INTRODUCTION

The Values Assessment (VA) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has shown that only a narrow set of values of nature, mainly those that provide economic benefits, is included in today’s political decisions (Pascual et al. 2023, Vatn et al. 2024). We postulate that the omission of a broader set of values, such as aesthetic, ecological, and spiritual values, represents a pervasive “indirect driver” of the current socio-environmental crises. This omission is linked to the grand narrative of economic progress that has propelled the so-called Great Acceleration. This acceleration began after World War II and is characterized by the explosive expansion of human activity, including increased population, economic growth, water and natural resource usage, food production, means of transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, and global warming (Steffen et al. 2007). In the 1950s, a set of primarily economic values was the focus of foundational documents about “world development” (Escobar 1995). For example, in Measures for the Economic Development of Underdeveloped Countries, the United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs stated the following:

There is a sense in which rapid economic progress is impossible without painful adjustments. Ancient philosophies have to be scrapped; old social institutions have to disintegrate; bonds of cast, creed and race have to burst; and large numbers of persons who cannot keep up with progress have to have their expectations of a comfortable life frustrated. Very few communities are willing to pay the full price of economic progress (UN 1951:13; emphasis added).

This economic perspective catalyzed the global replacement of local knowledge, values, and life habits. This “one-dimensional” economic approach is an “indirect driver” of processes that have brought interrelated losses of biological and cultural diversity to new scales of intensity and extension. In turn, this suppression has greatly accelerated long-term historical processes of biocultural homogenization worldwide (Rozzi 2018). The global application of a single mode of development, sustained by a narrow set of economic values, has erased and replaced local biodiversity and cultural habits as well as their interrelationships (Rozzi 2012). Consequently, ecosystem degradation and extinction of biological species (Kolbert 2011, McNeill and Engelke 2014), displacement of local peoples from their native habitats (Rozzi 2001, Borras et al. 2011, 2012, Bryan 2012), and losses of vernacular languages (Krauss 1992, Bromham et al. 2022) have been accelerated on a global scale since the mid-20th century.

In contrast with biocultural homogenization driven by a narrow set of values, we introduce the biocultural ethic. Differing from prevailing Western anthropocentric ethics and 20th-century forms of environmental ethics, which focus on Western philosophy and sciences (e.g., Leopold 1949), the biocultural ethic values both biological and cultural diversity as well as their interrelationships. These interrelationships imply valuing the vital links between diverse co-inhabitants whose life habits have co-evolved in shared habitats (Rozzi 2012). This approach is summarized by the “3Hs” model of the biocultural ethic.

The “3Hs” model offers a systemic and contextual approach to ethics. Habitat, in its etymological roots, is associated with the Greek word ethos, which in its archaic form meant a den. Through usage, its meaning came to include the dwellings of humans. Later, this noun became the verb “to dwell.” This dual noun-verb meaning of the Greek ethos is mirrored by the Latin words habitat and to inhabit. Moreover, from the action of inhabiting a habitat, habitual ways of inhabiting emerge configuring “habits” or recurrently performed behaviors, i.e., the ethos of animal or human inhabitants. In this etymological drift, the concept of ethos moves from signifying a biophysical space (the habitat) to meaning the act of dwelling in the habitat. In turn, it defines the identity of living beings that share the habitat, i.e., the co-inhabitants (both human and other-than-human subjects; Rozzi 2013).

For the IPBES-VA it is essential to remember that ethos is the Greek root of the word ethics. Unfortunately, this integral relationship between “habitat” and “inhabiting” was forgotten by prevailing modern Western ethics, which developed “as if humans and their identities could exist in isolation from their habitats and co-inhabitants” (Rozzi 2012:27). The conceptual omission of the links between habitats and habits has further sustained a Eurocentric approach that was imposed onto the colonies with minimal consideration for the native ethos, “as if indigenous ethics, and their intricate links with their habitats, would not exist or would be irrelevant” (Rozzi 2012:27). The lack of consideration for biological and cultural diversity, as well as their interrelationships in the planet’s heterogeneous regions, in addition to the narrow economic focus of development, has been an indirect driver of biocultural homogenization, which has been largely overlooked. To overcome this colonial gap in modern Western ethics, the “3Hs” provide a conceptual model that can guide transdisciplinary collaborations, such as those that took place at IPBES-VA. It does this by inferring policies to sustain biocultural diversity through the examination of ecological and cultural environments of local communities (habitats), those who live there (co-inhabitants), and their lifeways (habits) (Simion 2023).

Understanding biocultural diversity (sensu Maffi 2005, Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019) and biocultural conservation (sensu Rozzi et al. 2006, Gavin et al. 2015) and their implications for Earth Stewardship will help decision makers to address socio-environmental problems in more effective and just ways at local, regional, and global scales. In this vein, biocultural conservation and Earth Stewardship were integrated into one of the IPBES-VA’s proposed pathways to revitalize the multiple values of nature and foster sustainable and just futures (Martin et al. 2024).

IPBES-VA recognized four pathways that (potentially or actually) contribute to sustainability and socio-environmental justice. These include: (1) Green Economy, (2) Nature Protection, (3) Degrowth and Post-Growth, and (4) Earth Stewardship and Biocultural Conservation (Martin et al. 2024). Our article introduces the latter by explaining how the integration between biocultural conservation and Earth Stewardship was developed. First, in the IPBES-VA and other sources, we identified worldviews and values that guide sustainable management practices for land, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems, aiming to conserve their biological and cultural diversity. Second, we employed the “3Hs” model to examine a set of case studies that illustrate three themes prioritized by IPBES-VA: agroecological practices, education, and protected areas in various regions of the world (Fig. 1).

METHODS

To identify sustainable and non-sustainable practices and values associated with Earth Stewardship and biocultural diversity, this study involved extensive literature searches in indexed and non-indexed sources (e.g., books and reports), and our own ethnographic work. First, analyses of indexed publications were conducted using Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Google Scholar from April to May 2020. The searches were initially conducted for English articles. In WOS, the searches were performed at the “topic level” and involved three groups of search terms: “stewardship and biocultural,” “stewardship,” and “biocultural” (Table S1). These three were, in turn, combined with additional keywords shown in Table S1. Similar searches were conducted in Scopus and Google Scholar. We found that the number of records in Google Scholar was higher than in WOS and Scopus. For this reason, we combined multiple sources to obtain a comprehensive overview of the subject (Table S2). Second, regarding non-indexed sources, we conducted a bibliographic search on the internet, looking for publications in English and Spanish, based on the keywords listed in Table S2. We examined in depth books on Earth Stewardship, and the reports published by the Ecological Society of America that launched the Earth Stewardship Initiative in 2009. Third, our long-term work in biocultural conservation helped us to identify gray literature and information about case studies in Latin America and other regions of the world. Additionally, we paid special attention to concepts and case studies about sustainable and non-sustainable practices and values associated with Earth Stewardship and biocultural diversity belonging to three thematic areas, which the IPBES-VA prioritized: (1) agro- and forest-ecosystems, (2) education, and (3) protected areas. These themes illustrate diversity of stewardship concepts and practices and biocultural conservation in different regions of the world. We endeavored to maintain a balance among world regions.

The heuristic function of the “3Hs”

The “3Hs” model functions heuristically to identify communities (living in cities, rural areas, or remote areas) with cultural traditions that have ethical values that guide sustainable practices for the conservation of life in its biological and cultural diversity. Likewise, it helps to identify individuals, corporations, and social groups that prioritize short-term profit over public interest, putting personal gain above the common good. These values promote practices that have disproportionately negative social and environmental impacts. Recognizing these distinctions avoids holding all social sectors as equally responsible for the current global socio-environmental crisis. This is important because oftentimes the scientific and popular literature portray environmental problems as caused by “humanity.” However, the term “humanity” generalizes all human beings and their societies; therefore, it overlooks differences among humans and their various communities (e.g., Flannery 2006, Hoekstra and Wiedman 2014).

The “3Hs” model not only serves as a heuristic function to identify diverse types of communities, but it also provides an ethical orientation for incorporating the conservation of biological and cultural diversity into Earth Stewardship practices (Rozzi 2015, Bieling and Plieninger 2017). The Ecological Society of America (ESA) defined Earth Stewardship as a science that facilitates the active shaping of trajectories of social-ecological change to enhance ecosystem resilience and human well-being (Chapin et al. 2011, 2015). In this article, we understand Earth Stewardship as a transdisciplinary science, embedded in social and cultural actions that can be understood as biocultural practices because they operate at the interface of biophysical and cultural domains involving multiple forms of care for and management of the land that have evolved in contrasting societies (Rozzi 2015, Balvanera et al. 2021).

We organize our review linking each theme prioritized by the IPBES-VA to one of the “3Hs” of the biocultural ethic, as follows: (1) diversity of co-inhabitants that play key roles in agro- or forest-ecosystems; (2) life-habits that promote Earth Stewardship and can be fostered by concepts and methodologies of education; (3) habitats that are cared for in remote, rural, and/or urban ecosystems, within and beyond protected areas (Fig. 1).

RESULTS

1. Co-inhabitants: agro- and forest-ecosystems

Understanding that humans share habitats with a multitude of other living beings and geomorphic entities (such as rivers, mountains, rocks, or oceans) has ontological, epistemological, and ethical implications. Ontological, because human and other-than-human beings do not exist as isolated individuals, but rather in co-inhabitation interrelationships (May 2021). Epistemological, because to understand humans and other animals it is necessary to consider coevolutionary and co-inhabitation relationships that forge their identities and well-being (Esteban 2018, Rozzi 2019). Ethical, because humans share a habitat. Because humans possess reason and consciousness to a degree different from other animals, and today humans have an impact on the biosphere that is far greater than that of any other animal, humans are obligated to take care of it for the welfare of all beings (Andreozzi 2025). These core concepts of the biocultural ethic require humans to cultivate life habits that encompass a sense of co-inhabitation among the myriad living beings, most of which remain unnoticed by most people in global society (Rozzi 2019, Rozzi and Tauro 2023).

The concept of co-inhabitant is consistent with the ecological worldviews of numerous Indigenous peoples, for whom there is often a sense of genealogical kinship (Salmón 2000, Turner and Bhattacharyya 2016, Turner and Reid 2022), as well as with scientific worldviews that have demonstrated an evolutionary kinship (Rozzi 1999). For example, science indicates that the set of biochemical reactions and metabolic processes that take place in the cells of both animal and plant organisms, which require oxygen to convert the energy of nutrients into molecules of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the same (Mazzarello 1999). Sharing cellular organelles, biochemical reactions, and metabolic processes demonstrates the genealogical kinship of co-inhabitants. In South American agro-ecosystems, we find that this contemporary science’s perspective resonates with Indigenous worldviews. For example, in Andean agro-ecosystems, the scientific comprehension of biochemical and metabolic processes is culturally expressed as “spirit.” All living creatures, domestic and wild, are perceived as having a “spirit” that must be respected (May 2017). For instance, an older woman from a Quechua community, who grows potatoes in the high Andes of Peru said, “You must respect (respetar) the potato really really well. If you treat her badly, she will give ... a smaller harvest ... You must care for potatoes with affection” (in Angé et al. 2018:34).

Indigenous Andean farmers intuitively understand the biochemical and metabolic processes but express them culturally, not scientifically. In South America, on the Andean Plateau the diversity of co-inhabitants is present in ancient and contemporary agroecological practices (Scott 2011). Agrobiodiversity has coevolved as co-inhabitation between humans and other living beings. In fact, the Peruvian Andes are identified as one of the eight “centers of origin” of agriculture. Plant domestication in this center dates back at least 8000 years (NRC 1989). Here, women have traditionally been responsible for selecting, storing, planting, and harvesting the seeds and tubers of potatoes and other plants.

As shown in the example of the Quechua woman who holds that the potato must be “respected,” Quechua women engage agricultural plants, such as potatoes, as living beings with whom they can communicate (Fig. 2). This communication goes both ways, because women hold that potatoes are able to perceive whether humans respect them. If respected, potatoes grow well; in contrast, if they are not respected, their growth process will come to an end. As the Quechua woman said, “If you treat her badly, she will give ... a smaller harvest.” In this sense, the subjectivity of the potato is linked to a particular type of intentionality (Angé et al. 2018). Potatoes are perceived as having “agency,” that is, the ability to respond and act. Potato reproduction requires a reciprocal circulation of respect, which is not just a normative stipulation.

In Peru a Potato Park has been established where people gather to celebrate their local ancestral culture (Argumedo et al. 2021). In the everyday life of Quechua communities, respect is an affection that frames human interactions with plants and animals. Plants like potatoes and animals such as llamas are not “mere natural resources,” but co-inhabitants that participate in rituals, agricultural, and breeding practices (Mamani-Bernabé 2015, May 2015, Rozzi 2015). Relationships of co-inhabitation are widespread in the Andean Region even today.

In Asia, Japan hosts an exemplary agricultural landscape known as satoyama, which includes forests, agricultural fields, grasslands, and irrigation systems (Shibata 2015). For example, satoyama farmers on Sado Island in western Japan engage in environmental farming through three interrelated practices: first, by reducing the use of agricultural chemicals and artificial fertilizers; second, by managing rice paddies in a way that provides suitable habitats for fish and insects (Johnson et al. 2023); and third, by re-introducing the Crested Ibis or “Toki bird” (Nipponia nippon), which is used as a flagship species (Fig. 3). “Flagship” refers to charismatic and culturally significant animals and other organisms that inspire the desire to protect them and other life forms as well (Zhu 2023). In the case of the satoyama farmers, the Toki bird, endemic to eastern Asia, inspires them to manage their rice paddies in co-inhabitation with birds (Johnson et al. 2023).

In the Osaki region of northern Japan, satoyama landscapes are sustained by ancient practices of domestication, which are embedded in paddy rice agriculture. In this region, subject to drought, flooding, and cold temperatures, agricultural plants have coevolved in lowland swamps and wetlands (Imai et al. 2017). To secure food and to maintain their livelihoods under challenging environmental conditions, farmers have developed the Osaki Kôdo Sustainable Irrigation system, which focuses on the management of water and soil fertility. Agroecological practices carried out in these systems co-produce small forest gardens called igune. These forests surround houses situated amid the flooded landscape (Piras et al. 2022). The igune are home to a rich biodiversity, which promotes ecological health while also providing food and shelter for the farmers. Thus, igunes have instrumental value by providing a variety of ecosystem services. At the same time, by maintaining critical habitat for biodiversity, they express an appreciation for its intrinsic value. For centuries, the mosaics of paddies, gardens, and forests have sustained human communities and a high diversity of co-inhabitants.

In Europe, distinct forest and agro-ecosystems have been generated by landraces (i.e., farmer-developed populations of cultivated species linked to traditional cultures), involving a complex intertwining of biological and cultural diversity that continuously creates new adaptive responses to changing socioeconomic and ecological processes (Negri 2005). Among these distinct ecosystems, one of the ancestral biocultural forest types is characterized by the presence of domesticated chestnuts (Conedera et al. 2004, 2016). The distribution and cultivation history of the sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) is the consequence of coevolutionary processes between humans and trees, involving ethnolinguistic diversity and cultural-historical events (Pollegioni et al. 2020). This tree species has a long history of human utilization in agroforestry, and their nuts are highly prized as a culinary source rich in nutrients (Tagliaferri and Di Lonardo 2016). The trees also have ornamental value (Agnoletti et al. 2022). Forests of the sweet chestnut are native to southern Europe and Asia Minor, and thrive in cool, moist soils. This wide distribution is partly due to Castanea sativa experiencing a significant boost following the Roman conquest, especially in the mountainous areas south of the Alps (Krebs et al. 2022). Because sweet chestnut is so prominent among the many European forest tree species that have been managed and planted for fruit production since ancient Rome, some authors refer to the “chestnut civilization” (Rao 2013). Ecological and cultural components are closely intertwined in these forest ecosystems, called in several European languages castagnetu. These are dominated by trees that fall between the wild and the domesticated ones (Agnoletti and Santoro 2015). Castgnetu forests have had a historical resilience that has sustained ecological and human communities to this day (Michon 2011).

(2) Habits: education to express the multiple values of co-inhabitants

A variety of educational programs have been designed to promote values aligned with the principles of Earth Stewardship, including relationships of care, respect, reciprocity, and responsibility toward the Earth and its co-inhabitants (May 2015, Tucker 2015). These programs incorporate diverse educational methodologies rooted in various religious and philosophical traditions, including Indigenous people and local communities. Notable examples are the philosophies of buen vivir (living well) in South America, and ubuntu (I am because we are) in South Africa (Callicott 1994, May 2017, Albó 2018, Rozzi et al. 2018). These philosophies are deeply rooted in biocultural traditions and teach ways of living, habits, that are consistent with, yet also promote, sustainable and meaningful relationships among co-inhabitants.

In South America, educational programs that promote habits centered on plural values and socio-environmental justice include grassroots movements, such as Landless Peasants (Sem Terra) in Brazil. This pedagogical approach focuses on territoriality, shaping individuals’ interactions with the land (Meek 2016). Sem Terra has institutionalized critical place-based education by establishing agroecological programs, which are funded through the Brazilian National Program of Agrarian Reform Education. Like educational approaches in other Indigenous people and local communities, Sem Terra emphasizes diversity and advocates for genuine intercultural dialogues. This converges with living well (buen vivir) principles of intercultural cooperation, reciprocity, collective action, and solidarity (MacIntyre et al. 2017, Fleuri and Fleuri 2017, Guerrero 2018, Mboyo 2019, Weber and Tascón 2020). The Sem Terra educational approach extends beyond formal schooling. It becomes an integral part of community everyday life, fostering close relationships with nature, guided by Indigenous and peasants’ worldviews and practices.

In Japan, one of the main focuses of environmental education and restoration programs is to reestablish sustainable resource management in rural areas by learning from traditional practices and exploring new possibilities of wise use. The Japanese word saisei (often translated as restoration), refers to revitalization rather than bringing back an ecosystem to a former condition. This is illustrated by the restoration of the Kamoko Estuary on Sado Island (Fig. 4). This restoration program has used the “3Hs” model (Rozzi 2013) to restore a habitat (the estuary) that enables the restoration of life habits (recreational navigation, oyster fishing) and the return of diverse co-inhabitants, including diverse forms of human cultures (fishers and other citizens in Kamoko) and biological species (oysters, reeds, and other wetland plants; Toyoda 2018). This example gained global recognition through the Satoyama Initiative, promoted by the Ministry of the Environment of Japan and the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, based in Tokyo. However, its revitalization includes not only the practice of satoyama (common-use forests), but also satoumi (common-use coastal resources) and satogawa (common-use rivers). The Japanese concept of sato refers to the close interrelationship between nature and culture, emphasizing the importance of shared management of natural resources. Hence, sato takes into consideration current environmental issues such as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of energy (Yanagi 2008, Centinkaya 2009, Berque and Matsuda 2013). In restoration projects, such as Kamoko, people learn about the current environmental problems as well as a broad set of ecological, educational, and aesthetic values of estuaries (Toyoda 2018).

In Europe, an educational example that promotes habits based on biocultural conservation practices and Earth Stewardship includes the “forest schools” (Waite et al. 2016). These provide children with hands-on learning amid nature (Kothari 2021). Forest schools are increasingly popular in the United Kingdom where the intersection between formal and informal approaches to learning has highlighted the need for primary schools to consider learning outside of the classroom as an effective pedagogy (Cree and McCree 2013, Garden and Downes 2023). Activities outside the classroom include learning through play that enhances collaboration and teamwork, contributing to children’s social, cognitive, emotional, and physical skill development (Becker et al. 2018, Coates and Pimlott‐Wilson 2019).

In northern Italy, the Village Forest School situated on a 500-year-old biodynamic farm in the vineyards of the Monferrato offers another example. Children from the age of 3.5 up to 14 follow a Rudolf Steiner-inspired curriculum that combines indoor and outdoor experiences in vineyards and woodlands. The curriculum is guided by the natural cycle of the annual seasons (Mazzino 2019). Understanding how the life cycles of co-inhabitants are coupled with the annual seasonality of their shared habitats helps students to value the necessity of synchronizing human activities with the life habits of plants, birds, and other organisms, particularly under the current conditions of rapid climate change (Rozzi et al. 2023a).

Recently, formal and non-formal education programs converge in forms of outdoor recreation, nature tourism, and ecotourism that include magnificent remote nature scenery places as well as rural and urban settings (Tauro et al. 2021, Santiago-Jimenez 2023), where activities range from passive (e.g., sitting, relaxing, or enjoying a view) to active (e.g., biking, hiking, or skiing; Becker et al. 2018). On the one hand, through this type of outdoor activity, participants broaden their epistemological diversity, including experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical ways of knowing about the environmental and biological diversity (Nicol 2003). On the other hand, participants of multiple ages develop more affective relationships to their local biological and cultural diversity, enhance their environmental sensitivity, and broaden their spectrum of nature and social values (Palmberg and Kuru 2000, Kårhus 2011, Sjöblom and Wolff 2017).

(3) Habitats: different types of protected areas

Interactions among co-inhabitants, as well as the values and life habits shaped by education, take place in specific habitats. Conservation of habitats concentrate a large part of the global efforts to conserve biodiversity through different types of “Protected Areas” (PA; Kareiva and Marvier 2012, Gillingham et al. 2015). Worldwide there are 245,848 PAs covering 245 countries and territories according to the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2019). However, as the IPBES-VA affirms, conservation efforts are not (and cannot be) restricted to the creation of protected areas (Barton et al. 2022, Vatn et al. 2024). To incorporate the plurality of values existing in communities and their life habits, conservation actions also must take place in urban habitats (Goddard et al. 2010, McDonnell and Hahs 2013, Rotherham 2015, Nilon et al. 2017) as well as agricultural fields and other rural landscapes (Maestas et al. 2003, Harvey et al. 2008, Scherr and McNeely 2008, Kumaraswamy and Kunte 2013, Baiamonte et al. 2015, Borón et al. 2016, Kremen and Merenlender 2018).

In the late 20th century, new conservation approaches and global programs recognized the interconnectedness of biodiversity, cultural heritage, and the values and practices of Indigenous and other local peoples to foster biocultural conservation and Earth Stewardship. Three of these global programs are widely distributed across the world.

(i) Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs, https://www.iccaconsortium.org): Also known as “territories of life,” this initiative was launched at the 2003 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress. They were defined as “natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values and ecological services, voluntarily conserved by (sedentary and mobile) indigenous and local communities, through customary laws or other effective means” (Corrigan and Granziera 2010:4). ICCAs encompass a wide variety of Indigenous peoples and local communities with idiosyncratic conservation practices and values, among them utilitarian, spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic values of nature (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2014, Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 2015, Mackey and Claudie 2015). Indigenous leaders highlight the crucial role of language preservation in biocultural conservation (Frainer et al. 2020, Loncon 2023). Language guides attitudes toward nature, and numerous studies document how Indigenous peoples and their territories are indeed key to safeguarding biodiversity for future generations (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2024).

(ii) Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS, https://www.fao.org/giahs/en): This program was created in 2002 under the lead of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to protect agricultural landscapes of high heritage value (Santoro et al. 2020). GIAHS often are landscapes of outstanding aesthetic beauty and maintain a significant fraction of global agricultural biodiversity (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011). To become a GIAHS, a traditional agricultural system needs to meet five criteria, which include having: (a) food and livelihood security; (b) biodiversity and ecosystem function; (c) knowledge systems and adapted technologies; (d) culture, value systems, and social organizations; and (e) remarkable landscapes and land and water resources management features from FAO (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011). GIAHs result from unique land-use systems and generate agricultural landscapes through long-term coevolution and dynamic adaptation of rural communities and their environments (Song et al. 2021).

(iii) Biosphere Reserves and the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): MAB was created in 1971, and it is implemented through a worldwide network of biosphere reserves, which are territories whose objective is to harmonize the conservation of biological and cultural diversity with economic and social development (Guevara and Laborde 2008, Bridgewater 2016). Biosphere reserves aim to foster harmonic relationships between people and nature, and provide logistical support for sustainable development, research, monitoring, education, and training (Van Cuong et al. 2017). Reconciliating social and economic development with biodiversity conservation requires complex spatial and governance arrangements (Ferreira et al. 2018, Lee 2021), through participatory dialogue, poverty reduction, cultural preservation, and a unique zoning approach (Araya and Clüsener-Godt 2007, Stocks et al. 2007, Gros and Frihz 2010, Karez et al. 2016). Each biosphere reserve consists of three zones with different functions and degrees of protection: (a) core zones focusing on strict protection and conservation of biodiversity; (b) adjacent buffer zones that allow for ecologically sound activities such as traditional practices of artisanal fishery, low impact ecotourism, environmental education and training; and (3) transition zones (around buffer zones) with least restrictions for sustainable ecosystem service use and socio-culturally sustainable economic and human activity (Price et al. 2010). Consequently, distinct levels of human-nature interactions can be expected in the different zones. Globally, as of March 2025, there are 748 biosphere reserves, spanning all continents and distributed in 134 countries (including 23 transboundary reserves; UNESCO 2025). Below, we examine representative cases from different continents.

In Latin America there are 136 BRs (UNESCO 2025). In the far north of the region, biosphere reserves in Mexico have played a key role in creating synergies among the scientific community, public administration in protected areas, and civil society organizations. This model, which emphasizes multi-stakeholder participation, has been dubbed the “Mexican model of biosphere reserves” (Guevara Sada 2019). This model has had international influence because it shaped the policy guidelines of the Seville Strategy that seeks to foster sustainable regional development in biosphere reserves (Brenner and Job 2022). However, some Mexican biosphere reserves have suffered from deficient forms of local governance, triggering conflicts and generating paradoxes regarding the genuine participation of local populations (Legorreta-Diaz and Marquez-Rosano 2012, Brenner and Job 2022, Zalles 2022).

In the extreme south of Latin America, in Chile the role of education has been enhanced to reconcile conservation objectives with participation and sustainable development (Moreira-Muñoz et al. 2019). In the world’s southernmost biosphere reserve, the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, education methodologies inspired by “field environmental philosophy” and biocultural conservation programs have enhanced the appreciation of Indigenous languages, of “less charismatic” biota (e.g., insects, mosses), and the development of new forms of scientific tourism, such as ecotourism with a hand-lens (Rozzi et al. 2008, Tauro et al. 2021, Contador et al. 2023, Schüttler et al. 2023).

In Europe, an initiative among German biosphere reserves aims to achieve more precise identification of stakeholders who actually or potentially act as stewards (Winkler and Hauck 2019). In German biosphere reserves, stewards include local communities (e.g., local people, residents), producers (e.g., farmers), non-state organizations (e.g., community-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations), research institutions, governments, and the private sector (Schüttler et al. 2023). For example, the Berchtesgadener Land Biosphere Reserve, established in 1990 in the Bavarian Alps, features a transition zone that encompasses 15 small municipalities with approximately 100,000 inhabitants who derive their income from farming, tourism, small-scale agriculture, forestry, and salt mining. They have become active stewards who successfully market their regional farm products (Schüttler et al. 2023).

In the Alps, biocultural landscapes have evolved through agroecological practices that maintain a high diversity of co-inhabitants. For example, in the Dolomiti in Italy, the regolieri have for centuries collectively owned and managed extensive forests and pastures called regoles. This ancient institution for managing common property resources was recognized legally by the Italian state as the managers of the Parco Naturale delle Dolomiti d’Ampezzo. In 2009 the park and regoles were designated a UNESCO Natural World Heritage site. The Italian government awards regolieri tax-free status and funding, supplemented by subsidies from the European Union and the government of the Venetian Region (Lorenzi and Borrini-Feyerabend 2009, Ghea 2011, Pieraccini 2013).

In Asia and the Pacific, there are currently 228 Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2025), organized into four regional networks. This highly heterogeneous region, however, presents significant challenges for integrating conservation with sustainable development (Meijaard et al. 2010). Evaluation of community participation and the impact of socioeconomic development on biosphere reserves in the Asia-Pacific (Jaafar et al. 2023, Thao et al. 2023) reveals that participation in conservation projects can have contrasting socioeconomic impacts. For example, a mangrove rehabilitation project in Palawan, Dumlao (Philipines), led to increased family income for 73% of participants through financial support. However, 23% reported income losses due to the low monetary return of time spent on mangrove planting (Thao et al. 2023).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our review article addresses a major colonial gap in modern Western ethics, which has omitted a broad array of values of nature hosted by diverse cultures in heterogeneous regions of the planet. Today, these cultures and their values can help shape sustainable life habits that are linked to specific habitats and their co-inhabitants. However, mainstream environmental ethics continues to focus only on Western philosophical schools of thought (e.g., Palmer 2013, Palmer et al. 2014, Rolston 2020). We offer a conceptual framework and empirical evidence that expands the scope of environmental ethics. Toward this aim, we have examined three core concepts of the biocultural ethic linked to three themes prioritized by the IPBES-VA. Below, we discuss each in light of evidence provided by the IBPBES-VA.

(1) Diversity of co-inhabitants in agro- or forest-ecosystems: The IPBES-VA documents how in the Andes and the Himalaya, a significant diversity of food species and local landraces have been lost because of the expansion of a few high-value commercial crops, such as rice and wheat (Barton et al. 2022). At the same time, the IPBES-VA documents cases that are consistent with the examples we have presented for agro- and forest-ecosystems in South America, Japan, and Europe. The biologically and culturally diverse agro- and forest-ecosystems are alive today despite strong pressures against them such as land grabbing and monocultures that are subsidized by national and/or international market economies (Makki 2018), as well as powerful interests supported by legal rules such as property rights (Pascual et al. 2023). They illustrate the relevance of values and practices of Indigenous people and local communities, highlighting the importance of social movements that defend food sovereignty. An example included in the IPBES-VA is the “local initiatives of Chiapas [Mexico] communities of resistance against genetically modified organisms [that] allowed in situ conservation of local landraces, thanks to indigenous and scientific expertise” (Barton et al. 2022:283).

Regarding the ethical implications of the former examples, the “3Hs” model helps us to interpret these social movements as expressing the central value that the diversity of co-inhabitants has as interacting agents. Domesticated plants and animals are not mere commodities with solely monetary value, as treated by prevailing market policies. Instead, they are subjects with interests and values of their own that sustain the integrity of biocultural communities.

The concept of co-inhabitant gives agency to both human and other-than-human beings. This concept is consistent with worldviews and ecological practices prevalent in many biocultural communities that co-inhabit heterogeneous habitats in all biomes worldwide. It expresses that human beings do not exist isolated from nature, neither as individuals nor as societies, but that they coexist in webs of evolutionary, ecological, and cultural interactions with myriad living beings and other components of ecosystems. For example, in an article derived from the IPBES-VA, to illustrate a pluricentric perspective of a watershed feeding into an estuary, Pascual et al. (2023) used the term co-inhabitant in reference to fish. Considering broad values of nature, Pascual et al. (2023) ascribed different and complementary values to fish: instrumental (food for humans and regulators of ecosystem food webs), intrinsic (having a right to exist), and relational (having cultural, symbolic, and material relationships with humans). Among co-inhabiting species, ethnoecologists have noted that some have conspicuous relationships with humans and have identified them as “cultural keystone species.” These species have exceptional significance for a socio-cultural group because of their prevalence in language, ceremonies, diet, medicines, symbolic presence in traditional stories, and/or their use as seasonal or phenological indicators (Nabhan and Carr 1994, Cristancho and Vining 2004, Garibaldi and Turner 2004, Mobarak et al 2025). In this article, we have explained how species such as the potato in South America, the Toki ibis in Asia, or the sweet chestnut in Europe are co-inhabitants that establish key relationships with human communities. Because these relationships are embedded in both biological and cultural dimensions, for these salient co-inhabitants we prefer to use the term “biocultural keystone species” (Ibarra et al. 2012). A final remark on the concept of co-inhabitants is that it has not only descriptive but also normative power. By respecting their instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values, humans are compelled to care for co-inhabitants with whom they share habitats. To put this ethical imperative into action, biocultural keystone species can serve as “flagship species” that inspire conservation initiatives.

(2) Life-habits and education for Earth Stewardship: The IPBES-VA research found multiple educational principles, methods, and concepts for teaching sustainability (Kelemen et al. 2022). Sustainability sciences have been enriched by paying attention to pedagogical processes that enable the transition from individual learning to community learning to enhance social and nature experiences (Kelemen et al. 2022). A key conclusion from Chapter 2 in the IPBES-VA is that environmental education, practiced from different perspectives, is crucial for incorporating values that connect children with local habitats, promoting environmental literacy, and fostering positive attitudes toward nature (Anderson et al. 2022). Toward this aim, intercultural and multilingual education is especially relevant to biocultural conservation by “preserving knowledge about nature (i.e., ecoliteracy) and the languages that transmit such knowledge” (Anderson et al. 2022:42). For example, Mexico has had intercultural universities for over 20 years, including local communities in higher education (Schmelkes 2009, Dietz 2012). In the United States, numerous multicultural initiatives integrate minority groups and Indigenous peoples in environmental studies, such as the “intellectual diversity” program at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York (SUNY) in Syracuse (Kimmerer 1998, Kimmerer 2012). Furthermore, there are various Native American-based universities (Reyhner 2010), such as Diné College among the Diné (or Navajo) in Arizona, which, since its birth in 1968, has centered the curriculum on Diné language, history, and philosophy (Johnson 2008).

The Diné traditional living system places human life in harmony with the natural world and the universe (Kahn-John and Koithan 2015, Two Bears 2022). This worldview involves respect for society and nature, and is expressed by the Diné term k’é, which refers to “the concept of family, compassion, cooperation, love, kinship, clanship, friendliness, kindness, unselfishness, peacefulness, thoughtfulness, and all positive virtues that constitute intense, diffuse, and enduring solidarity through respectful relations with nature and others” (Lee 2016:99). This insight from the Diné language and culture supports the statement that the transition toward sustainability requires transformations based on different Western as well as Indigenous worldviews (Kelemen et al. 2022). Socio-culturally contextualized education is necessary to counterbalance the standard, formal education that promotes cultural globalization (Rozzi et al. 2023b).

Human life habits that guide the care for co-inhabitants and shared habitats can be taught through Earth Stewardship educational concepts and practices. Many of these exist in the cultural traditions of numerous Indigenous peoples and other local communities. However, we documented how they are also present in global society through innovative outdoor practices that catalyze face-to-face intercultural and interspecies encounters, stimulating empathy with co-inhabitants and fostering Earth Stewardship behaviors that promote biocultural conservation. These practices can counterbalance the current prevalence of formal and non-formal education mediated by technology and social networks, which isolate children from biocultural diversity (Soga and Gaston 2016, Silverman and Corneau 2017, Edwards and Larson 2020, Poole 2023, Murciano-Hueso et al. 2024).

(3) Habitats within and beyond Protected Areas (PA): The IPBES-VA demonstrates that PAs are policy instruments that support transformative changes toward sustainable and just futures by representing diverse values at local, national, and global scales (Barton et al. 2022, IPBES 2022). The IPBES-VA found that the goal of the Global 2030 Agenda to increase the number and the total area covered by terrestrial and marine protected areas has made great progress. However, the IPBES-VA notes the limitations associated with the fact that protected areas often fall within the mandate and resources of a single institution, the Ministry of the Environment (or its national equivalent; Barton et al. 2022). Additionally, often PAs, including biosphere reserves such as Yasuni-ITT in Ecuador and Nanda Devi in India, have failed to protect critical biodiversity hotspots (Bosak 2008, Rawal and Rawat 2012, Espinosa 2013, Pellegrini et al. 2014, Barton et al. 2022).

Despite limitations of PAs, care for the habitats and the biocultural diversity hosted by them is an indispensable step for achieving Earth Stewardship and biocultural conservation. In PAs that include human communities, such as GIAHs, ICCAs, and biosphere reserves, stewards play important roles as custodians of biological and cultural diversity. For these reasons, the IPBES-VA underscores that Earth Stewardship contributes to view PAs, socio-environmental justice, and sustainability as interdependent (IPBES 2022).

To stimulate life habits of responsible co-inhabitation, the emotional and rational understanding that human beings share habitats with myriad other beings requires overcoming the erroneous dualistic conception between “protected areas” and “unprotected areas.” The IPBES-VA has documented that this dualism is dissolved in conservation initiatives such as ICCAs and BRs, which integrate human beings and nature. Using the 3Hs biocultural framework, we have stressed the importance of overcoming the dichotomy between “protected” and “unprotected” areas by adopting habits of stewardship across urban-rural landscapes that harmonize different multiple-use needs with biocultural conservation. Palomo et al. (2016) have identified a multiplicity of components that interact to deliver ecosystem services, which are built into relations of co-production. The “3Hs” biocultural framework and the co-production focus on agricultural landscapes converge on essential aspects. Both approaches identify negative impacts resulting from transforming diverse biocultural landscapes into monocultures, which are subject to the intensive use of chemicals (for agriculture or silviculture) that degrade multiple ecosystem services, as well as the well-being of co-inhabitants (Palomo et al. 2016, Rozzi 2018, Balvanera et al. 2022). This offers an additional way to avoid the dissociation of protected and non-protected areas by understanding and valuing ecosystem services through their co-production.

In summary, using the “3Hs” model we identified a diversity of communities that have cultural traditions hosting multiple ethical values of nature and sustainable forms of co-inhabitation. We provided empirical evidence about the great diversity of nature’s values present in different communities and world regions. These values do not exist as platonic abstractions but rather are materially embedded in the life habits of communities that have coevolved in specific habitats. However, today, the mosaic of local values and associated sustainable practices is often overshadowed by global values and policies. If this trend persists, losses of biocultural diversity will continue, and several planetary boundaries, including climate change, biogeochemical flows, and biodiversity, will be gravely transgressed by 2050 (van Vuuren et al. 2025).

A transformation of global educational, economic, and policy systems could be rooted in better valuing the biocultural mosaic that fosters biodiversity conservation (Alejo et al. 2025) as well as the well-being and continuity of sustainable regional cultures (Watson et al. 2018, Hanspach et al. 2020, Jacobs et al. 2020). A biocultural transformation could lay the foundation for a heterogeneous global metaculture with sustainable modes of co-inhabitation (Rozzi and Massardo 2011).

Beyond the heuristic function of identifying diverse types of communities, the “3Hs” model provides an ethical orientation for incorporating the conservation of biological and cultural diversity into Earth Stewardship practices. It contributes to implementing Earth Stewardship initiatives and other IPBES-VA recommendations, such as expanding the range of nature values considered in decision-making, as well as in the design and implementation of socio-environmental policies. In this way, the “3Hs” model of biocultural ethics has multiple-scale implications for decision making. Although it is rooted in local realities, it can acquire global power to transition toward more just and sustainable futures, such as those envisioned by IPBES-VA.

LITERATURE CITED

Albó, X. 2018. Suma qamaña or living well together: a contribution to biocultural conservation. Pages 333-342 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May, Jr., F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Núñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_21

Agnoletti, M., F. Piras, M. Venturi, and A. Santoro. 2022. Cultural values and forest dynamics: the Italian forests in the last 150 years. Forest Ecology and Management 503:119655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119655

Agnoletti, M., and A. Santoro. 2015. Cultural values and sustainable forest management: the case of Europe. Journal of Forest Research 20:438-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-015-0500-7

Alejo, C., M. Ortega, B. Leung, O.T. Coomes and C. Potvin. 2025. Diverse values regarding nature are related to stable forests: the case of Indigenous lands in Panama. Ecology and Society 30(1):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15540-300124

Anderson, C. B., S. Athayde, C. M. Raymond, A. Vatn, P. Arias-Avévalo, R. K. Gould, J. Kenter, B. Muraca, S. Sachdeva, A. Samakov, E. Zent, D. Lenzi, R. Murali, A. Amin, and M. Cantú-Fernández. 2022. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people. Chapter 2 in P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D. González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493134

Andreozzi, M. 2025. Reimagining ethics: non-anthropocentric perspectives on morality. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 7. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94870-1

Angé, O., A. Chipa, P. Condori, A. C. Ccoyo, L. Mamani, R. Pacco, N. Quispe, W. Quispe, and M. Sutta. 2018. Interspecies respect and potato conservation in the Peruvian cradle of domestication. Conservation and Society 16:30-40. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_122

Araya, P., and M. Clüsener-Godt. 2007. Reservas de biosfera: un espacio para la integración de conservación y desarrollo. Experiencias exitosas en Iberoamérica. Editorial Valente, Santiago, Chile.

Argumedo, A., Y. Song, C. K. Khoury, D. Hunter, H. Dempewolf, L. Guarino, and S. de Haan. 2021. Biocultural diversity for food system transformation under global environmental change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5:685299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.685299

Baiamonte, G., G. Domina, F. M. Raimondo, and G. Bazan. 2015. Agricultural landscapes and biodiversity conservation: a case study in Sicily (Italy). Biodiversity and Conservation 24:3201-3216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0950-4

Balvanera, P., K. A. Brauman, A. F. Cord, E. G. Drakou, I. R. Geijzendorffer, D. S. Karp, B. Martín-López, T. H. Mwampamba, and M. Schröter. 2022. Essential ecosystem service variables for monitoring progress towards sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 54:101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101152

Balvanera, P., H. Paz, F. Arreola-Villa, R. Bhaskar, F. Bongers, S. Cortés, E. del Val, E. García-Frapolli, M. E. Gavito, C. E. González-Esquivel, et al. 2021. Social-ecological dynamics of tropical secondary forests. Forest Ecology and Management 496:119369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119369

Barton, D. N., R. Chaplin-Kramer, E. Lazos, M. Van Noordwijk, S. Engel, A. Girvan, T. Hahn, B. Leimona, S. Lele, R. Muradian, A. Niamir, B. Özkaynak, A. Pawlowska-Mainville, P. Ungar, S. Nelson, C. Aydin, P. Iranah, M. Cantú-Fernández, and D. González-Jiménez. 2022. Value expression in decision-making. Chapter 4 in P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D. González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522261

Becker, P., B. Humberstone, C. Loynes, and J. Schirp, editors. 2018. The changing world of outdoor learning in Europe. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170671

Berque, J., and O. Matsuda 2013. Coastal biodiversity management in Japanese satoumi. Marine Policy 39:191-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.013

Bieling, C., and T. Plieninger, editors. 2017. The science and practice of landscape stewardship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316499016

Borón, V., E. Payán, D. MacMillan, and J. Tzanopoulos. 2016. Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land-use change. Land Use Policy 59:27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.017

Borras Jr, S. M., J. C. Franco, S. Gómez, C. Kay, and M. Spoor. 2012. Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3-4):845-872. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.679931

Borras Jr, S. M., R. Hall, I. Scoones, B. White, and W. Wolford. 2011. Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing: an editorial introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(2):209-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559005

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., P. Bueno, T. Hay-Edie, B. Lang, A. Rastogi, and T. Sandwith. 2014. A primer on governance for protected and conserved areas. Stream on Enhancing Diversity and Quality of Governance. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Bosak, K. 2008. Nature, conflict and biodiversity conservation in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Conservation and Society 6(3):211-224. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49214

Brenner, L., and H. Job. 2022. Reviewing the participatory management of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: what do we miss by ignoring local academic knowledge in Mexico? Ambio 51(7):1726-1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01672-1

Bridgewater, P. 2016. The Man and Biosphere Programme of UNESCO: rambunctious child of the sixties, but was the promise fulfilled? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.009

Bridgewater, P., and I. D. Rotherham. 2019. A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation. People and Nature 1(3):291-304. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10040

Bromham, L., R. Dinnage, H. Skirgård, A. Ritchie, M. Cardillo, F. Meakins, S. Greenhill, and X. Hua. 2022. Global predictors of language endangerment and the future of linguistic diversity. Nature Ecology and Evolution 6(2):163-173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01604-y

Bryan, J. 2012. Rethinking territory: social justice and neoliberalism in Latin America’s territorial turn. Geography Compass 6(4):215-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2012.00480.x

Callicott, J. B. 1994. Earth’s insights: a multicultural survey of ecological ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520914827

Cetinkaya, G. 2009. Challenges for the maintenance of traditional knowledge in the satoyama and satoumi ecosystems, Noto Peninsula, Japan. Human Ecology Review 16(1):27-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707732

Chapin III, F. S., S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, S. L. Collins, J. S. Baron, D. W. Inouye, and M. G. Turner. 2015. Earth stewardship: an initiative by the Ecological Society of America to foster engagement to sustain planet Earth. Pages 173-181 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, and R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_12

Chapin III, F. S., M. E. Power, S. T. A. Pickett, A. Freitag, J. A. Reynolds, R. B. Jackson, D. M. Lodge, C. Duke, S. L. Collins, A. G. Power, and A. Bartuska. 2011. Earth stewardship: science for action to sustain the human-earth system. Ecosphere 2(8):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00166.1

Coates, J. K., and H. Pimlott-Wilson. 2019. Learning while playing: children’s forest school experiences in the UK. British Educational Research Journal 45(1):21-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3491

Conedera, M., P. Krebs, W. Tinner, M. Pradella, and D. Torriani. 2004. The cultivation of Castanea sativa (Mill.) in Europe, from its origin to its diffusion on a continental scale. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 13(3):161-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-004-0038-7

Conedera, M., W. Tinner, P. Krebs, D. de Rigo, and G. Caudullo. 2016. Castanea sativa in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats. Pages 78-79 in J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, D. de Rigo, G. Caudullo, T. Houston Durrant, and A. Mauri, editors. European atlas of forest tree species. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33094736.pdf

Contador, T., J. Rendoll-Cárcamo, M. Gañan, J. Ojeda, J. Kennedy, P. Convey, and R. Rozzi. 2023. Underwater with a hand lens: ecological sciences and environmental ethics to value freshwater biodiversity. Pages 53-69 in R. Rozzi, editor. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_4

Corrigan, C., and A. Granziera. 2010. A handbook for the Indigenous and community conserved areas registry. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Cree, J., and M. McCree. 2013. A brief history of Forest School in the UK - Part 2. Horizons: The Outdoor Professional Development Magazine 62:32-35.

Cristancho, S., and J. Vining. 2004. Culturally defined keystone species. Human Ecology Review 11(2):153-164.

Dietz, G. 2012. Intercultural universities in Mexico. Pages 1480-1484 in J. Banks, editor. Encyclopedia of diversity in education, vol. 3. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Edwards, R. C., and B. M. H. Larson. 2020. When screens replace backyards: strategies to connect digital-media-oriented young people to nature. Environmental Education Research 26(7):950-968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1776844

Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. C., T. Sandwith, K. MacKinnon, D. Allen, A. Andrade, T. Badman, P. Bueno, K. Campbell, J. Ervin, D. Laffoley, et al. 2015. IUCN/WCPA protected areas program: making space for people and biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Pages 339-350 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, and R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_22

Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839926

Espinosa, C. 2013. The riddle of leaving the oil in the soil—Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT project from a discourse perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 36:27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.012

Esteban, J. M. 2018. Dürer’s Rhinoceros: biocultural homogenization of the visual construction of nature. Pages 137-165 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May Jr., F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics Series, vol. 3. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_9

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., J. E. Fa, D. Brockington, E. S. Brondízio, J. Cariño, E. Corbera, M. Farhan Ferrari, D. Kobei, P. Malmer, G. Y. H. Márquez, Z. Molnár, H. Tugendhat, and S. T. Garnett. 2024. No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories. Nature 633(8028):32-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02811-w

Ferreira, A. F., H. Zimmermann, R. Santos, and H. Von Wehrden. 2018. A social-ecological systems framework as a tool for understanding the effectiveness of biosphere reserve management. Sustainability 10(10):3608. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103608

Flannery, T. F. 2006. The weather makers: how man is changing the climate and what it means for life on Earth. Grove Press, New York, New York, USA.

Fleuri, R. M., and L. J. Fleuri. 2017. Learning from Brazilian Indigenous Peoples: towards a decolonial education. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 47(1):8-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2017.28

Frainer, A., T. Mustonen, S. Hugu, T. Andreeva, E. Arttijeff, I. Arttijeff, F. Brizoela, G. Coelho-de-Souza, R. B. Printes, E. Prokhorova, S. Sambou, A. Scherer, V. Shadrin, and G. Pecl. 2020. Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(43):26539-26543. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019469117

Garden, A., and G. Downes. 2023. A systematic review of forest schools literature in England. Education 3-13 51(2):320-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1971275

Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00669-090301

Gavin, M. C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J. R. Stepp, D. Peterson, and R. Tang. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30(3):140-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005

Ghea, E. 2011. Laudo: la storia infinita. Apertura delle donne in regola. Ciasa de ra Regoles, Anno XXII, no. 129.

Gillingham, P. K., R. B. Bradbury, D. B. Roy, B. J. Anderson, J. M. Baxter, N. A. D. Bourn, H. Q. P. Crick, R. A. Findon, R. Fox, A. Franco, J. K. Hill, J. A. Hodgson, A. R. Holt, M. D. Morecroft, N. J. O'Hanlon, T. H. Oliver, J. W. Pearce-Higgins, D. A. Procter, J. A. Thomas, K. J. Walker, C. A. Walmsley, R. J. Wilson, and C. D. Thomas. 2015. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical ranges. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115(3):707-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12506

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(2):90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

Gros, P. M., and N. M. Frithz. 2010. Conocimientos del pueblo Mayangna sobre la convivencia del hombre y la naturaleza. Peces y tortugas, vol. 1. Conocimientos de la Naturaleza, 3. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Guerrero, C. A. 2018. Indigenous entrepreneurship? An economic dimension of Sumak Kawsay? Revesco - Revista de Estudios Cooperativos (129):123-141. https://doi.org/10.5209/REVE.62849

Guevara, S., and J. Laborde. 2008. The landscape approach: designing new reserves for protection of biological and cultural diversity in Latin America. Environmental Ethics 30(3):251-262. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200830331

Guevara Sada, S. 2019. The Mexican Biosphere Reserve. Pages 47-60 in M. G. Reed and M. F. Price, editors. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: supporting biocultural diversity, sustainability and society. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429428746-4

Hanspach, J., L. J. Haider, E. Oteros-Rozas, A. Stahl Olafsson, N. M. Gulsrud, C. M. Raymond, M. Torralba, B. Martín-López, C. Bieling, M. García-Martín, C. Albert, T.s H. Beery, N. Fagerholm, I. Díaz-Reviriego, A. Drews-Shambroom, and T. Plieninger. 2020. Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People and Nature 2(3):643-659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10120

Harvey, C. A., O. Komar, R. Chazdon, B. G. Ferguson, B. Finegan, D. M. Griffith, M. Martínez-Ramos, H. Morales, R. Nigh, L. Soto-Pinto, M. Van Bruegel, and M. Wishnie. 2008. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology 22(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x

Hoekstra, A. Y., and T. O. Wiedmann. 2014. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344(6188):1114-1117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248365

Ibarra, J. T., A. Barreau, F. Massardo, and R. Rozzi. 2012. El cóndor andino: una especie biocultural clave del paisaje sudamericano. Boletín Chileno de Ornitología 18(1-2):1-22.

Imai, H., T. Nakashizuka, and M. Oguro. 2017. Environmental factors affecting the composition and diversity of the avian community in igune, a traditional agricultural landscape in northern Japan. Journal of Ecology and Environment 41:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-017-0027-2

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022. Summary for policymakers of the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O’Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. Van Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392

Jaafar, M., A. Ebekozien, D. Mohamad, and A. Salman. 2023. A systematic review of Asian community participation in biosphere reserves. PSU Research Review 7(3):184-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-12-2020-0040

Jacobs, S., N. Zafra-Calvo, D. Gonzalez-Jimenez, L. Guibrunet, K. Benessaiah, A. Berghöfer, J. Chaves-Chaparro, S. Díaz, E. Gomez-Baggethun, S. Lele, et al. 2020. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature - the Oaxaca statement. Global Sustainability 3:e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.2

Johnson, B., R. Tsuji, B. Lukey, and M. Toyoda. 2023. Communities of philosophical inquiry for the empowerment of ecological agency. Pages 359-378 in R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_22

Johnson, N. K. 2008. Diné College turns 40: philosophy of harmony forms foundation for nation’s first tribal college. Tribal College 19(4):34.

Kahn-John, M., and M. Koithan. 2015. Living in health, harmony, and beauty: the Diné (Navajo) Hózhó wellness philosophy. Global Advances in Health and Medicine 4(3):24-30. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2015.044

Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier. 2012. What is conservation science? BioScience 62(11):962-969. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5

Karez, C. S., J. M. Hernández Faccio, E. Schüttler, R. Rozzi, M. Garcia, Á. Y. Meza, and M. Clüsener-Godt. 2016. Learning experiences about intangible heritage conservation for sustainability in biosphere reserves. Material Culture Review 82:84-96.

Kårhus, S. 2011. A pedagogy of place: outdoor education for a changing world. Sport, Education and Society 16(5):688-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.608261

Kelemen, E., S. Subramanian, B. Nakangu, M. Islar, M. Kosmus, E. Nuesiri, L. Porter-Bolland, A. De Vos, S. Amaruzaman, E. Yiu, and G. Arroyo-Robles. 2022. Policy options and capacity development to operationalize the inclusion of diverse values of nature in decision-making. Chapter 6 in P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D. González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522359

Kimmerer, R. W. 1998. Intellectual diversity: bringing the Native perspective into natural resources education. Winds of Change 13(3):14-18.

Kimmerer, R. W. 2012. Searching for synergy: integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2(4):317-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y

Kolbert, E. 2011. Enter the Anthropocene: age of man. National Geographic 219:60-77.

Koohafkan, P., and M. A. Altieri. 2011. Globally important agricultural heritage systems: a legacy for the future. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Koohafkan, P., and M. J. D. Cruz. 2011. Conservation and adaptive management of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). Journal of Resources and Ecology 2(1):22-28.

Kothari, A. 2021. These alternative economies are inspirations for a sustainable world. Scientific American 324(6):102.

Krauss, M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68(1):4-10. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0075

Krebs, P., F. Ulmke, W. Tinner, and M. Conedera. 2022. The Roman legacy on European chestnut and walnut arboriculture. Environmental Archaeology 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2022.2137648

Kremen, C., and A. M. Merenlender. 2018. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362(6412):eaau6020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6020

Kumaraswamy, S., and K. Kunte. 2013. Integrating biodiversity and conservation with modern agricultural landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:2735-2750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0562-9

Lee, T. S. 2016. The home-school-community interface in language revitalization in the USA and Canada. Pages 99-115 in S. M. Coronel-Molina and T. L. McCarty, editors. Indigenous language revitalization in the Americas. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Lee, Y. J. 2021. A study on the introduction of zoning in biosphere reserves: focusing on the laws related to protected areas. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment 24(1):95-105. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2021.24.1.95

Legorreta-Díaz, M. D. C., and C. M. Marquez-Rosano. 2012. Democracia, desigualdad y política ambiental en las reservas de la biosfera en México: un enfoque interdisciplinario. Page 269-294 in L. Durand, F. Figueroa, M. Guzmán, editors. La naturaleza en contexto: hacia una ecología política mexicana. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, El Colegio de San Luis, A. C., México.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Loncon, E. 2023. Azmapu: aportes de la filosofía Mapuche para el cuidado del Lof y la madre tierra. Ariel, Santiago, Chile.

Lorenzi, S., and G. Borrini-Feyerabend. 2009. The Natural Park of the Ampezzo Dolomites (Italy): a community-conserved area and World Heritage Site between history and modernity. Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas Consortium and IUCN/CEESP, Gland, Switzerland.

MacIntyre, T., M. Chaves, S. Villa-Barajas and A. Makú-Pardo. 2017. Educating for development or educating for the good life? Buen vivir imaginaries and the creation of one’s own myth. Pages 193-204 in P. Blaze Corcoran, J. P. Weakland, and A. E. J. Wals, editors. Envisioning futures for environmental and sustainability education. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-846-9_13

Mackey, B., and D. Claudie. 2015. Points of contact: integrating traditional and scientific knowledge for biocultural conservation. Environmental Ethics 37(3):341-357. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201537332

Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17(5):1425-1434. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02371.x

Maffi, L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:599-617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437

Makki, F. 2018. The political ecology of land grabs in Ethiopia. Pages 83-95 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May Jr., F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ethics Series, vol. 3. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_5

Mamani-Bernabé, V. 2015. Spirituality and the Pachamama in the Andean Aymara Worldview. Pages 65-76 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth Stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_6

Martin, A., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. Quaas, R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, D. P. Faith, R. Kumar, P. O’Farrell, and U. Pascual. 2024. Plural values of nature help to understand contested pathways to sustainability. One Earth 7(5):806-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.04.003

May, Jr., R. H. 2015. Andean llamas and Earth stewardship. Pages 77-86 R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth Stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_7

May, Jr., R. H. 2017. Pachasophy: landscape ethics in the Central Andes Mountains of South America. Environmental Ethics 39(3):301-319. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201739322

May, Jr., R. H. 2021. The moral standing of canyons, cliff dwellings, and ancient artifacts: philosophical reflections on Cedar Mesa. Journal of the Southwest 63(2):214-230. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsw.2021.0005

Mazzarello, P. 1999. A unifying concept: the history of cell theory. Nature Cell Biology 1:E13-E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/8964

Mazzino, F. 2019. History of landscape education in Italy. Pages 117-120 in L. Gao and S. Egoz, editors. Lessons from the past, visions for the future: celebrating one hundred years of landscape architecture education in Europe. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.

Mboyo, J. P. E. 2019. Reimagining Ubuntu in schools: a perspective from two primary school leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 47(2):206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217728085

McDonnell, M. J., and A. K. Hahs. 2013. The future of urban biodiversity research: moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosystems 16:397-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0315-2

McNeill, J. R., and P. Engelke. 2014. The Great Acceleration: an environmental history of the Anthropocene since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9wcc

Meek, D. 2016. Learning as territoriality: the political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement. Pages 123-144 in R. Tarlau and A. Pahnke, editors. Brazilian agrarian social movements. Routledge, London, UK.

Meijaard, E., R. Denn, and P. Mous. 2010. Lessons from biosphere reserves in the Asia-Pacific region, and a way forward. Prepared for UNESCO Office, Jakarta, Indonesia. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000188345

Michon, G. 2011. Revisiting the resilience of chestnut forests in Corsica: from social-ecological systems theory to political ecology. Ecology and Society 16(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04087-160205

Mobarak, C., L. Hatoum, L. Kmoch, M. Torralba, G. Lieblein, A. Wezel and T. Plieninger. 2025. Farm trees as cultural keystone species: bridging biocultural conservation and sustainable development in the Morocco High Atlas Mountains. Mountain Research and Development 45(1):R11-R22. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.2024.00024

Moreira-Muñoz, A., F. Carvajal, S. Elórtegui, and R. Rozzi. 2019. The Chilean Biosphere Reserves network as a model for sustainability?: Challenges towards regenerative development, education, biocultural ethics and eco-social peace. Pages 61-75 in M. G. Reed and M. F. Price, editors. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429428746-5

Murciano-Hueso, A., D. Caballero-Franco, B. M. Gutiérrez-Perez, and J. Ruedas-Caletrio. 2024. Nature deficit: the importance of contact with nature from an early age. Pages 1086-1094 in J. A. de Carvalho Gonçalves, J. L. Sousa de Magalhães Lima, J. P. Coelho, F. J. García-Peñalvo, and A. García-Holgado, editors. Proceedings of TEEM 2023: The Eleventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1814-6_106

Nabhan, G. P., and J. L. Carr, editors. 1994. Ironwood: an ecological and cultural keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

National Research Council (NRC). 1989. The lost crops of the Incas: little-known plants of the Andes with promise for worldwide cultivation. National Academy, Washington, D.C., USA.

Negri, V. 2005. Agro-biodiversity conservation in Europe: ethical issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:3-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-004-3084-3

Nicol, R. 2003. Outdoor education: research topic or universal value? Part three. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 3(1):11-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670385200211

Nilon, C. H., M. Aronson, S. Cilliers, C. Dobbs, L. J. Frazee, M. A. Goddard, K. M. O’Neill, D. Roberts, E. K. Stander, P. Werner, M. Winter, and K. P. Yocom. 2017. Planning for the future of urban biodiversity: a global review of city-scale initiatives. BioScience 67(4):332-342. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix012

Palmberg, I. E., and J. Kuru. 2000. Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education 31(4):32-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598649

Palmer, C. 2013. Contested frameworks in environmental ethics. Pages 191-206 in R. Rozzi, S. T. A. Pickett, C. Palmer, J. J. Armesto, and J. Baird Callicott, editors. Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 1. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7470-4_16

Palmer, C., K. McShane, and R. Sandler. 2014. Environmental ethics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39:419-442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121112-094434

Palomo, I., M. R. Felipe-Lucia, E. M. Bennett, B. Martín-López, and U. Pascual. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in Ecological Research 54:245-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Pellegrini, L., R. Arsel, R. Falconí, and R. Muradian. 2014. The demise of a new conservation and development policy? Exploring the tensions of the Yasuní ITT initiative. Extractive Industries and Society 1:284-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.05.001

Pieraccini, M. 2013. A politicized, legal pluralist analysis of the commons’ resilience: the case of the Regole d’Ampezzo. Ecology and Society 18(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05138-180104

Piras, F., B. Fiore, and A. Santoro. 2022. Small cultural forests: landscape role and ecosystem services in a Japanese cultural landscape. Land 11(9):1494. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091494

Pollegioni, P., S. Del Lungo, R. Müller, K. E. Woeste, F. Chiocchini, J. Clark, G. E. Hemery, S. Mapelli, F. Villani, M. E. Malvolti, and C. Mattioni. 2020. Biocultural diversity of common walnut (Juglans regia L.) and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) across Eurasia. Ecology and Evolution 10(20):11192-11216. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6761

Poole, A. K. 2023. Education as a driver of extinction of experience or conservation of biocultural heritage. Pages 247-262 in R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, and R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_15

Price, M. F., J. J. Park, and M. Bouamrane. 2010. Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: the periodic review of biosphere reserves. Environmental Science and Policy 13:549-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.06.005

Rao, R. 2013. Una civiltà del castagno: uomini e boschi nell’Appennino ligure-piemontese durante l’apogeo del Medioevo (secoli XII-metà XIV). Archivio Storico Italiano 171(2):207-228.

Rawal, R. S., and B. Rawat 2012. Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Pages 44-57 in L. M. S. Palni, R. S. Rawal, R. M. Rai, and S. V. Reddy, editors. Compendium on Biosphere Reserve: progression during two decades of conservation. G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Almora, India.

Reyhner, J. 2010. Indigenous language immersion schools for strong Indigenous identities. Heritage Language Journal 7(2):299-313. https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.7.2.7

Rolston III, H. 2020. A new environmental ethics: the next millennium for life on Earth. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003036746

Rotherham, I. D. 2015. Bio-cultural heritage and biodiversity: emerging paradigms in conservation and planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 24:3405-3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1006-5

Rozzi, R. 1999. The reciprocal links between evolutionary-ecological sciences and environmental ethics. Bioscience 49(11):911-921. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313650

Rozzi, R. 2001. Éticas ambientales latinoamericanas: raíces y ramas. Pages 311-362 in R. Primack, R. Rozzi, P. Felnsinger, R. Dirzo, and F. Massardo, editors. Fundamentos de Conservación Biológica: Perspectivas Latinoamericanas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City, Mexico.

Rozzi, R. 2012. Biocultural ethics: recovering the vital links between inhabitants, their habits and habitats. Environmental Ethics 34(1):27-50. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20123414

Rozzi, R. 2013. Biocultural ethics: from biocultural homogenization toward biocultural conservation. Pages 9-32 in R. Rozzi, S. T. A. Pickett, C. Palmer, J. J. Armesto, and J. Baird Callicott, editors. Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: values, philosophy, and action. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 1. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7470-4_2

Rozzi, R. 2015. Implications of the biocultural ethic for Earth stewardship. Pages 113-136 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_9

Rozzi, R. 2018. Biocultural homogenization: a wicked problem in the Anthropocene. Pages 21-48 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May Jr., F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_2

Rozzi, R. 2019. Taxonomic chauvinism, no more! Antidotes from Hume, Darwin, and biocultural ethics. Environmental Ethics 41(3):249-282. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201941325

Rozzi, R., R. Álvarez, V. Castro, D. Núñez, J. Ojeda, A. Tauro, and F. Massardo. 2023a. Biocultural calendars across four ethnolinguistic communities in southwestern South America. GeoHealth 7(4):e2022GH000623. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000623

Rozzi, R., X. Arango, F. Massardo, C. Anderson, K. Heidinger, and K. Moses. 2008. Field environmental philosophy and biocultural conservation: the Omora Ethnobotanical Park educational program. Environmental Ethics 30(3):325-336. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200830336

Rozzi, R., and F. Massardo. 2011. The road to biocultural ethics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(4):246-247. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-9.4.246

Rozzi, R., F. Massardo, C. B. Anderson, K. Heidinger, and J. A. Silander, Jr. 2006. Ten principles for biocultural conservation at the southern tip of the Americas: the approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. Ecology and Society 11(1):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01709-110143

Rozzi, R., R. H. May, F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Núñez, and D. Simberloff. 2018. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7

Rozzi, R., and A. Tauro. 2023. The multiple lenses of ecotourism with a hand lens: fundamental concepts and practices. Pages 27-51 in R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, and R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_3

Rozzi, R., A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, and R. H. May, Jr., editors. 2023b. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5

Salmón, E. 2000. Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecological Applications 10(5):1327-1332. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2

Santiago Jiménez, M. E. 2023. Biocultural resilience through educational tourism in Cholula, Mexico. Pages 379-390 in R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_23

Santoro, A., M. Venturi, R. Bertani, and M. Agnoletti. 2020. A review of the role of forests and agroforestry systems in the FAO Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) programme. Forests 11(8):860. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080860

Scherr, S. J., and J. A. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363(1491):477-494. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165

Schmelkes, S. 2009. Intercultural Universities in Mexico: progress and difficulties. Intercultural Education 20(1):5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980802700649

Schüttler, E., R. Mackenzie, and L. Muñoz-Petersen. 2023. Biocultural conservation in Biosphere Reserves in temperate regions of Chile, Estonia, Germany, and Sweden. Pages 483-502 R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_29

Scott, G. 2011. Plants, people, and the conservation of biodiversity of potatoes in Peru. Natureza and Conservação 9(1):21-38. https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.003

Shibata, H. 2015. Biogeochemistry and traditional ecological knowledge and practices in Japan. Pages 27-38 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_3

Silverman, J., and N. Corneau. 2017. From nature deficit to outdoor exploration: curriculum for sustainability in Vermont’s public schools. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 17(3):258-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2016.1269235

Simion, R. 2023. (Re)considering geoengineering in an ethical biocultural framework. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philosophia 68(2):15-32. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2023.2.02

Sjöblom, P., and L. A. Wolff. 2017. “It wouldn't be the same without nature”—the value of nature according to Finnish upper secondary school students. Journal of Environmental Education 48(5):322-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1367637

Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(2):94-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225

Song, H., P. Chen, Y. Zhang, and Y. Chen. 2021. Study progress of important agricultural heritage systems (IAHS): a literature analysis. Sustainability 13(19):10859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910859

Steffen, W., P. J. Crutzen, and J. R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36(8):614-621.

Stocks, A., B. McMahan, and P. Taber. 2007. Indigenous, colonist, and government impacts on Nicaragua’s Bosawas Reserve. Conservation Biology 21(6):1495-1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00793.x

Tagliaferri, G., and S. Di Lonardo. 2016. Chestnut management practice as tool for natural and cultural landscaping. Pages 353-367 in M. Agnoletti and F. Emanueli, editors. Biocultural diversity in Europe. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1_19

Tauro, A., J. Ojeda, T. Caviness, K. P. Moses, R. Moreno-Terrazas, T. Wright, D. Zhu, A. K. Poole, F. Massardo, and R. Rozzi. 2021. Field environmental philosophy: a biocultural ethic approach to education and ecotourism for sustainability. Sustainability 13(8):4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084526

Thao, N. P., J. Eales, D. M. Lam, V. T. Hien and R. Garside. 2023. What are the impacts of activities undertaken in UNESCO biosphere reserves on socio-economic wellbeing in Southeast Asia? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence 12(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00322-1

Toyoda, M. 2018. Revitalizing local commons: a democratic approach to collective management. Pages 443-457 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May, Jr., F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol 3. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_28

Tucker, M. E. 2015. World religions, ethics, and the Earth Charter for a sustainable future. Pages 395-405 in R. Rozzi, F. S. Chapin III, J. Baird Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, R. H. May Jr., editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 2. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_26

Turner, N. J., and J. Bhattacharyya. 2016. Salmonberry Bird and Goose Woman: birds, plants, and people in Indigenous peoples’ lifeways in northwestern North America. Journal of Ethnobiology 36(4):717-745. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.717

Turner, N. J., and A. J. Reid. 2022. When the wild roses bloom: Indigenous knowledge and environmental change in northwestern North America. GeoHealth 6(11):e2022GH000612. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000612

Two Bears, D. R. 2022. Decolonizing research for my Diné (Navajo) community: the Old Leupp Boarding School historic site. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 33(1):55-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12157

United Nations (UN). 1951. Measures for the economic development of underdeveloped countries. Department of Social and Economic Affairs, New York, New York, USA.

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2019. Protected planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.34892/6fwd-af11

UNESCO. 2025. Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB). UNESCO, Paris, France. https://www.unesco.org/en/mab

Van Cuong, C., P. Dart, and M. Hockings. 2017. Biosphere reserves: attributes for success. Journal of Environmental Management 188:9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.069

van Vuuren, D. P., J. C. Doelman, I. Schmidt Tagomori, A. H. W. Beusen, S. E. Cornell, J. Röckstrom, A. M. Schipper, E. Stehfest, G. Ambrosio, M. van den Berg, L. Bouwman, V. Daioglou, M. Harmsen, P. Lucas, K. van der Wijst, and W. van Zeist. 2025. Exploring pathways for world development within planetary boundaries. Nature 641:910-916. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08928-w

Vatn, A., U. Pascual, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Termansen, P. Arias-Arévalo, P. Balvanera, S. Athayde, T. Hahn, and E. Lazos 2024. Incorporating diverse values of nature in decision-making—theory and practice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 379:20220315. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0315

Waite, S., M. Bølling, and P. Bentsen. 2016. Comparing apples and pears?: A conceptual model for understanding forms of outdoor learning through comparison of English Forest Schools and Danish udeskole. Environmental Education Research 22(6):868-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1075193

Watson, J. E. M., T. Evans, O. Venter, B. Williams, A. Tulloch, C. Stewart, I. Thompson, J. C. Ray, K. Murray, A. Salazar, C. McAlpine, P. Potapov, J. Walston, J. G. Robinson, M. Painter, D. Wilkie, C. Filardi, W. F. Laurance, R. A. Houghton, S. Maxwell, H. Grantham, C. Samper, S. Wang, L. Laestadius, R. K. Runting, G. A. Silva-Chávez, J. Ervin, and D. Lindenmayer. 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology and Evolution 2:599-610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x

Weber, S. M., and M. A. Tascón. 2020. Pachamama—the Universidad del ‘Buen Vivir’: a First Nations sustainability university in Latin America. Pages 849-862 in W. Leal Filho, A. L. Salvia, R. W. Pretorius, L. Londero Brandli, E. Manolas, F. Alves, U. Azeiteiro, J. Rogers, C. Shiel, and A. Do Paco, editors. Universities as living labs for sustainable development: supporting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15604-6_52

Winkler, K. J., and J. Hauck. 2019. Landscape stewardship for a German UNESCO Biosphere Reserve: a network approach to establishing stewardship governance. Ecology and Society 24(3):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10982-240312

Yanagi, T. 2008. “Sato-umi”—a new concept for sustainable fisheries. Pages 351-358 in K. Tsukamoto, T. Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T. D. Beard, Jr., and M. J. Kaiser, editors. Fisheries for global welfare and environment, 5th World Fisheries Congress. Terrapub, Tokyo, Japan.

Zalles, J. I. 2022. Territorios sustentables: legitimando la conservación en reservas de biosfera. Debates en Sociología 54:143-174. https://doi.org/10.18800/debatesensociologia.202201.005

Zhu, D. 2023. Bridge the channel, enhance the inclusivity: a comparison between flagship species-centered and moss-centered conservation in Chile and China. Pages 457-482 in R. Rozzi, A. Tauro, N. Avriel-Avni, T. Wright, R. H. May Jr., editors. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and Ethics, vol. 5. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_28