The following is the established format for referencing this article:Sharifian, A., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, H. T. Wario, Z. Molnár, and M. Cabeza. 2022. Dynamics of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: a global state-of-the-art review. Ecology and Society 27(1):14.
- Pastoral traditional ecological knowledge studies are few and geographically biased
- Knowledge domains and pastoral mobility types are unevenly studied
- Transition in pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: erosion versus retention, adaptation, and hybridization
- Examples of adaptation, hybridization, and retention of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge
- Major drivers of traditional ecological knowledge transition: pastoral knowledge is threatened
ABSTRACTTraditional ecological knowledge enables pastoralists to cope with social-ecological changes, thereby increasing the sustainability of their practices and fostering social-ecological resilience. Yet, there is a significant knowledge gap concerning the extent to which pastoral traditional ecological knowledge has changed over time at the global level. We aim to fill this gap through a systematic literature review of 288 scientific studies on pastoral traditional ecological knowledge. We reviewed 152 papers in detail (selected randomly from the 288) for their content, and focused specifically on 61 papers that explicitly mentioned one of the four types of knowledge transition (i.e., retention, erosion, adaptation, or hybridization). Studies on pastoral traditional knowledge represent less than 3% of all the scholarly literature on traditional ecological knowledge. Geographical distribution of the 288 case studies was largely biased. Knowledge domains of pastoral knowledge such as herd and livestock management, forage and medicinal plants, and landscape and wildlife were relatively equally covered; however, climate-related knowledge was less often studied. Of the 63 papers that explicitly mentioned transition of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge, 52 reported erosion, and only 11 studies documented explicitly knowledge retention, adaptation, or hybridization of traditional knowledge. Thus, adaptation and hybridization was understudied, although some case studies showed that adaptation and hybridization of knowledge can efficiently help pastoralists navigate among social-ecological changes. Based on the review, we found 13 drivers which were mentioned as the main reasons for knowledge transition among which social-cultural changes, formal schooling, abandonment of pastoral activities, and transition to a market economy were most often reported. We conclude that future research should focus more on the diverse dynamics of pastoral traditional knowledge, be more careful in distinguishing the four knowledge transition types, and analyze how changes in knowledge impact change in pastoral practices and lifestyles. Understanding these phenomena could help pastoralists’ adaptations and support their stewardship of their rangeland ecosystems and biocultural diversity.
Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the importance of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in the conservation of biological and cultural diversity has been increasingly acknowledged by both the scientific community and policy-makers around the globe (Maxted et al. 2002). TEK plays a vital role in the livelihoods of rural communities and the sustainable management and use of natural resources by Indigenous peoples and local communities (Olsson and Folke 2001). Opinions about TEK, previously rife with negative characteristics such as being static and archaic, are now appreciating the dynamic nature of this knowledge and related practices. An increasing number of studies involving traditional farmers (Cristancho and Vining 2009, McCarter and Gavin 2014) and hunter-gatherers (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2015, Gallois et al. 2015) have shown nonadaptive changes in TEK, mostly loss of TEK due to changes in intergenerational transmission mechanisms or other drivers (Srithi et al. 2009, Reyes-García et al. 2013). But despite a myriad of cultural pressures, many aspects of TEK systems are resilient. There is mounting evidence that TEK is adaptive to changes in the environment and is fluid with social-economic and cultural changes (Berkes et al. 2000, McCarter et al. 2014). Thus, not all changes in Indigenous and local knowledge systems should be labeled as knowledge loss as long as loss of knowledge is not accidental and does not impair the efficient functioning of the practice. Thus, changes should often be evaluated from an adaptation perspective (Jandreau and Berkes 2016).
Dynamic adaptation of knowledge requires transmission between and within generations; otherwise, erosion or maladaptation of TEK is inexorable (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1982, Turner et al. 2000). Changes or transitions in TEK, thus, can arise from changes in knowledge transmission processes and mechanisms but also from changes in the social, economic, and environmental systems that also affect knowledge needs; i.e., what knowledge is regarded as relevant and adaptive (Salpeteur et al. 2016). If the flora of a place becomes decimated, the community will know fewer flora elements than previous generations but will retain what becomes relevant (Duenn et al. 2017); in a system where technology is adopted and natural conditions manipulated, less awareness or knowledge about climate signs is adaptive too (Nkuba et al. 2019). Yet in a system where rapid changes affect social structures, and the needed knowledge for practicing the livelihood becomes impaired by lack of knowledge transmission, knowledge loss becomes nonadaptive (Srithi et al. 2009).
While TEK and TEK changes for Indigenous peoples and local communities are increasingly the subject of studies, the status of and trends in TEK for pastoral Indigenous peoples and local communities seems to have received less attention than that of other groups, while the relevance of pastoralism globally remains undeniable (Johnsen et al. 2019). These knowledge gaps and the urgency of their study are highlighted through the planned 2026 International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists declared by the United Nations, which has announced the intention to address Indigenous knowledge and culture of pastoral communities (Kelly 2020). Globally, pastoralists are reported to number from 250 to 500 million people (McGahey et al. 2014, Johnsen et al. 2019). Relying on their TEK, pastoralists across the globe have been able to produce livestock in often unpredictable and highly variable conditions of rangelands that range from deserts to steppes, tundras, savannah, and mountainous areas (Stolton et al. 2019). This lifestyle is the result of close and intimate interrelations between people and nature, which lead to the formation of rich and complex bodies of knowledge, practice, and beliefs (Farooquee and Nautiyal 1999, Fernández-Giménez 2000, Molnár 2017). Many pastoralists are encountering rapid and fundamental changes in climate, the frequency of droughts and floods, the market economy, forage and fodder availability, social-cultural systems, and land use rights, but importantly, also regulations and policies that limit some of their practices and affect processes needed for the generation and transmission of TEK (Galvin 2009, Reid et al. 2014, Herrero et al. 2016, Belayneh and Tessema 2017). Such changes are leading to notable transitions in pastoral TEK (Bussmann et al. 2018, Hedges et al. 2020).
Pastoral TEK is not only essential for its role in improving the functionality of rangeland ecosystems (Shen et al. 2019), biological diversity (e.g., productive local livestock breeds that are tolerant of unique environments) (Hoffmann et al. 2014), sustainable management (conservation values of territories and their flora and fauna) (Fynn et al. 2016), and social and cultural preservation (e.g., 22 intangible cultural heritage items on the UNESCO list) (Stolton et al. 2019), but also for enhancing the social-ecological resilience and adaptability of pastoral communities to the challenges caused by diverse global changes (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013, Yacoub 2018). Pastoral TEK contains several domains such as herd management; forage, fodder, and medicinal values of plant species; weather forecasting; and management of spatiotemporal heterogeneity of natural resources. Hence, lack of knowledge transmission or any negative change in different knowledge domains of pastoral TEK can cause irreversible effects on pastoral systems and their sustainability (Jandreau and Berkes 2016). Pastoral knowledge and practices are context-based and locally grounded, evolving and adapting to specific social-ecological conditions. However, this knowledge is regionally manifested and globally relevant (Brondízio et al. 2021), and has elements in common across pastoral systems. A recently published Scientists’ Warning to Humanity on threats to Indigenous and local knowledge systems raises the importance of globally assessing the status of and trends in TEK systems (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021), and highlights how common global patterns are similarly affecting locally adapted knowledge systems. Such assessments are largely missing in the context of pastoralism, and few efforts have cut across disciplinary topics or regions (see Manzano-Baena et al. 2021 for a discussion).
We aim to synthesize the state of the art of knowledge on pastoral TEK and its dynamics, cutting across disciplinary topics and regions. To do so, we conducted a systematic review of scientific papers that dealt specifically with changes in pastoral TEK. To understand whether reported changes are viewed as adaptive, we focused on four types of TEK transition: retention, erosion, adaptation, and hybridization (see Theoretical Background for definitions). We addressed whether research is homogenous across knowledge domains (e.g., general ecological knowledge, knowledge on livestock management), and across main pastoral mobility types (sedentarism, transhumance, and nomadism) in search of regional or global patterns that could indicate drivers of change and threats to adaptive TEK dynamics.
Prior to providing a definition for TEK, we defined Indigenous peoples and local communities as typically, ethnic groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given region who are dependent on nature for providing necessities of their livelihood in a sustainable way (IPBES 2019). TEK systems are cumulative bodies of knowledge, practices, and beliefs of Indigenous peoples and local communities that evolve by adaptive processes and are handed down through generations by cultural transmission (Berkes et al. 2000). We note that this definition is largely consistent with the one of “Indigenous and local knowledge systems” used by IPBES (2021), which defines these systems as “social and ecological knowledge, practices and beliefs pertaining to the relationship of living beings, including people, with one another and with their environment”.
While pastoralism has multiple definitions and understandings, we focus on pastoral livelihoods that aim at raising domesticated and semidomesticated livestock within nature. This entails the movement of people and herds across landscapes, making use of natural vegetation and crop by-products. Pastoralism is about animals walking to their feed instead of having it grown, cut, and brought to them. In pastoral systems, animals are grazed and foraged in an extensive system instead of being stall-fed in an intensive system (Köhler-Rollefson 2020).
Four knowledge transitions were considered in this study. Retention is defined as the continuity and persistence of TEK without significant change in its quality and quantity; erosion is the decline or loss of TEK; adaptation is the transformation of TEK to adjust to changes in the environment and conditions; and hybridization is the integration of TEK into another knowledge system (Thomas and Twyman 2004, Zent 2013, Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). While much research has focused largely on loss of pastoral knowledge (e.g., Hedges et al. 2020), many pastoral knowledge systems have also demonstrated resilience to social-ecological changes due to their inherently adaptive and dynamic nature (Galvin 2009). The adaptability and resilience of pastoral knowledge systems is evident in many ecosystems around the world, which bear evidence of pastoral practices over millennia (Jandreau and Berkes 2016, Ellis et al. 2021).
We acknowledge that changes in TEK ramify through complex pathways, and that causality flows in multiple directions and is often circular. TEK changes usually modify the ecosystems that are shaped by such systems, and then the opportunities for practicing TEK (as a local expression of culture) are constrained by the new ecological trajectories (Lyver et al. 2019). As a result, the change itself, the cause of the change, and the consequences of that change are often linked and iterative (see Holling and Gunderson 2002). In short, pulling apart one thread in the cultural fabric of a given TEK system can lead to the unraveling of the social and ecological fabrics that have sustained pastoralists for centuries and millennia (Ford et al. 2020).
We also note from the outset that none of the authors are members of pastoralist communities, and that our review reflects a situated and partial interpretation of pastoral knowledge dynamics. However, we draw on several decades of in-depth field-based ethnographic experience among pastoral societies on several continents. While we see value in bringing into focus the global extent of pastoral TEK, we understand that a global review such as this one has the potential to obscure the very place-based nature of TEK and the rich diversity of pastoral cultures and knowledge systems (see Ford et al. 2016). By presenting real-world examples from all inhabited continents, we aim to emphasize the different place- and culture-specific ways in which pastoralists navigate changes in their knowledge systems
The first step of the review process was to undertake a systematic literature search for peer-reviewed scientific articles about pastoral TEK using Web of Science. This search was carried out on 28 November 2019 and was guided by keywords that covered various phrases for both TEK and pastoralists which were selected and applied to find all available papers published in English regarding pastoral TEK. We used the following Boolean phrase to search not only the titles, but also the whole body of the papers:
TS = (("aborigin* knowledge" OR "traditional knowledge" OR "traditional local knowledge" OR "ecological knowledge" OR "traditional environmental knowledge" OR "Indigenous knowledge" OR "local knowledge" OR "folk knowledge") AND (pastoral* OR flock* OR herd* OR shepherd*)).
This led to the identification of 382 papers, from which 372 papers were traceable (Appendix 2). In the next step of the study, the title, Abstract, and Materials and Methods sections of all 372 papers were screened to omit papers unrelated to pastoral TEK. Thereby, 84 papers were eliminated in this phase. For instance, using keywords “flock” or “herd” with TEK-related keywords such as “local knowledge” led to some fishing-related TEK papers, which were disregarded at this phase. For the remaining 288 papers, we reviewed the types of TEK transition reported (especially adaptation and hybridization), and the countries where each study was conducted (Table A1.1).
In the third step, we proceeded to subsample papers for a more detailed, quantitative review. To do so, the 288 papers were sequentially numbered (1 to 288), and a random number generator was applied (using the “= RAND ()” function in Microsoft Excel 2019) to select the first approximately 102 papers, with a further addition of 50 more papers to assess the robustness of findings (Table A1.2). For these papers, we recorded the title, journal, DOI, and first author’s name, and eight variables of interest: year of the study, the country where the study was conducted, pastoral system type, studied knowledge domain, mention of TEK transition, type of knowledge transition, robustness of reported transition, and drivers of knowledge transition (Table 1). Classification of papers as reporting knowledge transitions (and transition type) was done based on text mentions (in the Results and Discussion), not on our own interpretation of the paper’s data. To check the robustness of reported transition type, three different states of evidence-based report of transition, anecdotal report of transition, and non-evidence-based report of transition were considered. Further explanation is provided in Table 1. Since the relative frequency of the investigated variables was not significantly different between the primary studies (102) and the final set (152) (p > 0.05; Table A1.3), the result was viewed as robust enough, so the remaining (136) papers were not inspected for this detailed quantitative analysis.
We conducted an additional bibliographic search to compare the research attention given to TEK pastoralist studies in relation to all studies of TEK. We compared the outcomes of the pastoralism-related Boolean phrase to the outcomes of the following search query:
TS = ("aborigin* knowledge" OR "traditional knowledge" OR "traditional local knowledge" OR "ecological knowledge" OR "traditional environmental knowledge" OR "Indigenous knowledge" OR "local knowledge" OR "folk knowledge").
All analyses were conducted in R using Rstudio software [Version 1.2.5033]. Descriptive analysis and visualization were performed using ggplot2 and dplyr packages. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the statistical significance of two-level variables (e.g., comparing the primary and final database), and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for observed variables with more than two levels (i.e., pastoral system type) at a 95% confidence interval. Additionally, a global map of the frequency of studies published was produced using the rworldmap package. The final database with 19 columns and 152 rows and R scripts is appended as a supplementary file, including meta-data (Tables A1.1, A1.2, A1.3; CodeA1.1).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pastoral traditional ecological knowledge studies are few and geographically biased
The number of scientific studies on TEK in general showed an increasing trend over the last four decades, with a parallel trend for studies on pastoral TEK. Additionally, all studies reported that pastoralists carry valuable and deep knowledge regarding different aspects of their pastoral social-ecological systems. However, the proportion of TEK studies that focused on pastoral TEK was low: only 3% of all scientific studies on TEK (Fig. 1). Considering that 40% of the global land surface is used by pastoralists and that there are an estimated hundreds of millions of pastoralists (Zinsstag et al. 2006, McGahey et al. 2014), despite its extent, global representation, and heterogeneity, pastoral TEK remains less studied than other groups. These figures align closely with several reports and scholarly articles that argue that pastoralist systems have received scant policy and research attention to date (e.g., Johnsen et al. 2019, Manzano-Baena et al. 2021). Taking into account the global relevance of pastoralism, with its extent and the large number of people depending on the practice, this observation supports calls for bringing more attention to pastoral TEK concerns (Molnár 2014, Fernández-Giménez 2000) that are in the agenda of the proposed International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists for 2026. In line with our results, Brook and McLachlan (2008) showed that farmer and hunter-gatherer communities have received much more scholarly attention than other communities such as pastoralists. Additionally, the United Nations Environment Programme report on the number of studies on rangeland and pastoralism confirms that compared to other topics, research on rangelands and pastoralism is substantially lower (96,414 records from 71 million records), and that pastoral TEK studies account for only 1% of the total studies and projects on rangeland and pastoralism (Johnsen et al. 2019).
In terms of the geographical distribution of research on pastoral TEK (Fig. 2), most studies were conducted in Africa (50%), followed by Asia (30%), and Europe (14%). Studies on pastoral TEK were scant in Oceania (3%), South America (2%), and North America (1%). Overall, pastoral communities in 62 countries were studied, with Ethiopia (33 studies), Kenya (31), India (19), and China (18) being the most prominent ones.
Aswani et al. (2018) and Hanazaki et al. (2013) also found that Ethiopia, India, and China were hotspots for TEK-related research. In the case of scientific studies on rangelands and pastoralism (as a whole), China, Mongolia, Australia, Kenya, and Ethiopia had the highest share of studies (Johnsen et al. 2019). Our results also showed that 20 countries were represented by only a single study. Noting that pastoral identities may vary within countries, with several Indigenous groups or ethnicities recognized in many countries, single studies are certainly not representative enough. For example, of the 42 recognized ethnic groups in Kenya (many of which practice some form of pastoralism; see, for example, LPP ), only nine groups were included in more than one study. In another example, yak herding is practiced among at least 31 ethnic groups in the Asian highlands, yet only a few studies of some ethnic groups were available. In Buthan and Tajikistan, for instance, where together five ethnic groups are active in yak herding, only two general papers were found, and neither of them focused specifically on yak herding (Kassam 2009, Wu et al. 2014).
We found that some countries with large pastoral populations (e.g., Kazakhstan, Yemen, Somalia, and Uzbekistan) were not represented in the literature. This also extends to countries such as Central African Republic, Uruguay, or Eswatini, where more than 50% of the land is categorized as rangelands (Johnsen et al. 2019). This could be related to language barriers in science; much research written in French, Spanish, and Russian was not included in this study. We acknowledge that overlooking such literature can bias outcomes of evidence synthesis and lead to only a partial understanding of pastoralism at the global level.
Knowledge domains and pastoral mobility types are unevenly studied
Similar attention has been paid to five major TEK domains related to herd and livestock management knowledge, forage and medicinal plant knowledge, and knowledge of landscape and wildlife (i.e., 73, 75, 70 studies, respectively). Interestingly, despite growing research interest in pastoral vulnerability to climate change, pastoral TEK about climate has received relatively scant scholarly attention, with only 15 studies on climate-related knowledge domains. This knowledge is vital to vulnerability and adaptation assessment, and confronts policy-makers with many research gaps (Ahearn et al. 2019). Pastoral TEK regarding climate and weather forecasting has enabled pastoralists to adjust their seasonal movement and cope with changes in precipitation and temperature, which dramatically affect the variability and availability of forage, fodder, and water sources (Nkuba et al. 2019). Also, the integration of climate-related TEK, which is based on a variety of biological, cultural, and astrological indicators, with scientific forecasts could improve the accuracy, uptake, and application of weather forecasting by locals (Reyes-García et al. 2015, Radeny et al. 2019).
The papers reviewed often lacked information regarding the type of pastoral way of life and/or mobility systems. Of the 58% of papers that did provide information on mobility types, most focused on nomadic (56%); fewer focused on transhumant (32%) and sedentary (25%) systems. When considering domains of knowledge and pastoralism types, it was less clear whether representativeness was even. It seems that ethnographic studies that addressed TEK tended to focus on groups that live more traditionally and have been less exposed to globalization; thus, this could reflect the greater attention paid to nomadic systems.
Transition in pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: erosion versus retention, adaptation, and hybridization
Transitions in pastoral TEK were addressed in 41% of the 152 papers reviewed in detail (Fig. 3A). Each of the four types of knowledge transition (i.e., retention, erosion, hybridization, and adaptation) was mentioned in at least one paper; erosion of knowledge was the transition type most often reported (83%). Retention, hybridization, and adaptation were each mentioned in 6% or less of the papers (Fig. 3B). Of all the transitions reported, 35% were based on robust empirical evidence, 17% were anecdotal, and 48% relied on weak empirical footing, as no traceable form of evidence was provided in the paper. In general, the interest in studying transitions in pastoral TEK is growing in a similar way as the number of studies in pastoral TEK (Fig. 3).
TEK erosion was commonplace globally but was most often reported in Asia and East Africa (Fig. 4). In Europe, Asia, and Africa, 55%, 53%, and 31% of the total number of studies, respectively, reported some form of TEK transition. Reported transition showed Ethiopia, India, China, Kenya, Egypt, and Spain with more reports of erosion. Although comparing the status of TEK transition among countries is difficult because research effort is far from homogenous across countries, it is important to highlight that TEK erosion is reported in most of the studied countries, even in biologically and culturally diverse regions.
Knowledge erosion was reported in similar frequency for all five major knowledge domains. However, we found a greater relative frequency for the domains Herd/Livestock (42%) and Forage/Medicine (44%) (Fig. 5). All domains reported at least 25% for erosion of pastoral TEK. Without considering retention of TEK as a “change”, the highest frequency for any type of TEK transition was reported for the Forage/Medicine (48%) and Social-cultural (47%) domains. Hybridization and adaptation were reported for only three knowledge domains each. The small number of available studies made it difficult to find robust global patterns.
From all the studies in which the type of pastoral system was mentioned, nomadic, transhumant, and sedentary systems (45% [24 papers], 33% [18 papers], and 22% [12 papers], respectively) were mentioned to be affected by some form of TEK transition (Fig. 5). In all three pastoral system types, erosion was the most often reported transition, and in most cases, retention, adaptation, and hybridization was found only in a few cases. Further research is needed to obtain a better and more representative understanding of the differences in knowledge transitions across different pastoral mobility systems.
Regardless of the lifestyle that pastoralists have (nomadism, transhumance, or sedentarism), loss of unnecessary knowledge and accumulation of new knowledge occurs with time and new practices. In other words, if a community has a sedentary lifestyle, it does not mean that they have lower TEK compared to nomads (Nedelcheva et al. 2017). However, shifting from one lifestyle to another could affect the knowledge that pastoralists are “carrying” with themselves (Duenn et al. 2017, Bussmann et al. 2018). The slightly greater erosion of knowledge reported for transhumant and sedentary systems could suggest that some of these communities are increasingly shifting to sedentary lifestyles. Therefore, due to the shift, and at least regarding some knowledge domains that are less applicable in the new lifestyle, the volume of pastoral TEK may decline (Dong et al. 2011, Bussmann et al. 2018).
The relatively greater number of papers that reported pastoral TEK erosion may be alarming for local, national, and international organizations that are aiming to promote sustainable use of rangelands and biocultural conservation of pastoral social-ecological landscapes. Aswani et al. (2018) and Hanazaki et al. (2013) reported the same result when conducting reviews on TEK transition among other communities such as farmers, hunter-gatherers, and fishers, and found that 77% and 57% of the papers reviewed reported TEK erosion, respectively.
As pastoral communities are being impacted by changes in climate, culture, technology, social-economic conditions, and policies at various scales (Reid et al. 2014), so too are their TEK systems. On one hand, erosion of pastoral TEK could be the consequence of the change; on the other hand, it could be the very driver of the change. For example, recent changes in plant diversity in Eastern Africa have caused the extinction of some plant species that were used in weather forecasting and prediction by Borana pastoralists in southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya. This extinction has led to the erosion of knowledge about these plant species. Losing the knowledge of weather forecasting has affected pastoral migration and movement abilities, which consequently debilitates the Borana’s resilience to climate change (Radeny et al. 2019).
Due to the low number of studies and the research gaps we identified, knowledge transition patterns found in this review cannot be considered indicative of what is happening to pastoral TEK globally. Importantly, not a single study addressed all types of knowledge domains or compared all types of pastoral mobility systems regarding knowledge transitions. Only one knowledge domain was covered in 49% of the studies, and only two were addressed in 37% of the studies. Also, regarding the subdomains (Table 1), 91% of studies focused on less than three subdomains, while approximately 2% of studies covered six subdomains: Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013), Fernández-Giménez (2015), and Jandreau and Berkes (2016).
Another research gap in pastoral TEK studies is that although different transitional types have been reported for pastoral TEK, most of the studies have labeled TEK transition as erosion. As it was also emphasized by Tian (2017), TEK transition is evaluated primarily linearly as gain or loss; however, adaptation and hybridization of TEK are also possible—and highly relevant—changes. Researchers have often assessed the transition of pastoral TEK by comparing the volume of knowledge between or within generations (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013, Salpeteur et al. 2015) and have referred to the lower volume of knowledge of the younger generation as erosion. However, compared to the older generation, the new generation could be less knowledgeable, for instance, about plant species that used to be dominant in the region, while having gained more knowledge about a newly arrived invasive species (Duenn et al. 2017). In another case, changes in herd composition from cattle to sheep that are driven by market demands have resulted in the new generation having more knowledge about sheep but fading knowledge regarding cattle, which is no longer applicable based on the new circumstances (Adriansen 2008). We argue that erosion of TEK concerning specific subdomains should not automatically imply the overall downward trend in communities’ TEK. In fact, this change may originate from adaptive strategies and/or hybridization of knowledge due to exposure to other knowledge systems.
Examples of adaptation, hybridization, and retention of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge
Adaptation, although rarely studied explicitly (only four studies, 6% of the sample), has been reported both in nomadic and transhumant systems (Fig. 5), and across several knowledge domains (i.e., Social-cultural, Forage/Medicine, and Landscape/Wildlife). Yet, no adaptation has been reported for Herd/Livestock and Climate knowledge domains. Knowledge adaptation among pastoralist societies is largely underrepresented in the scholarly literature, particularly so if we consider that pastoralism is a resilient and highly adaptive livelihood and the most widespread land use on Earth (Reid et al. 2014). Adaptive changes in pastoral practices (see, for example, Duenn et al. ) deserve much more scholarly and policy attention than they have received to date. Similarly, hybridization has been poorly studied, but we found examples of hybridization across pastoral mobility types and some knowledge domains, though with no clear patterns. Knowledge retention was also mentioned in three studies. In one study, the new generation was found to carry greater knowledge regarding one domain compared to the elder generation (see Naah and Guuroh  for more information). To illustrate differences between adaptation, hybridization, and retention, Table 2 presents some case studies.
Major drivers of traditional ecological knowledge transition: pastoral knowledge is threatened
Causality flows in multiple directions and is iterative: loss of TEK changes the ecosystems that were shaped by it, and the opportunities for practicing TEK as an expression of culture are constrained by that new ecological trajectory. As a result, the loss itself, the cause of the loss, and the consequences of the loss are often interwoven; therefore, causes of TEK transition cannot be directly associated to simple factors. Nevertheless, we identified 13 drivers that are affecting pastoral TEK transitions, which were mentioned individually or in combination in the reviewed papers (Table 3). Social-cultural changes (13 citations), formal schooling (11 citations), abandonment of pastoral activities (11 citations), and transition to a market economy (10 citations) were the most often reported causes.
Social-cultural changes have been reported in several studies as a major driver of transition in TEK systems (Cristancho and Vining 2009, McCarter and Gavin 2014). Although pastoralism has a checkered history globally, social-cultural systems have been more exposed to diverse changes in the last century than in former times. Shifting from community-based management to governmental or state-based management has often come at the expense of local governance and autonomy (Reid et al. 2014). On this account, the share of top-down decision-making in rangeland management increased, which caused insurmountable barriers in the implementation of pastoral practices. Customary governance, which is underpinned by a dynamic network of vertical, horizontal, oblique, and retroactive transmission and sharing of pastoral TEK, has been drastically eroded as a result of rapid socio-political changes and land reform laws, globally (Greiner 2017). As a result, knowledge and experience input from elders and knowledgeable pastoralists devaluated (Tang and Gavin 2015). A Maasai cattle herder said “Before, we had a warming fire in the middle of the homestead. When the cows come in the evening all the shepherds have to come with the elders. The shepherds would narrate the story…” (Jandreau and Berkes 2016:9). Furthermore, in many places, pastoralism as a livelihood has lost its social status and value. A stockman from Spain said “It has been a fight against the current being a stockman, my stubbornness, and yet I see that it’s in my son’s blood” (Fernández-Giménez and Estaque 2012:297).
Formal schooling has also been mentioned as an important driver of TEK erosion in groups other than pastoralists (Harvey 2013, Reyes-García et al. 2013). Consolidation and development of formal schooling services detached children’s connections with pastoral activities and forced the children to live away from pastoral lands. It even forced some pastoral families to abandon their lifestyle and live where school services were available (Tang and Gavin 2015). Thus, the dynamic nature of nomadism and a transhumance lifestyle increases the challenge of formal education for pastoralists’ children compared to children in permanently settled agriculturalist communities (Bruyere et al. 2016). Also, the lack of pastoral TEK in the formal school curricula is another negative point that increases the distance between the new generation and the previous cultural lifestyle (see Reyes-García et al.  for a thorough discussion of this topic). Therefore, pastoral TEK among children who become distanced from a constant presence in nature gradually vanishes (Bruyere et al. 2016). “Old people have lots of experiences, and young people have good educations” (Hopping et al. 2016:32). [Educated children that live in the town] “cannot live in the desert anymore” (Hobbs et al. 2014:2939). Countries where formal schooling is negatively affecting pastoral TEK can consider educational systems and curricula through which this challenge can be partially addressed. For example, the Mongolian education system has made traditional pastoral history and culture the basis of many textbooks in a genuine attempt to teach new generations about the important cultural, social, economic, and environmental values of pastoralism. As an example, pupils in Grades 2-3 read the famous poem in their Social Science class: “Dung smoke pouring forth, I was born in a herder’s home, on the wilderness steppe, I think of my native land” (Gardelle and Zhao 2019:12). Mobile schools also can help reach formal educational goals while keeping pastoral TEK and practices alive for the new generation of pastoralists. Tribal schools initially established in Iran by Mohammad Bahman Beigi and reinvigorated in the post-revolutionary era could serve as a good example (Annamoradnejad and Lotfi 2010). Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that achieving a proper educational model that feeds the sustainability of pastoral social-ecological systems while also satisfying the changing modern world requires participatory involvement of pastoralists and local decision-makers (Dyer and Echessa 2019).
Constant long-term presence and monitoring by pastoralists of their social-ecological systems have enabled them to develop rich bodies of knowledge and practices about their local ecologies. Understanding this knowledge is pivotal for sustainable management and nature conservation. Furthermore, several global reports such as IPBES (2019), Karki et al. (2017), and an extensive body of scholarly literature (Fernández-Giménez 2015, Molnár et al. 2020, Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021) have already shown that traditional, Indigenous, and local communities, including many pastoralist societies, are not only interested in the benefits that they gain from nature, but they are also concerned about other components of social-ecological systems such as flora, fauna, soil, water, etc. and the conservation and sustainable use of them. Previous studies have raised awareness of potential important gaps in pastoral TEK. We report that only 3% of TEK studies globally addressed pastoral TEK, thus identifying important research gaps. Our study also identifies where (geographically, knowledge domains, types of change) those gaps are, thus contributing to preparations for the largely endorsed proposal of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists for 2026 (https://iyrp.info/). One of the primary goals of the planned International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists is pursuing and addressing the challenges of pastoralists’ traditional knowledge. Documenting the transition status of pastoralists’ knowledge can help the United Nations as well as different governmental and nongovernmental organizations understand the current condition of pastoral TEK systems. Furthermore, a global assessment can provide fundamental information upon which decision-making and planning can be undertaken to eliminate the obstacles that limit pastoralists in executing their TEK-based practices. Despite the fact that pastoralists carry knowledge in several domains, the limited research on pastoral TEK has focused more often on Herd/Livestock, Forage/Medicine, and Landscape/Wildlife; Climate and Socio-cultural domains are less studied. International planning and management for rangeland and pastoralism is not possible when our knowledge pertaining to pastoral TEK is not detailed enough.
Notwithstanding the number of studies on pastoral TEK, our review showed that knowledge erosion may be the dominant type of knowledge transition occurring among pastoralists worldwide. However, knowledge adaptation and hybridization were shown to be critical in the implementation of solutions to new social-ecological challenges in many areas of the world, despite the fact that they continue to be under-researched. Changes in pastoral TEK are caused by many interwoven drivers. Although documentation of pastoral TEK in scientific papers and reports is a helpful start, safeguarding pastoral TEK requires a fundamental shift across sectors in how such knowledge systems are recognized, affirmed, and sustained. We argue that research on pastoral TEK could help advance policy on pastoralism (e.g., by highlighting the ways in which pastoralism contributes to planetary sustainability, and the contexts that facilitate or undermine such contributions). More specifically, research on TEK dynamics could bring into focus the different transition types and help avoid the common mischaracterization of all knowledge changes as symptoms of vulnerability and loss. By focusing on knowledge hybridization and adaptation, future research efforts could pay justice to the immense and powerful cultural continuity that is a hallmark of pastoral societies worldwide, and affirm their ongoing struggles to foster social-ecological resilience over the long run.
RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLEResponses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.
All authors made substantial contributions to the final product. .All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
We would like to give our appreciation to all the pastoral communities whose knowledge and participation provided the basis for this study. We gratefully acknowledge all the researchers whose studies push the boundaries of knowledge on pastoral communities. We would like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on an earlier version of this paper. We wish to thank IUBS for support of the Global Integrative Pastoralism Program. This research was partly supported by project GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00019, the PhD candidates’ scholarship program of Ministry of Science, Research and Technology from Iran and the project “Effects of extensive grazing on vegetation in non-conventional pasture-lands (marshes and forests)” [grant number NKFIH K 119478]. This research had the support of IUBS through the GIPP project.
Data/code available upon request because of privacy/ethical restrictions.
Adriansen, H. K. 2008. Understanding pastoral mobility: the case of Senegalese Fulani. Geographical Journal 174(3):207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00278.x
Ahearn, A., M. Oelz, and R. Kumar Dhir. 2019. Indigenous peoples and climate change—emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. International Labour Organization.
Andersen, G. L., K. Krzywinski, M. Talib, A. E. Saadallah, J. J. Hobbs, and R. H. Pierce. 2014. Traditional nomadic tending of trees in the Red Sea Hills. Journal of Arid Environments 106:36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.02.009
Annamoradnejad, R., and S. Lotfi. 2010. Demographic changes of nomadic communities in Iran (1956-2008). Asian Population Studies 6(3):335-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2010.512764
Aswani, S., A. Lemahieu, and W. H. Sauer. 2018. Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PloS One 13(4):e0195440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195440
Aziz, M. A., A. H. Khan, M. Adnan, and H. Ullah. 2018. Traditional uses of medicinal plants used by Indigenous communities for veterinary practices at Bajaur Agency, Pakistan. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 14:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-018-0212-0
Barber, M., S. Jackson, J. Shellberg, and V. Sinnamon. 2014. Working knowledge: characterising collective Indigenous, scientific, and local knowledge about the ecology, hydrology and geomorphology of Oriners Station, Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Rangeland Journal 36(1):53-66. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ13083
Belayneh, A., Z. Asfaw, S. Demissew, and N. F. Bussa. 2012. Medicinal plants potential and use by pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in Erer Valley of Babile Wereda, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-42
Belayneh, A., and Z. K. Tessema. 2017. Mechanisms of bush encroachment and its inter-connection with rangeland degradation in semi-arid African ecosystems: a review. Journal of Arid Land 9(2):299-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-016-0023-x
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251-1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
Brondízio, E. S., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bates, J. Carino, Á. Fernndez-Llamazares, M. F. Ferrari, K. Galvin, V. Reyes-García, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, A. Samakov, and U. B. Shrestha. 2021. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46:481-509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127
Brook, R. K., and S. M. McLachlan. 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(14):3501-3512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9445-x
Bruyere, B. L., J. Trimarco, and S. Lemungesi. 2016. A comparison of traditional plant knowledge between students and herders in northern Kenya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 12:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-016-0121-z
Bussmann, R. W., N. Y. Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Wood, S. O. Njapit, J. N. O. Njapit, G. S. E. Osoi, and S. P. Kasoe. 2018. Knowledge loss and change between 2002 and 2017—a revisit of plant use of the Maasai of Sekenani Valley, Maasai Mara, Kenya. Economic Botany 72(2):207-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-018-9411-9
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., M. W. Feldman, K. H. Chen, and S. M. Dornbusch. 1982. Theory and observation in cultural transmission. Science 218(4567):19-27. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7123211
Cristancho, S., and J. Vining. 2009. Perceived intergenerational differences in the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in two Indigenous groups from Colombia and Guatemala. Culture & Psychology 15(2):229-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X09102892
Della, A., D. Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, and A. C. Hadjichambis. 2006. An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants of Paphos and Larnaca countryside of Cyprus. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-34
Dong, S. 2017. Himalayan grasslands: Indigenous knowledge and institutions for social innovation. Pages 99-126 in S. Dong, J. Bandyopadhyay, and S. Chaturvedi, editors. Environmental sustainability from the Himalayas to the oceans. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44037-8_5
Dong, S., L. Wen, S. Liu, X. Zhang, J. P. Lassoie, S. Yi, X. Li, J. Li, and Y. Li. 2011. Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society 16(2):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04093-160210
Duenn, P., M. Salpeteur, and V. Reyes-García. 2017. Rabari shepherds and the mad tree: the dynamics of local ecological knowledge in the context of Prosopis juliflora invasion in Gujarat, India. Journal of Ethnobiology 37(3):561-580. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.561
Dutt, H. C., N. Bhagat, and S. Pandita. 2015. Oral traditional knowledge on medicinal plants in jeopardy among Gaddi shepherds in hills of northwestern Himalaya, J&K, India. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 168:337-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.03.076
Dyer, C., and E. Echessa. 2019. Sustaining learner participation and progression through networked schooling: a systemic approach for Mobile Out of School Children. International Journal of Educational Development 64:8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.11.002
Easdale, M. H., and M. R. Aguiar. 2018. From traditional knowledge to novel adaptations of transhumant pastoralists the in face of new challenges in North Patagonia. Journal of Rural Studies 63:65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.001
Ellis, E. C., N. Gauthier, K. K. Goldewijk, R. Bliege Bird, N. Boivin, S. Díaz, D. Fuller, et al. 2021. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118:e2023483118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023483118
Farooquee, N. A., and A. Nautiyal. 1999. Traditional knowledge and practices of Bhotiya pastoralists of Kumaon Himalaya: the need for value addition. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 6(1):60-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.1999.9728472
Fernández-Giménez, M. E. 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1318-1326. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1318:TROMNP]2.0.CO;2
Fernández-Giménez, M. E. 2015. “A shepherd has to invent”: poetic analysis of social-ecological change in the cultural landscape of the central Spanish Pyrenees. Ecology and Society 20(4):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08054-200429
Fernández-Giménez, M. E., and F. F. Estaque. 2012. Pyrenean pastoralists’ ecological knowledge: documentation and application to natural resource management and adaptation. Human Ecology 40(2):287-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9463-x
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., I. Díaz-Reviriego, A. C. Luz, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of Local Environmental Knowledge. Global Environmental Change 31:272-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.001
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., D. Lepofsky, K. Lertzman, C. G. Armstrong, E. S. Brondizio, M. C. Gavin, P. O. B. Lyver, G. P. Nicholas, N. J. Reo, V. Reyes-García, N. J. Turner, et al. 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on threats to Indigenous and local knowledge systems. Journal of Ethnobiology 41(2):144-169. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144
Feyssa, D. H., J. T. Njoka, Z. Asfaw, and M. M. Nyangito. 2012. Uses and management of Ximenia americana, Olacaceae in semi-arid East Shewa, Ethiopia. Pakistan Journal of Botany 44:1177-84.
Ford, J. D., L. Cameron, J. Rubis, M. Maillet, D. Nakashima, A. C. Willox, and T. Pearce, 2016. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change 6:34953. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2954
Ford, J. D., N. King, E. K. Galappaththi, T. Pearce, G. McDowell, and S. L. Harper. 2020. The resilience of Indigenous peoples to environmental change. One Earth 2:532543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.014
Fynn, R. W., D. J. Augustine, M. J. Peel, and M. de Garine‐Wichatitsky. 2016. Strategic management of livestock to improve biodiversity conservation in African savannahs: a conceptual basis for wildlife-livestock coexistence. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(2):388-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12591
Gaerrang, K. 2017. Tibetan Buddhism, wetland transformation, and environmentalism in Tibetan pastoral areas of western China. Conservation and Society 15(1):14-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393267
Gallois, S., R. Duda, B. Hewlett, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. Children’s daily activities and knowledge acquisition: a case study among the Baka from southeastern Cameroon. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0072-9
Galvin, K. A. 2009. Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annual Review of Anthropology 38:185-198. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442
Gaoue, O. G., and T. Ticktin. 2009. Fulani knowledge of the ecological impacts of Khaya senegalensis (Meliaceae) foliage harvest in Benin and its implications for sustainable harvest. Economic Botany 63(3):256-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-009-9091-6
Gardelle, L., and Z. Zhao. 2019. Being a herder in contemporary Mongolia: nomadic identity and nationhood building at school. Asian Ethnicity 20(3):364-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2019.1586521
Greiner, C. 2017. Pastoralism and land‐tenure change in Kenya: the failure of customary institutions. Development and Change 48(1):78-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12284
Hanazaki, N., D. F. Herbst, M. S. Marques, and I. Vandebroek. 2013. Evidence of the shifting baseline syndrome in ethnobotanical research. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-75
Harvey, J. 2013. Investigating the relationships between formal schooling and ethnoveterinary knowledge in Eluwai village, Tanzania. Dissertation. Canterbury Christ Church University, UK.
Hedges, K., J. O. Kipila, and R. Carriedo-Ostos. 2020. “There are no trees here”: understanding perceived intergenerational erosion of traditional medicinal knowledge among Kenya Purko Maasai in Narok District. Journal of Ethnobiology 40:535-551. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.535
Hernández-Morcillo, M., J. Hoberg, E. Oteros-Rozas, T. Plieninger, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and V. Reyes-García. 2014. Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: status quo and insights for the environmental policy agenda. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 56(1):3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2014.861673
Herrero, M., J. Addison, C. Bedelian, E. Carabine, P. Havlík, B. Henderson, J. Van De Steeg, and P. K. Thornton. 2016. Climate change and pastoralism: impacts, consequences and adaptation. Revue Scientifique et Technique 35:417-33.
Hobbs, J. J., K. Krzywinski, G. L. Andersen, M. Talib, R. H. Pierce, and A. E. Saadallah. 2014. Acacia trees on the cultural landscapes of the Red Sea Hills. Biodiversity and Conservation 23(12):2923-2943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0755-x
Hoffmann, I., T. From, and D. Boerma. 2014. Ecosystem services provided by livestock species and breeds, with special consideration to the contributions of small-scale livestock keepers and pastoralists. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Homann, S., B. Rischkowsky, and J. Steinbach. 2008. The effect of development interventions on the use of Indigenous range management strategies in the Borana Lowlands in Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 19(4):368-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.845
Hopping, K. A., C. Yangzong, and J. A. Klein. 2016. Local knowledge production, transmission, and the importance of village leaders in a network of Tibetan pastoralists coping with environmental change. Ecology and Society 21(1):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08009-210125
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2021. Glossary. [online] URL: https://ipbes.net/glossary
Jandreau, C., and F. Berkes. 2016. Continuity and change within the social-ecological and political landscape of the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Pastoralism 6(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-016-0048-y
Johnsen, K. I., M. Niamir-Fuller, A. Bensada, and A. Waters-Bayer. 2019. A case of benign neglect: knowledge gaps about sustainability in pastoralism and rangelands. United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal.
Karki, M., R. Hill, D. Xue, W. Alangui, K. Ichikawa, and P. Bridgewater, editors. 2017. Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local knowledge and practices related to biodiversity and ecosystem services in Asia. Knowledges of Nature 10. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.
Kassam, K.-A. 2009. Viewing change through the prism of Indigenous human ecology: findings from the Afghan and Tajik Pamirs. Human Ecology 37:677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9284-8
Kelly, D. 2020. International year of rangelands and pastoralists. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 127:91.
Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2020. Accounting for pastoralists: Why is it important and how to do it? League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development, Ober-Ramstadt, Germany.
Kuriyan, R. 2002. Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Samburu pastoralists in northern Kenya. Society & Natural Resources 15(10):949-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290107675
Ladio, A. H., and M. Lozada. 2009. Human ecology, ethnobotany and traditional practices in rural populations inhabiting the Monte region: resilience and ecological knowledge. Journal of Arid Environments 73(2):222-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.02.006
League for Pastoral Peoples (LPP). 2021. Pastoralist map. League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development, Ober-Ramstadt, Germany.
Liu, G. 2013. Wild plant folk nomenclature of the Mongol herdsmen in the Arhorchin national nature reserve, Inner Mongolia, PR China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-30
Lyver, P. O’B., P. Timoti, T. Davis, and J. M. Tylianakis. 2019. Biocultural hysteresis inhibits adaptation to environmental change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 34(9):771-780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.002
Manzano, P., D. Burgas, L. Cadahía, J. T. Eronen, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, S. Bencherif, Ø. Holand, O. Seitsonen, B. Byambaa, M. Fortelius, and M. E. Fernández-Giménez. 2021. Toward a holistic understanding of pastoralism. One Earth 4(5):651-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.012
Maxted, N., L. Guarino, L. Myer, and E. A. Chiwona. 2002. Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 49(1):31-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013896401710
McCarter, J., and M. C. Gavin. 2014. Local perceptions of changes in traditional ecological knowledge: a case study from Malekula Island, Vanuatu. Ambio 43(3):288-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0431-5
McCarter, J., M. C. Gavin, S. Baereleo, and M. Love. 2014. The challenges of maintaining indigenous ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society 19(3):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06741-190339
McGahey, D., J. Davies, N. Hagelberg, and R. Ouedraogo. 2014. Pastoralism and the green economy - a natural nexus? International Union for Conservation of Nature and United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Molnár, Z. 2014. Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by Hungarian herders. Rangeland Ecology & Management 67(2):107-118. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00082.1
Molnár, Z. 2017. “I see the grass through the mouths of my animals” - folk indicators of pasture plants used by traditional steppe herders. Journal of Ethnobiology 37(3):522-541. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.522
Molnár, Z., A. Kelemen, R. Kun, J. Máté, L. Sáfián, F. Provenza, S. Díaz, H. Barani, M. Biró, A. Máté, and Cs. Vadász. 2020. Knowledge co-production with traditional herders on cattle grazing behaviour for better management of species-rich grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1677-1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13664
Morales-Reyes, Z., B. Martín-López, M. Moleón, P. Mateo-Tomás, P. P. Olea, E. Arrondo, J. A. Donázar, and J. A. Sánchez-Zapata. 2019. Shepherds’ local knowledge and scientific data on the scavenging ecosystem service: insights for conservation. Ambio 48(1):48-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1055-6
Morojele, P. 2017. Indigenous knowledge/s of survival: implications for lifelong learning among the Basotho herding fraternity. Educational Research for Social Change 6(1):38-55. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2017/v6i1a4
Naah, J. B. S., and R. T. Guuroh. 2017. Factors influencing local ecological knowledge of forage resources: ethnobotanical evidence from West Africa's savannas. Journal of Environmental Management 188:297-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.064
Nedelcheva, A., A. Pieroni, and Y. Dogan. 2017. Folk food and medicinal botanical knowledge among the last remaining Yoruks of the Balkans. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 86(2). https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3522
Nkuba, M., R. Chanda, G. Mmopelwa, E. Kato, M. N. Mangheni, and D. Lesolle. 2019. The effect of climate information in pastoralists’ adaptation to climate change: a case study of Rwenzori region, Western Uganda. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 11(4):442-464. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-10-2018-0073
Nyima, Y., and K. A. Hopping. 2019. Tibetan lake expansion from a pastoral perspective: local observations and coping strategies for a changing environment. Society & Natural Resources 32(9):965-982. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1590667
Olsson, P., and C. Folke. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4(2):85-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100210000061
Oteros-Rozas, E., R. Ontillera-Sánchez, P. Sanosa, E. Gómez-Baggethun, V. Reyes-García, and J. A. González. 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge among transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society 18(3):33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05597-180333
Post, J.C. 2018. Climate change and cultural heritage in western Mongolia. Leonardo 51(03):285-286. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01533
Radeny, M., A. Desalegn, D. Mubiru, F. Kyazze, H. Mahoo, J. Recha, P. Kimeli, and D. Solomon. 2019. Indigenous knowledge for seasonal weather and climate forecasting across East Africa. Climatic Change 156(4):509-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02476-9
Rana, D., A. Bhatt, and B. Lal. 2019. Ethnobotanical knowledge among the semi-pastoral Gujjar tribe in the high altitude (Adhwari’s) of Churah subdivision, district Chamba, Western Himalaya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 15:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0286-3
Raziq, A., K. de Verdier, and M. Younas. 2010. Ethnoveterinary treatments by dromedary camel herders in the Suleiman Mountainous Region in Pakistan: an observation and questionnaire study. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-6-16
Reid, R. S., M. E. Fernández-Giménez, and K. A. Galvin. 2014. Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39:217-242. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020713-163329
Reyes-García, V., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Guèze, A. Garcés, M. Mallo, M. Vila-Gómez, and M. Vilaseca. 2015. Local indicators of climate change: the potential contribution of local knowledge to climate research. WIRES: Climate Change 7(1):109-124.
Reyes-García, V., M. Guèze, A. C. Luz, J. Paneque-Gálvez, M. J. Macía, M. Orta-Martínez, J. Pino, and X. Rubio-Campillo. 2013. Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary Indigenous society. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(4):249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.03.002
Reyes-García, V., E. Kightley, I. Ruiz-Mallén, N. Fuentes-Peláez, K. Demps, T. Huanca, and M. R. Martínez-Rodríguez. 2010. Schooling and local environmental knowledge: Do they complement or substitute each other? International Journal of Educational Development 30(3):305-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.11.007
Rippa, D., V. Maselli, O. Soppelsa, and D. Fulgione. 2011. The impact of agro‐pastoral abandonment on the Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca in the Apennines. Ibis 153(4):721-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2011.01156.x
Salman, A., and N. S. Kharusi. 2014. Female camel nomenclature among Arabia’s Bedouins. Names 62(2):86-99. https://doi.org/10.1179/0027773814Z.00000000076
Salpeteur, M., H. Patel, A. L. Balbo, X. Rubio-Campillo, M. Madella, P. Ajithprasad, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. When knowledge follows blood: kin groups and the distribution of traditional ecological knowledge in a community of seminomadic pastoralists, Gujarat (India). Current Anthropology 56(3):471-483. https://doi.org/10.1086/681006
Salpeteur, M., H. H. Patel, J. L. Molina, A. L. Balbo, X. Rubio-Campillo, V. Reyes-García, and M. Madella. 2016. Comigrants and friends: informal networks and the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge among seminomadic pastoralists of Gujarat, India. Ecology and Society 21(2):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08332-210220
Seid, M. A., L. W. Yoseph, U. W. Befekadu, A. Muhammed, and T. Z. Fikre. 2016. Communication for the development of pastoralism. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 35(2):639-648.
Shen, H., S. Dong, S. Li, J. Xiao, Y. Han, M. Yang, J. Zhang, X. Gao, Y. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Zhi, et al. 2019. Grazing enhances plant photosynthetic capacity by altering soil nitrogen in alpine grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 280:161-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.029
Singh, R. K., A. Singh, S. T. Garnett, K. K. Zander, and D. Tsering. 2015. Paisang (Quercus griffithii): a keystone tree species in sustainable agroecosystem management and livelihoods in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environmental Management 55(1):187-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0383-y
Singh, R. K., A. K. Sureja, S. Maiti, and D. Tsering, 2018. Grazing and rangeland management: trans-human adaptations by Brokpa community in fragile ecosystems of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 17(3).
Speranza, C. I., B. Kiteme, P. Ambenje, U. Wiesmann, and S. Makali. 2010. Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni District, Kenya. Climatic Change 100(2):295-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9713-0
Spoon, J. 2011. The heterogeneity of Khumbu Sherpa ecological knowledge and understanding in Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park and Buffer Zone, Nepal. Human Ecology 39(5):657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9424-9
Srithi, K., H. Balslev, P. Wangpakapattanawong, P. Srisanga, and C. Trisonthi. 2009. Medicinal plant knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 123(2):335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.02.035
Stave, J., G. Oba, I. Nordal, and N. C. Stenseth, 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge of a riverine forest in Turkana, Kenya: implications for research and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(5):1471-1489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9016-y
Stolton, S., N. Dudley, and L. Zogib. 2019. Mobile pastoralism and world heritage. DiversEarth, Switzerland.
Takakura, H. 2012. The shift from herding to hunting among the Siberian Evenki: Indigenous knowledge and subsistence change in Northwestern Yakutia. Asian Ethnology 71(1):31-47.
Tamou, C., I. J. de Boer, R. Ripoll-Bosch, and S. J. Oosting. 2018. Understanding roles and functions of cattle breeds for pastoralists in Benin. Livestock Science 210:129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.02.013
Tang, R., and M. C. Gavin. 2015. Degradation and re-emergence of the commons: the impacts of government policies on traditional resource management institutions in China. Environmental Science & Policy 52:89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.023
Thomas, D. S. G., and C. Twyman. 2004. Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science, and local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degradation & Development 15(3):215-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.610
Tian, X. 2017. Ethnobotanical knowledge acquisition during daily chores: the firewood collection of pastoral Maasai girls in Southern Kenya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 13:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-016-0131-x
Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2
Turunen, M. T., S. Rasmus, M. Bavay, K. Ruosteenoja, and J. Heiskanen. 2016. Coping with difficult weather and snow conditions: reindeer herders’ views on climate change impacts and coping strategies. Climate Risk Management 11:15-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.01.002
Volpato, G., S. M. L. Saleh, and A. Di Nardo. 2015. Ethnoveterinary of Sahrawi pastoralists of Western Sahara: camel diseases and remedies. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0040-4
Wu, N., M. Ismail, S. Joshi, S. L. Yi, R. M. Shrestha, and A.W. Jasra. 2014. Livelihood diversification as an adaptation approach to change in the pastoral Hindu-Kush Himalayan region. Journal of Mountain Science 11(5):1342-1355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3038-9
Yacoub, H. 2018. Knowledge and community resilience in rangelands recovery: the case of Wadi Allaqi Biosphere Reserve, South Eastern Desert, Egypt. Restoration Ecology 26:37-S43. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12667
Yager, K., C. Valdivia, D. Slayback, E. Jimenez, R. I. Meneses, A. Palabral, M. Bracho, D. Romero, A. Hubbard, P. Pacheco, A. Calle, et al. 2019. Socio-ecological dimensions of Andean pastoral landscape change: bridging traditional ecological knowledge and satellite image analysis in Sajama National Park, Bolivia. Regional Environmental Change 19(5):1353-1369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01466-y
Zent, S. 2013. Processual perspectives on traditional environmental knowledge: continuity, erosion, transformation, innovation. Pages 213-265 in R. Ellen, S. J. Lycett, and S. E. Johns, editors. Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology. Berghahn, New York, USA.
Zinsstag, J., M. Ould Taleb, and P. S. Craig. 2006. Health of nomadic pastoralists: new approaches towards equity effectiveness. Tropical Medicine & International Health 11:565-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01615.x
Table 1. Variables elicited and used for the review (TEK: traditional ecological knowledge).
|Variable||Description||Number of papers|
|Country||Place of the study||288|
|Pastoral system type||Nomadism (nomad and semi-nomad); Transhumance (transhumant and semi-transhumant); Sedentarism (sedentary)||152|
|Knowledge domain||Herd/Livestock (subdomains: a. herd management; b. animal husbandry, veterinary); Forage/Medicine (subdomains: a. Forage and fodder species; b. medicinal species); Landscape/Wildlife, etc. (subdomains: a. landscape and ecology; b. wildlife; c. general biology); Climate (subdomain: a. weather and climate); Social-cultural (subdomains: a. social, economic, and political aspects; b. culture and beliefs)||152|
|TEK transition||Yes (TEK transition was mentioned); No (TEK transition was not mentioned)||152|
|Type of knowledge transition||Erosion (reduction of the knowledge was reported); Retention (no change was reported, and continuity was the state of knowledge transition); Hybrid/integration (TEK integrated into another knowledge system; i.e., scientific knowledge); Adaptation (new knowledge for adaptation exposed to environmental, climatic, political, cultural, and economic changes); No report (there was no report that mentioned any transition)||152|
|Robustness of reported transition||Evidence-based (transition was evaluated based on an analysis of data gathered from a sample); Anecdotal (transition was mentioned only in some pastoralists’ quotes and was not based on analyzed results); Non-evidence based (not based on data analysis or pastoralists’ quotes, but simply mentioned by the authors).||63|
|Drivers of knowledge transition||Causes of change in pastoral TEK. Drivers were identified based on direct sentences in the Results and Discussion sections of the reviewed paper. Drivers were not predetermined, and they were added when a new driver was identified in the paper.||63|
Table 2. Examples of adaptation and hybridization of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from different parts of the world.
|Adaptation: Pastoralists cope with changes in environment and social-economic conditions through adaptive strategies. Implementation of new practices is based on adaptive knowledge that makes the adjustment of pastoral systems to changes effective.|
|Kenya: Due to diet changes among Maasai pastoralists, shifting from milk and meat centered to more agricultural crops, girls’ activities and TEK regarding firewood collection have expanded and adapted by putting more time into wood collection and involvement of younger children. Also, with developing formal schooling in the region, firewood collection has been adjusted to a shorter period prior to school time.||Tian (2017)|
|Russia: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Siberian Evenki people who were living in the Arctic forest tundra region of northwestern Yakutia changed their basic subsistence from reindeer herding to a combination of herding and hunting due to environmental change, political regime change, and economic development.||Takakura (2012)|
|Bolivia: As trends of diminishing water availability are recorded across the Andes, mountain peatlands (bofedales), which are the main pastureland for camelid pastoralists, are becoming more degraded and drier. Consequently, Andean pastoralists have adopted collective irrigation practices to rehabilitate these pastures which were used in the past.||Yager et al. (2019)|
|Benin: Fulbe pastoralists’ perception and TEK regarding animal genetic breeds have adapted to new environmental and social-political regulations. For instance, with encroachment of farmlands, which is resulting in the loss of grazing areas and watering points, cattle herders’ preferences for breeds are changing from high milk and meat production to breeds that are tolerant to hunger and long walks is search for forage. Also, scarce grazing land had made pastoralists use specific breeds that are good at escaping from agents responsible for illegal grazing.||Tamou et al. (2018)|
|Hybridization: Exposure to other knowledge systems and technologies leads to the development of hybrid knowledge and practices that are based on them. This exposure may contribute to changes in management but also to a change of values pastoralists follow. Hybridization—whether done voluntarily or involuntarily—is another strategy to make persistency of pastoral systems possible.|
|China: In the past, Tibetan herders’ traditional knowledge influenced by Buddhist teaching viewed yaks as sentient beings that should not be slaughtered; however, being subjected to market-driven logic, slaughtering is currently considered a necessary process. The contemporary forces have resulted in the hybrid indigenous knowledge of Tibetan pastoralists in a way that most of them do not reject one view for the other; rather, they employ both.||Gaerrang (2017)|
|Spain: Younger Spanish shepherds in the Cantabrian Mountains are exposed to external sources of training and information, including the Internet, which has resulted in new understanding regarding scavengers and their role in other nature-based subsistence, such as nature tourism. Therefore, the population of Griffon Vultures (Gyps fulvus) has increased due to this hybridization of knowledge.||Morales-Reyes et al. (2019)|
|Australia: Indigenous cattle herders’ practices in Oriners Station (Indigenous-owned pastoral lease east of Kowanyama) have been influenced by operational knowledge of national parks and contemporary management, which has led to hybridization of their knowledge. Currently, pastoralists compromise with other involved stakeholders such as conservationists and scientists in implementing their traditional-based practices such as horse riding.||Barber et al. (2014)|
|Uganda: As the result of being exposed to modern weather prediction techniques and information, pastoralists’ knowledge in the Rwenzori region regarding predicting and forecasting weather features is currently a hybrid knowledge based both on scientific and traditional knowledge.||Nkuba et al. (2019)|
|Retention: Knowledge transmission is constantly occurring without any gap within or between generations.|
|Kenya: Despite the gradual shift from a nomadic to sedentary lifestyle, pastoral knowledge regarding botanical features of plant species was uniformly shared across age and gender, and source of livelihood.||Stave et al. (2007)|
|India: Children of the semi-nomadic Gujjar tribe (buffalo herders) in the high altitude of the Western Himalaya still accompany their fathers and elder generation to the higher altitude and learn about useful plant species through observation.||Rana et al. (2019)|
|Ghana; Burkina Faso: Free forage plant listing ability of the elder generation was the same as younger generation. In some cases, it was shown that younger generations carry greater knowledge pertaining to forage species than the elders, which showed the intrinsic flexible nature of pastoral TEK acquisition and transmission.||Naah and Guuroh (2017)|
Table 3. Drivers of traditional ecological knowledge transition (numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of studies; the 3-letter abbreviations indicate the country in which the driver was reported).
|Social-cultural changes (13): China, India, Spain, Kenya, Mongolia, Argentina, Benin, Ethiopia, Nepal, Oman||Tang and Gavin (2015); Salpeteur et al. (2015); Fernández-Giménez and Estaque (2012); Jandreau and Berkes (2016); Fernandez-Gimenez (2000); Ladio and Lozada (2009); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013); Gaoue and Ticktin (2009); Belayneh et al. (2012); Seid et al. (2016); Dong (2017); Singh et al. (2015); Salman and Kharusi (2014)|
|Formal schooling (11): China, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, Spain, Egypt, Sudan, India, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda||Tang and Gavin (2015); Bruyere et al. (2016); Jandreau and Berkes (2016); Spoon (2011); Aziz et al. (2018); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013); Hobbs et al. (2014); Dutt et al. (2015); Radeny et al. (2019); Hopping et al. (2016); Kuriyan (2002)|
|Abandonment of pastoral activities (11): Kenya, Argentina, Spain, Hungary, Cyprus, Benin, Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Italy, India||Bruyere et al. (2016); Jandreau and Berkes (2016); Ladio and Lozada (2009); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013); Molnár (2014); Della et al. (2006); Gaoue and Ticktin (2009); Easdale and Aguiar (2018); Volpato et al. (2015); Rippa et al. (2011); Singh et al. (2018)|
|Transition to a market economy (10): Mongolia, Spain, China, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Lesotho, Pakistan, India, Kenya||Fernandez-Gimenez (2000); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013); Hernández-Morcillo et al. (2014); Liu (2013); Kassam (2009); Morojele (2017); Post (2018); Raziq et al. (2010); Singh et al. (2015); Kuriyan (2002)|
|Policies and regulations (8): China, Spain, Mongolia; Hungary, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Finland||Tang and Gavin (2015); Fernández-Giménez and Estaque (2012); Fernández-Giménez (2000); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013) (2015); Molnár (2014); Dong (2017); Raziq et al. (2010); Turunen et al. (2016)|
|Urbanization (8): China, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Cyprus, Egypt, Sudan, Argentina, India, Nepal)||Tang and Gavin (2015); Aziz et al. (2018); Radeny et al. (2019); Della et al. (2006); Andersen et al. (2014); Easdale and Aguiar (2018); Dong (2017); Raziq et al. (2010)|
|Subsistence diversification (7): Kenya, Nepal, China, Lesotho, India, Pakistan)||Jandreau and Berkes (2016); Spoon (2011); Nyima and Hopping (2019); Liu (2013); Morojele (2017); Singh et al. (2018); Raziq et al. (2010)|
|Modernization and technology (6): Kenya, Pakistan, Spain, India, Finland||Bruyere et al. (2016); Aziz et al. (2018); Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013); Dutt et al. (2015); Seid et al. (2016); Turunen et al. (2016)|
|Environmental and climatic changes (6): Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Egypt, Pakistan, Finland||Speranza et al. (2010); Radeny et al. (2019); Yacoub (2018); Raziq et al. (2010); Feyssa et al. (2012); Turunen et al. (2016)|
|Sedentarization (6): Egypt, Sudan, China, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan||Hobbs et al. (2014); Liu (2013); Kassam (2009); Volpato et al. (2015); Homann et al. (2008); Raziq et al. (2010)|
|Agricultural expansion (5): Afghanistan, Tajikistan, China, Italy, India||Kassam (2009); Liu (2013); Homann et al. (2008); Rippa et al. (2011); Singh et al. (2018)|
|Privatization (4): China, Kenya, Mongolia, India, Nepal||Tang and Gavin (2015); Jandreau and Berkes (2016); Fernandez-Gimenez (2000); Dong (2017)|
|Deagrarianization (1): Argentina||Ladio and Lozada (2009)|