Interconnected Nature and People: Biosphere Reserves and the Power of Memory and Oral Histories as Biocultural Heritage for a Sustainable Future

Abstract

Biosphere Reserves (BRs) represent dynamic spaces where the interdependence between nature and people is actively shaped and preserved. These territories serve as living laboratories for sustainable development, blending conservation efforts with local knowledge and cultural traditions. This paper explores how BRs exemplify the interconnection between ecological resilience and biocultural heritage, demonstrating the value of integrating traditional practices into contemporary sustainability frameworks. Using insights from the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project, which has collected over 370 testimonies from Portugal, Brazil, and São Tomé e Príncipe, this study highlights the role of memory and storytelling in reinforcing socio-ecological resilience and informing participatory conservation governance. By documenting personal experiences, traditional land-use practices, and community perceptions, these testimonies foster empathy, intergenerational learning, and ethical engagement with the environment. They also provide crucial knowledge for environmental stewardship and community-driven sustainability strategies. The article further examines the transformative role of digital technologies, open science, and artificial intelligence in preserving and disseminating biocultural heritage. Through georeferenced digital archives and participatory research, communities safeguard their cultural and ecological heritage, ensuring knowledge transmission across generations. By positioning BRs as models for integrated conservation and development, this paper underscores the importance of interconnected socio-ecological systems in achieving sustainability goals. The findings suggest that valuing and preserving biocultural heritage within BRs not only strengthens community identity and resilience, but also provides actionable pathways for addressing contemporary environmental challenges.

1. Introduction

Biosphere Reserves (BRs) embody the interdependence of natural and cultural landscapes, serving as models for sustainable development where human activities and biodiversity conservation are integrated. These territories illustrate how ecological resilience is inherently linked to local knowledge, cultural practices, and historical land-use traditions. The close relationship between living beings—humans, animals, and plants—and their shared ecosystems is at the core of these spaces, reinforcing the idea that the preservation of biodiversity is inseparable from the conservation of cultural heritage.

A defining characteristic of BRs is the recognition that biocultural heritage is a fundamental driver of conservation. Cultural practices, the traditional management of natural resources, and collective memory shape the way communities interact with their environment, ensuring the sustainable use of landscapes. However, the extent to which this principle is applied in conservation frameworks varies, and a deeper understanding of its role is necessary. This paper aims to examine how biocultural heritage actively contributes to conservation efforts within BRs, drawing on empirical evidence from the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project. Through the collection of over 370 interviews across distinct geographical contexts—Europe, South America, and Africa—this study highlights the role of memory, knowledge transmission, and traditional ecological practices in reinforcing conservation strategies.

By investigating BRs as integrated spaces where cultural and natural elements are co-managed and valued, the study seeks to demonstrate how biocultural heritage strengthens ecological resilience, fosters learning and empathy, and enhances community engagement in conservation. The recognition of this interconnection is not only crucial for reinforcing the status of these territories, but also underscores their global relevance as models for reconciling conservation and human well-being. Understanding this relationship provides a basis for designing policies and initiatives that integrate traditional knowledge into contemporary sustainability frameworks, ensuring that BRs remain active spaces of innovation, adaptation, and participatory governance.

Despite the recognition of BRs as spaces where conservation and development intersect, there is still a need to strengthen the role of biocultural heritage in sustainability frameworks. This paper examines how BRs can leverage traditional knowledge, oral histories, and digital technologies to reinforce socio-ecological resilience and promote sustainable governance. Building on the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project—an extensive oral history initiative that has collected testimonies and narratives from diverse communities across Europe, South America, and Africa—this study explores how memory and storytelling contribute to the construction of biocultural heritage and reinforce the dynamic nature of BRs. By documenting lived experiences, local knowledge systems, and historical land-use practices, oral histories provide not only critical insights for conservation strategies, but also serve as tools for capacity building, intergenerational transmission, and the empowerment of communities to engage with the challenges of sustainability.

Accordingly, this article aims not only to highlight how BRs act as dynamic spaces of cultural transmission, ecological adaptation, and participatory governance, but also to demonstrate how oral histories accentuate and strengthen these functions, anchoring them in the voices, memories, and agency of local communities.

This article analyzes how oral history narratives collected across fourteen Biosphere Reserves reveal the role of biocultural heritage in shaping adaptive governance, cultural continuity, and ecological resilience. It argues that these testimonies not only document the interconnection between communities and their environments, but also serve as catalysts for reflection, learning, and action. By uncovering lived experiences and memory-based knowledge systems, the article contributes to current debates on sustainability by offering a grounded perspective on how conservation can be reimagined through inclusive, culturally embedded, and historically informed frameworks.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials used in this article include the bibliography referenced at the end and the oral history interviews and associated content collected as part of the research.

The oral history interviews analyzed in this article were collected within the framework of the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project and follow the methodological framework developed by the interdisciplinary program Memória para Todos/Memory for All [1]. This program, active since 2008, has become one of the largest oral history and community heritage initiatives in Portugal, combining oral history, digital humanities, archival science, and participatory research [2,3,4,5]. All interviews collected under this umbrella follow rigorous methodological standards designed to ensure ethical integrity, technical consistency, and public accessibility.

The interviews used in this article were conducted in Portugal, Brazil, and São Tomé and Príncipe as part of a large-scale effort to document biocultural heritage in UNESCO-designated Biosphere Reserves. These interviews respect the methodological model developed by Memory for All, which combines structured preparation, participatory approaches, archival documentation, and open-access dissemination. This methodology includes preparatory fieldwork, carefully designed interview protocols, ethical guidelines, and an integrated digital archiving and classification system that ensures the long-term preservation and accessibility of the collected materials.

Before the interview phase, each campaign was preceded by detailed documentary and historical research focused on the territory in question. This work involved consulting archives, public and private libraries, local documentation centers, and other historical sources to reconstruct the history of each BR—its designation process, institutional background, socio-environmental evolution, and key actors. Researchers also held conversations with managers, technical staff, and scholars involved in the creation and development of each Reserve. This preparatory phase was essential not only to contextualize the interviews, but also to ensure that the questions addressed were relevant and appropriately tailored to the specific reality of each territory.

Interview guides were developed for each Reserve, combining general and territory-specific questions. Semi-structured, they followed a consistent framework while allowing open-ended responses. Rather than standardized templates, the guides were carefully prepared in a collaborative, multidisciplinary setting, informed by the history, context, and challenges of each Reserve. Typically developed by the research team in dialogue with local coordinators and community representatives, they included contributions from environmental scientists, anthropologists, historians, educators, and Reserve managers. This ensured the inclusion of both scientifically relevant questions and culturally sensitive dimensions reflecting local values and dynamics.

Each guide combined general questions—life histories, family trajectories, environmental change, land use, cultural practices—with targeted ones exploring identity and governance. These included the impacts of BR designation, perceptions of biodiversity and heritage, community participation, and transmission of ecological knowledge. The format remained flexible and adapted to each interviewee’s profile—community members, managers, institutional partners, educators, or visitors. The goal was to build trust and elicit rich narratives while maintaining thematic coherence. Most interviews lasted 90 min to two hours. Interviewers were encouraged to explore both memory and experience, collecting testimonies that captured practices, knowledge, and the emotional, symbolic, and ethical dimensions of human–environment relationships.

Interviewee selection was performed with local partners to ensure broad and inclusive representation. Participants included those involved in the BR’s designation and management—policymakers, scientists, technicians, conservationists—as well as diverse local stakeholders, such as farmers, fishers, artisans, business owners, educators, civil society members, healthcare and social workers, visitors, and long-time residents. Care was taken to reflect each Reserve’s social fabric, economy, and cultural diversity.

Public outreach was central to each campaign. Communication plans included flyers, local press, and online dissemination to inform residents and invite voluntary participation. Often, public sessions were held in schools, community centers, or town halls to present the project and its goals, and encourage involvement. As a result, many participants came forward spontaneously, enriching the diversity and authenticity of the narratives. Interviews usually took place in familiar everyday environments—fields, markets, workshops, homes—grounding the testimonies in their landscapes.

Before each recording, the project and ethical framework were presented. Interviewees provided oral and written consent via a standardized declaration specifying how interviews would be stored, used, and made publicly accessible. No interviews were published or analyzed without informed authorization.

Interviews were usually conducted by two-person teams, composed of researchers, students, and local collaborators. Teams met beforehand to discuss the interview guide and familiarize themselves with the social and environmental context of the Reserve. This collaborative approach also allowed for the immediate transcription of notes, as well as the sharing of observations and post-interview debriefing. After recording, interviews were stored in duplicate for preservation and analysis.

Post-production followed a detailed workflow. Interviews were first reviewed and timestamped; the content was then segmented thematically and indexed according to a taxonomy developed by Memória para Todos, which includes subject headings, cross-references, and key terms. A biographical profile of each interviewee was written and linked to the interview, providing context for interpretation. When appropriate, edited versions of the videos were produced to ensure clarity and focus, and whenever possible, these were shared with the interviewees for review and validation.

All interviews were cataloged and indexed in the Memory for All platform for accessibility and research. Figure 1 illustrates how each interview is presented on the platform, including its timeline, thematic indexing, and metadata structure. The materials are treated as part of a larger and growing heritage ecosystem, where each collection contributes to a broader dialogue between territories, practices, and experiences. The platform is designed to allow interoperability with other digital infrastructures, fostering collaboration across projects and facilitating transnational and transdisciplinary research. This openness supports knowledge sharing and enhances the analytical potential of the collections, which are organized not only thematically and geographically, but also relationally—linking memory, territory, and governance.

All materials are integrated into the Memory for All digital infrastructure and platforms. Interviews are also available on the Memória para Todos YouTube channel. The platform includes an advanced documentation system compliant with international archival standards. Interviews and materials are inventoried and curated as heritage assets, organized into thematic collections with descriptive records, technical files, and subject metadata. A distinctive feature is its focus on georeferencing; all interviews and content are spatially tagged, enabling interactive digital memory maps. Figure 2 shows how interview locations are displayed on the Memória para Todos platform using Google Maps integration, allowing public access to georeferenced narratives. This cartographic approach is also employed in the Biosphere Reserves portal [6], offering users the ability to explore narratives and knowledge linked to specific locations (Figure 3).

The Memory for All and Biosphere Reserves platforms serve as open-access repositories and are available at:

• Memória para Todos—www.memoriaparatodos.pt [1];
• Reservas da Biosfera—https://www.reservasdabiosfera.pt/en/ [6].

The open-access nature of these repositories ensures transparency, accountability, and broad access to the collected testimonies, contributing to research, education, heritage preservation, and public engagement.

Each interview is published with its full technical sheet, metadata, and supporting materials. In addition to individual interviews, it is common to produce a short presentation or summary video for each campaign, highlighting key moments and themes from the fieldwork. These videos are essential tools for sharing results with local communities, as they offer accessible and engaging overviews of the work and voices recorded.

Importantly, all results are systematically returned to the communities in diverse formats and moments. This includes public presentations, school events, local exhibitions, online publications, and academic conferences. A prominent example is the Ser Principense project [7], developed in Príncipe Island (São Tomé and Príncipe), where the results were not only shared but also co-curated with the local population through a community exhibition that integrated objects, stories, music, and performances, reinforcing ownership and identity. This commitment to restitution ensures that memory work remains participatory, dialogic, and rooted in local relevance.

The author has actively participated in all phases of the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project, including conceptual development, project design, community engagement, and fieldwork campaigns. This involvement has encompassed the elaboration and refinement of interview guides, participation in interviews, facilitation of community-based activities, and the overall supervision of data collection and dissemination strategies.

The analysis presented in this article draws upon all interviews conducted in BRs, while applying an interpretive framework developed exclusively by the author. The focus of the analysis centers on the articulation of biocultural heritage, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), participatory governance, and the socio-environmental role of memory, as reflected across the diverse testimonies. The selection, thematic organization, and interpretation of the materials adhere to a specific analytical lens that is unique to this study. These testimonies, examined through this perspective, constitute the primary empirical foundation for the reflections and results presented in the following sections.

The present article builds upon the epistemological and methodological foundations of the Memory for All program, the Memories of Biosphere Reserves project and the conceptual framework of UNESCO’s BRs. It mobilizes both as privileged entry points for exploring the meanings and power of biocultural heritage, a notion that sits at the intersection of ecology, culture, identity, and sustainability. In this sense, the article follows a layered analytical path. It first reaffirms the significance of BRs as emblematic territories for testing and practicing integrated approaches to conservation; then, it introduces and contextualizes the concept of biocultural heritage, its theoretical contours, and its potential for shaping inclusive and community-driven sustainability frameworks.

From this conceptual basis, the article proceeds to a systematic analysis of the oral histories collected in BRs. Drawing on the principle that oral memory is not only a source of knowledge but a constitutive element of biocultural heritage itself, the interviews are analyzed to identify the core themes, language, and imaginaries that emerge from the testimonies. Particular attention is paid to the articulation of TEK, cultural and symbolic practices, perceptions of landscape transformation, and expressions of community belonging and responsibility. Figure 4 presents a synthesis of the article’s analytical framework, highlighting the intersection between biocultural heritage, local knowledge, and community engagement in the BRs studied.

The analysis sought to evaluate how interviewees perceive the meaning and relevance of their local knowledge in relation to conservation and sustainability; how they recognize and represent their own cultural and ecological legacy; and how they imagine their contribution to the future of the territory. This involved identifying recurrent motifs, keywords, and semantic fields that signal an awareness—implicit or explicit—of biocultural heritage as a living resource. In parallel, the study assesses the proposals and suggestions voiced by participants regarding the role of memory, tradition, and cultural identity in shaping conservation practices and enhancing the value of BRs.

Thus, the article does not aim to offer a statistical or comparative treatment of the interviews, but rather to approach them as narrative expressions of place-based knowledge—insights that reinforce the notion of BRs as dynamic spaces of cultural transmission, ecological adaptation, and participatory governance. It also aims to show how oral histories accentuate and deepen these functions by anchoring them in the voices, experiences, and agency of local communities.

3. Biosphere Reserves and the Power of Biocultural Heritage

Biosphere Reserves (BRs), as defined within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, are territories that promote a balanced relationship between humans and nature through the integration of conservation, sustainable development, and knowledge exchange [8]. BRs combine biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and education through a zoning model that allows for both the protection and productive use of natural and cultural resources. Their core model has evolved considerably since the 1970s. Once focused primarily on ecological protection, BRs are today acknowledged as dynamic, lived spaces that recognize and value cultural diversity, traditional knowledge, and community participation [9]. Their structure—composed of core, buffer, and transition zones—encourages the coexistence of protected areas with traditional uses, innovation with continuity, and scientific knowledge with local experience. As such, BRs promote an integrated approach that is not only ecological but also social, cultural, and political. They offer a stage where multiple actors interact—conservation agencies, local authorities, researchers, schools, associations, economic agents, and, crucially, the communities that inhabit and shape these territories.

The conceptual transformation of BRs reflects broader changes in sustainability thinking, including growing recognition that biodiversity conservation cannot be separated from cultural, historical, and social contexts. As “living laboratories”, BRs aim to integrate scientific knowledge and local experience, fostering resilience through innovation and collaboration. BRs provide concrete settings in which integrated approaches to sustainability can be tested and enacted, involving local communities not as passive beneficiaries, but as active co-creators of knowledge, management strategies, and territorial visions. They are not only conservation areas, but also spaces of negotiation, where ecological practices intersect with cultural identities and territorial dynamics [8,10,11,12].

In this context, the notion of biocultural heritage offers a powerful conceptual lens for understanding the layered realities of BRs and for advancing their transformative potential. Figure 5 visualizes this conceptual framework, highlighting how biocultural heritage interweaves landscape, memory, identity, and sustainability within BRs.

The concept of biocultural heritage, coined in the early 2000s and developed at the intersection of ecological and cultural disciplines, refers to the inextricable link between biological and cultural diversity. Scholars such as Maffi (2005) and Posey (1999) have highlighted the co-evolution of biodiversity and cultural diversity, showing that the loss of cultural practices often coincides with ecological degradation [13,14]. It encompasses TEK, land-use systems, oral traditions, symbolic landscapes, spiritual values, and the intergenerational transmission of practices and beliefs rooted in specific ecosystems. Biocultural heritage is dynamic, adaptive, and deeply embedded in memory, experience, and place [14]. The concept has gained prominence in conservation discourse, especially as scholars recognize that biodiversity and cultural diversity are mutually reinforcing [15,16].

Crucially, biocultural heritage is not only a legacy of the past, but also a resource for the present and a tool for shaping sustainable futures [17,18,19,20]. Biocultural heritage also serves as a critical mechanism for adaptation, enabling communities to develop sustainable responses to climate variability, resource scarcity, and socio-political change [21,22]. Traditional knowledge systems embedded within biocultural landscapes provide models for disaster risk reduction, sustainable harvesting, and landscape restoration [23]. Moreover, biocultural knowledge enhances community resilience by fostering strong social networks and reinforcing ethical responsibilities toward nature [24].

Despite its significance, biocultural heritage remains vulnerable to erosion due to globalization, land privatization, industrial development, and climate change [25,26]. To counteract these challenges, recent initiatives emphasize the co-creation of knowledge, bringing together indigenous, local, and scientific expertise to design hybrid conservation strategies [27,28].

As environmental challenges intensify, there is a growing need to integrate biocultural heritage into conservation frameworks, policymaking, and education. Framing biocultural landscapes as evolving socio-ecological systems provides a foundation for sustainable development strategies that balance ecological integrity with cultural identity [26,29,30,31,32]. Research by Cámara-Leret (2019) emphasizes how these traditional techniques maintain ecological balance while ensuring food security for local communities [30].

The status of TEK as an essential knowledge system has gained increasing visibility in global conservation efforts, particularly through frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) and UNESCO’s MAB Programme [33]. However, the degree to which TEK is effectively integrated into conservation policies varies widely across regions and governance structures.

Affirming the value of biocultural heritage as a catalyst for conservation is central to the evolving vision of BRs. Local communities often hold finely tuned ecological knowledge—acquired and transmitted across generations—that informs long-standing practices of stewardship, from agroecological techniques and rotational grazing to the management of water, forests, and common lands. These practices are frequently accompanied by oral traditions, communal rituals, and place-based identities that reinforce ethical responsibilities toward the environment. In this sense, memory is not merely a record, but an active force in the negotiation of adaptation, continuity, and innovation.

Conservation programs should shift toward more inclusive governance structures, where Indigenous and local communities hold leadership roles in resource management and decision-making [34]. BRs, particularly those in Latin America and Africa, offer promising models for integrating TEK through participatory conservation frameworks.

However, despite the conceptual proximity between BRs and biocultural heritage, the systematic integration of the latter into governance structures, conservation policies, and sustainability indicators remains incipient. While cultural values and traditional knowledge are frequently mentioned in mission statements and management plans, their operationalization tends to be fragmented or informal. In some cases, they are treated as complementary rather than constitutive dimensions of conservation. While the MAB Programme and related policy frameworks increasingly refer to cultural dimensions, there is a lack of systematized tools and practices that embed biocultural knowledge, oral traditions, and lived experiences in planning, evaluation, and institutional development. In many cases, the heritage that shapes community–environment relations exists implicitly or informally, without adequate recognition or translation into the language of governance, indicators, or conservation policy.

And yet, in many territories, it is precisely the presence and vitality of biocultural heritage—even if not explicitly named—that grounds the legitimacy and coherence of a BR designation. Proposals for new BRs often emerge from contexts where communities have historically engaged in practices that promote both ecological integrity and cultural identity. These embedded practices, beliefs, and memories contribute to shaping the territorial vision behind the Reserve and continue to inform its daily life. In this regard, biocultural heritage plays a structuring role; not only in the qualification of the territory, but also in its capacity to function as a resilient, participatory, and adaptive system.

The concept of biocultural heritage also brings critical insights into the evolving role of communities in conservation. It challenges disciplinary and sectoral boundaries, articulating knowledge systems historically marginalized in conventional conservation models. It invites a rethinking of sustainability as a cultural and political process, rooted in lived experience and expressed in everyday practices. Recognizing this heritage is not a symbolic gesture—it is a necessary step for designing inclusive and territorially grounded sustainability frameworks. These dimensions are brought together in a conceptual synthesis (Figure 6), which illustrates the dynamic interaction between community participation, memory practices, and the role of biocultural heritage in the governance of BRs.

Building on the conceptual articulation of biocultural heritage, the following section explores how memory practices and local narratives contribute to shaping place-based knowledge and informal governance structures in BRs. The narratives collected reveal not only the dynamics of everyday life, but also how these memory practices act as mechanisms for preserving ecological knowledge, reinforcing social cohesion, and informing collective adaptation. This perspective grounds the analysis of biocultural heritage in the lived experiences of those who enact and sustain it daily, offering a crucial empirical lens for understanding how communities contribute to the resilience of BRs.

4. The Significance of Oral History and Storytelling in Reinforcing Environmental Stewardship

Oral history and storytelling are vital mechanisms for preserving and transmitting ecological and cultural knowledge across generations. These narratives offer unique insight into human–nature relationships and serve as repositories of memory, tradition, and environmental ethics. Whether in the form of personal testimonies, folklore, or historical accounts, oral narratives document changes in landscapes and ecosystems, reflecting the lived experience of communities and informing conservation practices [35,36].

Oral history itself constitutes a form of cultural heritage and is a key component of biocultural heritage. It encapsulates knowledge about land, biodiversity, and resource management, while also expressing spiritual beliefs, communal identity, and ethical principles [37,38]. This integration of knowledge fosters a dynamic conservation ethic, where cultural practices actively contribute to ecosystem resilience and sustainable livelihoods.

Paul Thompson (2001) emphasizes oral history as both a method for documenting lived experiences and a form of resistance to historical exclusion [35]. In environmental contexts, oral testimonies reveal long-term ecosystem transformations and land-use adaptations often absent from written records. These accounts provide detailed micro-histories that shape understandings of sustainability and resilience.

Different forms of memory offer distinct contributions to environmental knowledge. Personal memory recounts lived interactions with nature—childhood experiences, farming routines, or wildlife encounters—capturing subtle transformations in ecosystems over time [39]. Traditional and communal memory transmits shared understandings of seasonal cycles, landscape management, and sacred natural sites across generations [23]. Historical or life story memory accumulates broader narratives of change, loss, and adaptation, helping frame community responses to socio-ecological challenges. These layers of memory are not merely retrospective—they are tools for guiding sustainable practices and shaping conservation strategies. For example, oral histories from Amazonian communities preserve centuries-old agroforestry knowledge, while Arctic Indigenous storytelling encodes environmental signs crucial for navigating climate variability [14].

Language plays a central role in oral transmission. Many Indigenous languages contain unique taxonomies for local species and ecosystem dynamics. The loss of these languages directly affects biodiversity knowledge, weakening conservation systems [20,39,40]. As Maffi (2005) highlights, language loss correlates with a diminished knowledge of medicinal plants, crop varieties, and ecological practices [13]. Thus, language revitalization contributes to both cultural continuity and biodiversity protection.

Environmental oral history is also a platform for political agency. It allows marginalized communities to reclaim narratives and participate in shaping conservation discourse. Endres (2011) and case studies from Poland demonstrate how community archives and oral testimonies expose environmental injustice and strengthen advocacy [37,38].

Collective memory fosters territorial identity and cohesion, reinforcing ethical commitments to environmental stewardship. By engaging communities in storytelling, conservation programs can bridge generational gaps and promote shared responsibility [41]. Initiatives rooted in biocultural heritage, such as community storytelling, reinforce the sense of interconnectedness and strengthen adaptive capacity [42].

The concept of biocultural kinship—grounded in mutual respect and shared responsibility—has been shown to support collaborative environmental governance. It encourages inclusive decision-making, mutual trust, and the integration of diverse knowledge systems. In BRs, such as those in Africa, these models promote cooperation between Indigenous communities and scientific institutions, reinforcing traditional practices in ecosystem management [43].

Elders’ testimonies play a particularly important role in community identity and intergenerational learning. These narratives transmit resilience, struggle, and wisdom, reinforcing continuity across generations [26,28,29,35,36,39,44,45,46]. They also help connect past and present land uses, illustrating how traditional management practices evolve with environmental change. In the Treasuring Project, for example, oral storytelling became a catalyst for revitalizing environmental knowledge and fostering youth participation [20].

Memory and oral history are increasingly recognized as essential elements of environmental governance. Their integration into conservation planning strengthens local participation, supports traditional knowledge systems, and ensures cultural diversity is represented in sustainability frameworks [45,46].

To harness their full potential, oral history must be embedded in participatory, community-led governance models. Documenting and preserving oral traditions enhances socio-ecological resilience and ensures the continuity of locally grounded knowledge. When integrated into policy, these narratives enable more inclusive, adaptive, and culturally informed conservation strategies.

As ecological and climate pressures intensify, oral traditions can help design adaptive conservation approaches rooted in local realities. By investing in oral history and community storytelling, societies can protect both cultural heritage and biodiversity, ensuring that traditional knowledge remains a living force in conservation.

The Memories of Biosphere Reserves initiative exemplifies this approach. By systematically collecting, organizing, and sharing testimonies from diverse communities, the project creates a dynamic, accessible repository of lived experience that enriches environmental governance. Through participatory methods and digital curation, it supports local identity, reinforces ethical stewardship, and links memory work with sustainability action. The initiative illustrates how storytelling and oral history can bridge historical knowledge and contemporary conservation, offering a model aligned with the principles of BRs and broader sustainability goals. The following diagram (Figure 7) synthesizes the key relationships identified throughout the study, mapping how oral history and storytelling practices contribute to various dimensions of biocultural heritage, community engagement, and adaptive conservation strategies.

5. Memories of Biosphere Reserves Project

This article draws on the empirical foundation of the Memories of Biosphere Reserves initiative—an oral history-based project documenting the relationships between communities, landscapes, and conservation practices in BRs. The initiative combines structured interviews, digital humanities tools, and participatory methods, and builds on the long-standing methodological framework of the interdisciplinary platform Memória para Todos [1,2,3,4,5].

The empirical corpus supporting this article includes 370 oral history interviews collected across the following: all twelve Reserves in Portugal—the 212 interviews capture local perspectives on conservation, sustainability, and cultural identity, offering an extensive portrait of the socio-ecological dynamics at play within each Reserve [6]; the Príncipe Island Reserve in São Tomé and Príncipe—83 testimonies centered on language, artistic practices, ecological knowledge, and cultural transmission [7]; and the Cerrado Reserve in Brazil—the 85 interviews highlight concerns around soil fertility, water cycles, forest conservation, and climate variability, while showcasing the enduring relevance of oral tradition and traditional land management practices. These testimonies capture a wide range of community experiences, knowledge systems, and memory practices related to environmental stewardship, cultural continuity, and territorial change.

This study adopts a qualitative and interpretative approach to the analysis of interviews. Rather than using quantitative frequency counts, the analysis focuses on the recurrence and intensity of thematic elements, expressions, and conceptual clusters related to biocultural heritage, ecological knowledge, and community engagement. The aim is not to generalize statistically, but to identify meaningful patterns and narratives that illuminate how communities understand, express, and act upon their relationship with BRs.

5.1. The Voices of the Biosphere Reserves in Portugal

Portugal hosts 12 Biosphere Reserves, covering Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Macaronesian biogeographical regions. These include the Azores and Madeira, the Tagus wetlands, the northern mountain valleys, and the Alentejo steppes—some of the country’s most ecologically and culturally important areas [6,10,47,48].

These Reserves represent 12% of Portugal’s territory and 26% of its protected areas. In 2021, they included 283,960 residents (3% of the national population) and around 1800 villages (7% of all Portuguese villages). They host 79 of the 99 nationally important habitats and over 10,000 species, underscoring their ecological significance [49].

This article draws on 212 oral histories collected across all twelve Reserves, focusing on the links between biocultural heritage, conservation, and local governance. While the interviews address multiple themes, the analysis centers on how communities engage with nature and contribute to the resilience of their territories. Figure 8 maps the spatial distribution and density of interviews used in this study.

These testimonies reveal a complex relationship between nature and culture, demonstrating that BRs are not merely conservation areas but living landscapes shaped by human interaction, history, and economic realities. They offer a lens into the aspirations, concerns, and deeply held values of local communities, whose voices bring to life the meaning of sustainability in practice. They highlight the deep interconnection between cultural heritage and environmental stewardship, emphasizing traditional knowledge, local practices, and evolving sustainability strategies.

Several testimonies highlight isolation, demographic decline, limited infrastructure, social changes, environmental pressures, and the challenge of asserting a BR identity. About 35% of interviews mention these concerns. Still, what prevails is the value communities assign to BRs—as opportunities to strengthen economic activity, cohesion, and local identity, and, above all, as a path to the future.

A key theme is community engagement. Many state that BRs only succeed if local populations are genuinely involved—sharing knowledge, perspectives, and efforts. The word comunidade (community) appears in 78% of interviews, reflecting the importance of collective action. Over 60% refer to raízes (roots), cuidar (caring), or pertença (belonging) as central to conservation. Interviewees speak of their deep-rooted ties to the land and the need to protect both landscape and tradition. Others mention difficulties in engaging communities, citing lack of information, skepticism, or “project fatigue”—often linked to externally imposed initiatives. Overcoming this, they argue, requires the better communication of the tangible benefits of BR designation and stronger community involvement in decision-making.

Closely tied to engagement is the challenge of communicating BR value. Around 40% say the concept remains abstract—even among residents. Many stress the need to shift the view of BRs from restrictive spaces to opportunities for development. One-third of the interviews suggest strategies to divulgar (promote), valorizar (value), and communicate qualidade (quality), especially to younger generations. Interviewees propose local storytelling, social media, and school programs. Many emphasize that BRs must be framed as opportunities for sustainable income, cultural affirmation, and community cohesion. Qualidade (quality) often arises in relation to tourism and local products, highlighting the need to attract respectful visitors and consumers. National and international visibility is also considered crucial to promote BRs as hubs for sustainable tourism and high-quality goods.

Sustainability, particularly in relation to economic development and livelihoods, emerges as a central theme. About 55% of participants stress that conservation cannot exist apart from economic realities. Agriculture, fisheries, and crafts—rooted in local identity—are seen as pillars of regional economies needing stronger support.

A recurring idea is to valorizar (value) local products. Many advocate for the branding and certification of BR products to enhance market appeal and reach higher-value markets.

Sustainable tourism is widely discussed; 38% of interviewees see it as a way to link income generation with conservation goals. However, concerns about mass tourism highlight the need for careful planning. Nature-based tourism, if well managed, is viewed as a key strategy to reinforce both economic and ecological goals.

Inovação (innovation) also surfaces—around 20% mention the need to rethink economic models to align prosperity with environmental goals. Many suggest sustainable farming, eco-tourism, and heritage economies as pathways to local resilience.

Nature conservation and biodiversity are central for nearly 70% of respondents. Threats like land abandonment, habitat loss, and climate change are pressing. Some speak of ameaça (threats), others of preservar (preserving) fragile ecosystems before irreversible damage occurs.

There’s broad agreement that conservation must be integrated with local livelihoods. About 30% express frustration with the tension between conservation rules and traditional economic activities like fishing and farming. Others highlight successful practices—such as agro-silvo-pastoral systems—rooted in local knowledge.

The idea of limites (limits) emerges frequently, underscoring the need to balance environmental protection and human activity. Many stress that education and participation are crucial, as is inclusive governance involving those who rely on the land.

Governance is seen as essential; around 42% mention the need for stronger institutional support. While there is pride in BR designation, interviewees call for clearer planning, impact measurement, and long-term funding. Desafios (challenges), especially political and financial, are recurring concerns.

Despite these obstacles, the tone is hopeful. Many see BRs as catalysts for innovation, identity, and resilience. Emotional bonds with the land are strong—amor (love) and futuro (future) are common. Sustainability is seen not just as protecting nature, but as maintaining traditions, knowledge, and ways of life shaped by generations.

The oral histories collected are not just archives—they are living records of how people interpret, adapt to, and shape their territories. They show that BRs are more than protected areas; they are evolving spaces where human agency and ecological stewardship meet. These narratives call for continued investment in participatory governance, economic diversification, and conservation education. They reinforce the need for a holistic approach to sustainability—one that balances environmental goals with social and economic realities.

Ultimately, these testimonies are powerful reminders that BRs are shaped by those who inhabit them. Their success relies not only on conservation plans but on nurturing enduring relationships between communities and landscapes. Words like concern, resilience, and hope echo across the interviews, underscoring that the future of BRs lies in shared visions of sustainability, identity, and belonging.

Beyond the themes addressed here, these oral testimonies offer a wealth of insights into community engagement, local innovation, and strategies for action—many with potential policy relevance. They highlight nature-based solutions and include concrete proposals for improving participation and governance.

Importantly, they help identify practices in decline, persistent knowledge, and changing resource use. They reflect both continuity and loss within traditional systems and provide critical perspectives on community involvement in conservation—though these broader issues exceed this article’s scope.

This next section focuses on how communities perceive the link between cultural heritage and conservation, offering examples—positive and problematic—of how traditions, land use, and collective memory influence biodiversity.

The relationship between cultural heritage and conservation is complex and dynamic. Interviewees highlight both positive and negative impacts of traditional practices, land-use strategies, and community behaviors on biodiversity. Rather than fixed, these interactions evolve—showing how local knowledge, historical land management, and memory can support or challenge sustainability.

Several examples illustrate how tradition enhances conservation. In Castro Verde, dryland farming and direct seeding methods help sustain habitats for steppe birds. Older residents recall a deep connection between farming and seasonal rhythms, seeing these landscapes as part of their identity. In Meseta Ibérica, generational agricultural knowledge sustains both economy and ecology. In Gerês-Xurés, pastoralism is seen as key to wildfire prevention, with grazing helping reduce fuel loads—underscoring the need to revitalize traditional herding as both an economic and an ecological strategy.

This intersection is also visible in resource management. In the Berlengas, fishers recognize the long-term benefits of sustainable marine practices. In Castro Verde, farmers’ participation in agri-environmental programs shows that collaborative governance can align conservation with livelihoods. In Santana (Madeira), viewing the serra as a managed landscape highlights how human interaction is central to sustainable development. Similarly, in Tejo Internacional, cultural heritage is being revalued as a basis for new conservation strategies.

Environmental education further strengthens the link between heritage and sustainability. In Castro Verde, the Vale Gonçalinho Interpretation Centre fosters awareness of the ecological and cultural value of traditional farming landscapes. Interviewees stress the importance of passing this knowledge to younger generations to ensure its continuity.

Despite these positive contributions, the interviews also highlight cultural challenges that hinder conservation. A key concern is the decline of traditional land-use practices. In Gerês-Xurés, reduced pastoralism has led to biomass accumulation, increasing wildfire risk. Without active land management, ecosystems grow more vulnerable—underscoring the need to integrate traditional knowledge into current policies.

Tourism brings economic potential but poses risks when unmanaged. In Gerês-Xurés and Flores, surges in visitor numbers raise concerns about ecological degradation and the erosion of local culture. Interviewees worry that mass tourism threatens both traditions and fragile landscapes. In Gerês-Xurés, forestry policy sparks tension between economic interests and conservation, with concerns over commercial logging in previously protected areas.

Agricultural intensification also emerges as a threat. In Tejo Internacional, monocultures drive habitat loss and soil degradation. Even in Castro Verde, where sustainable practices prevail, industrial farming looms. Invasive species complicate efforts further, notably in Paul do Boquilobo, where non-native plants and fish threaten native ecosystems. Many stress the need for education to mitigate these risks.

Beyond environmental issues, interviewees reflect on broader cultural shifts. In Castro Verde, some lament the decline of communal values—like the shared maintenance of public spaces—once central to local life. These changes reflect deeper transformations in community engagement.

Structural challenges also persist. Many call for improved dialogue among stakeholders—conservationists, policymakers, and producers—and the creation of neutral forums to build shared solutions that balance protection and livelihoods.

The perception of BRs remains problematic. Some view them as restrictive, rather than as opportunities. Interviewees advocate for clearer communication to demystify BRs and foster inclusive participation. Local governments are seen as key to success—especially in promoting heritage, education, and sustainable development.

Ultimately, these testimonies confirm that the cultural and ecological dimensions of BRs are inseparable. While traditions and local practices can support sustainability, they also require adaptive governance. Recognizing this interplay is essential for integrating biocultural heritage into broader conservation frameworks.

Although this article focuses on the essential role of biocultural heritage in conservation, further research could explore specific case studies in greater depth. For instance, the role of traditional agriculture in steppe bird conservation in Castro Verde or the challenges of balancing tourism, pastoralism, and forest conservation in Gerês-Xurés could provide deeper insights into the dynamic relationships between culture, land, and sustainability.

Beyond individual experiences, these oral testimonies build a collective memory of Portugal’s BRs, offering a dynamic and evolving record of environmental, social, and cultural transformations.

The interviews reveal how communities adapt to ecological and economic challenges, navigate conservation policy complexities, and reimagine their territories. By documenting these voices, the project preserves biocultural heritage and strengthens participatory governance, keeping local perspectives central to conservation and sustainability.

These testimonies underscore the agency of local communities. Residents, conservationists, local authorities, and researchers offer firsthand insights into the challenges and opportunities shaping their territories. They show how local knowledge, community engagement, and environmental awareness influence land management, biodiversity, and sustainability.

The voices of the communities bring forward a diverse range of perspectives, from those who struggle with conservation constraints to those who champion local initiatives that align cultural traditions with ecological preservation. These narratives not only document past and present interactions with the landscape, but also propose strategies for the future, offering practical recommendations and innovative solutions for fostering resilience.

Community participation emerges as a foundational condition for BR effectiveness. A recurrent theme is the balance between conservation goals and the social and economic realities of local residents.

• José Carlos Pires (Paul do Boquilobo) [50] emphasizes collaboration among landowners, conservationists, and the government, highlighting the importance of fair compensation and clear communication between scientists and local communities.
• Sandra Sarmento (Gerês-Xurés) [49] stresses the role of municipal and regional partnerships in developing sustainable policies that support rural livelihoods while preserving biodiversity.
• Antonino Milagres (Corvo) [51] highlights the cultural and historical dimensions of conservation, underlining the need to understand long-term human–environment interactions.
• Sérgio Leandro (Berlengas) [52] recalls strong community involvement in the BR application process, noting its importance for effective planning.
• Rita Alcazar (Castro Verde) [53] argues for shared decision-making, recognizing farmers as key partners in protecting ecosystems.
• Fernando Pereira (Corvo) [54] stresses the importance of raising awareness, particularly among landowners and farmers, to ensure long-term conservation success.

Other testimonies—like those of Maria Carminda and Alzira Nunes (Flores) [55], Armando Loureiro (Gerês-Xurés) [56], and José Eduardo (Azores) [57]—reveal deep emotional connections to the land and emphasize the importance of maintaining traditional practices that support ecological balance.

Education is also central. Several interviewees advocate for better environmental education at school and community levels.

• André Espínola (Graciosa) [58] calls for more investment in education, emphasizing its foundational role in conservation.
• Maria José Silva (Santana) [59] notes that communities need to see tangible long-term benefits.
• Marlene Freitas Nóia (Flores) [60] highlights the impact of local programs targeting youth awareness.
• Vanda Brás (Meseta Ibérica) [61] argues for involving students directly in BR projects, ensuring intergenerational continuity.

Community-based initiatives like the Centro de Interpretação e Educação Ambiental do Vale Gonçalinho (Castro Verde) serve as strong outreach models connecting agriculture, conservation, and heritage.

Agriculture remains a central concern. Many view it as key to both ecological preservation and local economies.

• Francisco Pavão (Meseta Ibérica) [62] supports the certification and branding of BR agricultural products, promoting local sustainability.
• Marco Ferraz (Porto Santo) [63] advocates for aligning sustainable agriculture with ecotourism.
• Rui Tadeu (Castro Verde) [64] highlights the importance of sustainable soil management in preserving traditional steppe landscapes.
• António Saldanha (Tejo Internacional) [65] stresses that farmers must be engaged as direct conservation actors, supported through incentives.

Still, some express concern over agricultural intensification. In Tejo Internacional, large-scale farming is seen as a threat to ecosystems, with frustrations about the tension between industrial practices and traditional methods.

Tourism is viewed as both an asset and a challenge in BRs. While nature-based tourism can support local economies, mass tourism threatens fragile ecosystems and cultural dynamics.

• André Espínola (Graciosa) [58] stresses that nature-based tourism must be carefully managed to preserve the region’s landscapes.
• Marlene Freitas Nóia (Flores) [60] calls for a balance between tourism growth and conservation.
• Nuno Batista (Madeira) [66] emphasizes that cultural and environmental sustainability must go hand in hand when promoting tourism.
• Sérgio Leandro (Berlengas) [52] highlights the importance of trained guides and consistent messaging to ensure respect for BR conservation values.

Several interviewees also suggest that tourism should directly benefit local communities, supporting small businesses, local producers, and traditional artisans.

Despite general optimism about the potential of BRs, key concerns were raised, as follows:

• Tourism pressure in Gerês-Xurés and Flores threatens biodiversity;
• Forest exploitation in Gerês-Xurés raises concerns about habitat degradation;
• Exotic species in Paul do Boquilobo pose rising ecological risks;
• The decline of traditional farming practices in Castro Verde could impact steppe bird populations;
• Limited financial and institutional support remains a widespread challenge.

Nonetheless, many interviewees identified effective strategies worth replicating, as follows:

• Collaborative governance models that engage multiple stakeholders in Tejo Internacional and Meseta Ibérica;
• Sustainable farming initiatives in Castro Verde, promoting biodiversity through traditional agricultural systems;
• Community-led conservation projects in Corvo and Berlengas, where local populations actively participate in ecological restoration efforts.

The oral histories collected from Portugal’s BRs provide a nuanced understanding of how conservation policies intersect with local realities. They illustrate that successful conservation requires more than environmental regulations—it demands engagement, education, and economic strategies that align with community needs.

Above all, these interviews reveal a profound connection between people and landscapes. The repeated use of words like raízes (roots), cuidar (care), and preservar (preserve) underscores the deep sense of responsibility that many community members feel toward their land. By embracing inclusive governance, innovative education, and sustainable economic models, BRs can become global models of ecological and cultural resilience. These testimonies stand as a living record of the challenges and triumphs of conservation, proving that the success of these landscapes is ultimately shaped by the people who call them casa (home).

5.2. Ser Principense/Being Principense—Memories from the Príncipe Biosphere Reserve

The Ser Principense: Art, Culture, and Heritage in the Past, Present, and Future (Being Principense: Art, Culture, and Heritage in the Past, Present, and Future) project was conceived as a community-driven initiative to document, preserve, and celebrate the cultural and environmental heritage of Príncipe Island, designated as a UNESCO BR in 2012. Developed in collaboration with local partners—including the Príncipe BR administration, the Regional Directorate of Tourism, Commerce, Industry, and Culture, the Efrican Foundation, and the Memory for All program—this project sought to amplify community voices, reinforce cultural identity, and strengthen intergenerational dialogue in ways that actively engage local populations [7].

Ser Principense was deeply participatory, combining oral history collection, a documentary film, and a community-curated exhibition that was designed, built, and showcased with the direct involvement of the island’s residents. The project documented the deep interconnections between cultural traditions, biodiversity conservation, and social identity, reflecting how land, language, and livelihoods are intricately woven into daily life.

A total of 83 interviews were conducted, reflecting a rich diversity of ages, professions, and experiences. Oral interviews were at the heart of this initiative, gathering firsthand narratives from elders, artisans, musicians, farmers, fishermen, and knowledge keepers. These testimonies reveal how people interact with and perceive their environment, as well as the challenges they face in preserving their cultural and ecological heritage in the context of modernization and climate change. Figure 9 illustrates the spatial distribution of the 83 interviews conducted in the Príncipe Island BR, identifying the locations where oral testimonies were recorded and highlighting their connection to specific cultural and ecological settings.

The interviews, available at Memory for All/Memória para Todos and the Biosphere Reserves Portal [1,6,7], highlight the oral transmission of knowledge, traditional ecological practices, language preservation, and the role of nature in cultural expressions. These stories, often accompanied by objects, musical performances, dance, and visual storytelling, demonstrate the holistic nature of biocultural heritage, where conservation is inseparable from local ways of life.

The interviews collected in Príncipe reveal a complex and dynamic biocultural identity, shaped by language, artistic expression, and sustainable resource use. Approximately 82% of the interviews included references to TEK and the oral transmission of practices. These narratives provide a unique insight into how local communities perceive, interact with, and conserve their natural and cultural heritage.

Language emerges as a central theme in the oral testimonies. Over 60% of participants referenced the use of Lunguyé, Forro, or other local languages to describe ecological knowledge. Many interviewees emphasize how medicinal plants, fishing techniques, and agricultural practices are deeply embedded in these languages, often lacking direct equivalents in Portuguese. This highlights how language loss threatens the continuity of ecological knowledge and underscores the importance of linguistic revitalization efforts.

For instance, elders describe how certain plants used in traditional medicine are only named and classified in the local dialects, reinforcing the interdependence between biodiversity and cultural identity. A fisherman, Pedro Espírito Santos “Celestino Vieira”, illustrates how ecological knowledge—including, most likely, tidal patterns and fishing seasons—was traditionally transmitted orally in the local language, highlighting the depth of this knowledge as rooted in linguistic and cultural practices [67].

Several testimonies (around 55%) emphasize the urgent need to document and revitalize the local language, particularly among younger generations, who are increasingly shifting to Portuguese. The interviews reinforce the role of oral history projects in supporting language conservation, demonstrating how community-led storytelling strengthens linguistic resilience.

Music and dance emerge as powerful vehicles of biocultural memory and identity in Príncipe. About 63% of the testimonies made reference to musical or dance traditions. The interviews reveal how traditional instruments, rhythms, and performances reflect environmental relationships, with instruments like the viola, tambor, and dêxa crafted from local wood species, demonstrating the fusion of natural and cultural heritage.

One musician and craftsman, José Napoleão [68], describes how the choice of wood for making violins and violas depends on acoustic properties, emphasizing the importance of local species for sustaining musical traditions: “We look for wood that is light, that sounds good. Just like in Portugal, we check if we have the right kind of wood here.”

Dêxa, Príncipe’s most iconic dance, plays a central role in transmitting memory and reinforcing social bonds. Many of the interviewees (nearly 70%) recall learning the dance from elders, demonstrating how music, movement, and storytelling intertwine: “We all learned to dance Dêxa at the grandmother’s house. She sang, and if you couldn’t follow, you had to keep trying. That’s how tradition stayed alive”. (Filomena dos Prazeres, community elder) [69].

The oral histories capture how these artistic traditions are not just cultural expressions but also tools for environmental education and social cohesion, linking place, memory, and sustainability.

A major milestone of the Ser Principense project was the community-curated exhibition (by Adolfo Cueto-Rodriguez, Inês José et al.), an initiative that went beyond conventional museum practices by directly involving local residents in selecting, presenting, and narrating their own heritage.

This exhibition was not just a display of artifacts but an interactive, multi-sensory experience, featuring the following:

• Objects, musical instruments, and tools brought by interviewees to their oral history sessions, reinforcing their personal connection to the exhibition (mentioned in 57% of interviews);
• Traditional culinary products made with local ingredients, showcasing the deep relationship between food, biodiversity, and cultural identity;
• Live music and storytelling performances, allowing elders to pass knowledge to younger generations in real time (mentioned in 46% of testimonies).

The exhibition was built using local materials and was fully embraced by the community, strengthening intergenerational exchange. It was launched during the Auto de Floripes festival, the most significant cultural event on the island, ensuring widespread participation. The organic appropriation of the exhibition by the community reinforced its impact, turning it into a living, evolving space of shared knowledge and identity. At first, people just watched. Then, the elders started explaining things to the children, showing them how the objects were used. By the second day, everyone was telling their own stories. The exhibition grew beyond what we had planned.

The Ser Principense project exemplifies how oral history can serve as a powerful tool for biocultural conservation, strengthening community engagement, resilience, and sustainable governance. By documenting the memories, practices, and aspirations of Príncipe’s residents, the project underscores the fundamental role of local knowledge in sustainability. The combination of interviews, a documentary, and a participatory exhibition ensured that heritage was not only recorded but actively reintegrated into the community, reinforcing language preservation, intergenerational transmission, and cultural identity.

Ultimately, the oral testimonies from Príncipe’s BR challenge traditional conservation models, demonstrating that BRs are not just sites for biodiversity protection but also cultural landscapes. By placing human experience and memory at the heart of conservation, the Ser Principense project offers a model for community-led sustainability and biocultural resilience.

5.3. Insights from Cerrado

The Cerrado BR, one of the largest and most ecologically significant BRs in the world, is located in central Brazil and covers vast expanses of the Cerrado biome. This Reserve encompasses a complex mosaic of savannas, grasslands, and gallery forests, supporting extraordinary biodiversity and a rich cultural heritage.

The Cerrado, often referred to as the “cradle of waters” due to its role as a major water source for South America, is home to thousands of endemic species and serves as a critical ecological corridor linking the Amazon, Atlantic Forest, and Pantanal biomes. Despite its ecological importance, the Cerrado faces significant environmental pressures, including deforestation, agricultural expansion, and climate change.

The designation of the Cerrado as a BR seeks to reconcile conservation efforts with sustainable development, integrating scientific research, TEK, and participatory governance models. This BR plays a crucial role in fostering resilience among local communities, promoting sustainable land management practices, and safeguarding the socio-ecological integrity of the region.

In July 2024, a comprehensive oral history collection effort was conducted in the Cerrado BR in collaboration with the Instituto de Espinhaço and local support networks. A total of 87 interviews were conducted across 17 diverse locations within the reserve, reflecting the region’s ecological and cultural diversity. Interview sites included Jardim Olhos d’Água (Brasília), Vila de São Jorge, Alto Paraíso, Moinho, PREVFOGO (Cavalcante, Goiás), and the Kalunga Engenho II community, among others. Figure 10 presents the spatial context and interview distribution in the Cerrado BR. The map on the left outlines the full extent of the Reserve, while the map on the right shows the specific locations where interviews were conducted.

The interviewees represented a broad cross-section of the local population—farmers, environmentalists, Indigenous and traditional community members, conservationists, artisans, tourism operators, and business owners—illustrating the many ways people engage with and support the Cerrado BR’s sustainability. Many are directly involved in conservation, through traditional practices, environmental advocacy, or participation in local initiatives. Others reflect on socio-economic aspects, emphasizing links between culture, livelihoods, and ecological stewardship.

Testimonies from indigenous and traditional rural communities highlight deep-rooted knowledge systems that have sustained the Cerrado for generations. Farmers and agroecological practitioners discuss soil care, water management, and native species’ role in resilience. Artisans and vendors speak to the economic challenges and opportunities of BR designation, particularly for sustainable tourism and cultural heritage.

The words and themes chosen by interviewees—conservation, identity, sustainability, development—carry emotional and symbolic weight. Their language reflects urgent concerns, but also hope, resistance, and collective purpose in facing environmental and socio-economic pressures.

One of the first and most frequently recurring terms evoked in the interviews is the representation of the Cerrado as Mãe (mother) and Casa (home), reflecting a relationship deeply rooted in identity. For many, the Cerrado is more than just a landscape—it is a source of life and identity. Dominga Natália [70] describes the Cerrado as both Mãe and casa, emphasizing its nurturing role and the deep-rooted connection between the land and the community. This sentiment is echoed by Leidiane Severino [71], who stresses the total dependence of local populations on the biome. Wesley de Andrade [72] similarly reinforces this perspective, using casa to describe the Cerrado as a place of safety, belonging, and cultural grounding. The repetition of these words throughout the interviews highlights the fundamental role of the Cerrado in shaping identity and ensuring community resilience.

The loss and degradation of the Cerrado, evoked through the words devastação (devastation) and ameaça (threat), emerges as one of the most emotionally charged concerns among interviewees. The rapid environmental changes occurring in the region evoke strong emotions among the interviewees. Ronald Silva [73] uses the term devastação to describe the impact of large-scale soy plantations, underlining the destruction of landscapes and biodiversity. Wesley de Andrade [72] points to ameaça, explaining that the greatest threat to the Cerrado is human activity itself, particularly unsustainable development models that disregard ecological limits. Francisco Marshall [74] introduces the concept of garimpo (mining), arguing that industrial activities have already transformed the Atlantic Forest and are now encroaching upon the Cerrado. These words reflect not only environmental degradation, but also the growing concern that economic interests are overriding conservation efforts.

The importance of traditional knowledge is repeatedly underscored, especially through the roles of raizeiros, pajés, and parteiras. The need to preserve and recognize ancestral knowledge is a recurring theme. Ana Gabriella [75] highlights the importance of raizeiros, pajés, and parteiras, urging for their wisdom to be valued before it is lost. Wilson Morais [76], a certified raizeiro, stresses the importance of understanding medicinal plants for both their healing properties and potential risks. Zilma Maia [77] uses the term curandeiras to describe traditional healers, emphasizing their role in both childbirth and holistic healing practices. The persistence of these words in the interviews reflects an urgent call to safeguard traditional knowledge and the cultural continuity it represents.

Balancing conservation and development emerge through the tension captured by the terms conflito (conflict) and desafio (challenge). The challenge of balancing conservation and economic interests is widely discussed. Alexandre Brasil [78] points to conflito, referring to the struggles over land use and the occupation of public lands. Leonardo Ribeiro [79] acknowledges criticisms of agribusiness but suggests that parts of the sector are beginning to engage with sustainable solutions. Luiz Oliveira [80] frames this issue as a desafio, arguing that a major challenge is ensuring that local communities feel empowered by the BR’s agenda rather than excluded from decision-making.

A call for action and transformation is articulated through the concepts of valorizar (to value) and empoderamento (empowerment). Many interviewees emphasize the need to valorizar (value) the Cerrado, its communities, and traditional knowledge. Kévya Costa [81] and Sirilo Rosa Jr. [82] highlight the power of sustainable tourism as a tool for economic transformation, changing attitudes toward conservation. Tatiana Agostinho [83] speaks of empoderamento, particularly for women, arguing that creating spaces for women’s leadership is essential for fostering resilience and self-sufficiency in communities.

These narratives reveal the complexity of the Cerrado BR, where environmental conservation, cultural heritage, and sustainable development are interwoven in everyday life. Interviewees’ words reflect the tension between preservation and economic interests, while also highlighting the resilience and hope that persist within local communities.

Their linguistic choices reinforce these themes, expressing concerns and aspirations tied to the land.

One of the most pressing concerns expressed by interviewees is the expansion of agriculture and deforestation. Ronald Silva [73] describes this process as devastação, emphasizing the severe impact of soy plantations on native landscapes. Dolores Wandscheer [84] warns that deforestation is directly linked to water scarcity, affecting not only local ecosystems but the broader hydrological balance of Brazil.

Another critical issue is irregular land occupation and the lack of land titling. Alexandre Brasil [78] highlights the prevalence of untitled lands and public invasions, creating an unstable environment for conservation. Without clear land rights, conflicts arise between stakeholders, making long-term sustainability efforts harder to implement.

A broader tension between economic interests and conservation also emerges in the narratives. Marcus Saboya [85] expresses concern that economic power remains fundamentally misaligned with conservation priorities, with industries prioritizing short-term exploitation over long-term sustainability. Leonardo Ribeiro [79], however, notes that some agribusiness sectors are starting to acknowledge the need for sustainable practices, though significant challenges remain in balancing conservation with economic growth.

Interviewees also point to the lack of recognition and valorization of the Cerrado as an obstacle to its protection. Gabrielle Rosa [86] highlights how, historically, the Cerrado has been perceived as an empty or underutilized space, reinforcing policies that prioritize its transformation for agricultural use rather than its conservation.

Other recurring concerns include the erosion of traditional knowledge and culture. Ana Gabriella [75] speaks about the increasing difficulty in maintaining the role of raizeiros, pajés, and parteiras, while Francisco Marshall [74] warns that the assédio do mundo tecnológico (harassment from the technological world) is shifting younger generations away from traditional ways of life.

Lastly, interviewees warn about environmental hazards such as wildfires, recalling the devastating fires of 2017 in the Chapada dos Veadeiros, reinforcing the importance of continued investment in fire prevention strategies. Wesley de Andrade [72] stresses that, although firefighting efforts have improved, more needs to be done to mitigate the risk of large-scale fires in a changing climate.

Despite these threats, the interviews also reveal promising opportunities.

Sustainable, community-based tourism is a key avenue for conservation-driven development. João Ribas Ramos [87] sees tourism as a tool for raising awareness and generating income while supporting environmental protection. Kévya Costa [81] and Sirilo Rosa Jr. [82] describe how community engagement in ecotourism has transformed perceptions of conservation, showing its economic benefits to local populations.

The valorization of Cerrado products and sociobiodiversity is another major opportunity. Dominga Natália [70] highlights the potential of traditional food products such as Cerrado sweets, while Maria Cober Melo [88] discusses women-led cooperatives that are marketing local crafts and foods, strengthening both conservation and local economies. Wesley de Andrade [72] emphasizes the importance of certifications and quality seals to ensure fair market access for Cerrado-based products.

Interviewees also point to agroecology and family farming as strategies for sustainable development. Jesiel Campos [89] left teaching to support sustainable agriculture, developing tools for small-scale farmers. Paulo Fiuza [90] advocates for agroecology as a means of integrating food production, conservation, and economic inclusion.

Renewable energy generation is identified as a growing opportunity. Paulo Fiuza [90] argues that the Cerrado has untapped potential for the production of solar, wind, and small-scale hydroelectric power, which could be integrated into broader sustainability strategies.

The role of education and awareness is another key opportunity. Jesiel Campos [89] incorporates Cerrado ecology into his lessons, aiming to cultivate environmental consciousness from an early age. Kévya Costa [81] stresses the need for community-oriented education programs to build local engagement with conservation.

Finally, strengthening communities and building partnerships are key strategies. Andréa Vulcanis [91] calls for inclusive governance that recognizes traditional community voices. Zilma Maia [77] sees political representation as a way to advocate for quilombola and Indigenous rights in conservation. Wesley de Andrade [72] highlights the role of public–private partnerships in supporting long-term sustainability.

These threats and opportunities demonstrate the complexity of conservation in the Cerrado. While significant challenges persist, the interviews also reveal a strong collective commitment to preserving the region’s cultural and ecological wealth, ensuring a future where both people and nature can thrive.

The communities of the Cerrado play a fundamental role in conserving nature and sustaining the biome. Their knowledge, traditions, and practices reflect a deep link between culture and environmental stewardship. They help maintain biodiversity and sustainable resource use, while also facing significant threats to their way of life.

The communities living within the Cerrado have a deep connection with the land. For them, the Cerrado is not merely a space, but a source of life, identity, and resilience. Dominga Natália [70] describes it as both mãe (mother) and casa (home), reflecting how the biome provides water, food, and medicinal plants. Adriano da Silva [92] notes how the ancestral knowledge of plant medicine shapes daily life, while Maiara Soares [93] emphasizes that traditional communities hold the most valuable ecological knowledge, acquired over centuries.

Many communities have developed sustainable resource management practices based on traditional knowledge, ensuring the availability of natural resources for future generations. They avoid deforestation and harmful agricultural techniques, focusing instead on agroecology and small-scale, diversified production. Lucas Gomes [94] takes pride in learning from elders and passing down their knowledge, ensuring that sustainable agricultural techniques are preserved.

Tourism has emerged as a major driver of both economic development and environmental conservation in several Cerrado communities. Dalila Martins [95] explains how community-based tourism has strengthened cultural values and enhanced environmental protection in the Calunga community. João Ribas Ramos [87] highlights the importance of hiring local guides to enhance visitor understanding of the Cerrado’s history and biodiversity, reinforcing the community’s territorial identity and cultural pride. Zilma Maia [77] points out that sustainable tourism is now a primary source of income for many families, demonstrating how conservation and economic resilience can go hand in hand.

The establishment of community-led fire brigades has been instrumental in controlling wildfires and protecting the Cerrado’s ecosystem. Kévya Costa [81] and Sirilo Rosa Jr. [82], both part of the PREVFOGO fire brigade, illustrate how these initiatives transform lives, offering employment opportunities and reducing social issues such as alcoholism. These brigades apply cultural techniques for fire control, minimizing damage and reinforcing local knowledge in environmental management.

Several communities engage in environmental monitoring, using both traditional observation methods and modern technology to track biodiversity and assess ecological changes. Many groups are involved in reforestation projects, mapping native plants for habitat restoration. Rozimere Oliveira [96] describes a project within the Secretariat of the Environment that aims to revive knowledge about native species and expand reforestation efforts, ensuring the Cerrado’s resilience against climate change.

Environmental education plays a pivotal role in fostering a sense of responsibility for conservation among younger generations. Jesiel Campos [89] underscores the importance of integrating environmental themes into school curricula, ensuring that students understand the Cerrado’s ecological significance and the impact of human activities. Maiara Soares [93] leverages social media as a tool for raising awareness, making conservation efforts more visible to younger generations and the broader public.

Despite their essential contributions to conservation, Cerrado communities face significant challenges, as follows:

• Pressure from agribusiness and land conflicts. Leonardo Ribeiro [79] emphasizes the increasing tension between local conservation efforts and large-scale agribusiness expansion;
• Loss of traditional knowledge. Marcus Saboya [85] warns about the growing influence of technology, which is eroding younger generations’ connection to traditional practices;
• Lack of support and policy recognition. Francisco Marshall [74] criticizes the lack of government engagement, arguing that community voices must be included in decision-making processes for the BR;
• Environmental degradation and misinformation. Jeolimo da Silva [97] highlights the lack of awareness about the importance of conservation, advocating for better education and outreach programs.

The communities of the Cerrado are custodians of knowledge and key actors in environmental conservation. Through sustainable resource management, community-led tourism, fire prevention efforts, education, and cultural preservation, they actively shape the resilience of the Cerrado BR. However, their success depends on increased support, stronger policy inclusion, and the greater recognition of their role as partners in conservation. Their voices and actions illustrate that a harmonious balance between people and nature is not only possible, but essential for the future of the Cerrado.

6. Discussion and Future Perspectives—A Biocultural Framework for Sustainability

6.1. Key Empirical Findings: Community Testimonies from Biosphere Reserves

This study is grounded in the analysis of 370 oral history interviews conducted across twelve BRs in Portugal, as well as in Príncipe (São Tomé and Príncipe) and the Cerrado (Brazil). The interviews reveal how cultural identity, TEK, and memory actively shape conservation strategies and community resilience in these territories. Five key empirical findings emerged from the analysis, as follows:

• Community engagement as a foundation for resilience. A strong emphasis on the word community (comunidade) was present in over 80% of the interviews, particularly across the Portuguese BRs. Interviewees consistently identified local participation as essential to effective BR governance. Expressions such as raízes (roots), cuidar (to care), and envolver (to engage) frequently appeared in testimonies, underscoring a widespread belief in the importance of rootedness and belonging to sustainable territorial management;
• Perception of BRs as both opportunity and constraint. While many interviewees recognized BR designation as a source of identity and development potential, concerns were expressed—especially in newer BRs—regarding a lack of public awareness and misconceptions about BRs as restrictive or bureaucratic entities. This dual perception points to the need for more accessible, community-driven communication strategies that convey the purpose and benefits of BRs;
• Biocultural heritage as a living and dynamic conservation asset. Across all three regions, testimonies highlighted the value of traditional land-use practices, the oral transmission of ecological knowledge, and cultural rituals in promoting biodiversity and managing ecosystems. Examples include dryland farming and rotational grazing in Castro Verde, fire prevention through pastoralism in Gerês-Xurés, and the healing practices of raizeiros and pajés in the Cerrado. In Príncipe, biocultural heritage was closely linked to linguistic diversity and the performative transmission of knowledge through dance and storytelling;
• Tensions between conservation and economic pressures. In territories such as the Cerrado and Gerês-Xurés, testimonies revealed the growing strain between conservation goals and economic drivers such as agribusiness, monoculture expansion, unsustainable tourism, and forest exploitation. Terms like ameaça (threat), devastação (devastation), and conflito (conflict) were frequently invoked, highlighting perceptions of imbalance and the urgent need for integrative land-use policies;
• The transformative role of memory and storytelling. Interviewees across all contexts emphasized the importance of oral history in reinforcing environmental awareness, ethical stewardship, and intergenerational learning. In Príncipe, storytelling emerged as a central tool for cultural resilience and identity affirmation. In Portugal and Brazil, testimonies underscored how personal and collective memory support conservation ethics, transmitting knowledge about seasonal cycles, landscape change, and ecological responsibility.

While these testimonies offer a rich and multifaceted view of community life, this article primarily examines the role of biocultural heritage in fostering socio-ecological resilience and informing conservation governance. It is important to acknowledge that the interviews contain many other significant themes and insights beyond those explored in this paper. Notably, they include numerous accounts of how communities actively engage in conservation and biodiversity protection, providing concrete examples of their role in shaping sustainable territories. In particular, references to nature-based solutions (NbS) emerge throughout the narratives, reflecting a growing recognition of their potential for conservation, climate adaptation, and sustainable development. These solutions could play a crucial role in informing future policies and strategies, yet their effective implementation requires technical validation, multidisciplinary assessment, and structured policy integration. Addressing these complexities necessitates a broad, interdisciplinary approach that incorporates ecological, social, economic, and governance perspectives to evaluate their feasibility, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability. Given these challenges, this study does not explore NbS in depth, as their adoption must be assessed within a framework that ensures technical feasibility, stakeholder consensus, and alignment with specific policy agendas. Future research should investigate how biocultural perspectives and oral histories can intersect with these approaches, ensuring that NbS are both culturally and ecologically appropriate for BRs.

These oral histories also constitute a profound exercise in shared learning. They not only transmit knowledge, but also foster empathy, strengthen intergenerational understanding, and illuminate how communities have learned to overcome adversity. Through memory, many communities described processes of adaptation and resistance to risk—social, environmental, or economic—demonstrating how knowledge, care, and identity become resources for resilience. In this sense, the interviews reveal how BR communities have become actors in conservation, not just beneficiaries or observers.

These findings serve as a foundation for the broader analytical reflections developed below.

6.2. Discussion: Biocultural Heritage and Participatory Governance

The interviews analyzed in this study confirm that BRs function as dynamic socio-ecological systems, where culture, memory, and identity play an essential role in shaping conservation. These findings reinforce the idea that sustainability must be understood not only in ecological or economic terms, but as a deeply cultural and historical process.

Oral history, as both method and source, has proven indispensable in uncovering the lived dimensions of sustainability. The testimonies demonstrate that BRs are not only conservation units, but places where heritage and knowledge systems co-evolve with biodiversity. They offer compelling evidence of how collective memory anchors conservation in local values and ethical frameworks.

Importantly, the results show that the success of BRs depends on their ability to integrate scientific knowledge with TEK and lived experience. The repeated emphasis on education, identity, and rootedness across interviews highlights the need for governance models that are participatory, adaptive, and respectful of local realities.

The potential of BRs to contribute to climate adaptation and sustainable development is also evident in the way many testimonies referenced nature-based solutions (NbS). These were mentioned particularly in the Portuguese and Brazilian interviews as community-led approaches to forest management, agriculture, and water conservation. Although not explored in depth in this article, these references underscore the value of further interdisciplinary research into how NbS can be locally designed and culturally embedded.

Beyond the context of BRs, oral history emerges as a crucial resource for understanding broader environmental and socio-cultural dynamics, including climate change adaptation, historical land-use transformations, and shifts in conservation paradigms. It offers a powerful lens for imagining futures grounded in preservation, harmony, and coexistence.

These findings also resonate with the emerging concept of biocultural kinship, which emphasizes mutual respect, shared responsibility, and interdependence between humans and the natural world. This notion reinforces the potential of BRs to cultivate inclusive, trust-based, and ethically grounded models of environmental governance.

6.3. Future Perspectives and Policy Implications

The analysis calls for a deeper integration of biocultural heritage into environmental governance. Based on the empirical findings and literature review, the following reflections and recommendations are proposed:

• Recognize TEK as central to conservation planning, especially in domains such as agro-silvo-pastoral systems, fire prevention, and biodiversity restoration;
• Promote community-led governance to ensure that BRs remain inclusive and aligned with the aspirations of local populations;
• Address economic pressures by developing incentives for sustainable livelihoods, including certification schemes, eco-tourism, and payment for ecosystem services;
• Support language and cultural revitalization, particularly in contexts where linguistic diversity supports ecological knowledge;
• Embed BRs into formal education, making their values, functions, and opportunities known to younger generations;
• Leverage digital tools, open science, and AI to document, share, and valorize oral histories as drivers of conservation and sustainability.

7. Building an Analytical Framework for Biocultural Policy Integration

This study makes an initial contribution toward the development of an analytical framework that integrates biocultural heritage into conservation and policy-making. Rather than offering a finalized model, this framework is intended as a starting point to be further developed and tested through interdisciplinary collaboration, empirical research, and context-specific adaptation. Future work could explore, refine, and expand these dimensions, potentially including biocultural indicators, monitoring tools, and participatory evaluation methods

The framework is structured into three key dimensions—community engagement, biocultural practices, and governance—as synthesized in

Table 1. Analytical framework: key dimensions and indicators used in the thematic analysis of oral history interviews in Biosphere Reserves.

Dimension	Focus	Examples
1. Mapping Biocultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge	Identification and documentation of TEK and cultural practices within BRs	Georeferenced oral histories, community-curated exhibitions, linguistic mapping
2. Analyzing Perceptions of Nature, Identity, and Conservation	Understanding how communities conceptualize their environment and their role within it	Key metaphors (“roots”, “home”), emotional language, identity narratives
3. Developing Conservation Strategies Based on Memory and Local Engagement	Designing governance mechanisms and conservation strategies anchored in local knowledge and cultural values	Participatory governance, NbS integration, heritage-based policy models

.

As a conceptual tool, this framework guides researchers and policymakers in embedding biocultural values into sustainability agendas. However, effective application requires further interdisciplinary input and refinement in future studies.

8. Conclusions

This study reinforces the interpretation that sustainability is not merely an ecological challenge, but also a cultural, historical, and ethical imperative. Biosphere Reserves illustrate that human and natural systems are co-dependent and co-evolving, and that cultural memory and traditional knowledge are indispensable to effective conservation.

Oral history is not only a methodological tool, but a pathway for intergenerational transmission, shared learning, and policy innovation. By capturing firsthand accounts from those who inhabit and shape these landscapes, oral testimonies reveal the complex interdependencies between ecological systems, cultural practices, and local governance. These narratives provide insights into land use, resource management, environmental perception, and identity formation, all of which are essential for designing adaptive and community-driven conservation policies. They also foster empathy and understanding, contributing to the emergence of resilient, informed, and proactive communities.

By listening to and learning from community voices, we can design policies that reflect both the lived realities and aspirations of those who inhabit these territories. Memory-based approaches offer valuable insight for navigating ecological uncertainty and social transformation.

Ultimately, valuing biocultural heritage and memory-based conservation approaches ensures that BRs are not just protected areas, but evolving spaces of identity, belonging, and transformation. If embraced holistically, they can serve as global models for reconciling biodiversity protection with cultural continuity, sustainability, and human well-being.