Anthropogenic ecological transformations are challenging conventional environmental management paradigms, as maintaining historical ecological structures and functions becomes increasingly untenable. The resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework offers a strategic tool to navigate these shifts. However, as a product of the dominant socio-cultural system, the RAD framework risks perpetuating the same patterns of thinking that have contributed to unsustainable social-ecological dynamics. Indigenous socio-cultural systems, considered here through the lens of long-term coevolution with their environments, offer valuable empirical models for adaptive responses to environmental change. Such Indigenous socio-cultural responses, grounded in narratives, governance institutions, value systems, and other cultural elements collectively referred to as Indigenous Knowledge (IK), hold relevance for addressing today’s intertwined environmental and social challenges. We provide a targeted review of existing literature at the intersection of IK and the RAD framework, along with a broader conceptual overview of relevant insights across related fields. These reveal contrasting assumptions about Indigenous responses to environmental change, such as consistently resisting to preserve cultural fidelity or uniformly accepting, reflecting deeper cultural, temporal, and ecological complexity. We propose a structured research agenda to investigate Indigenous socio-cultural responses to environmental change through empirical research, theoretical synthesis, hypothesis development, and practical application. This agenda is grounded in comprehensive collaboration, emphasizing shared power and integrating both emic and etic perspectives throughout all stages of research and implementation. By bridging the adaptive dynamics of coevolved social-ecological systems and mainstream management strategies, an IK–RAD framework could enhance the efficacy of responses to global environmental change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciocco et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: