared identity and purpose, have contributed to increased cooperation and willingness to use natural infrastructure sustainably (Fariss et al., 2023). These findings suggest that increased attention to collective action can help scale up the effective management of natural infrastructure (Fariss et al., 2023). Overall, collective action is a cornerstone of Indigenous community resilience, enabling them to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining the balance between their cultural traditions and the management of their natural infrastructure. It empowers communities to shape their future and ensures the continuation of their unique ways of life.
4 Discussion and conclusion
IKS plays a fundamental role in protecting and conserving natural infrastructure in developing countries. By conducting a bibliometric analysis, this study sought to unpack the literature to explore how Indigenous knowledge has facilitated the protection and conservation of natural infrastructure necessary for the continuity of livelihood activities in developing countries. Themes that emerged include the conservation and management of natural infrastructure, Indigenous governance to mitigate deforestation and climate change, and collective action to protect natural infrastructure. It can be asserted that the themes that emerged in the bibliometric analysis regarding the mechanisms through which Indigenous people protect their natural infrastructure may not occur in isolation in practice but may be interconnected in some Indigenous communities. An important economic consequence of all three themes lies in their ability to improve the livelihood of Indigenous peoples. For example, the effective conservation of their natural infrastructure, including the mitigation of climate change through reforestation and sustainable forest management through collective action by Indigenous peoples in countries like Mexico, Columbia, and Cambodia has been acknowledged to create new economic opportunities by receiving payment for ecosystem services (PES), which scaled up Indigenous livelihood (Clements et al., 2010; Lliso et al., 2020; Rodríguez-Robayo). Also, through reforestation and sustainable forest management, Indigenous peoples in developing countries have become key players in the carbon markets, which has resulted in increased revenue generation through the sale of carbon credits (Aguilar-Støen et al., 2016; Aguilar-Støen, 2017). A drawback, however, of Indigenous peoples' participation in carbon markets and other carbon mitigation projects is that it can expose them to market fluctuations, thereby compromising the stability of their income, which can have enormous ramifications for their economic wellbeing and personal welfare. Notwithstanding, the ability to increase their revenue has morphed into enabling Indigenous people to protect their culture and intellectual property rights.
It is argued that Indigenous communities place significant importance on equity considerations associated with PES that extend beyond mere financial gains. These considerations encompass their ability to actively shape the design of PES initiatives and determine the most just and equitable methods for distributing payments (Lliso et al., 2020). This finding corroborates the importance of collective action for Indigenous people in guiding their affairs. Also, the literature acknowledges that Indigenous peoples are keen to protect and preserve their cultural richness and identity while participating in PES programs. As Rodríguez-Robayo et al. (2016) highlight, the PES program may not achieve its desired objectives if it fails to consider the cultural richness of Indigenous communities because Indigenous households may not understand the program. Thus, it is recommended that while policy developers and government officials seek to ensure Indigenous people benefit from PES, they must not replace the intrinsic motivations—deep-rooted spiritual connection with their land, cultural practices, place-based knowledge, and sacred sites—that serve as the primary driver motivating Indigenous people to protect and conserve their natural infrastructure.
Although PES schemes are increasingly heralded as a means of promoting conservation and reducing poverty in developing nations, a growing body of literature acknowledges that conservation policies, underpinned by epistemologies from the developed North and framed by neoliberal logic, are likely going to undermine environmental management practices already in place by Indigenous communities. This is because Indigenous use and conservation strategies of natural resources may conflict with state conservation agendas, which could result in the disenfranchisement of Indigenous peoples and communities (de Francisco et al., 2013; Kull et al., 2015). PES projects and policies are deemed neoliberal due to the notion that market-based management would produce the best results. This is because it is more efficient for markets to distribute limited conservation resources than for states and governments to dictate their use and distribution. PES are also neoliberal by expanding commodity relations into domains previously considered separate from the economy by framing elements of nature as commodities that can be traded (McAfee and Shapiro, 2010). Studies show that neoliberal lens has altered Indigenous natural resources conservation practices, creating internal conflicts among community members and recalibrating local development goals in Indigenous communities (de Francisco et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2022). Thus, to ensure that PES achieve its desired goal, it is recommended that PES schemes situate its lens beyond conservation to critically examine how Indigenous communities manage and distribute their local resources among community members (Rodríguez-Robayo et al., 2020).
It is also important to highlight that Indigenous cosmovision—which sees nature and Mother Earth as a sacred living being, which depend on all other living beings, including stones, water, air, earth and all the creatures that inhabit Earth, and must be defended due to Mother earth's right to life (GARN, 2014)—may be at odds with the commodification of nature through PES schemes. For instance, an Ecuadorian study reveals that PES fundamentally alters traditional resource management and land use practices while aggressively erasing Indigenous cosmovision (McBurney, 2021). Additionally, because PES schemes may promote the adoption of individual land rights, which runs counter to the collective and communal approach to land ownership adopted by many Indigenous communities, Indigenous cosmovision may be compromised (Barnes and Quail, 2011; Knox et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is argued that PES schemes in Indigenous communities operate within a broader social, political, economic, and cultural context that has historically devalued Indigenous cosmovision and land use (McBurney, 2021). Thus, to ensure that PES achieve its desired goal, it is recommended that PES schemes situate its lens beyond conservation to critically examine the cultural and intrinsic values Indigenous peoples attribute to their land and how Indigenous communities manage and distribute their local resources among its members (Rodríguez-Robayo et al., 2020).
It is also important to highlight that Indigenous cosmovision—which sees nature and Mother earth as a sacred living being, which depends on all other living beings, including stones, water, air, earth and all the creatures that inhabit earth, and must be defended due to Mother earth's right to life (GARN, 2014)—may be at odds with the commodification of nature through PES schemes. For instance, an Ecuadorian study reveals that PES fundamentally alters traditional resource management and land use practices while aggressively erasing Indigenous cosmovision (McBurney, 2021). Additionally, because PES schemes may promote the adoption of individual land rights, which runs counter to the collective and communal approach to land ownership adopted by many Indigenous communities, Indigenous cosmovision may be compromised (Barnes and Quail, 2011; Knox et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is argued that PES schemes in Indigenous communities operate within a broader social, political, economic, and cultural context that has historically devalued Indigenous cosmovision and land use (McBurney, 2021). Thus, to ensure that PES achieve its desired goal, it is recommended that PES schemes situate its lens beyond conservation to critically examine the cultural and intrinsic values Indigenous peoples attribute to their land, and how Indigenous communities manage and distribute their local resources among its members (Rodríguez-Robayo et al., 2020).
Also, research has demonstrated that another important economic advantage stemming from the capacity of Indigenous people to safeguard and preserve their natural infrastructure is the creation of opportunities to derive economic value from their culturally rich heritage. This is achieved through activities such as cultural and eco-tourism, and revenue generation from visitor fees and the sale of traditional items (Hashim et al., 2015; Qian, 2022; Suacana et al., 2022). Additionally, another crucial economic benefit arising from the effective protection and conservation of natural infrastructure, especially through collective endeavors, is the ability of Indigenous peoples to leverage their intellectual property rights. This entails negotiating agreements with interested parties or organizations for the utilization of their knowledge and other cultural assets, resulting in enhanced economic gains (Agrawal, 2006; Jain, 2009). It is important to acknowledge, however, that the economic implications of climate change and deforestation mitigation for Indigenous communities are intricate, multifaceted, and context specific. To ensure that these communities experience more favorable economic outcomes and are not adversely impacted by mitigation initiatives, it is imperative to establish effective and inclusive governance mechanisms that prioritize Indigenous rights, traditional knowledge, and equitable distribution of benefits.
To conclude, Indigenous knowledge serves as a vital foundation for sustainable land-use and the conservation of natural infrastructure in developing countries. Thus, the voices of Indigenous people must play a crucial role in dictating the use and strategies to conserve natural infrastructure so that the intrinsic value which they hold precious are not eroded and lost, which can have huge ramifications for the continuity of their rich cultural heritage and identity for future generations.
Author contributions
EE: Writing—review & editing, Writing—original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The author is grateful to the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS) in South Africa for funding his PhD research.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS) in South Africa for funding his PhD research. This funding played an instrumental role in the conceptualization of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares 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.
References
Agrawal, B. C. (2006). “Culture, communication and the meaning of intellectual property rights in South Asia: a critical analysis,” in Intellectual Property Rights and Communications in Asia: Conflicting Traditions, eds P. N. Thomas, and J. Servaes (New Delhi: Sage 2006), 172.
Aguilar-Støen, M. (2017). Better safe than sorry? Indigenous peoples, carbon cowboys and the governance of REDD in the Amazon. For. Dev. Stud. 44, 91–108. doi: 10.1080/08039410.2016.1276098
Aguilar-Støen, M., Toni, F., and Hirsch, C. (2016). “Latin American approaches to implementing REDD,” in Environmental Governance in Latin America, eds F. de Castro, B. Hoogenbom, and M. Baud (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 205–233.
Altamirano-Jiménez, I. (2021). Indigenous women refusing the violence of resource extraction in Oaxaca. AlterNative 17, 215–223. doi: 10.1177/11771801211015316
Arhem, N. (2009). In the Sacred Forest: Landscape, Livelihood and Spirit Beliefs Among the Katu of Vietnam. Göteborg: SANS Papers in Social Anthropology, Göteborg University.
Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Khurana, R., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Rahut, D. B., and Jat, M. L. (2020). Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 5045–5075. doi: 10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4
Asante, A., Ababio, S., and Boadu, K. B. (2017). The use of indigenous cultural practices by the Ashanti's for the conservation of forests in Ghana. SAGE Open 7, 1–7. doi: 10.1177/2158244016687611
Ayaa, D., and Waswa, F. (2016). The role of Indigenous knowledge systems in the conservation of the bio-physical environment among the Teso community in Busia County-Kenya. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 10:467–475. doi: 10.5897/AJEST2016.2182
Barnes, B., and Quail, S. (2011). Land tenure challenges in managing carbon property rights to mitigate climate change. Land Tenure J. 2, 81–104.
Becatoros, E. (2023). Wildfires in Greece Force More Evacuations as Other European Blazes Are Brought Under Control. Available online at: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/europe/2023/08/24/wildfires-in-greece-force-more-evacuations-as-other-european-blazes-are-brought-under-control/ (accessed August 26, 2023).
Bryan, J. (2019). For Nicaragua's Indigenous communities, land rights in name only: Delineating boundaries among Indigenous and black communities in eastern Nicaragua was supposed to guaranteed their land rights. Instead, it did the opposite. NACLA Rep. Am. 51, 55–64. doi: 10.1080/10714839.2019.1593692
Chanza, N., and Musakwa, W. (2022). Revitalizing indigenous ways of maintaining food security in a changing climate: review of the evidence base from Africa. Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag. 14, 252–271. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2021-0065
Chunhabunyatip, P., Sasaki, N., Grünbühel, C., Kuwornu, J. K., and Tsusaka, T. W. (2018). Influence of indigenous spiritual beliefs on natural resource management and ecological conservation in Thailand. Sustainability 10:2842. doi: 10.3390/su10082842
Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1283–1291. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.010
Dar, J. A., Subashree, K., Raha, D., Kumar, A., Khare, P. K., and Khan, M. L. (2019). Tree diversity, biomass and carbon storage in sacred groves of Central India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 37212–37227. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06854-9
Das, M., and Chatterjee, B. (2015). Ecotourism and empowerment: a case analysis of Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 4, 136–145. doi: 10.1177/2277975215613175
de Francisco, R. J. C., Budds, J., and Boelens, R. (2013). Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 1217–1233. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.825037
Donkor, F. K., Howarth, C., Ebhuoma, E., Daly, M., Vaughan, C., Pretorius, L., et al. (2019). Climate services and communication for development: the role of early career researchers in advancing the debate. Environ. Commun. 13, 561–566. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1596145
Droulia, F., and Charalampopoulos, I. (2021). Future climate change impacts on European viticulture: a review on recent scientific advances. Atmosphere 12:495. doi: 10.3390/atmos12040495
Ebhuoma, E., and Leonard, L. (2021). An operational framework for communicating flood warnings to indigenous farmers in southern Nigeria: a systems thinking analysis. GeoJournal 86, 2639–2656. doi: 10.1007/s10708-020-10221-4
Ebhuoma, E., and Simatele, D. (2017). Defying the odds: climate variability, asset adaptation and food security nexus in the delta state of Nigeria. Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct. 21, 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.017
Ebhuoma, E. E., and Simatele, D. M. (2019). ‘We know our terrain': indigenous knowledge preferred to scientific systems of weather forecasting in the Delta State of Nigeria. Clim. Dev. 11, 112–123. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2017.1374239
Etemire, U., and Sobere, N. U. (2020). Improving public compliance with modern environmental laws in Nigeria: looking to traditional African norms and practices. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 38, 305–327. doi: 10.1080/02646811.2020.1751970
Fariss, B., DeMello, N., Powlen, K. A., Latimer, C. E., Masuda, Y. J., and Kennedy, C. M. (2023). Catalyzing success in community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 37:e13973. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13973
GARN (2014). Indigenous Cosmovision and the Rights of Nature Tribunal Framework. Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature. Available online at: https://www.garn.org/framework-for-tribunal/ (accessed January 13, 2024).
Gedicks, A. (2015). Transnational mining corporations, the environment, and Indigenous communities. Brown J. World Aff. 22, 129–152. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24591005
Gilberthorpe, E., and Hilson, G., (eds.) (2016). Natural Resource Extraction and Indigenous Livelihoods: Development Challenges in an Era of Globalization. Abingdon, VA; New York, NY: Routledge.
González, N. C., and Kröger, M. (2020). The potential of Amazon indigenous agroforestry practices and ontologies for rethinking global forest governance. Forest Policy Econ. 118:102257. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257
Gowing, J. W., Golicha, D. D., and Sanderson, R. A. (2020). Integrated crop-livestock farming offers a solution to soil fertility mining in semi-arid Kenya: evidence from Marsabit County. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 18, 492–504. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2020.1793646
Gupta, V., Rai, P. K., and Risam, K. S. (2012). Integrated crop–livestock farming systems: a strategy for resource conservation and environmental sustainability. Ind. Res. J. Extens. Educ. 2, 49–54.
Hakim, A. L., Saputra, D. D., Tanika, L., Kusumawati, I. A., Sari, R. R., Andreotti, F., et al. (2023). Protected spring and sacred forest institutions at the instrumental – relational value interface. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 62:101292. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101292
Hashim, R., Latif, Z. A., Merican, F. M., and Zamhury, N. (2015). The Praxis of Langkawi's sustainable regeneration strategy through eco-tourism. Soc. Behav. Sci. 170, 49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.014
Hermann, T. M. (2006). Indigenous knowledge and management of Araucaria araucana forest in the Chilean Andes: implications for native forest conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 15, 647–662. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-2092-6
IISD (2023). The Multiple Benefits of Natural Infrastructure. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available online at: https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/multiple-benefits-natural-infrastructure (accessed September 12, 2023).
Insured bureau of Canada (2023). Nova Scotia Flooding Causes Over $170 Million in Insured Damage. Available online at: https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/nova-scotia-flooding-causes-over-170-million-in-insured-damage (accessed September 13, 2023).
Jain, S. (2009). Effects of the extension of geographical indicators: a South Asian perspective. Asia Pac. Dev. J. 16, 65–86. doi: 10.18356/68c8e35b-en
Jimoh, S. O., Ikyaagba, E. T., Alarape, A. A., Obioha, E. E., and Adeyemi, A. A. (2012). The role of traditional laws and taboos in wildlife conservation in the Oban hill sector of Cross River national park, Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 39, 209–219. doi: 10.1080/09709274.2012.11906513
Johnston, A. (2000). Indigenous peoples and ecotourism: bringing Indigenous knowledge and rights into the Sustainability Equation. Tour. Recreat. Res. 25, 89–96. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2000.11014914
Kazuhiro, S. (2010). Ecotourism as an Indigenous movement: Strategic self-representation of the Karen people in northern Thailand. Encounters 1, 55–63.
Kilroy, G. (2014). A review of the biophysical impacts of climate change in three hotspot regions in Africa and Asia. Reg. Environ. Change 15, 771–782. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0709-6
Knox, A., Caron, C., Miner, J., and Goldstein, A. (2011). Land tenure and payment for environmental services: challenges and opportunities for REDD+. Land Tenure J. 2, 17–56.
Knox, J., Hess, T., Daccache, A., and Wheeler, T. (2012). Climate change impacts on crop productivity in Africa and South Asia. Environ. Res. Lett. 7:034032. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034032
Koot, S., and Hitchcock, R. (2019). In the way: perpetuating land dispossession of the Indigenous Hai//om and the collective action lawsuit for Etosha national park and Mangetti West, Namibia. Nomad. People 23, 55–77. doi: 10.3197/np.2019.230104
Kosoe, E. A., Adjei, P. O. W., and Diawuo, F. (2020). From sacrilege to sustainability: the role of Indigenous knowledge systems in biodiversity conservation in the Upper West Region of Ghana. GeoJournal 85, 1057–1074. doi: 10.1007/s10708-019-10010-8
Kull, C. A., de Sartre, X. A., and Castro-Larranaga, M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004
Lawal, M. O., Ajayi, O. O., and Akinyemi, A. E. (2022). “Influence of Indigenous spiritual beliefs in natural resources management and climate change mitigation among the Yorubas in Nigeria,” in Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Governance: a Sub-Saharan African Perspective. Sustainable Development Goals Series, eds E. Ebhuoma, and L. Leonard (Switzerland: Springer Nature).
Lemaitre, S. (2011). Indigenous peoples' land rights and REDD: a case study. Rev. Eur. Commun. Int. Environ. Law 20, 150–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00716.x
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., and Mariel, P. (2020). Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia. Ecol. Econ. 169:106499. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106499
Luo, Y., Jinlong, L., and Dahong, Z. (2009). Role of traditional beliefs of Baima Tibetans in biodiversity conservation in China. For. Ecol. Manage. 257, 1995–1920. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.001
Mapara, J. (2009). Indigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwe: juxtaposing postcolonial theory. J. Pan Afr. Stud. 3, 139–155.
Maru, Y., Aster, G., and Getahun, H. (2020). Indigenous ways of environmental conservation. Lessons from Gedeo community, Southern Ethiopia. Cogent. Food Agric. 6:1766732. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1766732
Maru, Y., Gebrekirstos, A., and Haile, G. (2023). Indigenous sacred forests as a tool for climate change mitigation: lessons from Gedeo community, Southern Ethiopia. J. Sustain. Forest. 42, 260–287. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2021.2007490
Mavhura, E., Manyangadze, T., and Aryal, K. R. (2021). A composite inherent resilience index for Zimbabwe: An adaptation of the disaster resilience of place model. Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct. 57:102152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102152
Mavhura, E., Manyena, S. B., Collins, A. E., and Manatsa, D. (2013). Indigenous knowledge, coping strategies and resilience to floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe. Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct. 5, 38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.07.001
McAfee, K., and Shapiro, E. N. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr, 100, 579–599. doi: 10.1080/00045601003794833
McBurney, M. (2021). Paying for Ecological Services in Ecuador: The Socio Bosque Program in Kichwa Communities of Chimborazo, Ecuador (A thesis presented to the University of Guelph, Canada). Available online at: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/ae541d07-ed89-48c6-90b9-eb7808971d0e/content (accessed January 12, 2024).
Motsumi, S., Magole, L., and Kgathi, D. (2012). Indigenous knowledge and land use policy: implications for livelihoods of flood recession farming communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Phys. Chem. Earth 50, 185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2012.09.013
Msuya, J. (2007). Challenges and opportunities in the protection and preservation of Indigenous knowledge in Africa. Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics 7, 1–8. doi: 10.29173/irie38
Mugambiwa, S. S. (2018). Adaptation measures to sustain indigenous practices and the use of indigenous knowledge systems to adapt to climate change in Mutoko rural district of Zimbabwe. Jàmbá 10:a388. doi: 10.4102/jamba.v10i1.388
Mukul, S. A., and Saha, N. (2017). Conservation benefits of tropical multifunctional land-uses in and around a forest protected area of Bangladesh. Land 6:2. doi: 10.3390/land6010002
Musavengane, R. (2019). Using the systemic-resilience thinking approach to enhance participatory collaborative management of natural resources in tribal communities: Toward inclusive land reform-led outdoor tourism. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 25, 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2018.12.002
Nguyen, T. H., and Ross, A. (2017). Barriers and opportunities for the involvement of indigenous knowledge in water resources management in the Gam River Basin in north-east Vietnam. Water Alternat. 10, 134–159.
Nguyen, V. T. H., McElwee, P., Van Le, H. T., Nghiem, T., and Vu, H. T. D. (2022). The challenges of collective PES: insights from three community-based models in Vietnam. Ecosyst. Serv. 56:101438. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101438
Nkomwa, E. C., Joshua, M. K., Ngongondo, C., Monjerezi, M., and Chipungu, F. (2014). Assessing indigenous knowledge systems and climate change adaptation strategies in agriculture: a case study of Chagaka Village, Chikhwawa, Southern Malawi. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 67, 164–172. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2013.10.002
Nyadzi, E., Nyamekye, A. B., and Ludwig, F. (2022). “Making climate services actionable for farmers in Ghana: the value of co-production and knowledge integration,” in Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Governance: A Sub-Saharan African Perspective. Sustainable Development Goals Series, eds E. Ebhuoma, and L. Leonard (Switzerland: Springer Nature).
Nyong, A., Adesina, F., and Elasha, B. O. (2007). The value of Indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigat. Adapt. Strat. Global Change 12, 787–797. doi: 10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0
Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., Kabugo, M., and Majugu, A. (2010). Indigenous climate knowledge in southern Uganda: the multiple components of a dynamic regional system. Clim. Change 100, 243–265. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9586-2
Oviedo, G. (2006). Community conserved areas in South America. Parks 16, 49–55. Available online at: https://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/parks_16_1_forweb.pdf#page=51
Qian, Z. (2022). Territorial governance, market integration and indigenous citizens in China's state-led eco-tourism: developing the Xixi national wetland park. J. China Tour. Res. 18, 991–1010. doi: 10.1080/19388160.2021.1973932
Rao, N., Singh, C., Solomon, D., Camfield, L., Sidiki, R., Angula, M., et al. (2020). Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Dev. 125:104667. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667
Ravikumar, A., Uriarte, E. C., Lizano, D., Farr,é, A. M. L., and Montero, M. (2023). How payments for ecosystem services can undermine Indigenous institutions: the case of Peru's Ampiyacu-Apayacu watershed. Ecol. Econ. 205:107723. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107723
Rodríguez-Robayo, K., Ávila-Foucat, V., and Maldonado, J. (2016). Indigenous communities' perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.013
Rodríguez-Robayo, K. J., Perevochtchikova, M., Ávila-Foucat, S., and De la Mora, G. D. (2020). Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 2839–2860. doi: 10.1007/s10668-019-00321-8
Schneyer, J. (2023). Record-Setting 2023 Canadian Wildfire Season Continues. Available online at: https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/blogs/hazard-hq/record-setting-2023-canadian-wildfire-season/ (accessed August 26, 2023).
Simatele, D., and Simatele, M. (2015). Climate variability and urban food security in Sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from Zambia Using an Asset-Based Adaptation Framework. South Afr. Geogr. J. 97, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/03736245.2014.924873
Singh, S., Youssouf, M., Malik, Z. A., and Bussmann, R. W. (2017). Sacred groves: myths, beliefs, and biodiversity conservation—a case study from Western Himalaya India. Int. J. Ecol. 2017:3828609. doi: 10.1155/2017/3828609
Sletto, B. (2009). Special issue: indigenous cartographies. Cult. Geogr. 16, 147–152. doi: 10.1177/1474474008101514
Suacana, I. W. G., Wiratmaja, N. I., and Sudana, W. I. (2022). Strategy for development of eco-tourism policy based on local wisdom of Indigenous communities in Ubud, Bali, Indonesia. J. Posit. Psychol. Wellbeing 6, 2608–2618. doi: 10.59670/ml.v20i6.3484
Tantoh, H. B., Mokotjomela, T. M., Ebhuoma, E. E., and Donkor, F. K. (2022). Factors preventing smallholder farmers from adapting to climate variability in South Africa: lessons from Capricorn and uMshwati municipalities. Clim. Res. 88, 1–11. doi: 10.3354/cr01693
Tanyanyiwa, V. I., and Chikwanha, M. (2011). The role of Indigenous knowledge systems in the management of forest resources in Mugabe area, Masvingo, Zimbabwe. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 13, 132–149.
Usop, S. R., and Rajiani, I. (2021). Indigenous Indonesian Dayak traditional wisdom in reducing deforestation. Indon. J. Geogr. 53, 310–317. doi: 10.22146/ijg.43546
van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Viswanathan, L. (2023). Indigenous Land and Carbon Rights are Vital to Mitigating Climate Change - Indigenous Climate Hub. Available online at: https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/2021/06/indigenous-land-and-carbon-rights-are-vital-to-mitigating-climate-change/ (accessed January 22, 2024).
Wainwright, J., and Bryan, J. (2009). Cartography, territory, property: postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cult. Geogr. 16, 153–178. doi: 10.1177/1474474008101515
Whyte, K. P. (2017). “Our ancestors' dystopia now. Indigenous conservation and the anthropocene,” in Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities, eds Heise, U., Christensen, J. and M. Niemann (New York, NY: Routledge), 206–215.
Zanamwe, C., Gandiwa, E., Muboko, N., Kupika, O. L., and Mukamuri, B. B. (2018). Ecotourism and wildlife conservation-related enterprise development by local communities within Southern Africa: perspectives from the greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation, South-Eastern Lowveld, Zimbabwe. Cogent Environ. Sci. 4:1531463. doi: 10.1080/23311843.2018.1531463
Keywords: natural infrastructure, bibliometric analysis, developing countries, Indigenous knowledge systems, natural resource conservation
Citation: Ebhuoma EE (2024) Indigenous knowledge and natural infrastructure resilience to climate change in developing countries: a bibliometric analysis. Front. Environ. Econ. 3:1295690. doi: 10.3389/frevc.2024.1295690
Received: 17 September 2023; Accepted: 01 March 2024;
Published: 26 March 2024.
Edited by:
Simona Andreea Apostu, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, RomaniaReviewed by:
David Barkin, Metropolitan Autonomous University, MexicoNiraj Prakash Joshi, Hiroshima University, Japan
Copyright © 2024 Ebhuoma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Eromose E. Ebhuoma, ZXJvbW9zZTIwMTImI3gwMDA0MDtnbWFpbC5jb20=