Acknowledging the importance of indigenous communities in the analysis of environmental variability is gradually perceived as fundamental for adaptation responses. The value of indigenous knowledge is derived for the biophysical sphere where they perform social, economic and governance practices. But more importantly is the strong connection with the natural environment where they dwell which is shaped by other important elements such as social networks and the productive systems which assure the sustainability of their livelihoods. The significance of indigenous knowledge lies on the historical adaptive capacity to survive and to cope with environmental changes. Direct observations on natural changes have played a critical role especially across these resource dependent communities. The diversification of their natural and economic capitals and the notions of reciprocity and solidarity, represent examples of the coping mechanisms that at the present are highly valued for the scientific field. Their observed patterns of change including the perceptions of future events are considerably valued and required special treatment. Likewise, traditional perceptions can be reconstructed based on experiential knowledge which probably have varied over time, but still help to identify the main drivers of change that have positively influenced adaptation.
Indigenous cultural values are commonly built upon the basis of worldviews, territorial tenures, landscapes, biodiversity, sovereignty, belief systems, spirituality, social bonds, aesthetic heritages and reciprocities. Keeping the functional structures on the physical and biological environment where indigenous inhabit have direct effects on these customary values. For instance, multiple studies suggest that culture is built upon places where the biodiversity of natural resources have influenced social interactions including distinct forms of understanding the natural world. As a result, livelihood development can be directly aligned with conservation efforts, which embrace regulations to sustainability and resilience. The level of attachment to places, the natural environment and the resulting social interactions can be seen as elements that support social-ecological resilience, understood as the amount of disturbances a system can absorb maintaining the original state; the level of a system to self-organize; and the degree a system can adapt and cope with change. Nevertheless, case studies suggest strong place attachments can be disruptive to social-ecological resilience. The critical issue identified by scholars is perceived when the components of a system become strongly connected, leading to rigidity traps which limit development and promote unstable adaptation. Across traditional communities, rigidity traps can be seen when rooted customary practices lock the access to external networks, knowledge diversity and technical innovations. These conditions could be encountered among subsistence communities whose dependency on natural resources may perpetrate attitudes and behaviours in detriment of development and sustainability.
Within traditional and subsistence societies, the main characteristics of social – ecological resilience can work in the absence of external shocks or disturbances, such as industrial developments, extensive land use and social disruptions. However, it is broadly known that recent climatic and human pressures have altered the natural dynamic of environmental values. As a result, the rapid scale of changes in the Anthropocene limit the capacity of indigenous groups to perform their customary practices which have an impact on the functional structures of their biophysical environments and therefore in the resilience of community livelihoods.
Regarding the territorial sphere of indigenous places, the protection of human relations with the natural environment is fundamental for the conservation of their customary practices. Yet, systems that deal with change and continue developing may require other functional factors to support them. For instance, collaboration, integration of different knowledge perspectives and a web of relationships across community to regulate land use and in general the stewardship of natural resources. Likewise, within production systems, technification can facilitate land optimization to crop productivity and the resilience of agricultural practices. Still, the increasing influence of industrial developments and other human pressures across traditional lands have permeated the governance of natural resources with effects in the stability of indigenous cultural values. Examples across traditional communities in Guatemala demonstrate that population pressures and land degradation generates traps that reduce the capacity of subsistence agroecological systems to deliver ecosystem services. On the other hand, amongst resource dependent communities, poverty represents a persistent factor that intensify vulnerability; disrupting systems’ capacity to absorb, recover to shocks and adapt to change. These conditions have multiple origins such as political instability, land degradation, migration, property rights, climate risks, among others. In these scenarios, the scientific field can be appropriate as a complementary approach in order to build pathways to social-ecological resilience among traditional communities. Similarly, traditional knowledge can be applied in multiple contexts where climate change and environmental variability threat the stability of community livelihoods. The experiential knowledge of indigenous communities are mechanisms that help to identify the main drivers of change that have positively influenced adaptation and more in depth social-ecological resilience.