# Understandings and critiques of biocultural diversity conservation and future recommendations for conservation actors

## TL;DR

This paper explores how biocultural diversity is understood and criticized in conservation, offering recommendations for more just and effective practices.

## Contribution

The paper provides a thematic analysis of biocultural diversity literature and proposes a political ecology framework with practical prompts for conservation actors.

## Key findings

- Biocultural diversity is framed through hotspots, Indigenous knowledge, cultural landscapes, and biocultural identity.
- Four key criticisms include overemphasis on tradition, overgeneralization, neglect of conflicts, and power imbalances.
- A political ecology approach with reflexive questions can improve conservation practices and uphold justice.

## Abstract

As biocultural approaches to conservation gain traction (e.g., through international commitments to Indigenous Peoples and local communities) and external conservation actors increasingly seek to engage with on‐the‐ground holders of biocultural diversity, improved understanding is needed of what biocultural diversity means. Building on the foundation provided by Bridgewater and Rotherham, I appraised how biocultural diversity conservation has been framed and critiqued in the academic literature based on a thematic analysis of 95 papers. Biocultural diversity was understood through the concepts of biocultural diversity hotspots; Indigenous and local knowledge; cultural landscapes; the roles and rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities; biocultural identity; and urban people–nature interactions. Four criticisms of the concept were identified, including a focus on conserving tradition, risk of overgeneralization, neglect of biocultural conflicts, and a lack of attention to power dynamics. A political ecology perspective on biocultural diversity could help address these criticisms by encouraging external conservation actors to reflect on specific questions about power when engaging with holders of biocultural diversity. If external conservation actors are willing to engage in this reflexive practice, for example, by following the prompts I devised (e.g., What preconceptions do external actors hold about culture and identity in this context? Are external actors expecting people to live or behave traditionally? Do Indigenous Peoples and local communities have decision‐making power?), commitments to conserving biocultural diversity could achieve global biodiversity goals while upholding social and environmental justice principles.