Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The unknown known – A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to T

forest biodiversity conservation
⁎
Bettina Joaa, , Georg Winkelb, Eeva Primmerc
a
Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
b
European Forest Institute (EFI), Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7, 53133 Bonn, Germany
c
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Local ecological knowledge and the land use practices of forest resource users who rely on this form of
Local ecological knowledge knowledge play a crucial role for biodiversity conservation in managed forests. The understandings of, and
Forest management approaches taken to analyze, such knowledge are diverse. To systematize the available knowledge, we conduct a
Forest land use review of 51 studies addressing local ecological knowledge (LEK) and forest biodiversity conservation practice.
Biodiversity conservation
We analyze what specific kind of knowledge is considered, who holds the knowledge, how this knowledge is
Local resource users
Literature review
actively applied in practice and how it relates to biodiversity conservation.
The review shows that local ecological knowledge and forest biodiversity conservation are linked through
various socially shared aspects, such as values and norms, spiritual beliefs and perceptions of ecosystem func-
tions and benefits as well as operational conditions, including livelihood strategies and economic constraints.
While many of the reviewed studies evaluate local knowledge as holding great promise for biodiversity con-
servation, the conclusions regarding practical implications of including this knowledge into forest and con-
servation management are mixed. In particular, the interaction of “traditional” conservation paradigms rooted in
local ecological knowledge and science-based “modern” paradigms is not thoroughly addressed. This applies
especially to European countries, where research on local ecological knowledge is scattered. Drawing on these
observations, we conclude that a greater focus on the ways in which societies in these countries can (re)generate,
transform and apply local ecological knowledge can play a crucial role in integrating conservation objectives
into forest management under changing environmental conditions.

1. Introduction Thereby, the practices and site-specific ecological knowledge of

people working in, and making their livelihoods from, natural en-
Forests harbor the majority of global terrestrial biodiversity vironments play a crucial role. The importance of local knowledge for
(Thompson et al., 2014). Less than 8% of the world’s forests are for- conservation is increasingly highlighted in literature (e.g. Gadgil et al.,
mally designated as protected areas, including areas that allow for some 1993; Berkes and Turner, 2006; Brook and McLachlan, 2008; Gomez-
management (IUCN I-IV) (Schmitt et al., 2009). The remaining 92% are Baggethun et al., 2010; Davis and Ruddle, 2010; Díaz et al., 2015a).
subject to various management strategies and practices. Therefore, in- This understanding is also reflected in international conventions, i.a. in
tegrating conservation into managed forests is a major political goal, Article 8(j) of the CBD, which requires all contracting parties to respect,
which is e.g. addressed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) preserve, maintain and apply the knowledge, innovations and practices
through its expanded programme of work on forest biological diversity. of indigenous and local communities that are relevant for the con-
Besides protecting, recovering and restoring forest biodiversity, the servation and sustainable use of biodiversity (UN, 1992).
programme explicitly includes the goal to “promote sustainable use of In the literature locally held and mobilized knowledge is variously
forest resources to enhance the conservation of forest biological di- referred to as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), indigenous eco-
versity” (UNEP/CBD, 2002: 238). logical knowledge (IEK), local ecological knowledge (LEK) or

Abbreviations: CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity; IEK, indigenous ecological knowledge; IK, indigenous knowledge; IPBES, Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; LEK, local ecological knowledge; NGO, non-governmental organization; SEK, scientific ecological knowledge; TEK,
local ecological knowledge; TFK, traditional forest knowledge; TFRK, traditional forest-related knowledge; TK, traditional knowledge; WoS, Web of Science
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Joa), georg.winkel@efi.int (G. Winkel), eeva.primmer@ymparisto.fi (E. Primmer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.001
Received 4 May 2018; Received in revised form 31 August 2018; Accepted 1 September 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

experience-based, practical or experiential knowledge; forest-specific Abstract, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus) in the ISI Web of Science
analyses also apply the term traditional forest-related knowledge (WoS) in May 2017 using all combinations of search terms shown in
(TFRK) (see Table 2 for an overview on terminology). In this review we Table 1. This acknowledgement of various knowledge terms describing
employ the term local ecological knowledge (LEK) as our interest lies in the site-specific ecological knowledge of local resource users allows to
people’s site-specific ecological knowledge that can be practically ap- capture the great variety of expressions used in scientific publications.
plied. This includes knowledge held and used by traditionally living The WoS database was chosen since it covers most of the international
indigenous people with a historical continuity of resource use as well as and regional journals from natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences
by non-indigenous natural resource users. and facilitates a transparent and replicable literature search.
LEK is frequently acknowledged as a valuable source of information As a result, 95 publications were identified. After reviewing the
(Charnley et al., 2007; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013) and yet con- abstracts of all articles, 33 of them were selected for in-depth analysis as
servation policy and planning is dominantly justified with scientific they explicitly examined the interrelation of LEK and biodiversity
knowledge. The practical implementation of forest and conservation conservation in forest ecosystems.
management relies on the engagement of locally operating practitioners The 62 discarded papers were excluded for the following reasons: 37
and requires the mobilization of their experiences and site-specific of them do not address LEK-related forest biodiversity issues since
knowledge (Paloniemi et al., 2018; Primmer and Karppinen, 2010). search terms were only found in the Keywords Plus field (consisting of
Hence, LEK may greatly determine such management on the ground words and phrases harvested from the titles of the cited articles); 21
and should be systematically considered in official conservation man- deal with types of knowledge that fall outside this review's definition of
agement and planning. LEK (e.g. urban ecological knowledge, expert ecological knowledge,
Forest managers, for example, perceive themselves as both auton- ecological knowledge of tourists), 2 analyze LEK in a context other than
omous and knowledgeable (Primmer and Karppinen, 2010; Maier and conservation and 2 are editorial notes or prefaces and thus do not in-
Winkel, 2017) and thus may decide rather independently which mea- clude any empirical research results.
sures they implement and how. Thereby, their LEK that is not only The WoS search was supplemented by a snowball approach to
factual knowledge, but deeply connected to practices and their local identify scientific literature not directly found in the database, but re-
and situated contexts, plays an important role. The frequent neglect of ferenced in the 33 reviewed articles. Through a manual search in their
this knowledge may explain why the implementation of conservation bibliographies another 18 articles meeting the aforementioned search
guidelines by practitioners is not necessarily in accordance with the criteria were identified. Altogether, 51 publications are reviewed here,
intentions of those who developed them (Arts et al., 2014). To under- including 2 book chapters published in edited volumes.
stand why the implementation may fail or not lead to the desired These papers were then systematically analyzed using the following
outcomes, it is first of all necessary to consider LEK not only as addi- categories: authors, journals and temporal trend of publications; re-
tional ecological data, but as an independent knowledge system with its gional focus; methodology; knowledge definitions and concepts;
own values, practices, institutions and management systems. Only on knowledge categories; findings and conclusions. The findings were
this premise can the relevance of LEK for conservation practice be fully described with a focus on the application and evolution of LEK, while
grasped. the conclusions were analyzed focusing on LEK’s relevance for forest
While the role of indigenous knowledge for development and em- biodiversity conservation. The following results are presented using
powering marginalized, indigenous people in these processes has been these categories.
widely discussed in development research (Agrawal, 1995; Briggs,
2013; Ferguson et al., 2010; Sillitoe, 2010), a similarly critical analysis 3. Results
has not been conducted with regard to biodiversity conservation. In-
deed, it is possible that the ignorance of the potential of LEK in chan- 3.1. Authors, journals and temporal trend of publications
ging conservation practice is a major constraint for effective con-
servation. The disciplinary background of lead authors, their affiliation and
To address these gaps, we conduct a review of the scholarly litera- the journals in which the articles are published may indicate trends in
ture on LEK and biodiversity conservation in forest ecosystems, seeking LEK research and, hence, is included in this review. The first authors of
to answer the following questions for forest-related LEK studies: (1) LEK papers represent various academic disciplines. While several au-
What knowledge is considered as LEK? (2) How are LEK holders iden- thors have a multidisciplinary background, in a rough categorization,
tified? (3) How is LEK applied in practice? (4) How is the application the largest groups are ecologists and biologists (n = 16) or social sci-
and relevance of LEK for biodiversity conservation evaluated? entists and anthropologists (n = 8). Further lead authors represent
The next section introduces the review's applied methodology. The forestry, environmental sciences, agriculture and geography. Most of
third section presents the results structured according to different the scholars are affiliated with either Asian or North American uni-
analysis categories (see Section 2) with a focus on the application and versities, which is also reflected in the regional focus of many of the
evolution of LEK and its relevance for forest biodiversity conservation. analyzed studies (see 3.2). However, while Asian research papers focus
Section four discusses our findings addressing the aforementioned re- on cases in and around their home countries, papers from North
search questions and reflects the present review’s approach. The final American institutions deal with cases from all over the world.
section concludes with an outlook on further research needs, including More than half of the analyzed papers were published in ecology,
not only questions of content, but also new methodological and con- forestry or conservation journals. While the scope of the ecology jour-
ceptual approaches to meet the inter- and transdisciplinary challenges nals cover nearly all sub-disciplines of ecological science (e.g.
in this field of research. Ecological Engineering, Ecological Research, Ecological Applications,
Ecosphere), most of the forestry and conservation journals focus on
2. Method natural resource management and conservation issues (e.g. Forest
Ecology and Management, Biological Conservation). Some explicitly
This paper reviews scientific literature published between 19451 address biodiversity conservation (e.g. Conservation Biology,
and April 2017. Relevant papers addressing LEK in forest biodiversity Biodiversity and Conservation). Relating to the multidisciplinary
conservation were identified through a TOPIC search (including Title, background of many authors, multi- and interdisciplinary journals (e.g.
Ecology & Society, Human Ecology, Society & Natural Resources) are
common publication forums as well. Although there are many social
1
Earliest year covered by the WoS database scientists among the authors, none of the articles were published in a

521
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

Table 1 (n = 7 each) and Africa (n = 7), whereas European (n = 3) and

Combinations of search terms (columns combined with "AND", rows combined Oceanic (n = 2) cases were rarely investigated. Regarding specific
with "OR"). countries, the largest number of analyses focused on India (n = 8),
Main topics Forest Knowledge Conservation China (n = 7) and Mexico (n = 6).
A great majority of research was conducted at local or regional le-
Search Forest* Ecological knowledge Biodiversity vels rather than at the national scale. Analyses rarely include compar-
terms conservation
isons, with the only exceptions found of Young et al. (2016) contrasting
Woods Environmental knowledge Nature conservation
Woodland Practical knowledge Biodiversity three case studies from Scotland, and Rist et al. (2016) comparing cases
preservation from India, South America and Alaska. The only two intra-continental
Experience-based Nature preservation studies analyze the role of indigenous knowledge (or, rather, TFRK) in
knowledge
sustainable forest management in Southeast Asia (Rerkasem et al.,
Experiential knowledge Biodiversity protection
Traditional forest-related Nature protection
2009) and Africa (Oteng-Yeboah et al., 2012).
knowledge Owing to the defined search criteria, all articles deal with forest
Environmental ecosystems, covering a broad range of forest types (from boreal forests
conservation to rainforests) and management intensities (from intensively managed

Table 2
Different knowledge terms and their definitions within the analyzed articles.
Term Knowledge concept/definition Reference

Local ecological knowledge (LEK) “(LEK) is defined here as knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding ecological relationships that are gained Charnley et al. (2007: 15)
through extensive personal observation of and interaction with local ecosystems, and shared among local
resource users. Local ecological knowledge may eventually become TEK.”
Traditional knowledge (TK) “Traditional knowledge is acquired by local people through the accumulation of experiences and informal Becker and Ghimire
experiments, and through an intimate understanding of the environment in a given cultural context” (2003: 1)
Traditional ecological knowledge “[…] a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural Berkes, (1999: 8)
(TEK) transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their
environment.”
“Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) refers to all types of knowledge about the environment derived Ianni et al. (2015: 145)
from the experience and traditions of a particular group of people transmitted from one generation to the
next.”
Traditional forest knowledge “[…] TFK “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, handed down through generations by Park and Youn (2012: 37)
(TFK) cultural transmission and evolving by adaptive processes, about the relationships of living beings (including
humans) with one another and with their forest environment””
Indigenous knowledge (IK) “Indigenous knowledge can be broadly defined as the knowledge that an indigenous (local) community Camacho et al. (2016: 5)
accumulates over generations of living in a particular environment (Rÿser 2011).”
“Indigenous knowledge is used to refer to a holistic worldview inseparable from the indigenous ways of life Ianni et al. (2015: 145)
embedded in cultural values, spiritual beliefs, and customary legal systems (e.g., Maweu 2011).”
Indigenous forestry knowledge “Indigenous forestry knowledge systems largely encompass local technologies, innovations, know-how, Camacho et al. (2016: 5)
(IFK) skills, practices and beliefs uniting local people to conserve forest resources and their cultural values.”

dedicated social sciences journal. agroforestry systems to strictly protected forest reserves).
While the review search delivered only a maximum of three pub-
lications per year up until 2006, the number of articles clearly grew in 3.3. Methodology used in LEK papers
the late 2000s (see Fig. 1). A great majority of papers (n = 42) were
published in the last decade (between 2007 and 2016). 3.3.1. Data collection and analysis
As a result of the great variety of lead authors’ academic disciplines,
3.2. Regional focus a wide range of methods are used. Of the 51 reviewed studies, 29 report
the use of exclusively empirical social science methods (such as inter-
To understand the geographical spread and the socio-cultural con- views, surveys, group discussions, participatory observations etc.),
texts that LEK studies address, we analyze the regional coverage of while 22 combine methods of empirical social research with biophy-
study areas. The review shows that LEK research has focused mostly on sical science or economics methods (such as tree inventories, satellite
indigenous communities in Asia (n = 24), North and South America imagery analysis, cost-benefit analysis etc.), which clearly reflects the
interdisciplinarity of the research field. A majority of studies rely on
qualitative data (n = 23), gathered either through empirical data col-
lection or by synthesizing published literature, while 18 articles are
based on a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data, and 10 use only
quantitative data.
Notably, some of the articles (n = 10) lack a description and doc-
umentation of research methods (i.e. sample size, period of data,
methods of data collection and literature synthesis) and very few stu-
dies include a critical reflection of methods applied. This is surprising as
most authors agree that LEK represents a particular methodological
challenge for empirical research.
One of the few authors who address difficulties in data collection
are Donovan and Puri (2004: 5), who find that this “type of knowledge
Fig. 1. Number of relevant articles by year of publication (only years with was seldom elicited outside the context of actual collecting expeditions;
publications are shown). only through participation and learning by doing could a deeper

522
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

understanding be gained”. Babai and Molnar (2013: 1) go further, de- An overview of all types of informants and sampling approaches can
scribing in detail what questions proved expedient in their interviews: be found in Appendix A
“The questions asked (‘what kind of place does species X like?’) helped
the often implicit knowledge of habitats to be verbalized”. Yet, overall, 3.4. Knowledge definitions and concepts
specific difficulties in data collection are hardly mentioned, nor do
authors reflect in detail on the quality of their collected data. Amongst To understand how LEK is conceptualized, we analyze how the re-
the exceptions for the latter are Rist et al. (2010) and Stave et al. viewed papers define the knowledge they address. Appendix B gives an
(2007), who discuss potential respondent bias, as well as Furusawa overview of all knowledge definitions applied, while Table 2 shows the
et al. (2014) and Silvano et al. (2005), who address small sample sizes knowledge terms most frequently found in the analyzed articles.
as limitations of their studies. More than one-third of the papers neither give a precise definition of
A similar challenge can be identified in regards to the critical re- the knowledge term they use, nor do they apply a specific theoretical
flection of data analysis and interpretation, which is often missing in approach or concept. The majority of papers that clearly specified the
the reviewed papers. Exceptions include Kai et al. (2014: 6), who use knowledge under investigation focused on TEK (n = 17), citing the
peoples’ ability to identify species as an index of LEK but later critically definition of Berkes (1993: 3): “a cumulative body of knowledge and
conclude that “the exact relationship between an ability to name spe- beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural transmission,
cies and other components of LEK is not known”. Furthermore, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one
Donovan and Puri (2004: 2) criticize approaches that “concentrate on another and with their environment.” Typically, this body of knowledge
the collection and analysis of verbal knowledge concerning biological is applied in local management systems governed by social institutions
taxa” as they were “often neglecting close examination of ecological embedded within specific worldviews or belief systems.
knowledge and the procedural or skill knowledge underlying a group’s A few studies (n = 8) developed their own knowledge definitions.
interaction with and manipulation of their environment.” Though not referencing Berkes (1993), these definitions have a similar
coverage, focusing on knowledge that evolves through long-term ob-
3.3.2. Identifying knowledge holders servations, experiences and interactions between humans and local
Typically, LEK comprises a variety of individual and collective ex- ecosystems, and the skills and techniques derived from this knowledge.
periences and observations so that “no one person or social group holds Some put more emphasis on religious or spiritual traditions, values,
the entire body of the knowledge” (Cetinkaya, 2009: 34). This indicates ethics and cultural beliefs; others focus more on practices, technologies
another methodological challenge in LEK research, which is the iden- and innovations.
tification of “knowledgeable” persons. Some authors combine different definitions, but only a few clearly
While 15 of the reviewed studies lack information on how LEK delimit the concepts, e.g. through different temporal and spatial refer-
holders have been selected, 36 studies indicate their selection process. ences. In these papers TEK is taken to highlight the historical legacy:
A majority of these (n = 21) use purposive sampling. Typical criteria “Handed down through generations” (Berkes, 1999: 8), implying the
for choosing knowledge holders are age, place of birth and residence, “development of knowledge over a longer timescale” (Rist et al., 2010:
length of living in the area, experiences in management practice, 1). This also applies to IEK that was said to accumulate over genera-
knowledge about local ecosystems and/or their hierarchal position in tions, but puts more emphasis on a “holistic worldview […] embedded
the community. in cultural values, spiritual beliefs, and customary legal systems” (Ianni
Some of the studies (n = 11) used peer recommendations to identify et al., 2015: 145). In contrast, LEK, per se, “is used to emphasize its very
interviewees. Peers can be representatives of official institutions, such localness” (ibid.) and can also be held by “peoples that may not have a
as local government authorities, teachers, nature reserve and NGO staff long-term relationship with the local environment, but nevertheless
or traditional authorities, such as village committees, village heads and have local wisdom, experience, and practices adapted to local ecosys-
community leaders. tems” (Ballard and Huntsinger, 2006: 530–531).
Random (n = 8) or stratified random sampling (n = 2) was mainly Despite the great variety of terms, many definitions overlap and
applied in quantitative studies including all potential resource users differ only slightly, e.g. regarding which knowledge components are
living adjacent to the ecosystem under investigation. Four studies used particularly stressed. Moreover, some authors even use various terms
snowball or chain-referral sampling, where initial interviewees suggest synonymously (Kai et al., 2014: 1).
other knowledgeable persons, thus increasing the sample. Two studies A majority of the reviewed literature focus on the empirical analysis
applied knowledge testing in order to identify LEK holders, and two of site-specific cases. Only some of the papers link their analysis to
studies, which included a vegetation survey, used the plot selection conceptual frameworks. Examples of this include the six “faces’’ of TEK
developed for their survey as sample criterion and interviewed re- distinguished by Houde (2007) (Rist et al., 2016) and the knowl-
spective plot owners. edge–attitudes–behaviors framework (Shen et al., 2012). Furthermore,
The selection strategies varied according to the different target the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment drivers of change and con-
groups that were analyzed in the reviewed papers. Some studies, as said stituents of human well-being were applied to analyze TEK change
above, gathered data from all residents of the study area. Most studies, (Cetinkaya, 2009), the ecosystem services framework was used to dif-
however, focus on specific groups, such as resource users (herbalists, ferentiate services and characterize LEK (Harisha et al., 2016; Higuera
harvesters, (agro)foresters, farmers, peasants, pastoralists, herders, et al., 2013) and the comparative ecosystem management framework
traditional healers, family forest owners and native bee-keepers), tra- was used to compare forest fire management practices of different ac-
ditional or spiritual leaders (community leaders, village heads, heads of tors (Hill et al., 1999).
traditional institutions, village priests, shamans, spiritual specialists
and religion masters), government staff (state forest officials, govern- 3.5. Knowledge categories
ment officers and managers), NGO members or specific ethnic groups
(e.g. Lacandon Maya, Baima Tibetans). As it is frequently presumed that To gain a deeper understanding of what knowledge is considered as
LEK has been developed through long-term experience within specific LEK in the reviewed papers, and to identify dominant ways in which
settings, it is often associated with elders “able to offer rich explana- LEK is framed in current research, we distinguish the following four
tions of natural and historic events, sacred and productive forests, vil- knowledge categories:
lage regulations, and changing forest management styles” (Jinlong
et al., 2012: 10–11). Nine studies explicitly focus on this type of in- 1) Factual observations and experiences (locally developed classifica-
formant. tions, naming and ecology of species and landscapes, ecosystem

523
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

Table 3
Number of studies per knowledge category (total and aggregated at continental level).
Knowledge category

Regional focus Observations and experiences Management practices Social institutions Worldviews

Asia (n = 24) 18 20 19 20
South America (n = 7) 7 3 2 1
North America (n = 7) 7 6 2 2
Africa (n = 7) 7 5 5 4
Europe (n = 3) 2 2 2 0
Australia & Oceania (n = 2) 2 2 2 2
Intercontinental (n = 1) 1 1 1 1
Total (n = 51) 44 (86%) 39 (76%) 33 (65%) 30 (59%)

components, understanding of interconnections and dynamics) conditions (Yaofeng et al., 2009). These include, among others, “rota-
2) Management systems and practices (methods for land and resource tional use and division of forests into compartments, selective felling of
use, conservation and adaptation) trees and promotion of natural regeneration of forests” (Tiwari et al.,
3) Social institutions (governing through customary rules, social 2010: 335), “multiple cropping, enrichment planting and protection”
norms, prohibitions and sanctions) (Camacho et al., 2016: 9), “conserving primary forest to provide seeds
4) Worldviews (beliefs, spirituality, sacred objects, rituals and cere- and animal refuge” (Diemont and Martin, 2009: 264) as well as
monies) “planting among a mosaic of successional stages that mimics the natural
vegetation” (Bohn et al., 2014: 271).
These categories are based upon a knowledge-practice-belief fra- Further examples described in the papers range from traditional
mework introduced by Berkes (1999: 13), which consists of four levels land use systems, such as Muyong, a forest watershed management
of analysis: local knowledge of animals, plants, soils and landscape; system in the Philippines (Camacho et al., 2016), Mayan swidden sys-
land and resource management systems; social institutions; and tems in Mexico (Bohn et al., 2014), Hani terraces management in China
worldview. (Jiao et al., 2012) and satoyama ecosystems in Japan (Indrawan et al.,
Not all analyzed studies deal with all categories. Factual observa- 2014) to agroforestry systems adopting modern agricultural techniques
tions and experiences are addressed most dominantly, while manage- (Rerkasem et al., 2009; Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016).
ment practices, social institutions and worldviews received less atten- Management systems and practices are a commonly analyzed
tion. Table 3 shows the number of studies per knowledge category and component of LEK across all regional studies. This illustrates the im-
breaks down these numbers according to the regional focus. Below we portance of the knowledge-practice interlinkage, and shows that it
describe the ways in which these categories emerge in the reviewed applies in various regional and cultural contexts.
analyses.

3.5.3. Social institutions

3.5.1. Factual observations and experiences
Two-thirds of the papers address the importance of (local) social
The most frequently (n = 44) addressed component of LEK is
institutions, which govern resource access and use “according to local
knowledge that LEK holders gain by spending time in forests “obser-
customs and traditions” (Tiwari et al., 2010: 334). These customary
ving, experiencing, experimenting, working, and tinkering” (Charnley
institutions are seen as evolving against the background of locally
et al., 2007: 15). This knowledge is reported as consisting of the iden-
grown experience in managing ecosystems, and influencing the im-
tification, naming and classification of species, including details about
plementation of management practices based on LEK.
their useful attributes, habitats, abundance, spatial distributions and
In Meghalaya (India), for instance, community forests are controlled
adaptations. Yet, many papers show that this is not only about knowing
and managed by village councils: “Subject to the conditions laid down
the individual ecosystem components, but rather about understanding
by these institutions […] people can collect fuelwood, fell trees for
their interactions and the systems’ dynamics, allowing to monitor
construction of houses, collect wild fruits, vegetables, orchids and
ecological changes (Donovan and Puri, 2004; Kai et al., 2014; Rerkasem
medicinal herbs” (ibid.: 335). These types of collective agreements and
et al., 2009; Stave et al., 2007; Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016).
customary laws are usually taken to reflect a common sense of correct
The underlying “experimental, anecdotal, and/or observational
attitudes to adopt towards the environment, based on “ethical respon-
data” (Charnley et al., 2007: 15), is said to be “developed on a trial-and-
sibility and social norms of reciprocity and respect for ecosystem in-
error basis” (Donovan and Puri, 2004: 15) through long-term experi-
tegrity” (Torri and Herrmann, 2011: 185). In the sense of rules-in-use,
ences. Since both observations and experiences are seen as site-specific,
institutions provide the means by which resource users can act and are
this knowledge is considered to “differ[s] according to locale” (Park
thereby considered to serve “the same function as externally defined,
and Youn, 2012: 41) and relates to the “embedded ‘signs of nature’”
formal natural resource management regimes” (Sardjono and
(Siahaya et al., 2016: 14) as visual aspects play an important role in
Samsoedin, 2001: 122). Violators of customary rules face “social, eco-
acquiring and applying LEK. Table 4 shows examples of the various
nomic or material sanctions” (Moreno-Calles et al., 2012: 218) or, at
knowledge components summarized in this category and described in
least, will be “looked down by others within the community” (Shen
the analyzed studies.
et al., 2012: 167). Singh et al. (2015: 196), for instance, report that a
“community member who deliberately or accidentally cut or damaged a
3.5.2. Management systems and practices paisang tree would not only be socially criticized, but also fined either
Category 2 comprises management systems that are said to use the in cash […] or kind” by the head of the village council. Some authors
LEK elements of category 1 in order “to sustain livelihoods and to en- assume that this form of social control may “be more effective at reg-
hance adaptive capacity of […] socio-ecological systems” (Oteng- ulating and constraining people’s behavior towards conservation than
Yeboah et al., 2012: 47). The reviewed papers reveal a wide variety of government laws and regulations” (Shen et al., 2012: 167).
natural resource management practices that require a comprehensive Our review shows that social institutions were recognized more in
understanding of ecological interrelations and local environmental some geographical regions than others: While a majority of the studies

524
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

Table 4
Examples for different knowledge components of category 1.
Knowledge component Example Reference

Observations “I frequently go to the mountains to observe native bees. I observe when and on the flowers of which trees the native Park and Youn (2012: 40)
bees hang.”
Experiments “Family forest owners […] experiment with planting patterns to foster favored wildlife species and view qualities, Charnley et al. (2007: 19)
and to explore new species arrangements.”
Classifications “many indigenous peoples […] employ a hierarchical system of naming […], which implicitly identifies relationships Kai et al. (2014: 2)
among species.”
Species knowledge “trees left are selected based on several characteristics, including their habit and canopy architecture, compatibility Oteng-Yeboah et al. (2012: 49)
with agricultural crops, and traditional subsistence and commercial uses and values“
Habitat knowledge “respondents identified local stands of black olive (Bucida buceras), sapodilla (Manilkara zapota), and Caribbean black Haenn et al. (2014: 955)
cherry (Lonchocarpus castilloi) as the bird’s preferred roosting sites. Once an area had been logged of these species,
sightings of King Vultures dwindled and then fell off altogether.”
Ecosystem services “The most cited of these forest services were cooling of the environment (microclimate), enhancement of water Silvano et al. (2005: 376-678)
quality and availability (through water conservation and provision), protection against the wind (avoiding damage to
houses and buildings) and enrichment of soil organic matter.”
Ecosystem components “According to the 79 respondents, the most important prerequisite for forest growth was groundwater […] or high Stave et al. (2007: 1476-1479)
moisture content in the soil […], followed by occasional floods […], heavy rainfall events […], nutrient-rich soils
[…], and seed-dispersal by livestock”
Interactions “several harvesters explained that salal responds positively to the silvicultural thinning of trees because thinning Ballard and Huntsinger (2006:
opens up the canopy and allows light to penetrate to the forest understory, stimulating growth of the salal and other 539)
floral green species.”

conducted in Asia and Africa address the institutional context of the main findings of the three topic groups will be given, focusing on the
knowledge systems they analyze, only some of the South and North- application and evolution of LEK.
American studies pay attention to social institutions and/or customary
rules governing local knowledge systems.
3.6.1. Application of LEK in natural resource management
The practical application of LEK as described in the case studies is
3.5.4. Worldviews usually guided by differing management goals and strategies, which
Many of the reviewed papers referring to Berkes’ (1999: 13) may be based on various values or determined by social norms and
“knowledge-practice-belief complex” base their analysis on the as- institutions. Utilitarian strategies include measures for income genera-
sumption that LEK is “embedded in conceptual/spiritual belief systems” tion, e.g. if LEK provides “the basis for creating value added products”
(Torri and Herrmann, 2011: 184) that shape environmental percep- (Youn, 2009: 2033Youn, 2009Youn, 2009: 2033), or practices that in-
tions. Peoples’ traditional and spiritual beliefs, superstitions, legends directly affect productivity, such as water and soil preservation (Jiao
and fairy tales, rituals, religious ceremonies and sacred objects et al., 2012) or maintaining “trees and shrubs to ensure the specific
(Anthwal et al., 2010; Donovan and Puri, 2004; Irakiza et al., 2016; habitat of some other useful species” (Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016: 5). In
Moreno-Calles et al., 2012; Torri and Herrmann, 2011; Yaofeng et al., contrast, other studies, especially those that consider the worldviews of
2009) are thereby understood to constitute important elements of how LEK holders, emphasize the important role of “[e]thic values […], the
people know about forest ecosystems. In many African societies, TEK of social prestige associated to nature conservation, and traditional cus-
indigenous people is even “synonymous with spirituality, which con- toms” (Moreno-Calles et al., 2012: 220), a set of practices that can be
tributed to sustain the sacred forests” (Irakiza et al., 2016: 2). labeled as moral strategies. However, against the background of chan-
Results show that it is mostly studies on traditional or indigenous ging socio-ecological systems (see 3.6.3), those values and strategies
people that apply the knowledge holders’ worldviews as “a framework may be replaced by utilitarian ones. Oteng-Yeboah et al. (2012: 59–60)
for interpreting and understanding their relationship with their physical give an example from Ethiopia where the “traditional conservation of
and biological environments” (Jiao et al., 2012: 251). While the ma- larger trees […] formerly hinged on religious beliefs and cultural at-
jority of studies dealing with cases in Asia, Africa and Oceania ad- tachments that are presently nonexistent.” Nevertheless, these trees are
dressed the worldviews of LEK holders in their analyses, studies con- still “conserved because of the benefits the community derives from the
ducted in other regions hardly took this aspect of LEK into account. resources rather than the non-binding […] social sanctions”. Thus,
changes in motivation to conduct traditional practices do not necessa-
rily alter the practices themselves.
3.6. The application and evolution of LEK

The range of topics addressed in the reviewed papers can be roughly 3.6.2. Knowledge integration
divided into three groups. The first major topic that many of the articles The second major research focus was on comparing and integrating
analyze is the practical application of LEK in natural resource man- the knowledge of local resource users with that of actors involved in
agement, advancing the understanding of its potential contributions conservation politics or research. While some authors stress the ne-
and its relevance for biodiversity conservation. The second major topic cessity of a “scientific verification” (Rerkasem et al., 2009:
is the different types of ecological knowledge and their interrelations: 2042Rerkasem et al., 2009Rerkasem et al., 2009: 2042) of LEK, others
some articles attempt to validate the accuracy of LEK against scientific highlight “the need to focus less on issues of “correctness” […] and to
ecological knowledge (SEK) or explore their differences and simila- place more emphasis on what it can add to resource management when
rities; others assume that different knowledge systems are com- used in combination with standard scientific approaches” (Rist et al.,
plementary and argue for a greater integration of LEK into management 2010: 12).
and conservation programs and policy. The third topic, also touched The vast majority of reviewed studies – including those according to
upon by many of the articles that deal with the previous two, is the which LEK does not withstand scientific scrutiny (Silvano et al., 2005)
substantial socio-economic–ecological changes that resource users face, or has undesirable outcomes on biodiversity (Becker and Ghimire,
leading to adaptation and increasing dynamics of knowledge systems. 2003) – emphasize the complementarity of both knowledge systems
As it is not possible to summarize each article, an overview of the and the potential benefits of combining them: “ecosystem management

525
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

measures may be improved if they integrate locally based information continue to provide […] benefits […] for present and future genera-
[…] with global and empirical perspectives provided by scientific data” tions.” Despite these adaptive capacities, LEK and inherent practices of
(Silvano et al., 2005: 378). Along with the authors, interviewees also sustainable resource use remain vulnerable to outside forces. This
stress the importance “of collaborating in conservation activities” vulnerability motivates the latter set of papers' warning that LEK and,
(Higuera et al., 2013: 870). with it, biodiversity may be lost (Jiao et al., 2012).
A criticism of knowledge integration is that LEK may lose its au- Reversely, some authors argue that “[b]iodiversity loss is also a
thenticity when being merged with SEK, such that their distinct features driver of the loss of LEK” (Kai et al., 2014: 1) as “young people today
and contributions cannot be identified. Agrawal (2002) cautions against cannot experience […] the forest their parents grew up with and con-
this process of “scientisation”, which he argues can strip away the un- sequently knowledge of many local species is being lost” (ibid.: 7). This
ique contextual and applied characteristics of LEK. At the worst, sci- illustrates how tightly LEK is linked to the specific natural surroundings
entisation increases existing inequalities, if LEK is misappropriated and of resource users.
the benefits arising from its utilization are not equitably shared with the Yet, the abandonment of knowledge that has become obsolete may
holders of that knowledge. result in the adoption of new knowledge and skills. In some of the
Thus, before effective integration of knowledge systems can take analyzed cases, local resource users integrated external knowledge to
place, an alignment across differing interpretations of reality is needed, adapt to changing socio-economic conditions: “cultivators incorporate
acknowledging the “differences in how people perceive and understand new technologies […] and become more familiar with cash cropping
history, landscapes, resources and ecological dynamics” (Rist et al., and dealing with the market” (Rerkasem et al., 2009: 2039Rerkasem
2016: 809), which may result in conflicting values and goals in resource et al., 2009Rerkasem et al., 2009: 2039). In other cases, external
management. The reviewed literature describes several preconditions knowledge increased the resilience in response to natural threats: “By
for successful knowledge integration, such as “understanding the incorporating some modern timber technology, small farmers […] have
communication and operating styles of the people that hold TEK and been able to control an epidemic of banana disease as well as to in-
LEK, and establishing a foundation of trust to work from” (Charnley crease their income from timber production” (ibid.: 2042). In others
et al., 2007: 24), “identifying incentives for, and mutual benefits from, still, external agencies actively engaged in knowledge transfer, fol-
knowledge sharing” (ibid.: 25) and “a genuine willingness to share lowing specific purposes, such as influencing “people’s attitudes and
power” (Young et al., 2016: 201). Furthermore, Shen et al. (2012: 168) behaviors towards conservation […] through formal education […]
emphasize that “policy makers and conservation managers should re- conducted by local government agencies” (Shen et al., 2012: 161).
spect local autonomy for practicing their own conservation beliefs and Only one fourth of all reviewed papers explicitly describe the evo-
practices” as resource users were considered to be “knowledgeable re- lution of LEK through the integration of new knowledge from external
garding their local environment and do not appreciate being “taught” sources (e.g. media, science, NGOs or government agents) into local
environmental concepts by outside experts” (Silvano et al., 2005: 382). knowledge systems (Kai et al., 2014; Becker and Ghimire, 2003;
While knowledge integration is one of the main topics of LEK re- Osemeobo, 2001; Shen et al., 2012; Yaofeng et al., 2009). Focusing
search, only a few examples are reported from forest practice. In their mainly on LEK loss, little attention is devoted to processes of knowledge
literature synthesis, Charnley et al. (2007) find collaborative species- hybridization and adaptation. The majority of analyzed papers that deal
specific management, co-management, integrated scientific panels, with dynamics of LEK describe (potentially) negative outcomes of
formal institutional liaisons, ecological modelling as well as participa- changes within knowledge systems and warn that LEK may lose its vi-
tory research and monitoring as models of knowledge integration. Yet, tality and pragmatism when being integrated with SEK (Agrawal,
studies about those examples often miss an assessment on how well LEK 2002).
is actually incorporated in forest management and what are successful
factors for knowledge integration (ibid.). All in all, the power dom- 3.7. The relevance of LEK for forest biodiversity conservation
inance of SEK seems to persist, and central agencies continue to rely on
SEK, often neglecting other ways of knowing (Ellis, 2010) or solely 3.7.1. LEK as spiritual and utilitarian driver for biodiversity conservation
exploiting LEK to strengthen their own position of power. Conse- The analyzed articles proclaim LEK's relevance for biodiversity
quently, there remains a substantial “lack of understanding on how the conservation in two ways: Through its importance in sacred natural
traditional and official conservation paradigms interact” (Shen et al., sites that are protected for their spiritual meaning, and/or through its
2012: 161), that needs to be addressed for LEK to complement scientific application in managed forests and landscapes.
knowledge in official conservation programs. Sacred sites (e.g. sacred forests, mountains, trees) are portrayed as
being protected through cultural and religious norms and values of
3.6.3. Dynamics of knowledge systems traditional societies (Anthwal et al., 2010), including supernatural be-
The third major topic is the dynamics of knowledge systems. Many liefs such as: “high dense forests safeguard the souls of their ancestors”
of the articles addressing this start with identifying drivers of change. (Jinlong et al., 2012: 15), “God trees […] provide safety, fortune, and
These encompass an increased dependence on globalized markets, ur- good harvests” (ibid.), “the village god dwells in the holy forests” (Jiao
banization and migration, industrialization and occupation change, et al., 2012: 257) and “trees shelter the spirits of the forest” (Camacho
neglect of LEK in policies and regulations, imbalanced power relations et al., 2016: 9). Customary rules, use regulations and prohibitions are
between forest authorities and local users, external exploitation of re- usually established to preserve these sacred objects. Salick et al. (2007:
sources or restricted resource access, declining interest in traditional 701), for example, find that “[l]ocal customs prohibit timber extraction
knowledge among younger generations and a general erosion of tradi- from sacred areas, protecting their old growth trees and forests”, while
tional culture (Cetinkaya, 2009; Harisha et al., 2016; Ianni et al., 2015; in the Tibetan villages investigated by Shen et al. (2012: 167), “taboos
Jinlong et al., 2012; Oteng-Yeboah et al., 2012; Rerkasem et al., 2009). often exist for core areas of sacred mountains, such as prohibition of
The papers addressing these dynamics focus either on analyzing the livestock grazing and non-timber forest product collecting”. The pro-
evolution and adaptation of LEK systems or on the loss of LEK. The first tection of sacred sites was evaluated as “analogous to the present day’s
set of papers emphasizes the resilience and adaptability of LEK. For concept of biodiversity conservation through protection of sanctuaries,
instance, as an “on-going construction” (Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016: national parks, and biosphere reserves” (Anthwal et al., 2010: 967) and
11), traditional forest knowledge “is dynamic, and has evolved in re- thus may constitute “a functional conservation policy with rules obeyed
sponse to changing environmental, social, economic, and political by everyone” (Oteng-Yeboah et al., 2012: 43). Compliance is thereby
conditions” (Jinlong et al., 2012: 9). According to Oteng-Yeboah et al. ensured both through social convention, since “[o]beying these rules
(2012: 68) this characteristic is crucial “to ensure that forest resources gives prestige, moral value and proud” (Moreno-Calles et al., 2012:

526
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

218), as well as through sanctions: “Violators are punished according to socio-ecological changes occur and the existing body of knowledge is
the village rules” (Jiao et al., 2012: 257). not adapting fast enough and may be rendered unsuitable in the altered
Several studies dealing with sacred sites stress their importance for conditions (Torri and Herrmann, 2011). For instance, if population or
biodiversity conservation. Tiwari et al. (2010: 337), for example, find economic growth accelerates the demand towards forest goods, it may
that “[s]acred forests […] are well preserved, often in their pristine transform a traditionally sustainable forest management practice into a
state and are rich in biodiversity”. Anthwal et al. (2010: 969) perceive destructive one through intensification and uncontrolled exploitation of
sacred sites as both ecologically and genetically important, since they natural resources. This may be the case, e.g., through “[s]lash and burn
“provide a comprehensive and rich ecological niche as repositories of practices coupled with fast rotation, hardly controlled wildlife hunting,
genetic diversity”. Beyond sacred sites, LEK in general includes an […], over-collection of non-timber forest resources […] and land use to
“ecological ethic of respecting all living beings” (Yaofeng et al., 2009: provide the increasing population shelter” (Hens, 2006: 25).
2000Yaofeng et al., 2009Yaofeng et al., 2009: 2000) and a “high value In summary, LEK may either harm, conserve or enhance forest
attributed to ongoing ecological processes, biological evolution, and the biodiversity. In any case, it has a notable impact on biodiversity in
protection of threatened species” (Hill et al., 1999: 216), which forms managed forests that should be considered in conservation planning.
the ethical basis of maintaining biodiversity. However, some authors
warn against over-emphasizing spiritual motivations for indigenous 4. Discussion
resource management. Becker and Ghimire (2003: 8) conclude that
“whatever wildlife protection norms exist in indigenous communities This review sets out to (1) identify the ways in which LEK about
[…], they are predominately based on utilitarian relationships”. Simi- forest ecosystems is conceptualized in the literature in terms of content,
larly, Torri and Herrmann (2011: 185) stress that “beliefs may have knowledge holders and practical application, and (2) to analyze how
little to do with actual behavior towards the natural environment, since LEK affects forest biodiversity conservation according to the reviewed
often economic needs are more decisive”. Yet, utilitarian and spiritual studies. As for the first point, our results confirm the findings of Davis
motivations might not contradict in traditional resource management and Ruddle (2010) that there is no narrow definition or even general
systems where conservation motivation relates to knowledge about agreement on the content and nature of LEK. Since local knowledge
benefits of ecosystem services. Higuera et al. (2013: 870) find that LEK, systems are interrelated with different environments and cultures, LEK
measured as “the number of services identified, increased both the is “made up of a blend of social, political, technical, scientific, and local
probability and the amount that users are willing to pay or collaborate elements mixed together” (Valencia et al., 2015: 13). Depending on the
[…] with conservation activities”. Vallejo-Ramos et al. (2016) conclude geographical and cultural context, and the analytical approaches taken,
that the main driver for conserving biodiversity is how resource users studies emphasize various LEK components, such as land and resource
perceive and value ecosystem functions, which might include spiritual management practices, social institutions and cultural or spiritual va-
and utilitarian factors. lues. It appears that while spiritual and religious beliefs play an im-
portant role in indigenous societies with subsistence economies, those
3.7.2. The relevance of LEK for integrating biodiversity conservation into aspects are less relevant for communities that manage natural resources
forest management primarily for income generation. The focus in these latter cases is more
One major challenge for forest resource users are trade-offs in forest on management systems and practices (e.g. shifting cultivation or
management, which may lead to conflicts regarding biodiversity con- fallow and succession management). Yet, all of the knowledge systems
servation. Several scholars point out that LEK can play an important described in the reviewed articles are interrelated with dynamic eco-
role in balancing various management goals and maintaining biodi- logical and social processes. Management systems and governing in-
versity as it comprises the “multiple constituents, functions and inter- stitutions are constantly evolving, which in turn affects the worldviews
actions” (Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016: 2) of ecosystems, necessary to and belief systems in which they are embedded.
assess trade-offs between different functions. Furthermore, LEK entails In this dynamic setting, the analysis of LEK remains methodologi-
sustainable land use practices valuable “both for increasing pro- cally challenging. While some scholars – on an ontological level –
ductivity, thus improving local livelihood, and helping to maintain question how far such tacit knowledge can be made explicit at all,
many services of forested land” (Rerkasem et al., 2009: 2042Rerkasem others indicate the methodological challenges related to its analysis.
et al., 2009Rerkasem et al., 2009: 2042). This “rich understanding of For instance, individuals may struggle to verbalize knowledge they may
the […] complex environment is a valuable asset” (Jiao et al., 2012: not even be aware they know (Collins, 2001; Polanyi and Sen, 2009).
261) enabling resource users to develop locally adapted practices that This may indicate the need to grasp LEK not only through interviews
support biodiversity conservation in managed forests. and surveys, but also observations. In any case, clear definitions and
In contrast to preservationist approaches aiming to prohibit re- transparent methodological approaches seem imperative for a sys-
source use, many traditional and indigenous societies proclaim that tematic analysis of LEK. Our review indicates that this imperative is not
“human modifications can positively affect biodiversity” (Furusawa always taken seriously. The lacking methodological rigor may increase
et al., 2014: 2). The study conducted by Bohn et al. (2014: 277), for general criticism towards the LEK literature as being driven by positive
example, “supports the idea of “biodiversity is diversity in use’’ wherein normative assumptions rather than empirical findings, and may make it
a diversity of land use practices is used as an approach towards main- difficult to re-conceive the different components and the overall im-
taining ecosystem biodiversity”. Some authors draw the even more portance of LEK in specific contexts and beyond.
pronounced conclusion that “the reality of conservation will have to be Our review further demonstrates that LEK is a heterogeneous body
"use it or lose it"” (Gichuki and Terer, 2001: 157) and that its focus of knowledge, which is not shared equally within a community
“must shift toward human-modified forests where the people use the (Cetinkaya, 2009). The quality and depth of LEK held by individual
natural resources in a sustainable way” (Furusawa et al., 2014: 18). resource users varies, as do the practices they derive from LEK. In order
Thus, LEK is seen as crucially important for integrating various goals to cover these differences and what they imply for biodiversity con-
in forest management offering another option, in contrast to a “hands- servation, an elaborated sampling strategy for identifying knowledge
off, preservationist approach” (Charnley et al., 2007: 25), for forest holders is crucial. In the end, data quality depends largely on who is
biodiversity conservation through locally adapted multiple land use identified as “knowledgeable” and for what reasons. Researchers al-
practices. ready identify some of the factors affecting the distribution of LEK, such
While most authors stress the positive impacts of LEK on con- as age, gender, profession, residence time and transmission of knowl-
servation, some also provide examples where biodiversity was depleted edge through the family or other community members (Iniesta-Arandia
despite or even because of LEK. This can be the case if rapid or drastic et al., 2014). These are also reflected in the selection criteria of the

527
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

reviewed studies that use purposive sampling. However, further factors examples can mainly be found in grey literature (Davis and Wagner,
may be case-specific and need to be individually explored for each site. 2003). Additionally, these analyses often focus on specific indigenous
Given the variety of LEK systems, there are no defined procedures or communities of the Global South and of North America, whereas LEK in
guidelines on how to identify and select “knowledgeable” respondents. countries of the Global North, with no indigenous people left, is hardly
Yet, Davis and Wagner (2003) show that asking a wide range of com- investigated. This results in a lack of knowledge regarding the im-
munity members for recommendations on whom to consult led to a portance of LEK in areas where modernization and professionalization
more appropriate selection of knowledge holders than just assuming of forest management have arrived earlier. It remains an open question
that those who have accumulated the most experience (e.g. elders) are how far LEK in those contexts has been displaced, or if the lack of study
best suited to represent the LEK of a community. Regardless of the simply mirrors a “selection bias” of the research community. One of the
procedures chosen, both identification and sampling should be docu- few studies from Europe emphasizes that LEK “also belongs to ‘normal’
mented transparently. Failure to do so is a shortcoming of many of the contemporary rural people managing ‘ordinary’ landscapes, for ex-
reviewed studies, irrespective of which sampling approach was used. ample, social groups in Europe who have played a central role in
When it comes to the practical application of LEK in natural re- shaping local biodiversity” (Ianni et al., 2015: 154). As local and
source management and conservation, and its consequences for ecolo- practical knowledge is crucial in integrated conservation planning
gical systems, this review shows that the implementation of LEK de- (Paloniemi et al., 2018), this issue deserves further empirical work.
pends on various interrelated factors. Internal factors, such as natural Before concluding what we learned about current research on LEK
ecosystem conditions, individual management goals, values and social and what remains to be investigated, we reflect on the present review’s
norms, as well as external factors, such as economic pressure, govern- approach. Concerning the selection of papers, there is certainly a bias in
mental regulations and state forest management, influence the ways in terms of language (English) and literature database (WoS). Within these
which knowledge is applied and is related to biodiversity conservation limitations, however, our use of the snowball approach to complement
in each specific case. the database search (see Section 2) was very helpful for identifying
The majority of studies emphasize the value of LEK as an informa- relevant literature. Furthermore, one must be aware that this review
tion source for conservation science, policy and management, thereby focuses on LEK's role for biodiversity conservation solely in forest
arguing to conserve LEK itself as a “vital conservation resource” (Tang ecosystems, and its findings are hence confined to these ecosystems.
and Gavin, 2010: 194). Its relevance is considered particularly high if
science-based data is missing, which is often the case in remote areas 5. Conclusion
(Tang and Gavin, 2010), during rare events such as the occurrence of
pest species, or for larger temporal scales (Rist et al., 2010). Further- Local ecological knowledge remains a challenging and sometimes
more, LEK is appreciated for its great site-specificity (Ballard and polarizing concept in conservation research. While hardly anyone
Huntsinger, 2006; Becker and Ghimire, 2003; Stave et al., 2007) and its would deny that the local knowledge context matters greatly in natural
“multiple scales, from species-specific information to details of eco- resource management and conservation practice on the ground, open
system dynamics” (Tang and Gavin, 2010: 194). Due to its often narrow questions relate to the presence, type and impact of LEK in this context.
spatial focus and long-term evolution in a specific context, LEK may Somewhat simplified, the perceptions of LEK holders currently range
provide insights unattainable for conventional ecological research, from a transfigured, eco-romantic image of the ‘noble savage’ whose
which mostly addresses larger geographical scales for shorter periods of knowledge and practices are idealized to a much more pessimistic view
time. This may be particularly relevant for forest ecosystems char- of LEK as backward and outdated. Advocates of the latter promote a
acterized by long-term ecological cycles. scientific-rational perspective, dismissing practical knowledge as static
LEK may, however, stand in contrast to scientific biodiversity con- and anecdotal, and denying that LEK holders can innovate, adapt and
servation approaches. For instance, Becker and Ghimire (2003: 7) transfer knowledge.
conclude for their case that “local institutions and indigenous ecological Future research on LEK should critically question all these clichés.
knowledge were not sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem function LEK can neither be expected to be inflexibly “written in stone” nor its
[…] to an extent desired by scientifically trained western conservation contribution taken a priori to be positive for conservation. Rather, the
biologists”. Diverging views exist on what should be preserved, and focus should be on the dynamic nature of LEK in correlation to both
how. Arising from independently viable systems of knowledge, all of changing ecosystems and knowledge environments. Current moder-
these views should be considered as valid for debate (Ellis, 2010). In nization processes do not only alter traditional knowledge cultures, but
fact, however, these different perceptions are rather identified as one knowledge systems more generally. This may be a chance for LEK to
reason why forest policy and administrations may draw the conclusion overcome its marginalization as its adaptive potential fits well with new
that local resource users mismanage their environment or even re- knowledge mobilization modes and interfaces, such as co-production of
present a serious threat to biodiversity (Oteng-Yeboah et al., 2012: 63; knowledge, crowdsourcing data collection, citizen science and knowl-
Yaofeng et al., 2009: 1998Yaofeng et al., 2009Yaofeng et al., 2009: edge brokering. These new approaches to knowledge generation may
1998). Accordingly, there are concerns that LEK is only acknowledged facilitate knowledge integration and even integrate different knowledge
if it is in line with established scientific doctrines (Ellis, 2010), under- systems in the framing of questions and approaches, in a transdisci-
mining the potential of its complementary character that may foster plinary fashion. The inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge in the
exchanges of perspectives and innovative approaches to sustainability assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
challenges in resource management. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), is a clear signal in the
This corresponds with our observation that the reviewed papers direction of formal acknowledgement of LEK (Díaz et al., 2015b), and
tend to either focus on negative aspects of traditional management has spurred a debate on the position of such knowledge systems
practices or positively promote them, with hardly any paper taking up (Peterson et al., 2018). As our analysis shows, it is time to move beyond
an approach in between these two poles. Exceptions include Rist et al. analyzing and validating what people know in order to address the
(2010: 13), who point out that LEK should “be used in full recognition dynamics of local knowledge systems and the question of how people
of its limitations” as it “may compromise on accuracy for specific know and how their knowledge contributes to the design of inquiry.
variables” and miss “context beyond the local level” (Becker and This might require flexibility in combining different qualitative and
Ghimire, 2003: 10). quantitative methods as well as natural and social science approaches.
Such concerns and limitations may explain why only a few of the We thereby suggest a greater focus on dynamic knowledge systems
reviewed studies analyze examples where LEK has been integrated into and more acknowledgment of the ability of non-indigenous Global
official conservation programs. In fact, forest biodiversity related North societies to (re)generate, transform and apply as well as to

528
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

integrate LEK with “modern” scientific or professional knowledge. To Collins, H.M., 2001. What is tacit knowledge? In: Savigny, E.v, Knorr-Cetina, K., Schatzki,
consider processes of knowledge hybridization and adaptation, research T.R. (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge, London, New
York, pp. 115–128.
should identify which local knowledge components are abandoned, Davis, A., Ruddle, K., 2010. Constructing confidence. Rational skepticism and systematic
remain stable or evolve. With such a holistic and dynamic perspective enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecol. Appl. 20, 880–894.
looking into relevant factors that influence knowledge production, ap- Davis, A., Wagner, J.R., 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “Experts”
when researching local ecological knowledge. Hum. Ecol. 31, 463–489.
plication, transmission, adaptation, loss and preservation, the interplay Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Eyzaguirre, P., et al., 2015a. The IPBES conceptual
of different types of knowledge in the local setting can be much better framework – connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16.
accounted for. This includes an understanding of how practices derived Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W.M., Larigauderie, A., 2015b. A rosetta stone
for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002040. https://journals.plos.org/
from LEK affect biodiversity and how local resource users can adapt to plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040&type=printable.
changing environmental conditions and increase the resilience of their Diemont, S.A.W., Martin, J.F., 2009. Lacandon Maya ecosystem management: sustainable
socio-ecological systems, now and in the future. design for subsistence and environmental restoration. Ecol. Appl. 19, 254–266.
Donovan, D.G., Puri, R.K., 2004. Learning from traditional knowledge of non-timber
forest products: penan Benalui and the autecology of Aquilaria in indonesian borneo.
Declarations of interest Ecol. Soc. 9 (3).
Ellis, S.C., 2010. Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in en-
None. vironmental decision making. Arctic 58.
Ferguson, J., Huysman, M., Soekijad, M., 2010. Knowledge management in practice.
pitfalls and potentials for development. World Dev. 38, 1797–1810.
Acknowledgements Furusawa, T., Sirikolo, M.Q., Sasaoka, M., Ohtsuka, R., 2014. Interaction between forest
biodiversity and people’s use of forest resources in Roviana, Solomon Islands: im-
plications for biocultural conservation under socioeconomic changes. J. Ethnobiol.
We warmly thank Ulrich Schraml, Doerte Peters and Ida Wallin for Ethnomed. 10.
their support and constructive suggestions in the development of this Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conserva-
manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support for tion. Ambio 22, 151–156.
Gichuki, N., Terer, T., 2001. Significance of indigenous knowledge and values of birds in
this research provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) promoting biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ostrich 153–157.
through the Research Training Group ‘Conservation of Forest Gomez-Baggethun, E., Mingorria, S., Reyes-Garcia, V., Calvet, L., Montes, C., 2010.
Biodiversity in Multiple-Use Use Landscapes of Central Europe’ [Grant Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market economy:
empirical study in the Donana natural areas. Conserv. Biol. 24, 721–729.
number GRK 2123/1 TPX]. Haenn, N., Schmook, B., Reyes, Y., Calme, S., 2014. Improving conservation outcomes
with insights from local experts and bureaucracies. Conserv. Biol. 28, 951–958.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Harisha, R.P., Padmavathy, S., Nagaraja, B.C., 2016. Traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK) and its importance in south India: perspective from local communities. Appl.
Ecol. Environ. Res. 14, 311–326.
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the Hens, L., 2006. Indigenous knowledge and biodiversity conservation and management in
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09. Ghana. J. Hum. Ecol. 20, 21–30.
001. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Hoberg, J., Oteros-Rozas, E., Plieninger, T., Gómez-Baggethun,
E., Reyes-García, V., 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe. Status quo
and insights for the environmental policy agenda. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.
References 56, 3–17.
Higuera, D., Martin-Lopez, B., Sanchez-Jabba, A., 2013. Social preferences towards eco-
system services provided by cloud forests in the neotropics: implications for con-
Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. servation strategies. Reg. Environ. Change 13, 861–872.
Dev. Change 26, 413–439. Hill, R., Baird, A., Buchanan, D., 1999. Aborigines and fire in the wet tropics of
Agrawal, A., 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. Int. Social Sci. Queensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12,
J. 54, 287–297. 205–223.
Anthwal, A., Gupta, N., Sharma, A., Anthwal, S., Kim, K.-H., 2010. Conserving biodi- Houde, N., 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and op-
versity through traditional beliefs in sacred groves in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. portunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol. Soc. 12.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 962–971. Ianni, E., Geneletti, D., Ciolli, M., 2015. Revitalizing traditional ecological knowledge: a
Arts, B., Behagel, J., Turnhout, E., Koning, J., de, van Bommel, S., 2014. A practice based study in an Alpine rural community. Environ. Manage. 56, 144–156.
approach to forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 49, 4–11. Indrawan, M., Yabe, M., Nomura, H., Harrison, R., 2014. Deconstructing satoyama – the
Babai, D., Molnar, Z., 2013. Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological socio-ecological landscape in Japan. Ecol. Eng. 64, 77–84.
partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania). J. Iniesta-Arandia, I., del Amo, D.G., García-Nieto, A.P., Piñeiro, C., Montes, C., Martín-
Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9. López, B., 2014. Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in
Ballard, H.L., Huntsinger, L., 2006. Salal harvester local ecological knowledge, harvest Mediterranean watersheds. Insights for environmental policies. Ambio 44, 285–296.
practices and understory management on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Hum. Irakiza, R., Vedaste, M., Elias, B., Nyirambangutse, B., Serge, N.J., Marc, N., 2016.
Ecol. 34, 529–547. Assessment of traditional ecological knowledge and beliefs in the utilisation of im-
Becker, C.D., Ghimire, K., 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and portant plant species: the case of Buhanga Saed forest, Rwanda. KOEDOE 58.
conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conserv. Ecol. 8. Jiao, Y., Li, X., Liang, L., Takeuchi, K., Okuro, T., Zhang, D., Sun, L., 2012. Indigenous
Berkes, F., 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis, J. (Ed.), ecological knowledge and natural resource management in the cultural landscape of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Concepts and Cases. International Program on China’s Hani terraces. Ecol. Res. 27, 247–263.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge. International Development Research Centre, Jinlong, L., Renhua, Z., Qiaoyun, Z., 2012. Traditional forest knowledge of the Yi people
Ottawa, Ont., Canada, pp. 1–7. confronting policy reform and social changes in Yunnan province of China. For.
Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Policy Econ. 22.
Management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, Pa. Kai, Z., Woan, T.S., Jie, L., Goodale, E., Kitajima, K., Bagchi, R., Harrison, R.D., 2014.
Berkes, F., Turner, N.J., 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: extirpations drive declines in local
practice for social-ecological system resilience. Hum. Ecol. 34, 479–494. ecological knowledge. PLoS One 9.
Bohn, J.L., Diemont, S.A.W., Gibbs, J.P., Stehman, S.V., Mendoza Vega, J., 2014. Maier, C., Winkel, G., 2017. Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest
Implications of Mayan agroforestry for biodiversity conservation in the Calakmul management. A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest
Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 88, 269–285. sector. For. Policy Econ. 82, 14–29.
Briggs, J., 2013. Indigenous knowledge. A false dawn for development theory and Moreno-Calles, A.I., Casas, A., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Torres-Garcia, I., 2012. Traditional
practice? Prog. Dev. Stud. 13, 231–243. agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid
Brook, R.K., McLachlan, S.M., 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecolo- Tehuacan Valley, Mexico: their management and role in people’s subsistence.
gical and conservation research and monitoring. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 3501–3512. Agrofor. Syst. 84, 207–226.
Camacho, L.D., Gevaña, D.T., Carandang, A.P., Camacho, S.C., 2016. Indigenous Osemeobo, G.J., 2001. Is traditional ecological knowledge relevant in environmental
knowledge and practices for the sustainable management of Ifugao forests in conservation in Nigeria? Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 8, 203–210.
Cordillera, Philippines. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 12, 5–13. Oteng-Yeboah, A., Mutta, D., Byarugaba, D., Mala, W.A., 2012. Africa. In: Parrotta, J.A.,
Cetinkaya, G., 2009. Challenges for the Maintenance of Traditional Knowledge in the Trosper, R.L. (Eds.), Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge. Sustaining Communities,
Satoyama and Satoumi Ecosystems, Noto Peninsula, Japan. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity. SPRINGER, Dordrecht, pp. 37–78.
27–40. Paloniemi, R., Hujala, T., Rantala, S., Harlio, A., Salomaa, A., Primmer, E., Pynnönen, S.,
Charnley, S., Fischer, A.P., Jones, E.T., 2007. Integrating traditional and local ecological Arponen, A., 2018. Integrating social and ecological knowledge for targeting vo-
knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. For. Ecol. luntary biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11 (1), 1–10.
Manage. 246, 14–28. Park, M.S., Youn, Y.-C., 2012. Traditional knowledge of Korean native beekeeping and

529
B. Joa et al. Land Use Policy 79 (2018) 520–530

sustainable forest management. For. Manage. Tradit. Knowl. Cult. Asia 15, 37–45. assessment of a Brazilian Atlantic Forest watershed based on surveys of stream health
Peterson, G.D., Harmáčková, Z.V., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., and local farmers’ perceptions: implications for management. Ecol. Econ. 53,
Kuiper, J.J., Malmborg, K., Sitas, N., Bennett, E.M., 2018. Welcoming different per- 369–385.
spectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol. Singh, R.K., Singh, A., Garnett, S.T., Zander, K.K., Lobsang, Tsering, D., 2015. Paisang
Soc. 23. (Quercus griffithii): a keystone tree species in sustainable agroecosystem manage-
Polanyi, M., Sen, A., 2009. The Tacit Dimension, [Reissue] / With a New Foreword by ment and livelihoods in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environ. Manage. 55, 187–204.
Amartya Sen. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago Ill u.a. Stave, J., Oba, G., Nordal, I., Stenseth, N.C., 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge of a
Primmer, E., Karppinen, H., 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private for- Riverine Forest in Turkana, Kenya: implications for research and management.
estry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 1471–1489.
FORPOL For. Policy Econ. 12, 136–146. Tang, R., Gavin, M.C., 2010. Traditional ecological knowledge informing resource man-
Rerkasem, K., Yimyam, N., Rerkasem, B., 2009. Land use transformation in the moun- agement: Saxoul conservation in Inner Mongolia, China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23,
tainous mainland Southeast Asia region and the role of indigenous knowledge and 193–206.
skills in forest management. Tradit. For. Relat. Knowl. Asia 257, 2035–2043. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A., 2014. Forest Resilience, Biodiversity,
Rist, L., Shaanker, R.U., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Ghazoul, J., 2010. The use of traditional and Climate Change. A Synthesis of the Biodiversity, Resilience, Stability
ecological knowledge in forest management: an example from India. Ecol. Soc. 15. Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. (4 January 2018). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
Rist, L., Shackleton, C., Gadamus, L., Chapin, I.I.I., Stuart, F., Gowda, C.M., Setty, S., org/4b01/a1a24ef80d4a6e71e7267ca91cc64478aed2.pdf.
Kannan, R., Shaanker, R.U., 2016. Ecological knowledge among communities, man- Tiwari, B.K., Tynsong, H., Lynser, M.B., 2010. Forest management practices of the tribal
agers and scientists: bridging divergent perspectives to improve forest management people of Meghalaya, north-east India. J. Trop. For. Sci. 22, 329–342.
outcomes. Environ. Manage. 57, 798–813. Torri, M.C., Herrmann, T.M., 2011. Spiritual beliefs and ecological traditions in in-
Salick, J., Amend, A., Anderson, D., Hoffmeister, K., Gunn, B., Zhendong, F., 2007. digenous communities in India: enhancing community-based biodiversity conserva-
Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. tion. Nat. Cult. 6, 168–191.
Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 693–706. UN, 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Report of the United Nations Conference
Sardjono, M.A., Samsoedin, I., 2001. Traditional knowledge and practice of biodiversity on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro.
conservation. The Benuaq Dayak Community of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: UNEP/CBD, 2002. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the parties to the convention
Colfer, C.J.P., Byron, Y. (Eds.), People Managing Forests. The Links between Human on biological diversity at its sixth meeting, UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20. VI/22 Forest
Well-Being and Sustainability. Resources for the Future and CIFOR, Washington, DC, Biological Diversity. . https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-06/full/cop-06-dec-
pp. 116–134. en.pdf.
Schmitt, C.B., Burgess, N.D., Coad, L., Belokurov, A., Besançon, C., Boisrobert, L., Valencia, V., West, P., Sterling, E.J., Garcia-Barrios, L., Naeem, S., 2015. The use of
Campbell, A., Fish, L., Gliddon, D., Humphries, K., Kapos, V., Loucks, C., Lysenko, I., farmers’ knowledge in coffee agroforestry management: implications for the con-
Miles, L., Mills, C., Minnemeyer, S., Pistorius, T., Ravilious, C., Steininger, M., servation of tree biodiversity. Ecosphere 6.
Winkel, G., 2009. Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biol. Vallejo-Ramos, M., Moreno-Calles, A.I., Casas, A., 2016. TEK and biodiversity manage-
Conserv. 142, 2122–2130. ment in agroforestry systems of different socio-ecological contexts of the Tehuacán
Shen, X., Li, S., Chen, N., Li, S., McShea, W.J., Lu, Z., 2012. Does science replace tradi- valley. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 12, 31.
tions? Correlates between traditional Tibetan culture and local bird diversity in Yaofeng, L., Jinlong, L., Dahong, Z., 2009. Role of traditional beliefs of Baima Tibetans in
Southwest China. Biol. Conserv. 145, 160–170. biodiversity conservation in China. Traditional Forest-related Knowledge in Asia 257.
Siahaya, M.E., Hutauruk, T.R., Aponno, H.S.E.S., Hatulesila, J.W., Mardhanie, A.B., 2016. pp. 1995–2001.
Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation and forest management in Youn, Y.-C., 2009. Use of forest resources, traditional forest-related knowledge and li-
East Borneo, Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 12, 14–23. velihood of forest dependent communities: cases in South Korea. Tradit. For. Relat.
Sillitoe, P., 2010. Trust in development. Some implications of knowing in indigenous Knowl. Asia 257, 2027–2034.
knowledge. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 16, 12–30. Young, J.C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., Jordan, A., 2016. The role of
Silvano, R.A.M., Udvardy, S., Ceroni, M., Farley, J., 2005. An ecological integrity trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol. Conserv. 195, 196–202.

530