There have been calls for greater inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in applied ecosystems research and ecological assessments. The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) is the first global scale assessment to systematically engage with ILK and issues of concern to Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC). In this paper, we review and reflect on how the GA worked with ILK and lessons learned. The GA engaged in critical evaluation and synthesis of existing evidence from multiple sources, using several deliberative steps: having specific authors and questions focus on ILK; integrating inputs from ILK across all chapters; organizing dialogue workshops; issuing calls for contributions to identify other forms and systems of knowledge; and encouraging IPLC to be key stakeholders and contributors. We identify content areas where attention to ILK was particularly important for questions in applied ecology. These include: (a) enriching understandings of nature and its contributions to people, including ecosystem services; (b) assisting in assessing and monitoring ecosystem change; (c) contributing to international targets and scenario development to achieve global goals like the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals and (d) generating inclusive and policy‐relevant options for people and nature. However, challenges in engaging different knowledge systems were also encountered. Policy implications. The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) demonstrated the importance of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) to global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Initiatives seeking to engage Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can learn from the experience of the GA. Successfully bringing ILK into assessment processes and policy arenas requires a deliberate framework and approach from the start that facilitates recognition of different knowledge systems, identifies questions relevant at various scales, mobilizes funding and recognizes time required and engages networks of stakeholders with diverse worldviews. In turn, fostering inclusion of ILK and partnering with IPLC can help future assessments understand how natural and cultural systems co‐produce each other, identify trends of change through diverse biocultural indicators and improve sustainable development goals and policies.

Galvin, K. A., T. A. Beeton, and M. W. Luizza. 2018. African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecology and Society 23(3):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10217-230339

Complex sustainability problems (e.g., climate change) are challenging to understand and manage, leading to an increase in approaches that connect scholars to society and research to action (collaborative approaches). The transdisciplinary approach (TDA) represents one such approach. While TDA is new to many, there are several prior collaborative approaches including collaborative adaptive management, knowledge integration, participatory action research, and indigenous/local knowledge. Other contemporary and parallel approaches include citizen science, translational science, evidence-based practice, and knowledge with action. The varied disciplinary roots and problem areas contribute to a lack of interaction among these parallel but distinct approaches, and among the scholars and stakeholders who practice them. In this paper, we consider the connections, complementarities and contradictions among these distinct but related collaborative approaches. This review offers insights into the interaction between science and practice, including the importance of social processes and recognition of different ways of knowing, as well as how to conduct collaborative approaches on a variety of scales and think about how to generalize findings. The review suggests a need to rethink roles and relationships in the process of knowledge co-creation, both extending the roles of researchers and practitioners, creating new hybrid roles for “pracademics”, and placing greater awareness on issues of power.

Within conservation science and practice, community‐based conservation (CBC) includes policy and management interventions incorporating engagement or participation of local communities and resource users. Evidence across scales points to the importance of supporting local actors and management institutions for better social and ecological outcomes of CBC interventions. However, the institutional and governance processes underlying CBC outcomes remain poorly understood, specifically how institutions respond to opportunities and constraints posed by CBC. In response, this special issue of Conservation Science & Practice solicited contributions investigating adaptation and evolution of institutions and governance in CBC. In this paper, we introduce the special issue and its 13 contributions, representing cases from Africa, Asia, and the Americas across organizational scales and resource systems. We assess the state of knowledge of CBC, identify common themes and lessons learned, and suggest future priorities for research and practice.

This study assesses the nutritional status of Maasai pastoralists living in a period of great social, economic and ecological changes in Kajiado County, southern Kenya. Data on weight, height, skinfolds, and circumferences were collected from 534 individuals in the year 2000. The data were used to describe mean differences in human nutrition between ages, sexes, and within and among three Group Ranches. Nutritional data and diet recall data were compared with past studies of Maasai nutrition from 1930 to 2000. Results indicate that nutritional status is poor and has remained so despite numerous changes to the social-ecological system including livelihood diversification, sedentarization, human population growth and decreased access to vegetation heterogeneity. Imbirikani Group Ranch had better access to infrastructure and markets and some measures of nutritional status were better than for individuals in other group ranches. However, nutritional status remains poor despite transitioning to greater market integration.