Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people

Open access
Hill, Rosemary, Adem, Çiğdem, Alangui, Wilfred V, Molnár, Zsolt, Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Yildiz, Bridgewater, Peter, Tengö, Maria, Thaman, Randy, Adou Yao, Constant Y, Berkes, Fikret, Carino, Joji, Carneiro da Cunha, Manuela, Diaw, Mariteuw C, Díaz, Sandra, Figueroa, Viviana E, Fisher, Judy, Hardison, Preston, Ichikawa, Kaoru, Kariuki, Peris, Karki, Madhav, Lyver, Phil OB, Malmer, Pernilla, Masardule, Onel, Oteng Yeboah, Alfred A, Pacheco, Diego, Pataridze, Tamar, Perez, Edgar, Roué, Michèle-Marie, Roba, Hassan, Rubis, Jennifer, Saito, Osamu, Xue, Dayuan·2020·Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Abstract

Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Indigenous peoples’ concepts about what constitutes sustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, member states of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present this Approach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledge systems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are among critical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualizations of sustainability in assessments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., Karki, M., Lyver, P. O., Malmer, P., Masardule, O., Oteng Yeboah, A. A., Pacheco, D., Pataridze, T., Perez, E., Roué, M.-M., Roba, H., Rubis, J., Saito, O., & Xue, D.
Venue
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
43
Pages
8-20
ISSN
1877-3435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999751453
Cited by
391
References
60
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006
The paper
Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., . . . Xue, D. (2020). Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.