Research

INTRODUCTION

Land use change, one of the major drivers of environmental change, is a consequence of multiple global and local dynamics (Pendrill et al. 2022). As distant human and environmental systems become increasingly connected, globalization influences local decision-making and accelerates land conversion, with profound implications for forests, water, and people (Liu et al. 2019). Land use change is the main cause of worldwide biodiversity loss (Newbold et al. 2014, Phillips et al. 2017, Ríos-Touma et al. 2023). It triggers shifts in livelihoods from subsistence to market-oriented agriculture, often reinforcing the unequal distribution of land (Guereña 2016, Lawrence et al. 2019). Moreover, tropical forests are of interest to local and transnational mining companies driven by the increasing worldwide demand for minerals, causing direct and indirect deforestation in two-thirds of tropical countries (Giljum et al. 2022). Populations worldwide depend directly on forest-sourced products and agricultural systems implemented in tropical forests, accounting for 95% of global deforestation and 34% of forest degradation (Curtis et al. 2018). These forests are targets of different institutional interventions (Wiegant et al. 2020, Fischer et al. 2023), while simultaneously being sustained and managed by diverse cultural groups (Leal Filho et al. 2020, Haboud and Ortega 2023). As a result, multiple (usually contested) worldviews shape the fate of tropical forests (Pérez-Llorente et al. 2019, Garcia et al. 2020, Ioris and Ioris 2020, Flores et al. 2022). Important agents of land use change are farmers, the ultimate decision-makers consisting of women and men, Indigenous and non-indigenous (Lowe et al. 1992, Bakker and van Doorn 2009, Villamor et al. 2014a, 2014b). Each of these groups has different perspectives on land use and forest management (Pfeiffer and Butz 2005, Garcia et al. 2020).

Indigenous and non-indigenous land use practices and their impacts on land use change in Latin America differ widely. Observed trends have suggested that Indigenous populations maintain more land use diversity than their Mestizo (non-indigenous) neighbors (Rudel et al. 2002, Van den Eynden et al. 2003, Iverson and Iverson 2021). Differences in land use preferences have been found between Mestizos and Indigenous populations and within Indigenous groups, although some perceptions about sustainability were found to be consistent between Indigenous people and Mestizos (Vasco et al. 2018, Heredia-R et al. 2022). Moreover, cultural values and livelihood strategies were found to structure the differences between agriculture practiced by Mestizos and Indigenous groups (Stocks 1998). Mestizos are also oriented to individual ownership of land, whereas Indigenous populations practice a communal property system, usually sustained by social interactions (Hayes 2008). Some studies suggest that areas granted to Indigenous people show lower rates of deforestation than areas managed by Mestizos (Hayes 2006, Cronkleton et al. 2011). However, it has been shown that unsustainable Indigenous hunter-gatherer practices may lead to negative effects on biodiversity and profound effects on forest integrity (De la Montaña et al. 2015, Benitez-Lopez et al. 2017, Benítez-López et al. 2019, Krause and Nielsen 2019). Furthermore, forest management is characterized as a set of social arrangements changing amidst interaction with other (ethnic) groups (Wiersum 1997), affording local forest users an important role in crafting management rules (Hayes and Persha 2010).

Beyond ethnicity, gender may also influence land use practices, such as the conservation of plant diversity especially observed in gardens kept by women (Beltrán-Rodríguez et al. 2014, Caballero-Serrano et al. 2016). In Indigenous societies, resource management is usually gender-oriented (Mikkelsen 2005) and several studies illustrate the gender division of labor in agriculture among different societies (Burton and White 1984). However, myths around gender roles in agriculture and forest management may ignore the potential complementarities between men and women (Doss et al. 2018). Hence, identifying behavioral gender differences by shifting to a relational perspective of on-farm management could guide the construction of alternative production systems (Feldman and Welsh 1995).

Land use dynamics are partially driven by farmers’ needs and motives, which are increasingly influenced by external factors through market-oriented rules and norms (García-Barrios et al. 2015). Beyond cost-benefit analysis, however, farmers’ land use decisions are also driven by social relations that make certain land uses more acceptable within farmers’ social and cultural contexts (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2016). It is commonly assumed that people make rational choices by carefully weighing their options through an individual decision-making process based on available information (Maule and Hodgkinson 2002). A deeper understanding of how people behave, however, has shown that people often think habitually and socially, with mental models drawn from society and shared history (Bank 2014). In particular, different farmers call on the advice of different “reference groups” (family, peers, organizations, agencies, and companies) (Kemper 2016) to help in making land use decisions.

To understand decision-making as a process embedded in social relations, we investigated two forested Ecuadorian regions by studying four populations with different cultural backgrounds. Our approach goes beyond the concept of utility maximization and classical rational and utility decision theories (Van Fleet 2021, Srivastava et al. 2023), recognizing farmers not as purely rational decision-making individuals but as agents of social relations where decisions are guided by status and power dynamics between farmers and their influential reference groups. Farmers’ relations range from family and community to global levels, all of which can influence land use practices and decision-making processes (Laesslé 2013, Arce et al. 2015, Zhu 2017, Bartley 2018, Purcell et al. 2018, Zhu 2018, Zhu 2022, Andreotti et al. 2023). Yet we know very little about how the nature of these multi-level interactions coalesce and shape farmers’ land use decisions. How do social obligations, gender, and kinship ties impact the decisions made by farmers to convert forests to pasture, support mining operations, or reforest a parcel of land? Is the impact different among Indigenous groups and Mestizos? The research described in this paper examines these pivotal yet overlooked questions through the case of Indigenous and Mestizo communities in the tropical forests of Ecuador, where local relations and global institutional power collide in the everyday decision-making processes of large and small-scale farmers.

The two studied areas are deforestation frontlines where forests are converted to diverse agricultural systems (Leguia and Moscoso 2015) and are targets of local and global institutional interventions. People and forests in the Andean Choco and the Amazon basin in Morona Santiago face the recent incursion of mining companies. Common dynamics between mining companies and local farmers include land expropriation and displacement from territories, working and entrepreneurial ties, and alliances among small-scale farmers resisting mining incursions (Velásquez 2012, Vázquez et al. 2017). Consequently, there is no unified political stance on mining among farmers (Velásquez 2012, Vázquez et al. 2017). Alongside mining, these areas are targets of reforestation, forest management initiatives, and REDD+ programs, supported by government policies and led by local institutions, the national government, and international organizations (Ardila 2019). Programs like SocioBosque (de Koning et al. 2011), Agenda de Transformación Productiva Amazónica, and Water funds are primarily implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG), the Ministry of Environment (MAATE), and Fondo para la protección del Agua, with funding from United Nations Development’s Green Climate Fund and Global Environmental Fund (Ardila 2019), all of which may impact forest cover and forest conservation (Fischer et al. 2021).

We conducted semi-structured interviews with farmers from the Amazon and Andean Choco to explore farmers’ decision-making as embedded in social relations. The story of Klever and Nube (pseudonyms of two Indigenous farmers; see Text Box 1) illustrates the complexity of these decisions. They, like many other farmers, are guided by different values impressed by ancestors, neighbors, or institutions. Along with over 300 additional interviews with farmers, their stories reveal the intricate influence of local and global forces on land use decisions. We aim to understand how these diverse social relations guide land use decisions by exploring: (1) Who is influencing farmers’ land use decisions? (2) How does this influence compare across groups (ethnicity and gender)? and (3) What is the overall impact of farm-level land use decisions on deforestation and land use change? Through methodological and theoretical contributions grounded in empirical data, our findings reveal the sometimes conflicting, sometimes reinforcing webs of influence that shape farmers’ decision-making from local to global, and the consequences for tropical forests.

STATUS-POWER THEORY AND REFERENCE GROUPS

To understand farmers land use decisions, we use the status-power theory of social relations (SPTR; Kemper 2016). SPTR describes social relations as a permanent and mutual exchange of status and power between people and their “reference groups.” Reference groups are the people’s salient others whom they want to make proud, or whom they fear. These reference groups exist in one’s mind, might be single individuals or groups, and together their influence forms what people experience as “myself” (Fig. 1). Reference groups are influential on an individual’s behaviors as long as they are considered important, either because the individual aims to please them by claiming or conferring status, or to avoid their use of power (Kemper 2016). From this perspective, farmers may claim status by choosing land uses that they believe are considered status-worthy by important reference groups, such as raising cattle for Mestizos, planting yucca for ancestors, or growing coffee for the government. At the same time, farmers gain status conferrals from those salient others by complying to their wishes, norms, or advice (Kemper 2016, Bicchieri 2017). Regard, attention, respect, support, and incentives are ways of conferring status.

On the other hand, reference groups may use power to overcome resistance, impose their norms, or achieve their interests (Kemper 2016, Bicchieri 2017). Power, as defined in SPTR, is the means by which certain reference groups exert influence over decision-makers. This is similar to the actor-centered power approach, in which actors in a social relation forcibly alter another’s behavior (Krott et al. 2014). According to these perspectives, through offensive and defensive means, such as coercion, (dis)incentives, or dominant information, reference groups can force farmers’ choices. Traders threaten farmers that they will not buy their crops, farmers are excluded from associations, and mining companies use violence to access territories. According to SPTR, power is undertaken to overcome resistance, whereas status reinforces feelings of belonging and support (Kemper 2016). In sum, power and status are the two relational channels through which reference groups exert influence over an individual’s behavior.

Reference groups may or may not coincide with actual stakeholders. Real or not, reference groups exert influence over decisions in specific and sometimes contradictory ways. The case of Klever and Nube demonstrates this well: they are influenced by multiple opinions on what they should do with their land. They may contend with advice from local neighbors to transnational corporations, alongside family expectations and learned values from parents or deceased ancestors. Reference groups can offer advice, serve as role models (someone to compare oneself to), or act as normative guides (someone who prescribes what to do; Bicchieri 2017, Kemper 2016). Through perceived advice, example setting, or coercion, reference groups shape the decisions of the farmers with whom they are connected. They are present in the farmer’s mind or everyday life from childhood, can emerge or disappear throughout life (Fig. 1d), and influence both social behavior and decision-making.

Consider the story of Klever. He wishes to claim status from important reference groups: his father and the non-indigenous community. Klever believes his father will be proud because he is doing what he was taught, and that Mestizos will recognize him as a successful, hard-working farmer because he works beyond planting short-cycle crops. Additionally, traders hold more respect for cattle ranchers. Research has shown that behavior is influenced by intergenerational and peer effect (Jiménez et al. 2022, He et al. 2023). Parents, grandparents, and peers play a significant role in cultural transmission (Caballero-Serrano et al. 2016, Schniter et al. 2023), and family, peers, and trusted advisors strongly influence famers’ decision-making by prescribing the “normal” farm model (Ingram 2008, Vrain and Lovett 2016, Rose et al. 2018). Traders, in contrast, are important because they wield power. Farmers’ access to markets depends on the capital, specialized knowledge, and information of middlemen, but they barely have a say on the payment they get (Chau et al. 2016). The lack of market information among farmers exacerbates the power asymmetries between intermediaries and farmers, further weakening their bargaining power (Núñez et al. 2016, Vallejo 2017). Klever has some information about prices, but they may always change, so he relies on the advice of his most important reference groups, their access to information, or what he believes they value. Farmers like Klever often respond to information not for the logic behind it, but for how it fits within their social and emotional systems (Kemper 1991, Taleb 2007).

Beyond Kemper’s SPTR, many social theories offer an understanding of human practices and decision-making. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen 2011), has been widely used in the study of farmers’ behavior (Borges et al. 2016, Senger et al. 2017, Bonke and Musshoff 2020, Ataei et al. 2021, Elahi et al. 2021, Xue et al. 2021, Yazdanpanah et al. 2022, Mutyebere et al. 2023), accounting for 49% of studies identified in a recent review (Rose et al. 2018). Norm Activation theory (NAT; Schwartz 1977) and another closely related theory, Value-Belief-Norm theory (VBN; Stern et al. 1999), have also been applied in studies of farmers’ land use decisions (Mastrangelo et al. 2014, Pradhananga and Davenport 2019, Rezaei-Moghaddam et al. 2020, Vaske et al. 2020, Zeng et al. 2020, Qiu et al. 2021, Ataei et al. 2022, Savari et al. 2023).

We interpret these theories from a relational perspective, focusing on reference groups as the source of the behavioral factors in TPB, NAT, or VBN. From the SPTR perspective, for example, attitudes, subjective norms, or perceived behavioral control defined in TPB are transmitted and prescribed by reference groups. Through SPTR’s lens, the individual evaluates the consequence of behaviors in TPB as a relational outcome, whether the decision involves an exchange of status or power with reference groups. Although TPB, NAT, and VBN have been productively deployed to understand farmers’ decision-making, none explicitly address the nature of the relationships between the decision-maker and other individuals or collectives influencing the decision-making process. Instead, they focus, albeit in different ways, more on the subjective norms that prescribe behavior. Although these theories account for social pressure, expectations, and an individual’s ability to engage in certain behaviors, SPTR places a stronger emphasis on those relationships. SPTR first steps back to evaluate the nature of these relationships and the perceived importance of them, which in turn can affect more specific drivers of behavior addressed in the aforementioned theories.

Although research shows that perceptions of social norms affect behavior, their context dependency, group-affiliation enforcement, and compliance make it difficult to understand how norms emerge in new situations (Heinicke et al. 2022). SPTR contributes by offering a deeper understanding of the social context in which norms operate, particularly through status-power dynamics. This approach explains limitations in norm compliance in situations when individuals face reference groups with conflicting interests (Heinicke et al. 2022). SPTR highlights the role of status and power dynamics in resource management and the stake of social groups in environmental change, revealing inequalities, the struggles of marginalized communities, and the influence of dominant forces embodied by salient reference groups (Kleinod-Freudenberg 2024).

Thus, SPTR can help explain how the interests of reference groups, reinforced by displays of status and power, impose on one another, shedding light on conflict, group opposition, and social dilemmas, explaining also the dialectic between the two forces driving social interactions: love and fear. Whereas theories of social norms emphasize the strength of the connection between the individual and the groups that prescribes the norms, SPTR adopts a pluralistic, multiscale approach. It accounts for the constellation of reference groups that prescribe the norms in an individual’s mind for a specific context. These reference groups have sometimes common, sometimes conflicting interests. As a multifaceted theory, SPTR’s application to social-ecological studies is novel and can enrich our understanding of land use change, guiding future policy interventions in culturally diverse territories, where multiple, often antagonistic groups get involved.

METHODS

Study area

The province of Morona Santiago (MS) and the Andean Choco Biosphere Reserve (RBCA) in Ecuador are culturally and biologically diverse and harbor extensive reserves of tropical forests. MS, located in the Ecuadorian Amazon, comprises 71.6% of tropical lowland forests, including the Kutuku-Shaimi protected forest, the Territory of the Shuar-Arutam collective, and Achuar territories (Fig. 2a). The RBCA, located in the northwest slopes of the Andes, comprises 56% of mountain forests (Fig. 2b). We chose these areas because they both face the incursion of mining companies and are deforestation frontlines with important conservation status (Leguia and Moscoso 2015, Roy et al. 2018, Fagua and Ramsey 2019). They also harbor substantial cultural diversity, which allows us to account for context similarities and differences among the studied groups.

In MS, three ethnic groups coexist: Achuar, Shuar, and Mestizos. Achuar and Shuar are Indigenous, whereas Mestizos are a Spanish-speaking population of European and Indigenous descent. The Achuar are more isolated than the Shuar (Fig. 2a), resulting in limited contact with Mestizos, especially for women. The Shuar are the second-most numerous ethnic group in the Ecuadorian Amazon after the Kichwas (INEC 2010). Since the mid-20th century, the Indigenous populations of the Ecuadorian Amazon, originally engaged in subsistence agriculture, have become part of the market economy. Improved road access has facilitated product commercialization, leading to an influx of Mestizo settlers and accelerating deforestation (De Koning et al. 1998, Sierra 2000).

Originally from the southern Andes, Amazonian Mestizos colonized Morona Santiago (MS) in 1964 during the first agrarian reform, which granted property rights to those who cultivated the “unproductive” lowlands of the Amazon (De Koning et al. 1998, Mena et al. 2006). The first newcomers, however, were the Salesians, Christian missionaries who arrived in 1914. Acting as intermediaries between the Indigenous groups, political power in Quito, and religious authority in Rome, their mission was to intervene with local traditional livelihoods to integrate isolated populations into the nation-state (Rubenstein 2005). Since then, the region has faced several changes to which modern threats add up, such as the concession of 90% of Indigenous territories to transnational mining companies (Fig. 2a) and the over-exploitation of balsa wood (Ochroma pyramidale) to supply the global wind-energy industry (Cazar 2021, Coba 2021).

The RBCA is inhabited by a larger population of Mestizos (Fig. 2b). Since Spanish colonization, the area has been a key supplier of agricultural products for the capital. Its modern history began with resource exploitation through logging, extensive pastures, and sugarcane plantations at the end of the 19th century (Ramirez et al. 2013). Today, the seasonal influx of migrants supports extensive commodity plantations primarily owned by people from Quito, leading to different interactions between Mestizo settlers and the capital. Unlike the Amazonian Mestizos, Mestizos in the RBCA (hereafter Mestizos-RBCA) do not coexist with Indigenous (see census data in Fig. 2).

Data collection

To implement the interviews, we used stratified spatial and snowball sampling covering different land uses implemented by Shuar, Achuar, and Mestizo farmers (Appendix 1). The stratified sampling was designed to cover ethnic groups, gender, and the land uses recorded in updated land use maps (MAATE 2018, MAG 2019; Fig. 2). For this we visited farms, villages, and fairs. In some cases, we asked interviewees for referrals to complete the expected sample. We performed 321 semi-structured interviews between April and November 2021 to large and small-scale farmers, consisting of 14 Achuar (F:4, M:10), 101 Amazonian Mestizos (F:43, M:58), 88 Mestizos from RBCA (F:45, M:43), and 118 Shuar (F:50, M:68) (Appendix 1).

The interview had two sections. First, open-ended questions about important reference groups (“Who influences your land use decisions”), their status and power as perceived by farmers, and farmers’ perceptions of mining activities (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). Mining was covered in 63 interviews: Achuar (F:1, M:2), Mestizos (F:3, M:5), Mestizos-RBCA (F:9, M:7) and Shuar (F:16, M:20). Second, a closed-ended survey that included ranking of reference groups (“Can you rank your reference groups in order of importance?”), ranking of land uses (“Of these implemented land uses, can you rank them in order of preference?”), land use transitions, land use attributes, and reference groups’ status-conferrals and use of power (Appendix 1). For measuring reference groups importance and preferences of implemented land uses, we applied rankings, where rank 1 was the most important reference group or preferred land use. Farmers scored status conferrals (such as support, incentives, or agreement) linked with each land use in a positive scale (1 to 3) and use of power (such as harm or disagreement) in a negative scale (−1 to −3) (“Which reference groups confer status and use power with each land use? Can you score each from −3 to 3?”) (Fig. 1, Appendix 1).

It is important to note that this research only accounts for the farmers’ perceptions of their reference groups and their influence on land use decisions. We did not interview any reference groups directly. The interviews were conducted by a Shuar woman (45), two Shuar men (67), and two Mestizas (218). The first author, an Ecuadorian Mestiza, conducted 194 of the 321 total interviews. This diversity of interviewers provided a broader perspective, as each interviewer’s background could influence the style of conversation, its framing, and the interviewees’ openness to talk. Some interviewees felt more comfortable speaking Shuar rather than Spanish, or talking with someone of the same gender or ethnicity. Our sample thus reflects diversity, accounting for the voices of different farmers, through the complementary data collection by interviewers from different gender and cultural backgrounds, recognizing that there is a mutual influence on how the interviewee and the interviewer perceive and respond to each other. Different interviewers were ultimately deemed necessary to allow for a diversity of perceptions, as illustrated through the quotes presented in the results.

Data analysis

We present our results through complementary approaches of data analysis, such as descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data analysis. We used R for statistics and Atlas.ti for word frequency. Achuar were excluded from some analysis due to limited sampling. We report on influential reference groups in farmers’ decision-making and their importance by the percentage and frequency of farmers who mentioned each reference group, categorized by ethnic group and gender. To explain if group identity or gender defines reference groups and their importance, we used descriptive statistics and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of the ranking of reference groups with data grouped by age and gender. Moreover we implemented Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests of difference between ethnic groups and gender, with the ranking of reference groups and the percentage of farmers who mentioned each reference group as input data.

How reference groups influenced land use decisions is described by the perceived status conferrals and use of power by reference groups linked to each land use. Farmers scored status-conferrals from 1 to 3 and power use from −1 to −3 (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). We calculated the mean score of both variables and the standard error by land use and reference group for each ethnic group. These results are complemented with quotes through the text and full quotes in Appendix 4. Finally, we report the implications for forests and land use change by presenting the percentage of farmers who replaced forest with other land uses, as well as the transitions between land uses (“Which land use was replaced by the current land use?”) (Appendix 1). Moreover, we provide an overview of the land use preferences by group and reference group through model farms. We constructed model farms in a coordinate system that represents the status of reference groups obtained from the average ranking of importance and power obtained from the average score of power use (−1 to −3). The model farm size represents the average surface for each implemented land use reported by farmers in our interviews in 2021.

The perception of farmers about mining companies was analyzed through word frequency by using Atlas.ti. Words were clustered by similarity without context association under four concepts: reference groups and other nouns, status, power, and emotions, and visualized in word clouds. Words that required a context interpretation were excluded (such as yes, no, and several verbs). The word classification in clusters was done by the first author and discussed with the author’s team. Finally, throughout the results, we use the term “the out-group” to refer to the co-existing groups in the Amazon (Mestizos reported by Indigenous individuals or Indigenous people reported by Mestizos; see Table 1.)

We present the results in two sections. The first section, Who is influencing farmers’ land use decisions across ethnic groups and gender, addresses the first two research questions and highlights differences primarily between ethnic groups and gender and some relevant contrasting facts across sites. This is important for illustrating how the context of each site varies because of the different reference groups reported by farmers from each studied group. Subsections are organized by reference group. The second section, Impacts on land use change and deforestation, addresses the third research question, illustrating how tropical forests are converted under the influence of status-conferrals and power from reference groups. Using quantitative data, we provide a comparative analysis across ethnic groups and gender, complemented by qualitative data that narrates farmers’ relationships with their most important reference groups, which result in land use decisions. Statements are supported by quotes, with statistics integrated in figures and tables.

RESULTS

Who is influencing farmers’ land use decisions across ethnic groups and gender?

Farmers reported multiple reference groups that shape their land use decisions, some more influential than others and with roles at different social and spatial scales. A total of 62 reference groups were mentioned by farmers, which we reported in 18 aggregated categories (Table 1). We found some differences between ethnic groups (Table 2) and gender (Table 3).

Ancestors and parents

Ancestors were mentioned more by Indigenous individuals (34.2%) than Mestizos (11.5%), but parents were more frequently mentioned by Mestizos (70.5%) than Indigenous people (34.4%; Table 2). We found the highest gender difference in mentioning parents (F: 64.9%, M: 54.9%) and extended family (F: 10.7%, M: 4.9%; Table 3). Shuar ancestors influenced a wider variety of land uses than Mestizo ancestors, who mainly supported cattle raising (Fig. 3). Shuar ancestors particularly stood out in supporting Aja Shuar (family gardens) and traditional land uses. All groups generally reported parents and ancestors as the most influential (quotes-1), without reporting any exertion of power by these reference groups. However, some farmers expressed frustration that their children rejected agriculture, indicating a desire for them to continue farming traditions (quotes-2). Some also believed that farming lacks status, contributing to their children’s negative perceptions of agriculture (quote-3). On the importance of reference groups, ancestors, parents, and family were ranked the highest by all ethnic groups (Appendix 2a). Significant differences between groups were only observed for the ranking of family (p = 0.0116; Appendix 3). From a gender perspective, we found significant differences on the ranking of ancestors (p = 0.0201; Appendix 3), which were ranked higher by women than men (Appendix 2b).

Quotes-1

This comes since our elders, those who knew how to cultivate until now our grandparents, all of them have always guided us on what to cultivate, then we have learned. Shuar woman

What my father taught me, that’s not going to change at all. First he taught me values, second, to work, to persevere, to strive. I cannot change that for anything. Mestizo

This is ancestral, since we were born, this is my grandparents, my great-grandparents, our Shuar traditions. Shuar man

Quotes-2

Youth has changed... now they leave to the city, some study there...they don’t want to drink chicha, traditions are lost. Shuar couple

We talk to our children in Shuar language, I like it, I don’t want our culture to be lost, I drink chicha, I take my daughter to the Aja Shuar. Shuar woman

Quote-3

My father was cattle rancher...when we were kids, we always worked, we struggled helping doing the milking, so since we were children we knew, and my father always used to tell us, well, he induced us to study, so that we don’t suffer like him.

The interviews revealed that some farmers: (1) felt proud of following their ancestors’ steps, (2) followed ancestors with technological improvements (quote-4), or (3) decided against agriculture despite their ancestors’ wishes (quote-5). Although Salesians were barely mentioned within the agricultural context (Table 1), they significantly impacted two Indigenous generations by acting as parental figures for Shuar children during the 1960s (quote-6).

Quote-4

We have seen that there is competitiveness in the cattle association, for improvement. My father didn’t like those techniques, but we have been forced to go beyond what my father did, otherwise we would stay behind. Mestiza

Quote-5

It is more important to study, to help our families, working in agriculture is complicated. Achuar woman

Quote-6

In the past, missionaries educated us.. they forced us to learn Spanish and neglect our language, they punished us...they said that it was the language of Evil... They also taught us how to cultivate. Shuar man

Neighbors

Neighbors were much more influential among Mestizos (54%) than Indigenous individuals (19.4%; Table 2); however, Shuar neighbors inspired a wider variety of land uses (Fig. 3). Compared with men, a slightly higher percentage of women mentioned neighbors as reference groups (F: 43.5%, M: 38.9%; Table 3). Neighbors were sources of admiration and inspiration but also objects of envy (quotes-7). On importance, they were ranked higher by Mestizos than Indigenous people and higher by women than men (Appendix 2).

Quotes-7

There are many cool farmers, those who strive, without a formal education, they demonstrate their passion for land...I admire him for that. Mestizo-RBCA

We didn’t join that project because people is envious, they didn’t tell us, they got organized only among family. Shuar women

We have to try to build a community, a family, try to be more resilient, and support each other between neighbors. Mestizo-RBCA

Imitation was the most common behavior among neighbors (quote-8), followed by advice that was either offered or requested, both expressions of status-conferrals. Advice ranged from replacing land uses to exploring new ones, or applying different management practices. Although farmers viewed imitation as a negative behavior, it also served as a motivation for improvement and competition. Imitation increased competition, resulting in price drops; however, few farmers avoided this practice. Crop booms illustrate this phenomenon (Junquera and Grêt-Regamey 2019). Social comparison was common among farmers, who often found inspiration in their peers. Farmers imitated status-worthy farmers (quote-9), such as (1) individuals with whom they had strong social-bonds, (2) those practicing prestigious land uses, or (3) well-off farmers. For the former, everyday rituals were of utmost importance (Hofstede 2019).

Quote-8

If you start with a crop, and it went well, the neighbor does the same...the competition starts and believe me it is harmful, it would be nice if we come into agreement that each of us plant a different crop. Mestizo

Quote-9

Being cattle rancher gives you a higher position in society. Mestiza-RBCA

We found that everyday rituals like preparing and drinking chicha and guayusa, mingas or randimpas, sharing meals, exchanging seeds, meeting in cattle fairs, washing clothes in the river, or demonstrations against mining (quotes-10) strengthened social bonds and shaped collective opinions. Rituals became spaces where farmers exchanged status-conferrals, information, and thoughts, allowed the transmission of culture, and strengthened the status-worthiness of the involved reference groups.

Quotes-10

In the morning we wake up with my husband to drink Guayusa and plan our chores, our crops and our land, here in Achuar land. Achuar woman

We worked with ‛randimpas’ (mingas), they cut the trees, prepare the soil, we prepare meals and chicha, we share the daily hunt...nowadays this is not happening, we used to share everything, there was unity. Shuar women

What we have done is sharing, a lot, we invited their children to our courses, we killed a pig together, we have built a friendship, then they started to change their practices. Mestiza-RBCA

I come to the fair because I like it, to see how people is doing, to compare who has the best cattle. (then he played ecua-volley and drank beer with the others) Mestizo

We came together in the anti-mining resistance, that keeps us united. So we started doing agriculture to provide alternatives, to have a closer relationship with the land. Mestizo-RBCA

Within Mestizos-RBCA, prestigious neighbors were frequently named in the popularization of exotic fruits, coffee, and cacao (Fig. 3). These farmers caused widespread and long-term impacts in various localities through their permanent interaction with peers: the pioneer “crazy” family that spread the pitahaya plantations in Palora; the “gringo” that spread exotic fruits in the RBCA; the woman who created “La Gualeanita” women’s association; the Lojanos coffee growers who popularized the “coffee grown in Quito”; or couples that cultivated organic cacao in agroforestry systems, restored forests from pastures, or started organic plantations of palmito heart (quotes-11). These influential farmers became reference groups for others by sharing seeds, social spaces, and knowledge.

Quotes-11

That neighbor, he was our mirror. Mestiza-RBCA

We planted pitahaya, everyone saw it, saying that we were crazy!, we made the experiment in one hectare. (years later many others started to follow) Mestizo

We started to spread the seeds...we come from the world of coffee, I have peasant roots and will continue being a peasant. Mestizo-RBCA

The government

Though common among all groups, a highest proportion of Shuar reported the government as a reference group (+44% of farmers than other groups) (Table 2). With significant differences (p = 0.0007; Appendix 3), government’s importance was also ranked higher by Indigenous groups than Mestizos (Appendix 2a). Unusual behaviors observed in farmers when following government advice included: (1) farmers deforested to venture into the “new” land use; (2) smallholders replaced crops with the promoted one, with consequent resentment if they failed in its management and commercialization; and (3) farmers cut down the promoted permanent crops after the first harvest.

Farmers felt the use of power by the government in the provision of bad quality seeds, unfulfilled promises on commercialization, or advice on the plantation of commercial monocultures (quote-12). One farmer reported the government bans on hunting and the lack of support on the ways of life of the Indigenous groups (quote-13). Indigenous people consume wild meat traditionally; thus, bans influence their living principles by affecting their economy and the complementarity of a healthy diet.

Quote-12

I was disappointed to have planted that crop and from there I got angry, it was the only land that we cultivated, and cassava, banana, but everything, there we put coffee, and I told the engineer, you knew! that this was going to happen, and you made us plant everything, and you couldn’t say, plant half and leave half for other crops, you had to say, I got angry with the engineer... And from there I cut down everything at once, even my husband got angry with me...but he continued adoring his coffees. Shuar woman

Quote-13

Wild meat, that is our tradition, our ancestors lived with that and we were raised with that. The government banned it, is like banning food to the Mestizos, no one supports the Indigenous, Indigenous traditions. We have other ways of living, and that the president doesn’t understand. Shuar man

Mestizos reported the lack of public policies in support of the agricultural sector (quote-14). Others perceived the wrong implementation of incentives that only fulfilled political agendas; some valued and others questioned the knowledge and experience from engineers (quotes-15). However, these perceived forms of use of power did not reflect on specific land use choices but reduced the credibility of government interventions. Positive support was reported on dairy plants and the provision of balsa wood seedlings, which resulted in the expansion of balsa plantations and the dairy cattle.

Quote-14

Farmers feed the world, policies should support farmer. The government doesn’t support small-scale producers. Mestizo-RBCA

Quotes-15

They come and offer, the more farmers join, the better the record for the institution...but they give seeds that don’t grow here, expensive ones, and bad quality inputs. Mestizo

There is not a political gain in working with farmers, they prefer to build roads, sewage systems. Mestizo

In the past the engineer had high status, we couldn’t challenge them, now we respond, now we know we have more experience than them. RBCA

We used to plant maize in this way, nothing more. Nowadays this is technified thanks to the institutions that supported us with their scientific knowledge, they encouraged us to produce more and better to access the market. Shuar

Mestizos-RBCA reported discontent with free market policies, as prices in neighboring countries competed with local milk prices (quote-16). For some farmers, this resulted in the replacement of dairy cattle with meat cattle. Some farmers were inspired by global trends to implement commercial monocultures like palmito heart and cattle, especially through management techniques and land uses promoted through social media (quote-17).

Quote-16

The government never supports in anything, never, they destroy us. They allow the milk and other products to come from abroad. Mestizo-RBCA

Quote-17

I always get involved with social media, I learn from other countries, we are behind, very uuufff, we are far from being like Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, a great example for cattle ranchers. Mestizo

MAG (Ecuadorian Ministry of Agriculture) supported Shuar in a greater variety of land uses than the other government institutions, but Mestizos reported status-conferrals only on commercial monocultures and cattle (Fig. 3). Mestizos frequently expressed resentment against Shuar and the government. Mestizos perceived that Shuar receive more public incentives than their group, despite the similar needs that Mestizo farmers face (quotes-18). Some Mestizos reported that Shuar do not make an appropriate use of such incentives (quote-19).

Quotes-18

The ‘Shuaras’ receive food, anything, everything. But the Colonos, look, no, there is never a help for them, poor (Mestizo) people. There are poor people, very poor. Mestizo

Their race is like that. It no longer depends on them. If there is a chicken, they throw a party. If they have money, they take the ‘Bono’, they buy everything that day and finish it the same day. On the other hand, we don’t do that, if only we got a little of the support they get. Mestiza

Quote-19

Look, if the bank provides credits, instead of investing, they sell the cows without making them grow, reproduce. If they get fry or chicks from the government, just when they grow and there is a party in the community, they eat them and can’t return a gain, they have that culture of spending and not giving back, they only consume. Mestizo

Traders

Farmers rely on third parties, such as traders, local enterprises, and agro-export companies, to sell their products. These actors were frequently reported as reference groups, particularly by Shuar (34.6%) (Table 2), and were ranked significantly higher in importance by Indigenous individuals than by Mestizos (p = 0.027) (Appendix 2a and 3). Traders were perceived as the most powerful reference group (Fig. 3). All groups experienced the use of power from traders, except for farmers who were traders themselves or had close relations with cattle traders or staff from slaughterhouses (quotes-20). Some Achuar appreciated cattle traders for traveling several days to reach their remote lands (quote-21), though we also recorded instances of racism by traders toward Shuar farmers (quote-22).

Quotes-20

They don’t see that sacrifice made by farmers, they don’t value that work ...... the trader will say: if you want to sell your crop at this price, ok, if not, I will not take your product. Shuar

But we are already selling the product cheaper than the Coca-Cola, I can tell you, because a liter of milk costs less than a Coca-Cola. I resent it because they don’t know what we suffer. Mestiza-RBCA

Yes, there in the slaughterhouse with the fellow cattlemen, there we talk, we laugh, we have a good time!... You need to have a contact to get directly into the slaughterhouse. Mestizo-RBCA

Quote-21

Our relationship with traders is good, very good, they come alone (walking many kilometers into the jungle), we don’t ask but they come for necessity and support us with the economy, by trading cows. Achuar man

Quote-22

Traders tell me that my cows are lean, small, but my cattle is the same as the others... the truth is, that I feel less worthy than Mestizos. Shuar man

Traders were important because of their access to markets, but all farmers, regardless of ethnicity or gender, felt harmed by unfair practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, traders committed fraud by taking advantage of farmer’s ignorance of rising prices of balsa wood in the international market, though some well-informed farmers profited significantly. Traders advised farmers on prices and (temporarily) profitable crops. While global demand for balsa by the wind-power industry triggered overexploitation, many farmers admitted they were unaware of its value until traders arrived (quotes-23). In 2020 local traders toured Ecuador, buying or stealing wild balsa from forest owners, leading to over-exploitation. By 2021, balsa plantations rapidly replaced extensive areas of pastures and forests. By then, Shuar reported various reference groups supporting balsa (Fig. 3).

Quotes-23

Is good profit, from whom had the luck to own natural plantations.. but as people is innocent, they didn’t know, a company offered 4 dollars per tree, ah!! But the tree costs much more than 4 dollars!! Around 40 to 50 dollars per tree. Shuar

We were motivated by a company, which came one year ago, they exported balsa to China, they brought us seedlings, it is a light wood and easy to export. Shuar man

Traders exerted power by paying farmers as they wished, since farmers had no choice but to sell products before they rot. Beef cattle ranchers had more power over traders than crop or dairy producers, as they could hold onto their cattle until a favorable deal was met. Consequently, some farmers shifted from crops and dairy to beef (quote-24). Others acquired small livestock to consume unsold crops, or let the crops rot given the low prices. Some farmers expanded their plantations, given the belief that agriculture is only profitable on a large scale (quote-25). Other strategies included changing land use the following season or organizing collective protests, although the latter was not always successful (quote-26).

Quote-24

We are harmed by traders, by the government who never supports farmers, we are running out of farmers. Sugarcane stopped to be profitable, every farm had its ‛moliendita,’ but now many cut it down and moved to cattle. Mestizo-RBCA

Quote-25

We have to produce a lot, in extension, that is with everything, everything works in quantity. Only having a lot of children is bad. Mestizo-RBCA

Quote-26

The trader is better than the producer, everywhere, traders are organized, while we as farmers are not organized. We organized a protest but they are more powerful economically, so it didn’t last, this is very complicated, very! And believe me, market monopolies at the cities are another problem, because they are such solid organizations with a lot of money. Mestizo

We identified varying perceptions among farmers regarding their relationships with local and agro-export companies. Most felt disadvantaged in their relationship with small dairy businesses, dairy transnationals, or agro-export companies; except for sugarcane farmers in the RBCA, who were proud of being associated with the agro-export industry (quote-27). As a result, Mestizos-RBCA reported significant differences in ranking companies (p = 0.0087), and the percentage of farmers reporting associations (p = 0.047) and globalization (p = 0.027) as reference groups (Appendix 3), with a highest ranking compared to Indigenous people and Amazonian Mestizos (Appendix 2a). In the Amazon, the main exported commodity is Pitahaya, whereas in the RBCA, common global commodities include palmito (Bactris gasipaes) and organic sugarcane (Fig. 2). Extensive palmito plantations are mostly owned by people from the capital, whereas sugarcane by local smallholder cooperatives. The relationship with companies and the effects on land use change are prescribed by the norms governing plantation size, quantity, and production quality. Pitahaya and sugarcane powder provide opposite examples of the norms that companies impose to farmers. Pitahaya growers apply large amounts of agrochemicals to meet international standards (i.e., uniformity of size, absence of defects, skin color), whereas sugarcane exporters adhere to organic production standards.

Quote-27

Farmers started to feel proud, I grow sugarcane!!, and my sugarcane is not consumed by just anyone, it is consumed abroad, in England, they value our product. And this is organic sugarcane, it is healthy and you support people that works hard and respect the laws of nature. Mestizo-RBCA

In the RBCA, a dairy transnational promoted silvopastures among cattle ranchers, but adoption was limited due to low prices and the influence of prestigious local cattle ranchers on cattle-raising practices. Despite the unconformity of farmers with all the reference groups linked to the market, some farmers found relations with companies more stable than dealing with traders. That sense of stability, a status conferral from companies to farmers, attributed power to these companies.

It is important to highlight that the national and international prestige of organic sugarcane powder is a source of pride, cohesion, and group belonging for sugarcane farmers, building their strength to face gold mining concessions in the RBCA. Their resistance stands in opposition to the interests of two globally powerful actors: the worldwide mining industry and the profitable organic production market. On 20 August 2023, these and other collectives (Quito sin minería) won the national referendum against mining concessions in the Andean Choco Biosphere Reserve.

The out-group and inter-group status-conferrals and use of power

The coexistence of different groups influenced land use decisions. This was observed between Mestizos and Shuar and between community settlers in the RBCA. One group was considered more status-worthy than the other, so their land use preferences were also considered status-worthy. Status-conferrals and use of power between groups occurred likewise (quote-28). A total of 24.3% of Shuar mentioned Mestizos as reference groups, but only 11.2% of Mestizos considered Shuar as reference groups (Table 2). Significant differences were found between Mestizos and Indigenous groups (p = 0.032; Appendix 3) on conferring importance to the out-group; Mestizos were ranked higher by Indigenous individuals and Indigenous groups were ranked lower by Mestizos (Appendix 2a). Complementarily, Mestizos considered the “self” as a reference (18.9%) much more than Indigenous groups (3.7%; Table 2, quote-29). Compared with women, a higher percentage of men mentioned themselves as reference groups (F: 9.2%, M: 15.4%; Table 3).

Quotes-28

We are all settlers here, however at the beginning they called us ‘those from below,’ ‘the outsiders,’ ‘those who are not from here.’ They put us a nickname, which initially was used contemptuously, then it was used as a joke, and now as affection. Mestizo-RBCA

There are some Mestizos in this community, some have bought land but now it is forbidden, it was decided in an assembly. They buy land in the lowest price and they are racist. Shuar woman

...The Shuar live from us and we live from the Shuar. Mestizo

Quote-29

They have come to me to learn, I was pioneer in that technique. Twenty years ago, 33 cattle ranchers came to me and I showed them with practice on the field, with facts. Mestizo

Mestizos inspired Shuar in the implementation of different land uses, but very few Mestizos were inspired on traditional monocultures by Shuar (Fig. 3). Shuar aimed to be successful cattle ranchers as they considered Mestizos (quote-30), but Mestizos generally despised the ways of living of the Indigenous people, labeling such lifestyles as lazy and savage, given that Shuar do not cultivate all the land they own and keep hunter-gatherer practices (quotes-31). In contrast, Shuar reported that Mestizos’ worked extensive areas of land (quote-32). Mestizos conferred status to Shuar when the latter raised cattle or planted commercial monocultures (quote-33; Fig. 3).

Quote-30

Overall, Mestizos are cattle ranchers, we learn from them because it is good. Shuar man

Quotes-31

They don’t know how to raise a cattle, lazy people, they only grow yucca for chicha...they go hunting in the mountains, a Mestizo would never do that, they eat whatever worm or fish wrapped in leaves. Mestizos

Even having an hectare, they don’t work. Yes they plant yuquita, bananita, to eat, variety. But they are not like us, we plant extensive land. Mestiza

Quotes-32

White people do work, they produce and they continue expanding their land... then they reduce the space for our people. Shuar man

It seems that they have more land than Mestizos, but cultivate less than Mestizos.....some have hundreds of hectares, but have nothing, only living forest. Mestizos

Quotes-33

Now they (Indigenous) are well educated people, they are also like us now. Teachers, lawyers, they grow Pitahaya.....there was a Shuar man, a hardworking man, he had good cattle, wow!! He used to sell more than 10 cows. Mestizos

Nowadays we see that they (Indigenous) are reacting... they have businesses, good houses, they are interested in cattle ranching, and that is good...they want to improve.. those who reflect are civilized, they don’t follow the ways of the elders, they aspire for better, they want to be like the colonos, have the same expectations as the colonos. Mestizo

The use of power by Mestizos on the undervaluation of Shuar agricultural practices influenced Shuar land use preferences. This reflected in the racism exhibited by Mestizos toward Shuar, which resulted in land-related conflicts between both groups, Mestizos are scammed and land conversion is more frequent among Shuar. In land conversion, we observed several relevant phenomena: (1) Shuar aim to raise cattle and establish extensive monocultures like Mestizos, (2) Shuar convert community forests into pastures to rent to Mestizos (quotes-34), (3) Shuar often prefer selling their land, frequently to Mestizos, rather than practicing agriculture (quote-35), (4) some Shuar villages relaxed their norms, allowing Mestizos to acquire land with the permission of the community leader or through marriage (quotes-36), and (5) Mestizos are sometimes scammed by Shuar in land transactions (quotes-37).

Quotes-34

We rent mainly land from Shuar, we always have more cattle than land. Mestizo

We rent our pastures to Mestizos, they maintain and expand them for us. Shuar woman

Quote-35

They sell our land so cheap, why Shuar are like that!, there is no control like before. We will end up without land, we will eventually become like indigenous in the Andes, workers of the land that was ours. Shuar man

Quotes-36

Before the Shuar couldn’t get married with colonos, that was a norm in the Federation, the borders were delimited...you know how they started to get in? through our daughters, they were friends and then wives...and then 10 years ago they stared to sell land, before it was forbidden, but now authorities say nothing. Shuar men

Many people bought land there, but recently they expelled the white people...that community keeps their traditions and they don’t want other people to work their land, they banned it, they agreed that in an assembly...sometimes white people don’t like our customs... But there around Sevilla Don Bosco, Shuar and white people get married, they are doing well, working forward, a great progress. Shuar man

Quotes-37

In the Shuar reserves, there have been issues because they have sold land in violation of the regulations set by the Shuar center, FISCH. So, they sold the land, invasions have occurred, and many colonos have been affected. Mestizo

The thing is, we can't buy from them because it is community land. And since they’re rogue, oh, they are very rogue to the point that you buy a piece of land, they’ve already taken the money, and then they immediately sell it to someone else, and another. There’s no trust. Many had bought land and then had issues. Mestizo

In contrast, in the RBCA, several farmers saw the “other settlers” as a source of inspiration on agroforestry and sustainable agricultural practices (quotes-38). Some other famers saw the “other settlers” as a threat to their livelihoods because they promoted the conservation of natural resources, and they opposed the use of agrochemicals and the unsustainable use of riparian zones (quote-39). However, those “other settlers” were admired by several farmers and had spread positive changes throughout the community, both in terms of land use practices and community organization.

Quotes-38

He started to share seeds with us, with all the community, and then we started to practice and learn, to have more variety...every fruit that we have here is because of him. Mestiza-RBCA

I like those plants, those are famous, he brought the seeds and shared with us, initially we just ate them, then it started to be commercial. Mestizo-RBCA

This took a lot of time, 12 years, people said that we were crazy, but now those with whom we fought, those who used herbicides, now they are learning agroecology, and their children are planting trees on pastures. Mestizo-RBCA

I believe that now we are accepted, I feel super integrated, they used to use glyphosate, but we never confronted them, instead we have tried to share our experiences, we have never tried to impose. Mestiza-RBCA

Quote-39

They often saw us as a threat to their way of life, as if they’re afraid that we might report them, that we wanted to impose our own ways of living, as if we’re going to disrupt their way of life. Mestiza-RBCA

The powerful newcomers

New powerful reference groups are influencing farmers’ decision-making. Recent incursions of national and transnational mining companies (Quiliconi and Vasco 2021) in the Andean Choco and the Amazon respectively, are changing farmers’ aspirations. Some farmers perceived mining as an alternative to agriculture and a preferable way to short-term improvements, whereas others felt their livelihoods and future severely threatened (quote-40; Appendix 4.1). Our results highlight diverse opinions and reveal the dilemmas farmers face (Fig. 4): do access to health, education, and employment offered by mining companies outweigh the loss of land and mining-related problems? How valuable are the natural resources that mining threatens and how important are forests, water, and land for their future?

Quotes-40

But they don’t have children, if we don’t do mining now, our children will continue living like us. We want to provide quality education to our children...and for that we need economic resources...we are farmers and we have to wait 9 months to harvest yucca to only get 500 dollars, a worker will earn that in one month....There (Warintza) the company built a first class health center, nice..people is working nicely...People here don’t depend on the forest, not at all. Who’s going to depend on the forest (mocking)?, times have changed, we’re not in ancient times either. We need to look forward for our community, of course. We're also not going to allow them to pollute or cut down the trees, because that’s the life of nature. The important thing is to make sure there is no contamination. A management plan....everything was going to be socialized by the company. Shuar man leader

The mining issue is very complex, in one side they provide benefits but overall they also destroy us, we can get many things from mining, but the great disadvantage is that our families are harmed, many fights around gold, many violence, I disagree, because I have friends that live in Tundayme, many fights take place, big companies, diseases, I disagree with mining, for my family for my children...they get benefits only for their own good, I hope that mining doesn’t come here, we defend our land, for they come to pierce and destroy forever, without water without food. Focus group Shuar women

Farmers recalled past events when imagining a future with mining (Fig. 4): oil exploitation in northern Amazonia and Achuar Peruvian territories, mining in Warintza, and the incidents in Yaupi in 2021 (quote-41; Appendix 4.2). Farmers reported the current condition of the Upano river and its impact on local livelihoods (quote-42; Appendix 4.3). Concern about rivers and water was universal, with Shuar especially worried about their children’s health and future. Money was also a common topic, seen as both a status-conferral, and the depiction of power by companies, which bribe Shuar leaders, offer scholarships to farmers’ children, health services, and jobs (quote-43; Appendix 4.4). For some Mestizos, “indemnify” was frequently mentioned, indicating support for mining if people received economic compensation (quote-44; Appendix 4.5). All groups reported the use of violence from companies (quote-45; Appendix 4.5).

Quotes-41

Wherever you see mining, there’s destruction. Alcoholism, degeneration, pollution...Everything is ‛long live the party.’ That’s the reality of mining....it may bring great progress, yes, but only to those who have money. For the poor, in no country, in no place where there’s mining, is there wealth. It’s total poverty and destruction...Go to Zaruma, to Portobelo, go anywhere. Those are the worst examples we have. Mestizo-RBCA

In those communities where they have oil, they are not benefited at all. In fact, they have opposed to it..., like the case of Coca, I’ve seen it, by the Napo River, all the oil wells are there and the water passes through, contaminated, dirty water, a result of the washing from those wells, and it all flows into the Napo River... it’s not like here where you can walk, find a little stream, kneel down, and drink the water. Shuar man

Quote-42

When I was young, I used to swim in the Upano River...there were rainy seasons and phases when we could cross...we don’t know what’s happened... Maybe it’s because of deforestation and the arrival of cooperatives and communities. Two years ago, it was the best place to swim and look for ‘carachas’. But now, it’s changed a lot, we can’t swim anymore...Upstream, there’s a factory run by the priests, and they dump their waste into the river. Further up they dump all kinds of pollution. We used to drink water from that river, but now we can’t anymore. Focus group Shuar men

Quote-43

It’s not the community that negotiates, but rather their so-called leaders, who are quietly involved, supposedly protecting the Indigenous group, but behind the scenes, they make secret deals. The community doesn’t know that the leader is benefiting in name of the cause.... they’ve bought the leaders. Shuar man

Quote-44

Of course, I agree with mining. That has to happen. As for the others, I don’t know; some are ignorant. They’re not just going to get in and take everything... they have to compensate... are they really going to go in without compensation? They compensate in money...the State has to establish a basis for how much it’s worth, right? Mestizo

Quote-45

I have to respect...we need to understand what belongs to the State. We have our land, our farm here; aboveground is mine, okay? but below ground belongs to the State. Why did the Shuar organization summoned communities... defending... resisting mining. And that’s how the State won; the State sent the police and military...people got killed. If a Shuar dies, the Shuar federation wouldn’t compensate. How many thousands of dollars would they give? Nothing. I might go over there to fight against mining because the Shuar federation encouraged me. And I get killed. I’ve lost my family, my children, for nothing. Shuar man

Mestizos-RBCA and Shuar differed from Amazonian Mestizos in discussing agriculture-related concepts like land, farm, production, cattle, sugarcane, and coffee (quote-46; Appendix 4.6, Appendix 5). Sugarcane and coffee, prestigious crops in the RBCA, are directly threatened by mining (Fig. 2) with organic sugarcane cooperatives leading the resistance. Despite a general aversion to associativity for productivity purposes, especially in the Amazon, Shuar and Mestizos-RBCA had organized successful anti-mining demonstrations (quote-47, Appendix 4.7). Mining triggered emotions in farmers: Shuar felt affronted, angry, and hopeful, whereas Mestizos-RBCA felt affronted, concerned, and fearful (Appendix 5). Amazonian Mestizos were much less emotional. Few felt threatened by mining, others conceived it as a Shuar “only” issue, and some criticized Shuar for their resistance (quote-48, Appendix 4.8).

Quotes-46

We’re trying to protect...everything, our daily sustenance, our work...if we allow mining to get in, we will lose everything that is organic, our sugarcane will not have the same value....we have a great diversity here, everything that the land can provide...water will be polluted. Mestiza-RBCA

Reality is sad...we have known good mountains, good pastures, good rivers, everything, our whole lives, and now they come to say, ‛Look, nothing will happen; let’s just do mining.’ That’s terrible; it’s a total lie...they deceive people. Damages will come. Mestizo-RBCA

How are we going to compare such a diverse, megadiverse area, with so much abundance, with peaceful people, and have mining here? The whole area of Pacto, is a privileged zone because of its climate, its fruits, its people....it hurts that they are lying to us. Mestizo-RBCA

Quotes-47

[W]e stopped their airplanes from landing four times, few minorities supported exploitation, but the majority, we didn’t want it, so we captured it for several days...in Yaupi...we have captured cars, burned their provisions, that is our law, we don’t want them to get in. Shuar

We have made clear we don’t want mining companies, we have stopped machineries, trucks...we stand guard for the resistance...we oppose together. So our territory is not been invaded by them. Mestizas/Mestizos-RBCA

Quote-48

But the ‘Jíbaros’ don’t want it...saying it damages the environment. They want to keep it for themselves. They’re very ignorant, especially the elders are more so. For us, hopefully, they will extract everything so that there is money and work for everyone, right? It would be better for us. Mestizo

Overview of groups’ differences

We found that the three ethnic groups formed differentiated clusters based on the ranking of reference groups (Fig. 5a). As detailed in previous sections, the analysis in Figure 5, displays significant differences between groups in the ranking of reference groups like educators (p = 0.001), globalization (p = 0.005), government (p = 0.001), nature (p = 0.023), parents (p = 0.003), private institutions (p = 0.006), and the out-group (p = 0.001; Fig. 5b). Ancestors, the out-group, and traders were particularly important for Shuar; parents, neighbors, and the self for Mestizos (Fig. 5b). Shuar significantly considered that their Mestizo neighbors are important, and some differences were observed between Amazonian Mestizos and Mestizos-RBCA, especially in the importance conferred to educators, nature, and globalization by Mestizos-RBCA.

Impacts on land use change and deforestation

As illustrated in the previous sections, reference groups differ in worldviews; therefore, their land use preferences, guiding farmers’ decisions either through status-conferrals or use of power, to comply with their interests. Table 4 reports eight aggregated land use categories with the number of reference groups that influenced farmers on the implementation of each land use and the percentage of farmers that reported the land use as the preferred one (ranked 1, see Methods in Appendix 1). Some land uses with a higher number of influential reference groups were also ranked high by a higher proportion of farmers (Table 4). Figure 3 shows quantitively how reference groups influenced the implementation of land uses, by either using power or conferring status. This figure illustrates how farmers scored status-conferrals (such as support, incentives, or agreement) linked with each land use in a positive scale (1 to 3) and use of power (such as harm or disagreement) in a negative scale (−1 to −3; see methods in Appendix 1). Overall, all groups perceived the government’s and traders’ use of power, primarily in the implementation of cattle, commercial, and traditional monocultures (Fig. 3). These land uses were the “top supported” as farmers also received status-conferrals from multiple reference groups (Table 4, Fig. 3). In contrast, few reference groups influenced the implementation of agroforestry systems that were reported by Mestizos-RBCA (Fig. 3). Only 7.9% of these farmers ranked agroforestry as the preferred land use, 2.6% of farmers preferred silvopastures (Table 4), 5.3% preferred restoration, and only 1.3% preferred reforestation.

Our results show that farmers frequently change land uses. Mestizos mainly converted forests (Amazon = 51%, RBCA = 43.2%) and pastures (Amazon = 53.2%, RBCA = 64.9%) to other land uses, whereas Shuar converted forests (66.7%), traditional monocultures (35.6%), and consumption crops (26.7%), which evidences the traditional practice of crop rotation transmitted by ancestors and practiced by women (Fig. 6). Achuar mainly replaced forest (77.8%). Across groups, men typically replaced more forest (63.3%) than women (45.7%) and women rotated between traditional, consumption, and traditional monocultures (Fig. 6). Women mainly replaced forests with traditional monocultures and men with cattle. Forests were mainly converted to cattle by Mestizos and to traditional monocultures by Mestizos and Shuar (Fig. 6). Loss of agrobiodiversity occurred as Shuar replaced consumption and traditional land uses with monocultures (Fig. 6).

These land uses to which tropical forests are converted have an impact at different spatial scales (Fig. 7). On average, the farmed land of Amazonian Mestizos was larger than that of Indigenous groups, and the farmed land of Mestizos-RBCA was only slightly larger than that of Indigenous people. Also, Indigenous farms were more diverse, reporting more land uses than the other groups (Fig. 7). The farms displayed in Figure 5 imply different status-power dynamics involved in the relationship between farmers and reference groups: traders, government, neighbors, and the out-group are mostly powerful (Fig. 7b). Reported also with high status, it could be said that those reference groups are both esteemed and feared, whereas ancestors and the self hold the highest status (Fig. 7a). Farms further to the right on the x axis are more influenced by the power of reference groups, whereas those higher on the y axis are more influenced by their status conferrals. In other words, farmers make choices guided by their regard for ancestors and the status they confer (Fig. 7, x = 0, y = 1.52), by traders’ dominant information or coercion (Fig. 7, x = 3, y = 3.42), or Indigenous individual’s desire to be considered as “hard-working” as Mestizos (the out-group; Fig. 7, x = 3, y = 2.54).

DISCUSSION

Parenting and neighboring

Farmers’ decisions, regardless of ethnicity or gender, are shaped by early childhood experiences and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge from parents and grandparents. Our findings showed that these reference groups were the most influential, emphasizing the relevance of childhood education and the challenges of transforming deep-rooted practices. With widespread impacts in tropical forests, cattle ranching was widely valued as a prestigious land use, learned in childhood by both Mestizos and Indigenous people, and reinforced by local and global markets. Neighbors were also influential, especially those highly recognized within society, such as cattle ranchers among other farmers or Mestizos among Shuar. Raising cattle is seen as more status-worthy than crop farming because of land ownership, the management of larger investments, and profits (Barragan-Ochoa 2023). For farmers, acquiring livestock symbolizes a socioeconomic upgrade (Barragan-Ochoa 2023).

Much research has been done on how Salesian missionaries, who took on the “parenting” role for two Shuar generations, have shaped Shuar children’s cultural values (Rubenstein 2005, Juncosa Blasco 2017, Ortiz-Batallas 2022). Their exercise of power on imposing beliefs tied to Mestizos’ identities led Shuar to see themselves as different and less worthy. Our findings show that Mestizos’ land use practices have gained importance among some Shuar. Likewise, Mestizos reported themselves as a reference group much more frequently than Shuar, which is likely related to their influential role among Indigenous people. This influence was further evidenced by Shuar prioritizing the out-group (Mestizos) as a reference group, sometimes even more than their in-group. Society has historically undervalued Indigeneity, viewing it as opposed to modernity (Rontziokos 2012), such long-sustained dichotomy has influenced Indigenous aspirations to attain Mestizos’ status. This was illustrated in our findings on how each group perceived each other.

Neighbors were highly influential across groups, whether they belonged to the in-group or the out-group. The out-group (Mestizos) was particularly important for Indigenous people, whereas Mestizos valued their in-group more. Neighbors were more important for Mestizos, whereas Shuar placed high value on close family relations. Yet, we observed in all groups, that good relations with neighbors reinforced knowledge transmission through daily interactions, rituals, and status feedback. Influential neighbors were more effective in the long-term diffusion of land uses than short-term institutional interventions, which often aligned with the market economy and failed to consider the diversity of farmers’ worldviews (McKay et al. 2014, Vasconcellos 2017, Purcell 2020). The government fostered associativity between neighbors within Indigenous groups, the cultivation of commercial monocultures and the use of “improved seeds,” practices that conflict with long-sustained ways of life based mostly on kinship ties, hunter-gatherer practices, and subsistence agriculture.

Group differences

The coexistence of different groups and their share of natural and political resources have led to different relational dynamics. Both Mestizos and Indigenous struggle to see each other as equals and asymmetrical status-conferrals and use of power from shared reference groups exacerbates this issue. The unequal relationships of those reference groups (mostly traders and government) with Indigenous people and Mestizos had built up over ethnic differences (Rivera Vélez 2009, Martínez Novo 2018, Bretón et al. 2022). Those political inequities reinforce the perception that the groups have of each other, such as the Mestizos’ claims of unbalanced incentives from the government biased toward Shuar and the lack of access to opportunities claimed by Shuar, further reinforcing racism and conflict.

Through agency and self-empowerment, Indigenous people are reclaiming status within social movements and the scientific community (Haboud 2021) and some are globally recognized influencers. Yet, what our results show is quite different; there is still a long way ahead to boost Indigenous farmers’ self-esteem and to reconcile Indigenous and non-Indigenous worldviews. As farmers, they deal with similar struggles, being observed in both ethnic groups positions of disadvantage and privilege. However, our findings show that, guided by their most important reference groups, their decisions lead to diverse land use preferences, which can also cause conflict with each other, resulting in dominant land uses and extensive deforestation of tropical forests. We observed that socially dominant groups led to dominant land use practices.

Indigenous farmers seek to follow Mestizos and there are power inequalities between groups. Although it seems contradictory that Indigenous people hold Mestizos in high esteem despite Mestizos exerting power in the form of racism, for example, Mestizos also confer status to Indigenous groups in land transactions, providing jobs, renting their pastures, or placing them in high esteem if they copy their practices. Indigenous place status exchange with Mestizos in economical transactions and inclusivity within society, but at the same time despise the status differences. The power that Mestizos hold, make them status-worthy from the point of view of Indigenous people, as in a hierarchical society power is status even if antagonistic. At the same time, the differing, sometimes opposing interests of both groups create resistance from some Indigenous individuals, reflected still in the value conferred to reference groups, land uses, and rituals which are not as important for Mestizos. This is evident in our findings related to mining resistance, where Indigenous struggles in Shuar territories are remarkable and often condemned by Mestizos. A popular saying in Morona Santiago is that Shuar have never been colonized. This emphasizes the resilience of Shuar people and serves as an indicator of how Mestizos perceive the character of Indigenous, perhaps as resistant or unyielding to external influence.

Our findings confirm the role of Indigenous groups on the preservation of forests and traditional knowledge guided by their most important reference groups, such as ancestors and extended family (Paniagua-Zambrana et al. 2014, Díaz-Reviriego et al. 2016, Miller 2016, Caballero-Serrano et al. 2019, Paul and Jones 2021, Reed and Diver 2023, Wehi et al. 2023). At the same time, we note the importance that reference groups like Mestizos, the market, the state, and mining companies are gaining within Indigenous communities, especially through power enforcement (Bohensky and Maru 2011, McCarter et al. 2014, Alimonda 2015, Billo 2015, Cámara-Leret et al. 2016, Fonseca-Cepeda et al. 2019, Monterrubio-Solís et al. 2023). The influence of these reference groups often translates into land use diversity loss, larger extensions of farmed land, and monocultures. Mining affects forests, water, and people through deforestation, pollution, the dispossession of land and loss of agriculture-based local livelihoods (Perreault 2013, Andrews 2018, Freslon and Cooney 2018).

SPTR contribution to the study of farmers’ behavior in land use change

Our findings demonstrate the applicability of SPTR in understanding the influence of social relations in land use change, providing comprehensive insights into how conflicts and dilemmas can emerge. Farmers often have to comply with the interests of antagonistic forces controlled by powerful and esteemed reference groups. Understanding these relational dynamics seems relevant to comprehend how landscapes are shaped and transformed. When some reference groups are more influential than others, certain worldviews become dominant. If these reference groups continue to expand and impose their influence, society will fail to account for diversity. This study highlights that some reference groups, though antagonistic, are also respected. The implications for applying SPTR are challenging because status can sometimes be accounted as power, and power can be reinforced by status, as seen in the relationship between Indigenous groups and Mestizos, and between farmers, traders, the government, and mining companies.

SPTR offers a specific understanding of the nature of social relations by providing a delimited, pluralistic and holistic overview of the relational world of farmers. It portrays a complex, systemic truss of social entities known as reference groups and defines clear boundaries on relational dynamics, reducing the complexity of interactions into two relational channels: status and power. Measuring status and power as the relational outcomes between farmers and reference groups, we applied an empirically grounded approach that works across scales and contexts. SPTR is sensitive to local diversity and enables multi-scalar analysis, capturing the variety of reference groups influencing farmer’s decisions, whether they are local or global, or how their presence and importance changes throughout time.

SPTR recognizes diverse worldviews, values, and knowledge systems (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES] 2019, Pascual et al. 2023) as prescribed by reference groups. Real or not, these reference groups exist in the farmer’s mind (Kemper 2016), often reflecting divergent values and conflicting interests (Pradhananga and Davenport 2019, Githinji et al. 2023). This relational approach helps to explain why farmers with similar sociodemographic traits or knowledge make different land use decisions, expanding the capabilities of other theories by understanding the individual’s social environment (Githinji et al. 2023). Thus, SPTR’s ability to account for context can resolve the inconsistencies found in applying the same behavioral theory across different settings (Pradhananga and Davenport 2019, Savari et al. 2023).

Toward sustainable land use practices

Farmers’ land use change decisions are influenced by several reference groups, with differentiated consequences for forests and sustainability. The commodification of farmers’ livelihoods (Tilzey 2017) reflects in our results in the expansion of agricultural areas, loss of agrobiodiversity, land dispossession (Martínez Valle 2017), or the neglecting of hunter-gatherer practices (De la Montaña et al. 2015). Powerful reference groups like the state, traders, and (mining) companies reinforce those practices (Alimonda 2015, Tilzey 2017). In contrast, our results suggest that women, regardless of ethnicity, have a stronger sense of community belonging, reporting themselves as reference groups less often than men and placing higher esteem on ancestors and neighbors (the latter especially among Mestizas). Women often tend to take care of community interactions, whereas men engage in the rational-maximization mechanisms of capitalism (Hernando 2015). Women’s preference for traditional and subsistence crops highlights their role in keeping diversity and food security (Quisumbing et al. 1996, Perreault 2005, Mehra and Rojas 2008, Köhler-Rollefson 2012).

Indigenous farmers often respect Mestizos, copying their land use practices and extending pastures to be rented to Mestizos. These unsustainable land uses are becoming increasingly popular among Indigenous individuals, at the expense of their culture and tropical forests. Our findings show that the insertion of farmers into the global economy through large-scale agriculture and extractivism is displacing land use preferences grounded in local relations, such as more diverse and less extensive land uses transmitted by women, collectives, and ancestors (Martínez Valle 2017, Weckmüller et al. 2019, Iverson and Iverson 2021, Rudel 2021, Bretón et al. 2022, Noroña 2022).

There is a strong need to reconcile these antagonistic worldviews, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and to strengthen the self-esteem of farmers. This is not about group against group, but about acknowledging diversity, ensuring that neither dominates the other. Strengthening collective values is essential for fostering land use diversification where intercultural relations could be the key expression of that diversification. Shuar and Mestizos are likewise owners of extensive lands, but Shuar have the rights over much more extensive, “unworked,” forested lands, which society must aim to protect. Indigeneity should be valued not just in political spheres or among influencers, but at the grassroots (among farmers, parents, and children) nurturing the self-esteem that empowers them to face the exogenous influence of powerful groups that boost deforestation. However, the deeply-rooted racism in Ecuadorian society and the increasing violence depicted by the State and mining companies make this extremely challenging.

Concerning farmers’ self-esteem, take for example Mestizos-RBCA, where anti-mining collectives in the Andean Choco are composed of farmers who are proud to be farmers, maintaining a strong social network that is deeply connected to their land. Indigenous farmers resist mining incursions for similar reasons, out of concern for their land and future, but many do not share the same pride in being farmers. Although several land uses involve extensive deforestation (i.e., pastures) and the use of agrochemicals (i.e., palmito; Morabowen et al. 2019), most of the interviewed farmers did not conceive agriculture as unsustainable. Instead, agriculture was a source of pride for many Mestizos-RBCA, especially those involved in agroforestry, coffee, and organic sugarcane. However, farmers’ self-esteem is also impacted by their interactions with traders and companies, which have strong networks of influence that dominate market dynamics. Most farmers, especially smallholders, are powerless in facing these forces. Governments should play a role in regulating the market in favor of local farmers, with policies focusing more on the local economy than global capitalism.

Interventions for sustainability should focus on diversification rather than merely reinforcing Indigenous integration in the global market through the promotion of commodities or the transfer of “improved” seeds of traditional crops. These interventions should extend beyond providing agricultural inputs or technical advice (a common practice from NGOs and governments for decades) and instead prioritize strengthening local relations. This includes grassroots revitalization of traditional and collective practices, such as mingas, crop rotation, seed exchange and storage, and field education for young generations of farmers that complements formal schooling, especially when the latter has failed to fully engage with farmers’ necessities and Indigenous worldviews.

However, the main challenge for Ecuadorian farmers is facing extractivism. From the Amazon to the Andes, some of these groups have withstood coercion and offerings by transnational mining companies through multiple means of collective resistance (Quiliconi and Vasco 2021). Yet the mixed perspectives on this issue among farmers exacerbate local conflicts, creating divisions within communities, and opening further opportunities for powerful groups to engage farmers in unsustainable land use practices or to give up agriculture and their land. Restructuring or targeting community organization has been a strategy implemented by Salesian missions to modern Ecuadorian presidents. The imposed concentric and denser structure of “Centro Shuar” for religious indoctrination and land control created a hierarchical power structure (Rubenstein 2005, Ortiz-Batallas 2022) that still affects social interactions today. Indigenous leaders now decide on Mestizo settlers and mining incursions, or guide collective action against mining (Sacher et al. 2015, Avcı and Fernández-Salvador 2016). More recently, “communities of convenience” have been promoted under the governments’ ideologies to facilitate extractivism, actively attempting to organize and control territories through community participation (Valladares and Boelens 2017).

So how can farmers counteract these interventions and reimagine community organization through the lens of diversity, when their role models are dominant groups whose land use preferences are far from sustainable for the future of tropical forests? How can farmers remain resilient against extractivism beyond organizational spheres, the already achieved political representation, and influencers (privileged spaces that were also conceived and reinforced by western, often hierarchical worldviews) while fostering self-esteem among farmers and indigenous communities? Perhaps the path to forest restoration and sustainable land use alternatives that slow forest degradation lies in relationship-based approaches (Reed and Diver 2023). By understanding how the exchange of status and power between farmers and reference groups operates from local to global scales, by acknowledging how racism undermines Indigenous struggles, and how power inequalities reinforce unsustainable land uses, we can better address the root causes of deforestation and environmental degradation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a conceptual and methodological framework, using mixed methods and ethnographies, to explore the influence of reference groups on farmers’ decision-making. Our contribution is supported by empirical evidence from two forested regions in Ecuador. Methodologically, we operationalized the Status-Power and Reference groups Theory (SPTR) by measuring farmers’ perceptions of status and power relations with important reference groups across different cultural contexts. Considering local to global reference groups, we revealed the multi-scale dynamics shaping farmers’ land use decisions, disaggregating the plurality of relations that influence land use change. Theoretically, we applied SPTR by identifying salient reference groups, their perceived importance measured by status and power, and the resulting influence in farmer’s behavior by using both qualitative and quantitative data. This application of SPTR enables the exploration of land use decisions across scales and contexts.

Deforestation, loss of land use diversity, extensive agriculture, and monocultures in the Ecuadorian tropical forests are the result of status-power dynamics with reference groups that reach broader sectors of society, regardless of ethnicity or gender. Power is institutionalized by the state, markets, and transnational corporations, shaping local decision-making. By connecting the local with the global, these institutions promote certain values that force farmers into certain choices. Although powerful reference groups prioritize resource accumulation, some less dominant reference groups still remain influential among farmers who keep more sustainable land uses. Ultimately, the future of tropical forests stands on the determination of farmers who remain strong against mining incursions, with their agency upheld by strong and salient collectives.

The exploratory nature of our research reveals that farmers’ social relations shape land use change and deforestation, where land use patterns across forested landscapes differ between Indigenous people and Mestizos, men and women. Understanding the role of reference groups in land use change across often antagonistic groups can guide project managers, policymakers, scientists, and farmers in better addressing the multiple challenges of future social and ecological changes. This will provide relationally oriented solutions rather than purely ecological or technological interventions, ultimately valuing more meaningful social-ecological transactions over economic transactions.

LITERATURE CITED

Ajzen, I. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health 26(9):1113-1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995

Alimonda, H. 2015. Mining in Latin America: coloniality and degradation. Pages 149-161 in R. L. Bryant, editor. The international handbook of political ecology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936172.00019

Andreotti, F., C. M. Neher, E. N. Speelman, and D. Bazile. 2023. Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa smallholder organizations in the Peruvian high Andes. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 43:42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00891-y

Andrews, N. 2018. Land versus livelihoods: community perspectives on dispossession and marginalization in Ghana’s mining sector. Resources Policy 58:240-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.011

Arce, A., S. Sherwood, and M. Paredes. 2015. Repositioning food sovereignty: between Ecuadorian nationalist and cosmopolitan politics. Pages 125-142 in A. Trauger, editor. Food sovereignty in international context. Routledge, London, UK.

Ardila, J. P. 2019. Evaluación del Impacto de políticas públicas destinadas a reducir la deforestación y degradación y acciones destinadas a la gestión sostenible de los bosques en Ecuador. Earth Innovation Institute.

Ataei, P., S. Gholamrezai, R. Movahedi, and V. Aliabadi. 2021. An analysis of farmers’ intention to use green pesticides: the application of the extended theory of planned behavior and health belief model. Journal of Rural Studies 81:374-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.11.003

Ataei, P., H. Karimi, S. Moradhaseli, and M. H. Babaei. 2022. Analysis of farmers’ environmental sustainability behavior: the use of norm activation theory (a sample from Iran). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 15:859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10042-4

Avcı, D., and C. Fernández-Salvador. 2016. Territorial dynamics and local resistance: two mining conflicts in Ecuador compared. The Extractive Industries and Society 3(4):912-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.10.007

Bakker, M. M., and A. M. van Doorn. 2009. Farmer-specific relationships between land use change and landscape factors: introducing agents in empirical land use modelling. Land Use Policy 26(3):809-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.010

Barragan-Ochoa, F. 2023. Pequeños productores, ciudades y leche: desafios en el abastecimiento alimentario en los Andes Norte del Ecuador. IAEN, Quito.

Bartley, T. 2018. Rules without rights: land, labor, and private authority in the global economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794332.001.0001

Beltrán-Rodríguez, L., A. Ortiz-Sánchez, N. A. Mariano, B. Maldonado-Almanza, and V. Reyes-García. 2014. Factors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 10:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-14

Benitez-López, A., R. Alkemade, A. M. Schipper, D. J. Ingram, P. A. Verweij, J. A. J. Eikelboom, and M. A. J. Huijbregts. 2017. The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science 356(6334):180-183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj1891

Benítez-López, A., L. Santini, A. M. Schipper, M. Busana, and M. A. J. Huijbregts. 2019. Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the tropics. PLoS Biology 17(5):e3000247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000247

Bicchieri, C. 2017. Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190622046.001.0001

Billo, E. 2015. Sovereignty and subterranean resources: an institutional ethnography of Repsol’s corporate social responsibility programs in Ecuador. Geoforum 59:268-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.021

Bohensky, E. L., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”? Ecology and Society 16(4):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406

Bonke, V., and O. Musshoff. 2020. Understanding German farmer’s intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40:48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00653-0

Borges, J. A. R., L. W. Tauer, and A. G. J. M. O. Lansink. 2016. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying Brazilian cattle farmers’ intention to use improved natural grassland: a MIMIC modelling approach. Land Use Policy 55:193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.004

Bretón, V., M. González, B. Rubio, and L. Vergara-Camus. 2022. Peasant and indigenous autonomy before and after the pink tide in Latin America. Journal of Agrarian Change 22(3):547-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12483

Burton, M. L., and D. R. White. 1984. Sexual division of labor in agriculture. American Anthropologist 86(3):568-583. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.3.02a00020

Caballero-Serrano, V., B. McLaren, J. C. Carrasco, J. G. Alday, L. Fiallos, J. Amigo, and M. Onaindia. 2019. Traditional ecological knowledge and medicinal plant diversity in Ecuadorian Amazon home gardens. Global Ecology and Conservation 17:e00524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00524

Caballero-Serrano, V., M. Onaindia, J. G. Alday, D. Caballero, J. C. Carrasco, B. McLaren, and J. Amigo. 2016. Plant diversity and ecosystem services in Amazonian homegardens of Ecuador. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 225:116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.005

Cámara-Leret, R., J. C. Copete, H. Balslev, M. S. Gomez, and M. J. Macía. 2016. Amerindian and Afro-American perceptions of their traditional knowledge in the Chocó Biodiversity Hotspot. Economic Botany 70:160-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-016-9341-3

Cazar, D. 2021. Alerta Roja: la fiebre de la madera balsa en Ecuador ya es detectada por los satelites. 12 July.

Chau, N. H., H. Goto, and R. Kanbur. 2016. Middlemen, fair traders, and poverty. The Journal of Economic Inequality 14:81-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-015-9314-2

Coba, G. 2021. Las mafias de la balsa amenazan a la Amazonía ecuatoriana. 26 January. https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/economia/tala-ilegal-madera-amazonia-balsa/

Cronkleton, P., D. B. Bray, and G. Medina. 2011. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2(2):451-473. https://doi.org/10.3390/f2020451

Curtis, P. G., C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M. C. Hansen. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361(6407):1108-1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445

De Koning, F., M. Aguiñaga, M. Bravo, M. Chiu, M. Lascano, T. Lozada, and L. Suarez. 2011. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science and Policy 14(5):531-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007

de Koning, G. H. J., A. Veldkamp, and L. O. Fresco. 1998. Land use in Ecuador: a statistical analysis at different aggregation levels. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 70(2-3):231-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00151-0

De la Montaña, E., R. del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez, J. H. Maldonado, and D. M. Griffith. 2015. Predicting hunter behavior of indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon: insights from a household production model. Ecology and Society 20(4):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08032-200430

Díaz-Reviriego, I., L. González-Segura, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. L. Howard, J. L. Molina, and V. Reyes-García. 2016. Social organization influences the exchange and species richness of medicinal plants in amazonian homegardens. Ecology and Society 21(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07944-210101

Doss, C., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Quisumbing, and S. Theis. 2018. Women in agriculture: four myths. Global Food Security 16:69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.001

Elahi, E., H. Zhang, X. Lirong, Z. Khalid, and H. Xu. 2021. Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy 102:105250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105250

Fagua, J. C., and R. D. Ramsey. 2019. Geospatial modeling of land cover change in the Chocó-Darien global ecoregion of South America; one of most biodiverse and rainy areas in the world. PLoS ONE 14(2):e0211324. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211324

Feldman, S., and R. Welsh. 1995. Feminist knowledge claims, local knowledge, and gender divisions of agricultural labor: constructing a successor science. Rural Sociology 60:23-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1995.tb00561.x

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., I. Díaz-Reviriego, M. Guèze, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2016. Local perceptions as a guide for the sustainable management of natural resources: empirical evidence from a small-scale society in Bolivian Amazonia. Ecology and Society 21(1):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08092-210102

Fischer, R., F. Tamayo Cordero, T. Ojeda Luna, R. Ferrer Velasco, M. DeDecker, B. Torres, L. Giessen, and S. Günter. 2021. Interplay of governance elements and their effects on deforestation in tropical landscapes: quantitative insights from Ecuador. World Development 148:105665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105665

Fischer, R., M. Lippe, P. Dolom, F. K. Kalaba, F. Tamayo, and B. Torres. 2023. Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia. Land Use Policy 127:106546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106546

Flores, R. K., S. Bōhm, and M. C. Misoczky. 2022. Contesting extractivism: international business and people’s struggles against extractive industries. Critical Perspectives on International Business 18(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-07-2020-0093

Fonseca-Cepeda, V., C. Julián Idrobo, and S. Restrepo. 2019. The changing chagras: traditional ecological knowledge transformations in the Colombian Amazon. Ecology and Society 24(1):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10416-240108

Freslon, W. S., and P. Cooney. 2018. Transnational mining and accumulation by dispossession. Pages 11-34 in P. Cooney and W. S. Freslon, editors. Environmental impacts of transnational corporations in the Global South. Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, UK. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0161-723020180000033002

Garcia, C. A., S. Savilaakso, R. W. Verburg, V. Gutierrez, S. J. Wilson, C. B. Krug, M. Sassen, B. E. Robinson, H. Moersberger, B. Naimi, editors. 2020. The global forest transition as a human affair. One Earth 2(5):417-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.002

García-Barrios, L., R. García-Barrios, J. Cruz-Morales, and J. A. Smith. 2015. When death approaches: reverting or exploiting emergent inequity in a complex land-use table-board game. Ecology and Society 20(2):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07372-200213

Giljum, S., V. Maus, N. Kuschnig, S. Luckeneder, M. Tost, L. J. Sonter, and A. J. Bebbington. 2022. A pantropical assessment of deforestation caused by industrial mining. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(38):e2118273119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118273119

Githinji, M., M. van Noordwijk, C. Muthuri, E. N. Speelman, and G. J. Hofstede. 2023. Farmer land-use decision-making from an instrumental and relational perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 63:101303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101303

Guereña, A. 2016. Unearthed: land, power and inequality in Latin America. Oxfam International. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/unearthed-land-power-and-inequality-latin-america

Haboud, M. 2021. Revisitando “Entrevistadores indígenas: un reto a los estereotipos.” Pages 25-46 in A. Palacios and M. S. Paraíso. Dinámicas lingüísticas de las situaciones de contacto. De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701364-002

Haboud, M., and F. Ortega. 2023. Linguistic diversity endangered. In E. Derhemi and C. Moseley, editors. Endangered languages in the 21st century. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003260288-22

Hayes, T. M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34(12):2064-2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.03.002

Hayes, T. M. 2008. The robustness of Indigenous common-property systems to frontier expansion: institutional interplay in the Mosquitia forest corridor. Conservation and Society 6(2):117-129. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49206

Hayes, T., and L. Persha. 2010. Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. Forest Policy and Economics 12(8):545-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.003

He, J., W. Zhou, C. Qing, and D. Xu. 2023. Learning from parents and friends: the influence of intergenerational effect and peer effect on farmers’ straw return. Journal of Cleaner Production 393:136143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136143

Heinicke, F., C. König-Kersting, and R. Schmidt. 2022. Injunctive vs. descriptive social norms and reference group dependence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 195:199-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.01.008

Heredia-R, M., B. Torres, L. Vasseur, L. Puhl, D. Barreto, and C. G. H. Díaz-Ambrona. 2022. Sustainability dimensions assessment in four traditional agricultural systems in the Amazon. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5:782633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.782633

Hernando, A. 2015. ¿Por qué la arqueología oculta la importancia de la comunidad? Trabajos de prehistoria 72(1):22-40. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2015.12142

Hofstede, G. J. 2019. GRASP agents: social first, intelligent later. AI & Society 34:535-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0783-7

INEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 2010. Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Vivienda. Quito-Ecuador.

Ingram, J. 2008. Agronomist-farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agriculture and Human Values 25:405-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: summary for policy makers. Díaz, S. M., J. Settele, E. Brondízio, H. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. Brauman, and S. Butchart, editors. 2019. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Ioris, A. A. R. 2020. Disrupting frontier development from within: the latent geographical agency of Indigenous peoples. Pages 145-178 in Frontier making in the Amazon: economic, political and socioecological conversion. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38524-8_7

Iverson, A. L., and L. R. Iverson. 2021. Contrasting Indigenous Urarina and Mestizo farms in the Peruvian Amazon: plant diversity and farming practices. Journal of Ethnobiology 41(4):517-534. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.4.517

Jiménez, L., W. Jiménez, D. Felicito, N. Fierro, P. Quichimbo, D. Sánchez, and D. Capa-Mora. 2022. Rediscovering the edaphic knowledge of smallholder farmers in southern Ecuador. Geoderma 406:115468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115468

Juncosa Blasco, J. E. 2017. Saber para prevalecer civilización, educación y evangelización en el territorio Shuar: educaciones, epistemologías y métodos en disputa.

Junquera, V., and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2019. Crop booms at the forest frontier: triggers, reinforcing dynamics, and the diffusion of knowledge and norms. Global Environmental Change 57:101929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101929

Kemper, T. D. 1991. Predicting emotions from social relations. Social Psychology Quarterly 54(4):330-342. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786845

Kemper, T. D. 2016. Elementary forms of social relations: status, power and reference groups. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315524375

Kleinod-Freudenberg, M. 2024. Political ecology and inequality. Pages 1-17 in S. S. Jodhka and B. Rehbein, editors. Global handbook of inequality. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97417-6_21-1

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2012. Invisible guardians: women manage livestock diversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.

Krause, T., and M. R. Nielsen. 2019. Not seeing the forest for the trees: the oversight of defaunation in REDD+ and global forest governance. Forests 10(4):344. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10040344

Krott, M., A. Bader, C. Schusser, R. Devkota, A. Maryudi, L. Giessen, and H. Aurenhammer. 2014. Actor-centred power: the driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 49:34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012

Laesslé, M. 2013. When global goes sweet, locals turn sour: case study of a Swiss wine. Proceedings of the XXVth ESRS Congress.

Lawrence, T. J., S. J. Morreale, and R. C. Stedman. 2019. Distant political‐economic forces and global‐to‐local pathway to impacts on forests of Ejido landscapes across Yucatán, México. Land Degradation & Development 30(17):2021-2032. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3400

Leal Filho, W., V. T. King, and I. B. de Lima. 2020. Indigenous Amazonia, regional development and territorial dynamics. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29153-2

Leguia, D., and F. Moscoso. 2015. Medidas y Acciones REDD+ Ecuador: Aplicación del enfoque paisaje y flujo / stock. Programa Nacional Conjunto ONU REDD Ecuador y Ministerio de Ambiente del Ecuador.

Liu, J., A. Herzberger, K. Kapsar, A. K. Carlson, and T. Connor. 2019. What is telecoupling? Pages 19-48 in C. Friis and J. Ø Nielsen, editors. Telecoupling: exploring land-use change in a globalised world. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11105-2_2

Lowe, P., N. Ward, and R. Munton. 1992. Social analysis of land use change: the role of the farmer. Pages 42-52 in M. C. Whitby, editor. Land use change: causes and consequences. HMSO, London, UK.

MAATE. 2018. Mapa de Ecosistemas del Ecuador. Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito, Ecuador.

MAG. 2019. Mosaico Nacional de Sistemas Productivos del Ecuador. Ministerio de Agricultura del Ecuador.

Martínez Novo, C. 2018. Ventriloquism, racism and the politics of decoloniality in Ecuador. Cultural Studies 32(3):389-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2017.1420091

Martínez Valle, L. 2017. Agribusiness, peasant agriculture and labour markets: Ecuador in comparative perspective. Journal of Agrarian Change 17(4):680-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12188

Mastrangelo, M. E., M. C. Gavin, P. Laterra, W. L. Linklater, and T. L. Milfont. 2014. Psycho-social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conservation Letters 7(2):103-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12033

Maule, A. J., and G. P. Hodgkinson. 2002. Heuristics, biases and strategic decision making. Psychologist 15(2):68-71.

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

McKay, B., R. Nehring, and M. Walsh-Dilley. 2014. The ‛state’ of food sovereignty in Latin America: political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6):1175-1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.964217

Mehra, R., and M. H. Rojas. 2008. Women, food security and agriculture in a global marketplace.

Mena, C. F., R. E. Bilsborrow, and M. E. McClain. 2006. Socioeconomic drivers of deforestation in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. Environmental Management 37:802-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0230-z

Mikkelsen, C. 2005. Indigenous peoples, gender, and natural resource management. DIIS working paper. Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Copenhagen.

Miller, T. L. 2016. Living lists: how the Indigenous Canela come to know plants through ethnobotanical classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 36(1):105-124. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.1.105

Monterrubio-Solís, C., A. Barreau, and J. T. Ibarra. 2023. Narrating changes, recalling memory: accumulation by dispossession in food systems of Indigenous communities at the extremes of Latin America. Ecology and Society 28(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13792-280103

Morabowen, A., V. Crespo-Pérez, and B. Ríos-Touma. 2019. Effects of agricultural landscapes and land uses in highly biodiverse tropical streams of the Ecuadorian Choco. Inland Waters 9(3):289-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2018.1527597

Mutyebere, R., R. Twongyirwe, J. Sekajugo, C. Kabaseke, G. Kagoro-Rugunda, M. Kervyn, and L. Vranken. 2023. Does the farmer’s social information network matter? Explaining adoption behavior for disaster risk reduction measures using the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92:103721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103721

Newbold, T., L. N. Hudson, H. R. P. Phillips, S. L. L. Hill, S. Contu, I. Lysenko, A. Blandon, S. H. M. Butchart, H. L. Booth, J. Day, et al. 2014. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1792):20141371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1371

Noroña, M. B. 2022. Extractive governmentality, ethnic territories, and racial imaginaries in the northern Amazon of Ecuador. Geoforum 128:46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.11.023

Núñez, S. R., D. B. Jiménez, and S. S. Re. 2016. Territorial agro-food chains. Tensions and insights from the dairy sector of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Lecturas de Economía 84:179.

Ortiz-Batallas, C. 2022. La evangelización del pueblo shuar en la Amazonía ecuatoriana. First edition. FLACSO Ecuador, Quito. https://doi.org/10.46546/2022-31atrio

Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Y., R. Camara-Lerét, R. W. Bussmann, and M. J. Macía. 2014. The influence of socioeconomic factors on traditional knowledge: a cross scale comparison of palm use in northwestern South America. Ecology and Society 19(4):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06934-190409

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, and M. Christie. 2023. Editorial overview: leveraging the multiple values of nature for transformative change to just and sustainable futures – insights from the IPBES values assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101359

Paul, D., and S. Jones. 2021. Conservation and indigenous cultures: learning from the Yanadi community in the Eastern Ghats, India. Ecology and Society 26(4):42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12779-260442

Pendrill, F., T. A. Gardner, P. Meyfroidt, U. M. Persson, J. Adams, T. Azevedo, M. G. Bastos Lima, M. Baumann, P. G. Curtis, V. De Sy, et al. 2022. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377(6611):eabm9267. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm9267

Pérez-Llorente, I., M. I. Ramírez, J. Paneque-Gálvez, C. G. Orozco, and R. González-López. 2019. Unraveling complex relations between forest-cover change and conflicts through spatial and relational analyses. Ecology and Society 24(3):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10992-240303

Perreault, T. 2005. Why chacras (swidden gardens) persist: agrobiodiversity, food security, and cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Human Organization 64(4):327-339. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.64.4.e6tymmka388rmybt

Perreault, T. 2013. Dispossession by accumulation? Mining, water and the nature of enclosure on the Bolivian Altiplano. Antipode 45(5):1050-1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12005

Pfeiffer, J. M., and R. J. Butz. 2005. Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobiological research: the importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(2):240-278. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771(2005)25[240:ACAEVI]2.0.CO;2

Phillips, H. R. P., T. Newbold, and A. Purvis. 2017. Land-use effects on local biodiversity in tropical forests vary between continents. Biodiversity and Conservation 26:2251-2270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1356-2

Pradhananga, A. K., and M. A. Davenport. 2019. Predicting farmer adoption of water conservation practices using a norm-based moral obligation model. Environmental Management 64:483-496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01186-3

Purcell, T. F. 2020. ‛Hot chocolate’: financialized global value chains and cocoa production in Ecuador. Pages 52-74 in M. Levien, M. Watts, and Y. Hairong, editors. Agrarian Marxism. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197444-3

Purcell, T., E. Martinez‐Esguerra, and N. Fernandez. 2018. The value of rents: global commodity chains and small cocoa producers in Ecuador. Antipode 50(3):641-661. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12380

Qiu, W., Z. Zhong, and Y. Huang. 2021. Impact of perceived social norms on farmers’ behavior of cultivated land protection: an empirical analysis based on mediating effect model. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 16(1):114-124. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa043

Quiliconi, C., and P. R. Vasco. 2021. Chinese mining and indigenous resistance in Ecuador. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Quisumbing, A. R., L. R. Brown, H. S. Feldstein, L. Haddad, and C. Peña. 1996. Women: The key to food security. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 17(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482659601700116

Ramirez, A., J. Galarza, and O. Torres. 2013. Socioecologia de la Mancomunidad del Choco Andino. Quito.

Reed, R., and S. Diver. 2023. Pathways to healing: Indigenous revitalization through family-based land management in the Klamath Basin. Ecology and Society 28(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13861-280135

Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., N. Vatankhah, and A. Ajili. 2020. Adoption of pro-environmental behaviors among farmers: application of Value-Belief-Norm theory. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 7:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-019-0174-z

Ríos-Touma, B., P. Rosero, A. Morabowen, J. M. Guayasamin, C. Carson, S. Villamarín-Cortez, A. Solano-Ugalde, I. Tobes, and F. Cuesta. 2023. Biodiversity responses to land-use change in the equatorial Andes. Ecological Indicators 156:111100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111100

Rivera Vélez, F. 2009. Los indigenismos en Ecuador: de paternalismos y otras representaciones. América Latina Hoy 19. https://doi.org/10.14201/alh.2251

Rontziokos, V. 2012. Tension of ‘Two Worlds’: tradition and modernity. Ideas in History 4(1).

Rose, D., C. Keating, and C. Morris. 2018. Understand how to influence farmers’ decision-making behaviour. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/understand-how-to-influence-farmers-decision-making-behaviour

Roy, B. A., M. Zorrilla, L. Endara, D. C. Thomas, R. Vandegrift, J. M. Rubenstein, T. Policha, B. Ríos-Touma, and M. Read. 2018. New mining concessions could severely decrease biodiversity and ecosystem services in Ecuador. Tropical Conservation Science 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918780427

Rubenstein, S. 2005. La conversión de los shuar. Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 22:27-48. https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.22.2005.99

Rudel, T. K. 2021. Indigenous-driven sustainability initiatives in mountainous regions: the Shuar in the tropical Andes of Ecuador. Mountain Research and Development 41(1):R22-R28. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00039.1

Rudel, T. K., D. Bates, and R. Machinguiashi. 2002. Ecologically noble Amerindians?: cattle ranching and cash cropping among Shuar and colonists in Ecuador. Latin American Research Review 37(1):144-159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0023879100019385

Sacher, W., M. Báez, M. Bayón, F. Larreátegui, and M. Moreano. 2015. Entretelones de la megaminería en el Ecuador. Acción Ecológica/ISIP, Quito.

Savari, M., H. E. Damaneh, H. E. Damaneh, and M. Cotton. 2023. Integrating the norm activation model and theory of planned behaviour to investigate farmer pro-environmental behavioural intention. Scientific Reports 13:5584. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32831-x

Schniter, E., H. S. Kaplan, and M. Gurven. 2023. Cultural transmission vectors of essential knowledge and skills among Tsimane forager-farmers. Evolution and Human Behavior 44(6):530-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.08.002

Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Pages 221-279 in L. Berkowitz, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5

Senger, I., J. A. R. Borges, and J. A. D. Machado. 2017. Using the theory of planned behavior to understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production. Journal of Rural Studies 49:32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.006

Sierra, R. 2000. Dynamics and patterns of deforestation in the western Amazon: the Napo deforestation front, 1986-1996. Applied Geography 20(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(99)00014-4

Srivastava, A., U. Kühnen, D. Simunovic, and K. Boehnke. 2023. “More” or “enough”? Rural-urban differences in maximizing: the case of India. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 5:1001410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100140

Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review: 81-97.

Stocks, A. 1998. Indigenous and Mestizo settlements in Nicaragua’s Bosawas Reserve: the prospects for sustainability. Pages 24-28 Annual Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Taleb, N. N. 2007. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York, New York, USA.

Tilzey, M. 2017. Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty: crisis, resistance, and resilience. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64556-8

Valladares, C., and R. Boelens. 2017. Extractivism and the rights of nature: governmentality, ‛convenient communities’ and epistemic pacts in Ecuador. Environmental Politics 26(6):1015-1034.

Vallejo, D. A. Z. 2017. Do intermediaries sweeten the deal? An inquiry into the activities of intermediaries and their effect on small and medium producers within the Cocoa Value Chain in Ecuador.

Van den Eynden, V., E. Cueva, and O. Cabrera. 2003. Wild foods from southern Ecuador. Economic Botany 57:576-603. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2003)057[0576:WFFSE]2.0.CO;2

Van Fleet, D. D. 2021. Utility, maximizing, and the satisficing concept: a historical approach at reconciliation. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 21(2):48-61. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.29691

Vasco, C., R. Bilsborrow, B. Torres, and V. Griess. 2018. Agricultural land use among mestizo colonist and indigenous populations: contrasting patterns in the Amazon. PLoS ONE 13(7):e0199518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199518

Vasconcellos, N. 2017. People, cows and milking machines: public policy and intersubjectivity in Ecuador. Pages 86-98 in E. Sherwood, A. Arce, and M. Paredes, editors. Food, agriculture and social change. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315440088-7

Vaske, J. J., A. C. Landon, and C. A. Miller. 2020. Normative influences on farmers’ intentions to practice conservation without compensation. Environmental Management 66(2):191-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01306-4

Vázquez, L. S., E. Leifsen, and A. D. V. Delgado. 2017. Minería a gran escala en ecuador: conflicto, resistencia y etnicidad. AIBR Revista de Antropologia Iberoamericana 12(2).

Velásquez, T. A. 2012. The science of corporate social responsibility (CSR): contamination and conflict in a mining project in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Resources Policy 37(2):233-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.10.002

Villamor, G. B., F. Desrianti, R. Akiefnawati, S. Amaruzaman, and M. van Noordwijk. 2014a. Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19:733-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9478-7

Villamor, G. B., M. van Noordwijk, U. Djanibekov, M. E. Chiong-Javier, and D. Catacutan. 2014b. Gender differences in land-use decisions: shaping multifunctional landscapes? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:128-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.015

Vrain, E., and A. Lovett. 2016. The roles of farm advisors in the uptake of measures for the mitigation of diffuse water pollution. Land Use Policy 54:413-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.007

Weckmüller, H., C. Barriocanal, R. Maneja, and M. Boada. 2019. Factors affecting traditional medicinal plant knowledge of the Waorani, Ecuador. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(16):4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164460

Wehi, P. M., M. P. Cox, H. Whaanga, and T. Roa. 2023. Tradition and change: celebrating food systems resilience at two Indigenous Māori community events. Ecology and Society 28(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13786-280119

Wiegant, D., M. Peralvo, P. van Oel, and A. Dewulf. 2020. Five scale challenges in Ecuadorian forest and landscape restoration governance. Land Use Policy 96:104686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104686

Wiersum, K. F. 1997. Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 63(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01124-3

World Bank Group. 2014. World development report 2015: mind, society, and behavior. The World Bank.

Xue, Y., J. Guo, C. Li, X. Xu, Z. Sun, Z. Xu, L. Feng, and L. Zhang. 2021. Influencing factors of farmers’ cognition on agricultural mulch film pollution in rural China. Science of the Total Environment 787:147702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147702

Yazdanpanah, M., M. Tajeri Moghadam, F. Javan, M. Deghanpour, S. Sieber, and P. Falsafi. 2022. How rationality, morality, and fear shape willingness to carry out organic crop cultivation: a case study of farmers in southwestern Iran. Environment, Development and Sustainability 24:2145-2163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01523-9

Zeng, Y., Y. Tian, K. He, and J. Zhang. 2020. Environmental conscience, external incentives and social norms in rice farmers’ adoption of pro-environmental agricultural practices in rural Hubei province, China. Environmental Technology (United Kingdom) 41(19):2518-2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1574907

Zhu, A. 2017. Rosewood occidentalism and orientalism in Madagascar. Geoforum 86:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.010

Zhu, A. 2018. Hot money, cold beer: navigating the vanilla and rosewood export economies in northeastern Madagascar. American Ethnologist 45(2):253-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12636

Zhu, A. L. 2022. Rosewood: endangered species conservation and the rise of global China. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674276413