New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Indigenous Lands Ace Biodiversity Measurements

Across the board, indigenous-managed regions equal or surpass conventional conservation areas 

Writing-on-Stone/Áísínai'pi in Canada

RONNIE CHUA Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scientists, conservation organizations and governments trying to stem the tide of extinction often focus efforts on protected areas such as national parks and wildlife preserves. But with as many as a million species at risk, this strategy may not be enough to conserve wildlife, especially in a world increasingly disrupted by climate change.

Slowing the mass extinction that now appears to be underway will require more creative means of coexisting alongside wild plants and animals. A new study underscores the effectiveness of some such approaches by examining indigenous-managed lands.

“We show really strongly that, from a biodiversity standpoint in terms of species richness, indigenous-managed lands are at least comparable to protected areas,” says biologist Richard Schuster of Carleton University. And in some places, they far surpass parks and preserves—even though indigenous communities may utilize their lands' resources by hunting or foraging for food.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Schuster and his team analyzed more than 15,000 areas in Australia, Brazil and Canada. They found that the total diversity of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles was highest on lands either managed or co-managed by indigenous groups, whereas randomly selected locations with no formal protection were the least biodiverse. For threatened species in particular, indigenous lands scored slightly higher than protected lands on overall species richness in Brazil and Canada, as well as higher for threatened amphibians and reptiles in Australia, mammals in Brazil, and birds and reptiles in Canada. The results were published last November in Environmental Science and Policy.

Each country has a different geography, climate and colonization history. Yet remarkably, Schuster says, the best indicator for species diversity is whether a given area was managed by an indigenous community. He points out that practices such as sustainable hunting, fishing and foraging, as well as prescribed burning, are more likely to occur in such areas. Don Hankins, an ecologist at California State University, Chico, who is a member of the Plains Miwok indigenous nation and was not involved in the study, agrees. “There's probably going to be more of a connection to the land,” he says, “and a use of the land for the things that are there, compared to a national park.”

“It's really important to listen to the people who live on the land and have them drive the stewardship efforts going forward,” Schuster says, adding that partnering with indigenous communities may enable the world's countries to better meet a wide range of conservation goals: “We really need all the help we can get as a global community to avert the extinction crisis that we're facing right now.”

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman
Scientific American Magazine Vol 322 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Beating Back Extinction” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 322 No. 2 (), p. 20
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0220-20b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe