A Rapid Evidence Assessment on Engagement with Indigenous People and Local Communities in Sustainable Peatland Management Initiatives.

A Rapid Evidence Assessment on Engagement with Indigenous People and Local Communities in Sustainable Peatland Management Initiatives. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review A Rapid Evidence Assessment on Engagement with Indigenous People and Local Communities in Sustainable Peatland Management Initiatives. Daniela Ortegon, Dhruv Verma, Lily Toomey, Melissa Felipe Cadillo, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Peatlands are critical for climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water management, yet they face growing threats from unsustainable and extractive land use practices. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are increasingly recognised as essential actors in peatland restoration, but the effectiveness of different engagement strategies remains poorly understood. This Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) synthesises empirical evidence on IPLC engagement in peatland conservation, restoration, and sustainable management. Our final dataset included 48 studies, predominantly journal articles. Engagement methods identified include participatory decision-making and co-design, community-based monitoring, awareness campaigns and capacity building, integration of traditional knowledge, and financial incentives. Multi-method, bottom-up approaches were generally more effective than single interventions. Key challenges include structural constraints, method-related issues (e.g., limited participation, knowledge gaps), and poorly aligned incentives. Our findings highlight the need to promote community-led governance, integrate local knowledge, align incentives with livelihoods, secure land and resource rights, invest in education and capacity building, embed adaptive management, and link local initiatives with national strategies. Evidence gaps remain in evaluating effectiveness, documenting non-tropical peatlands, and assessing locally led initiatives in local languages. Environmental Policy indigenous peaople local communities peatlands wetlands sustainable management participatory decision-making co-creation capacity building traditional knowledge community-based monitoring Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION Peatlands make up approximately 3% of global land surface but store greater amounts of carbon than Earth’s total forest area, playing a critical role in climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water management (Yu et al., 2010, Bonn et al., 2016, FAO, 2020; Pann et al., UNEP 2022; 2024). Although historically designated as economically marginal or unproductive landscapes (di Palma, 2014: 84–127; Maltby, 2009: 11), peatlands have long been sites of subsistence for Indigenous peoples and local communities (Fabiano et al., 2021; Golson et al. 2017; Feehan et al. 2008: 1–35). Despite their ecological and social significance, peatlands are increasingly threatened globally by land-use change, drainage, fire, and unsustainable management practices. (Dohong et al., 2017; Fluet-Chouinard et al. 2023). These pressures compromise their carbon storage capacity, biodiversity, and the livelihoods of communities that depend on them (Leifeld et al., 2019; Turetsky et al., 2020). Research has shown that Indigenous- or community-based management initiatives are crucial for protecting ecosystems and their biological diversity, including in tropical forests (Sze et al., 2024). This is also true for peat-forming systems, especially given 27% of global peatlands sit on Indigenous lands or territory (Austin et al., 2025; Renou-Wilson et al., 2025). Engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) has been identified as a critical factor for successful peatland management (UNEP 2022, Ward et al., 2020, Murdiyarso et al., 2019; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014). IPLCs are often the primary stewards of these landscapes, possessing experiential ecological knowledge, long-standing management practices, and strong cultural connections to local resources (Flint, A., & Jennings, B., 2020). Participation of communities in restoration activities, decision-making, and monitoring has been associated with higher ecological effectiveness, better compliance with management rules, and more sustainable conservation outcomes (Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014). A growing body of evidence indicates that bottom-up, community-led approaches to sustainable peatland management outperform top-down interventions (Flood et al. 2022; Terzano et al., 2022; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014). Participatory decision-making, co-design of restoration strategies and community-based monitoring generate greater trust, facilitate pathways to local ownership, as well as adaptive management. These approaches also enhance the relevance of interventions by incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, context-specific restoration techniques, and locally feasible livelihood alternatives. Conversely, top-down programs often encounter resistance, low participation, and limited ecological success (Pratama et al. 2022). So, while sustainable management initiatives that include conservation or restoration of peatlands are recognised as essential strategies for mitigating climate change and protecting ecosystem services (Bonn et al., 2014; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014), effective peatland management is complex. It requires not only technical interventions, such as rewetting or reforestation, but also alignment with social, economic, and institutional governance contexts. Without considering the needs, knowledge, and participation of local stakeholders, these initiatives can often fail to achieve meaningful long-term ecological or social outcomes. To understand these challenges, this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) synthesises evidence on approaches that engage IPLCs in peatland conservation, restoration, and sustainable management. The REA identifies the types of engagement strategies employed, assesses their reported effectiveness where available, and highlights the challenges and opportunities of such approaches. It further makes visible the existing knowledge-gaps around IPLC engagement in peatland governance. It is hoped that the findings will inform evidence-based policy and programming, emphasising the integration of local knowledge, participatory governance, and long-term sustainability in peatland management. This REA does not offer universal definitions for the broad categories and concepts under review. This subject-matter/field of research engages with more experiential or culturally-rooted relationships to the non-human environment. Therefore, in attempting to glean meaningful evidence from a global examination of peatland initiatives, it is understood that this often necessitates subjective interpretations of a diverse range of meanings, values, and contexts. With this in mind, the authors recognise their own positionalities as researchers within their institutional and geographical contexts, and acknowledge that these orientations may be reflected in the conclusions. METHODS To conduct the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), a team of nine researchers with diverse geographical and disciplinary backgrounds developed a focused research question and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The team designed keyword search codes, identified relevant databases, conducted systematic searches, and applied multiple screening stages (rapid and in-depth). Data were subsequently extracted and synthesised to identify patterns in engagement methods and outcomes. Eligibility criteria: In our systematic search, we included studies that focused on local communities or Indigenous peoples in sustainable peatland management initiatives, which included but were not limited to conservation, restoration, re-wetting, and livelihood improvement. The REA applied six predefined criteria: (1) geography, (2) populations, (3) outcomes, (4) interventions, (5) timescale, and (6) type of literature. For each criterion, explicit inclusion and exclusion parameters were established to ensure transparency and replicability.Studies had to mention keywords related to peatlands, local communities and management initiatives, and/or describe specific engagement methods and reported associated outcomes. The review excluded conceptual or theoretical papers without empirical evidence. Only peer-reviewed articles or grey literature published between 2010 and 2024 in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were considered. No geographic restrictions were applied in order to capture the broadest scope of evidence. Information Sources and Search Strategy: Searches were conducted in Scopus, ScienceDirect, Scielo, and Google Scholar using language-specific search strings combining terms related to peatlands, communities, engagement, and sustainability. Filters were applied to restrict results by language and publication period. In databases with high volumes of results, screening was limited to the top 200 records sorted by relevance. Detailed search strings and PRISMA flow diagrams are provided in the supplementary material (Figures S1–S3). Selection process: Titles and abstracts were screened manually using a traffic-light system (green = include, yellow = maybe, red = exclude), with full texts assessed against predefined eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion among reviewers. Data extraction: From the included studies, we systematically extracted information using a structured data extraction form designed in Google Forms. The form captured key dimensions of each initiative, including the type and context of engagement, geographic location, characteristics of the peatland and initiative, stakeholder groups involved, and reported outcomes (e.g. participation, capacity building, livelihood improvements), as well as study characteristics (qualitative or quantitative). It also recorded specific engagement methods, barriers and challenges, and evidence of effectiveness. Extracted data were tabulated and coded to enable comparative and thematic analysis. Across initiatives, multiple approaches to engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) were identified. The primary methods included participatory decision-making, co-design and co-creation, capacity building and training, incorporation of traditional knowledge, awareness-raising activities, community-based monitoring, and financial incentives. These categories provided the basis for synthesising patterns in engagement strategies and assessing their reported outcomes. While these categories of engagement were not universally defined across all of the literature, to streamline our results as much as possible, we generated broad definitions (See table) Engagement Method Core Definition Key Sources Participatory Decision-Making Involvement of stakeholders at the initial decision-making stage or throughout implementation. Puspitaloka et al. (2024); Međugorac et al. (2023); Flood et al. (2022) Co-design / Co-creation Equal participation in design, prioritizing traditional/place-based knowledge over scientific "expert-only" models. Flood et al. (2022); Purnomo et al. (2024) Capacity Building / Training Mobilizing existing local resources through vocational training and mentorship/skills development. Jaya et al. (2022); Robins et al. (2022); Arifudin et al. (2013); Farrell et al. (2024) Traditional Knowledge Incorporation Meaningful engagement with indigenous ecological understandings, local histories, and community mapping. Terer et al. (2012); Armanto et al. (2025); Purnomo et al. (2025); Flood et al. (2022) Awareness-Raising Campaigns Institutional engagement to increase knowledge of peatland degradation risks and restoration opportunities. Xiaohong et al. (2011); Kamphorst et al. (2017) Community-Based Monitoring IPLC-led routine observation for data collection and assessing intervention effectiveness. Danielsen et al. (2022); Häyrynen et al. (2021) Financial Incentives Payment-based mechanisms, including PES, public-private financing, and livelihood initiatives. Farrell et al. (2024); Kamphorst et al. (2017); Jaya et al. (2022) Risk of Bias: Studies were assessed for clarity of methods, reporting quality, and depth of engagement. As previously addressed, we acknowledge the nature of research around efficacy and/or value-making as often subjective, as well as the more technical potential biases due to language restrictions, incomplete indexing of local initiatives, and limited double-checking of all studies. Synthesis: Given the predominance of qualitative data and the heterogeneity of interventions, we used a narrative synthesis. Studies were grouped by engagement type (e.g., participatory mapping, co-management, livelihood integration) and contextual factors (region, type of IPLC group). The synthesis focused on characteristics of effective engagement, barriers and enablers, and evidence gaps across contexts. RESULTS A rapid evidence synthesis was undertaken using a structured process to search for, and summarise relevant peer-reviewed literature, following recognised rapid review methods to ensure rigour, transparency and consistency. The assessment aimed to identify and synthesise evidence on the participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in peatland restoration and management. Searches were conducted across five bibliographic databases in three languages, yielding 64,397 records. The top 200 results from each database-language combination, a total of 1488, were screened by title, producing an initial shortlist of 586 publications. Abstract-level screening refined this to 200 relevant studies, and 98 full-text articles were reviewed (Fig. 1 ). Of these, 48 records (50% of the full-text reviewed articles) met the inclusion criteria and were retained for the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). Journal articles accounted (n = 39) for 81% of the final records screened, followed by Book Chapters and Conference Papers. 71% of the articles were published in English, with the remainder in Spanish (29%). Searches in Portuguese did not retrieve relevant studies. Studies published between 2020-2024represent 71% of the dataset, with nearly 27% of the total publications in 2024 alone demonstrating an increase in the trend of publication over the past five years. Geographically, initiatives were concentrated in Indonesia (46%), with smaller numbers of publications from Ecuador, Colombia, Ireland Malaysia, Kenya, Mexico, China, and multi-country studies covering mainly Europe, Asia and Latin America (Map 1). Tropical peatlands, such as Palm swamp forests, Papyrus peatlands and Mangroves were the most commonly reported peatland types (5/31 each, 16%), followed by Bog, Fens, Mires and Moorlands. Map 1: Country-wise number of studies shortlisted for REA The majority of these studies examined peatlands under varied governance frameworks, ranging from strict protection regimes in National Parks and Nature Reserves to participatory, community-inclusive models, such as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, the latter being more frequently reported. As most of the peatland sites had been used for various resources and managed as per their land use categories, most of the studies reported on degraded or drained peatlands (30/48, 63%), followed by under restoration (7/48, 15%), unknown status (5/31, 16%), and only four studies reported intact or natural condition of the peatland sites (4/48, 8%) (Fig. 2 ). The REA reveals that conservation (38), restoration (41), rewetting (10), sustainable use/livelihoods (41), community-based management (41), and financial mechanisms (12) are the most commonly reported peatland management interventions (Fig. 3 ). Across the 48 studies included in this REA for final analysis, co-design/co-creation (25/48), participatory decision-making (23/48), community-based monitoring and incorporation of traditional knowledge (20/48 each), capacity building /training (19/48 and) awareness-raising campaigns (17/48) were the most frequently reported engagement methods. Also, financial incentives (18/48) were commonly reported in the reviewed studies. (7, Fig. 4 ). The studies were also screened for mention of effectiveness of peatland restoration, conservation or management interventions. Of the 48 studies, 31 studies discussed effectiveness of peatland interventions and engagement of local communities, whereas 17 did not or vaguely discussed effectiveness. Many initiatives reported improved restoration outcomes, rewetting, reduced fires, and improved ecosystem conditions. Initiatives were most effective when communities were fully engaged, empowered, and able to self-organise. Some of the studies also highlighted mixed, partial, or ineffective outcomes that were not analysed further. DISCUSSION The principal observation from the REA is that, despite the growing recognition of the importance of IPLC engagement, the effectiveness of different engagement strategies remains underexplored. Most studies document or recommend activities without systematically evaluating outcomes, and there is limited evidence on long-term ecological and social impacts. Explicit, well-described evaluations of effectiveness are scarce: while many records describe activities (training workshops, participatory monitoring, awareness campaigns, mapping exercises and PES schemes), few provide systematic, transparent assessments of whether those activities delivered lasting social or ecological benefits. Where outcomes are reported, they are most commonly described in qualitative or narrative terms. For example, “increased awareness,” “improved participation,” or “continued local restoration activities,” rather than measured against pre-defined indicators, baselines, theory of changes or other methods. Furthermore, much of the documented literature is concentrated in specific tropical regions, primarily published in English, leaving locally led initiatives and non-tropical peatlands underrepresented. This knowledge gap constrains evidence-based policy and program design for equitable and effective peatland restoration. The temporal distribution of studies indicates a growing body of literature, with nearly a third of included studies published in 2024. This suggests increasing recognition of the importance of IPLC engagement in sustainable peatland management. However, the evidence base over-represents tropical peatlands, especially in Southeast Asia, with temperate peatlands under-represented. Despite this growth, a striking gap remains in the evaluations of initiative effectiveness. Around 94% (46 studies) reported the involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP&LCs). However, a substantial proportion of these studies did not report on the effectiveness of the initiative (around 20%), and many provided limited detail on how community engagement was implemented. This highlights a persistent gap in the literature: while IP&LC participation is widely claimed, relatively few studies systematically assess the outcomes or effectiveness of engagement processes. Evidence of effective engagement converges on several elements as shown by the reviewed literature: co-creation and shared decision-making; local empowerment and awareness; integration of traditional knowledge; and, where appropriate, financial incentives. Strong social relations and two-way communication are central to co-designing peatland restoration initiatives, including joint problem identification and targeted sensitisation, particularly of youths, to enable them to act as agents of change. These processes help reconcile differing perceptions among local groups and support more workable restoration frameworks. Recognising local expertise encourages the sharing of traditional knowledge (e.g., techniques/technologies) that can bolster restoration initiatives and support effective governance. This type of bottom-up integrative approach increases community social acceptance and openness to addressing over-exploitation and misuse, as well as reducing or eliminating risks associated with restoration initiatives. Addressing legal, economic and social barriers was also identified as important, especially where government/state agencies are championing the restoration initiative. Without viable alternative livelihoods, peatland restoration is likely to be undermined. Initiatives should incorporate economic incentives for communities dependent on peatland resources and provide fair compensation for local services (e.g., traditional knowledge sharing, consultations, monitoring). Such measures facilitate participation, build trust and encourage community leadership of the restoration initiative. For long-term efficacy, governance should be bottom-up and “top-light,”ie. community-led, with enabling support and minimal bureaucracy from higher levels to sustain engagement. Policy Implications, recommendations for engagement: Promote community-led, bottom-up governance Engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the outset and throughout all stages of peatland project design, implementation, and monitoring. Establish participatory decision-making mechanisms that are guided by Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and ensure that local governance structures are recognised in national peatland policies. Support co-management arrangements that include women and youth, and other underrepresented groups, to build legitimacy and long-term compliance. Integrate local and traditional knowledge into conservation and restoration strategies Formally recognise multiple ways of knowing peatlands by embedding local and traditional knowledge systems and practices alongside scientific data in national and subnational policies, planning, and implementation. Promote participatory mapping, community-based monitoring, and inclusion of customary practices, such as sustainable papyrus use or traditional farming methods, to enhance restoration outcomes and strengthen local ownership. Align financial incentives with livelihood priorities and long-term sustainability Design financing mechanisms that reflect the real costs of peatland action and the economic realities of participating communities. Prioritise long-term, predictable funding over short project cycles to maintain engagement and ecological outcomes. Link financial support to sustainable livelihood activities such as agroforestry, paludiculture, or eco-enterprises that generate income while maintaining peatland integrity. Secure land and resource rights to empower equitable participation Formally recognise the land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as a foundation for effective and lasting peatland restoration. Clear and enforceable tenure arrangements build trust, encourage active participation, and reduce conflict. Integrating these rights into national legal and policy frameworks strengthens community ownership and long-term stewardship of restored peatlands. Strengthen capacity and awareness through inclusive education and training Develop awareness-raising and capacity-building programmes that include diverse age groups, genders, and social groups. Co-design activities with communities and combine them with concrete incentives such as livelihood support, small grants, or restoration-related income opportunities. Strengthen partnerships between local institutions, NGOs, and research organisations to sustain technical capacity. Embed adaptive management and continuous monitoring Design peatland restoration initiatives with flexibility to respond to ecological and social change. Incorporate mechanisms for regular review, adjustment of management practices, and shared learning among partners. Define success using indicators that capture both environmental outcomes and community well-being, ensuring that adaptation is integral to implementation rather than an afterthought. Address data gaps and standardise the evaluation of engagement effectiveness Develop standardised frameworks and locally grounded methodologies to measure how Indigenous and local community engagement contributes to conservation, restoration, and sustainable use outcomes. Evaluate engagement effectiveness separately for local and Indigenous communities, using participatory evaluation frameworks co-developed with each group to ensure cultural relevance, equity, and shared ownership of results. Align and coordinate policy frameworks for effective multi-level governance Ensure coherence between national, regional, and local peatland policies by establishing coordination mechanisms across the environment, agriculture, and land ministries. Promote collaboration among communities, government agencies, and the private sector through national task forces and regional knowledge platforms. Declarations Acknowledgments Financial and in-kind support for this research was provided by the British Academy, the United Nations Environment Programme Global Peatlands Initiative, the Institute for Methods Innovation (IMI) and Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). In particular, the authors thank Prof. Mark Reed (SRUC), Prof. Eric Jensen (IMI) and Dr Lydia Cole (St Andrews University) for their input into this research as part of the Evidence Synthesis and Policy Engagement Training Programme delivered by IMI. Supporting information String in English: "Peat" OR “Peatland” OR "Fen" OR "Bog" OR "Mire" OR "Swamp" OR "Papyrus Wetland" OR "Andean Moorlands" AND "Local communities" OR "Indigenous communities" OR "Traditional groups" AND "Engagement" OR "Restoration" OR "Conservation" OR "Management" OR "Wise use" OR "Wise-use" OR "Monitoring" AND "Sustainable" OR "Livelihood" String in Portuguese: ("turfeira" OR "turfeiras" OR "turfa" OR "brejo" OR "pântano" OR "pantanal" OR "charco" OR "charneca") AND ("comunidade local" OR "comunidades locais" OR "povo" OR "população" OR "grupo local" OR "grupos locais" OR "tradicional" OR "tradicionais" OR "índio" OR "indígena") AND ("restauração" OR "participação" OR "participativo" OR "consultas públicas" OR "conservação" OR "educação ambiental OR "governança" OR "diálogo" OR "oficinas" OR "gestão" OR "manejo" OR "sustentável" OR "monitoramento" OR "engajamento" OR "uso inteligente") AND ("meio de vida" OR "subsistência") Adaptation for Science Direct : ("turfa" OR "brejo" OR "pantanal") AND ("comunidade" OR "tradicional OR "indígena") AND ("restauração" OR "participação" OR "conservação") Adaptation for Scielo : ("turfeira" OR "turfeiras" OR "turfa" OR "brejo" OR "pântano" OR "pantanal") AND ("comunidade" OR "tradicional" OR "tradicionais" OR "indígena") AND ("restauração" OR "participação" OR "participativo" OR "conservação" OR "diálogo" OR "gestão" OR "manejo" OR "sustentável") String in Spanish: Adaptation for Scopus: (turb* OR turbera OR turba OR pantano OR cienaga OR "pantano de palmera*" OR "bosque pantanoso" OR hualves OR manglar OR paramo* OR bofedal*) AND ("comunidad* local*" OR "comunidad* indigena*" OR "pueblos originarios" OR "poblacion local" OR indigena) AND (restauracion OR conservacion OR proteccion OR manejo OR gestion OR uso* OR monitoreo OR sostenible OR sustentable OR "medios de vida" OR "modos de vida") AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE,"Spanish" ) Adaptation for Scielo: (subject:((turbera) OR (turba) OR (pantano) OR (cienaga) OR (pantano de palmera) OR (bosque pantanoso) OR (hualve) OR (paramo) OR (bofedal)) AND ((comunidad local) OR (indigena) OR (comunidad) OR (pueblo originario) OR (poblacion local) OR (afro)) AND ((restauracion) OR (conservacion) OR (proteccion) OR (manejo) OR (gestion) OR (uso) OR (monitoreo) OR (sostenib*) OR (sustentab*) OR (medio de vida) OR (modo de vida))) Adaption for Google Scholar: ("turbera" OR "turba" OR "pantano" OR "ciénaga" OR "pantano de palmera" OR "bosque pantanoso" OR "hualves" OR "manglar" OR "páramo" OR "bofedal") AND ("comunidad local" OR "comunidad indígena" OR "pueblos originarios" OR "población local" OR "indígena") AND ("restauración" OR "conservación" OR "protección" OR "manejo" OR "gestión" OR "uso" OR "monitoreo" OR "sostenible" OR "sustentable" OR "medios de vida" OR "modos de vida") -"turbo" -"turbina" References Flint, A., & Jennings, B. (2020). Saturated with meaning: Peatlands, heritage and folklore. Time and Mind, 13(3), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2020.1815293 Agussabti, A., Zikri, I., Rahmaddiansyah, R., Humam Hamid, A., Baihaqi, A., & Takahashi, M. (2022). Exploring the social science of tropical peatland restoration: Towards more effective community empowerment initiatives for the Aceh peatland ecosystem. Mires and Peat, 28(06), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2022.OMB.StA.2376 Alam, M. J., Rengasamy, N., bin Dahalan, M. P., Halim, S. A., & Nath, T. K. (2022). Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of a community-based restoration of peatland swamp forests in Peninsular Malaysia: A 5Rs approach. Land Use Policy, 122, 106390. Alam, M. J., Rengasamy, N., Dahalan, M. P. B., Abdul Halim, S., Istihat, Y., & Nath, T. K. (2022). Rules-in-use and actors’ interaction in a community-based peatland restoration program in peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 41(3-5), 398-412. Aldama, C., Coloma, M., Espinoza, D., Guerrero, J., Hanna, D., Salinas, T., Dupuits, E., y Intriago, M. (2024). Justicia hídrica y reciprocidad entre la ciudad y las comunidades del páramo de Ñukanchik Urku en Cangahua, Ecuador. Esferas, 5, pp. 101-120. https://doi.org/10.18272/esferas.v5i.3046 Aldama, C., Coloma, M., Espinoza, D., Guerrero, J., Hanna, D., Salinas, T., Dupuits, E., y Intriago, M. (2024). Justicia hídrica y reciprocidad entre la ciudad y las comunidades del páramo de Ñukanchik Urku en Cangahua, Ecuador. Esferas, 5, pp. 101-120. https://doi.org/10.18272/esferas.v5i.3046 Arifudin, Nasrul, B. & Maswadi (2012). Program of Community Empowerment Prevents Forest Fires in Indonesian Peat Land. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.02.020 Austin, K.G., Elsen, P.R., Coronado, E.N.H., DeGemmis, A., Gallego-Sala, A.V., Harris, L., Kretser, H.E., Melton, J.R., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S.D., Swails, E., Wijaya, A., Winton, R.S., Zarin, D., 2025. Mismatch Between Global Importance of Peatlands and the Extent of Their Protection. Conservation Letters 18, e13080. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13080 Biancalani R. and Avagyan A. 2014. Towards climate-responsible peatlands management. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture series 9, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bonn, A., Reed, M.S., Evans, C.D., Joosten, H., Bain, C., Farmer, J., Emmer, I., Couwenberg, J., Moxey, A., Artz, R., Tanneberger, F., von Unger, M., Smyth, M.-A., Birnie, D., 2014. Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Ecosystem Services 9, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.011 Bonn, A., T. Allot, M. Evans, H. Joosten, and R. Stoneman. 2016. Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services: Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press. Di Palma, V. (2014). Wasteland: A history. Yale Univ. Pr. Maltby, E. (2009). The Changing wetland paradigm. In E. Maltby & T. Barker (Eds.), The wetlands handbook (pp. 3–42). Wiley-Blackwell. Dohong, A., A. A. Aziz, and P. Dargusch. 2017. “A Review of the Drivers of Tropical Peatland Degradation in South-East Asia.” Land Use Policy 69: 349–360. Fabiano, E., Schulz, C., & Martín Brañas, M. (2021). Wetland spirits and indigenous knowledge: Implications for the conservation of wetlands in the Peruvian Amazon. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100107 FAO. 2020. Peatlands mapping and monitoring – Recommendations and technical overview. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8200en Farrell, C. A., Connolly, J., & Morley, T. R. (2024). Charting a course for peatland restoration in Ireland: A case study to support restoration frameworks in other regions. Restoration Ecology, 32(7), e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14216 Feehan, J., O’Donovan, G., Renou-Wilson, F., & Wilson, D. (2008). The bogs of Ireland: An introduction to the natural, cultural and industrial heritage of Irish peatlands. University College Dublin. Environmental Institute. Flood, K., Mahon, M., & McDonagh, J. (2022). Everyday resilience: Rural communities as agents of change in peatland social-ecological systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 96, 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.11.008 Flores, saskia, UrsUla Groten, saskya lUGo y Patricio Mena Vásconez (Comps.) (2012) Gente, Vida y Agua en los Cerros. Una sistematización del Proyecto Páramo Andino en el Ecuador. Quito: EcoCiencia. Fluet-Chouinard, E., B. D. Stocker, Z. Zhang, et al. 2023. “Extensive Global Wetland Loss Over the Past Three Centuries.” Nature 614: 281–286. Gómez Aguirre, A. M., & Turbay, S. (2016). Relación de una comunidad de pescadores del golfo de Urabá (Colombia) con los ecosistemas de manglar y su conservación. Revista De Estudios Sociales, 1(55), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.7440/res55.2016.07 Golson, J., Denham, T., Hughes, P., Swadling, P., & Muke, J. (Eds.). (2017). Ten Thousand Years of Cultivation at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea (Vol. 46). ANU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1trkk6d González Guevara, D. F. (2020). Las transformaciones de las instituciones comunitarias y su relación con el estado de conservación del ecosistema de páramo: El caso de dos comunidades en la sierra central del Ecuador (Tesis de maestría, FLACSO Ecuador) [Repositorio digital]. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO Ecuador. Recuperado de https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/16567/2/TFLACSO-2020DFGG.pdf Gutiérrez-Campo, R. D., & Velázquez-Hernández, E. (2022). La implantación de una Unidad de Manejo de la Vida Silvestre de manglar y la construcción de sujetos ambientales locales en una zona de humedales marino-costeros en el Golfo de México. Revista CS, 36, 179-206. https://doi.org/10.18046/recs.i36.4732 Herrera Varón, Yenifer. (2018). De la biología y la pedagogía para el reconocimiento del páramo del Parque Nacional Natural el Cocuy como patrimonio natural y cultural. Bio-grafía. 11. 127-140. 10.17227/bio-grafia.vol.11.num20-8599. Hiller, B., & Fisher, J. (2023). A Multifunctional ‘Scape Approach for Sustainable Management of Intact Ecosystems—A Review of Tropical Peatlands. Sustainability, 15(3), 2484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032484 Iñiguez-Gallardo, V., & López-Rodríguez, F. (2024). Gobernanza participativa para manglares en Ecuador. Madera y bosques, 30(4), e3042612. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2024.3042612 Jalilov, S.-M., Lestari, S., Winarno, B., Yuwati, T. W., Sakuntaladewi, N., & Mendham, D. (2024). Why is tropical peatland conservation so challenging? Findings from a livelihood assessment in Sumatra, Indonesia. Mires and Peat, 30(03), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2022.OMB.Sc.1985391 Jaya, A., Elia, A., Antang, E. U., Octora, M., Ichriani, G. I., Dohong, S., & Sulistiyanto, Y. (2022). A study of agroforestry farming for tropical peatland conservation and rehabilitation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Mires and Peat, 28, 22. Kamphorst, D. A., Bouwma, I. M., & Selnes, T. A. (2017). Societal engagement in Natura 2000 sites. A comparative analysis of the policies in three areas in England, Denmark and Germany. Land use policy, 61, 379-388. Krisdianto, Slamat, Anshari, F., & Susilawati, I. O. (2020). Permaculture Technology in Tropical Freshwater Swamp. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 499(1), 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/499/1/012018 Leifeld, J., C. Wüst-Galley, and S. Page. 2019. “Intact and Managed Peatland Soils as a Source and Sink of GHGs From 1850 to 2100.” Nature Climate Change 9: 945–947. MeÄ‘ugorac, V., & Schuitema, G. (2023). Why is bottom-up more acceptable than top-down? A study on collective psychological ownership and place-technology fit in the Irish Midlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 96, 102924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102924 Mendham, D.S., Sakuntaladewi, N., Ramawati, Yuwati, T.W., Budiningsih, K., Prasetyo, B.D. & Handoyo. (2024). Facilitating new livelihoods to promote peatland restoration in Indonesia -what are the challenges for ensuring sustainable and equitable livelihood transitions? Mires and Peat, 30(4), pp.1-14. Murdiyarso, D., Lilleskov, E. & Kolka, R. Tropical peatlands under siege: the need for evidence-based policies and strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 24, 493–505 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-9844-1 Pan, Y., R. A. Birdsey, O. L. Phillips, et al. 2024. “The Enduring World Forest Carbon Sink.” Nature 631: 563–569. Purnomo, H., Puspitaloka, D., Okarda, B., Andrianto, A., Qomar, N., Sutikno, S., ... & Brady, M. A. (2024). Community-based fire prevention and peatland restoration in Indonesia: A participatory action research approach. Environmental Development, 50, 100971. Puspitaloka, D., Purnomo, H., Juniyanti, L., Andrianto, A., Kusumadewi, S. D., Okarda, B., & Dermawan, A. (2024, March). Adaptive business model development for community-based peatland restoration in Riau. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1315, No. 1, p. 012053). IOP Publishing. Randy, A. F., Hutomo, M., & Purnama, H. (2015). Collaborative Efforts on Mangrove Restoration in Sedari Village, Karawang District, West Java Province. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 23, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.008 Renou-Wilson, F., Wilson, D., & Flood, K. (with Environmental Protection Agency). (2025). Peat Hub Ireland: 2022-NE-1129 (Online version). Environmental Protection Agency. Schaafsma, M., Van Beukering, P., & Oskolokaite, I. (2017). Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: A case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 27, 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.012 Suwarno, A., Hein, L., Weikard, H., Van Noordwijk, M., & Nugroho, B. (2018). Land-use trade-offs in the Kapuas peat forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 75, 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.015 Sze, J. S., D. Z. Childs, L. R. Carrasco, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, S. T. Garnett, and D. P. Edwards. 2024. “Indigenous Peoples' Lands Are Critical for Safeguarding Vertebrate Diversity Across the Tropics.” Global Change Biology 30: e16981. Tapia Zavala, F. (2020). Costos de conservación del manglar: Casos Las Huacas y Pongalillo, en la provincia de El Oro, al sur de Ecuador. Investigatio, (13), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.31095/investigatio.2020.13.7 Terzano, D., Attorre, F., Parish, F., Moss, P., Bresciani, F., Cooke, R., Dargusch, P., 2022. Community-led peatland restoration in Southeast Asia: 5Rs approach. Restoration Ecology 30, e13642. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13642 Torres, M. C., & Naranjo, E. (2024). Limitaciones para la aplicación de tecnología social en la protección del páramo [Constraints to the Application of Social Technology for the Protection of páramo; Limitações para a aplicação de tecnologia social na proteção do páramo]. Estudios de la Gestión, (16), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2024.16.2 Turetsky, M. R., B. W. Abbott, M. C. Jones, et al. 2020. “Carbon Release Through Abrupt Permafrost Thaw.” Nature Geoscience 13: 138–143. Ward, C. F. M., Stringer, L. C., Warren-Thomas, E., Agus, F., Hamer, K. C., Pettorelli, N., Hariyadi, B., Hodgson, J., Kartika, W. D., Lucey, J. M., & Nurida, N. L. (2020). Wading through the swamp: what does tropical peatland restoration mean to national‐level stakeholders in Indonesia? Restoration Ecology, 28(4), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13133 Xiaohong, Z., Hongyu, L., & Zisheng, X. (2011). Challenges and solutions for sustainable land use in Ruoergai-the highest altitude peatland in Qinhai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Energy Procedia, 5, 1019-1025. Yasir, Y. (2020). Environmental Communication Model of Farmer Community in Peatlands Ecotourism Development. 1655, 012133. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012133 Yu, Z., J. Loisel, D. P. Brosseau, D. W. Beilman, and S. J. Hunt. 2010. “Global Peatland Dynamics Since the Last Glacial Maximum.” Geophysical Research Letters 37, no. 13: L13402. Zúñiga, Tapia & Jimenez González, Alfredo & Fuel, Cuásquer & Cabrera-Verdesoto, C. & C.A., & Ãlvarez, Caisedo. (2017). Evaluación del programa de conservación del ecosistema páramo y sus efectos socioambientales en una comuna rural. 5. 287 - 300. Map 1 Map1 is available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Map1.png Map 1: Country-wise number of studies shortlisted for REA Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8764080","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":584277495,"identity":"f7b3213c-3b5a-4c98-9100-d4d408a7393f","order_by":0,"name":"Daniela Ortegon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniela","middleName":"","lastName":"Ortegon","suffix":""},{"id":584277496,"identity":"351c2a05-eb9f-4059-a086-76430111095e","order_by":1,"name":"Dhruv Verma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wetlands International South Asia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dhruv","middleName":"","lastName":"Verma","suffix":""},{"id":584277497,"identity":"54066ac8-095c-4c40-8cdc-a32b7010e44c","order_by":2,"name":"Lily Toomey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Trinity Centre for Environmental Humanities, Trinity College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lily","middleName":"","lastName":"Toomey","suffix":""},{"id":584277498,"identity":"50defd92-53e0-4fc5-9fec-adf59f170d95","order_by":3,"name":"Melissa Felipe Cadillo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bristol","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melissa","middleName":"Felipe","lastName":"Cadillo","suffix":""},{"id":584277499,"identity":"29dca66e-f2b1-44ae-beec-577593d93754","order_by":4,"name":"Nicole Püschel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Chile","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicole","middleName":"","lastName":"Püschel","suffix":""},{"id":584277500,"identity":"50c9c53c-85d2-423e-af1f-e969997bd524","order_by":5,"name":"Gabrielle Rabelo Quadra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabrielle","middleName":"Rabelo","lastName":"Quadra","suffix":""},{"id":584277501,"identity":"5571ed86-053a-4e1c-af5d-d37b4e27c922","order_by":6,"name":"Yerkezhan Akhmetzaki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Independent Researcher","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yerkezhan","middleName":"","lastName":"Akhmetzaki","suffix":""},{"id":584277502,"identity":"a9d69730-f92b-452f-805e-e881643bb57f","order_by":7,"name":"Matthew Adeleye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Geography, University of Cambridge","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matthew","middleName":"","lastName":"Adeleye","suffix":""},{"id":584277503,"identity":"cb529823-5f57-4caf-8f7e-d6a365326cdd","order_by":8,"name":"Julius Arinaitwe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kabale University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julius","middleName":"","lastName":"Arinaitwe","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-02 11:02:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101754052,"identity":"ab886904-6a16-4ffd-8d6b-d61a6a96b6ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 10:41:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":164550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of records by year of publication (n=48)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/0510073f60ef8cf15642c9d9.png"},{"id":101738679,"identity":"5527c52f-a1d2-4a37-b273-30d5510bc4ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 07:52:37","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":165702,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eState of peatlands in reviewed studies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/8f0b6d6cd270c05193c3bbbc.png"},{"id":101738677,"identity":"48c20120-cd61-47f3-ae4d-b440a1d8587d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 07:52:37","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":171128,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePeatland management interventions reported in the reviewed studies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/c06f253b615b354de9fe2276.png"},{"id":101738681,"identity":"003db6d5-85c8-468d-855e-23692fc1be0e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 07:52:37","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":219127,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCommunity engagement methods reported in the reviewed studies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/b165ea630195f40b5647d8ed.png"},{"id":101754100,"identity":"5302f7ef-9759-4b43-8ec7-d92339384296","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 10:41:36","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1667932,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eUnnumbered image in the Methods section.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"UF1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/5a1129dac3b84476a4dc02f4.png"},{"id":102962057,"identity":"9a3cf984-162c-413c-bb0a-0cee24334631","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 03:58:40","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2629928,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/4eee4640-e7d2-4c54-9f32-3197428900b2.pdf"},{"id":101738680,"identity":"1c5b9665-009a-4a68-8272-973f911e08f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 07:52:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":336653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap 1: Country-wise number of studies shortlisted for REA\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Map1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8764080/v1/5b783e8921719e45247e7905.png"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eA Rapid Evidence Assessment on Engagement with Indigenous People and Local Communities in Sustainable Peatland Management Initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003ePeatlands make up approximately 3% of global land surface but store greater amounts of carbon than Earth\u0026rsquo;s total forest area, playing a critical role in climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water management (Yu et al., 2010, Bonn et al., 2016, FAO, 2020; Pann et al., UNEP 2022; 2024). Although historically designated as economically marginal or unproductive landscapes (di Palma, 2014: 84\u0026ndash;127; Maltby, 2009: 11), peatlands have long been sites of subsistence for Indigenous peoples and local communities (Fabiano et al., 2021; Golson et al. 2017; Feehan et al. 2008: 1\u0026ndash;35). Despite their ecological and social significance, peatlands are increasingly threatened globally by land-use change, drainage, fire, and unsustainable management practices. (Dohong et al., 2017; Fluet-Chouinard et al. 2023). These pressures compromise their carbon storage capacity, biodiversity, and the livelihoods of communities that depend on them (Leifeld et al., 2019; Turetsky et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has shown that Indigenous- or community-based management initiatives are crucial for protecting ecosystems and their biological diversity, including in tropical forests (Sze et al., 2024). This is also true for peat-forming systems, especially given 27% of global peatlands sit on Indigenous lands or territory (Austin et al., 2025; Renou-Wilson et al., 2025). Engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) has been identified as a critical factor for successful peatland management (UNEP 2022, Ward et al., 2020, Murdiyarso et al., 2019; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014). IPLCs are often the primary stewards of these landscapes, possessing experiential ecological knowledge, long-standing management practices, and strong cultural connections to local resources (Flint, A., \u0026amp; Jennings, B., 2020). Participation of communities in restoration activities, decision-making, and monitoring has been associated with higher ecological effectiveness, better compliance with management rules, and more sustainable conservation outcomes (Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA growing body of evidence indicates that bottom-up, community-led approaches to sustainable peatland management outperform top-down interventions (Flood et al. 2022; Terzano et al., 2022; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014). Participatory decision-making, co-design of restoration strategies and community-based monitoring generate greater trust, facilitate pathways to local ownership, as well as adaptive management. These approaches also enhance the relevance of interventions by incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, context-specific restoration techniques, and locally feasible livelihood alternatives. Conversely, top-down programs often encounter resistance, low participation, and limited ecological success (Pratama et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSo, while sustainable management initiatives that include conservation or restoration of peatlands are recognised as essential strategies for mitigating climate change and protecting ecosystem services (Bonn et al., 2014; Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014), effective peatland management is complex. It requires not only technical interventions, such as rewetting or reforestation, but also alignment with social, economic, and institutional governance contexts. Without considering the needs, knowledge, and participation of local stakeholders, these initiatives can often fail to achieve meaningful long-term ecological or social outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo understand these challenges, this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) synthesises evidence on approaches that engage IPLCs in peatland conservation, restoration, and sustainable management. The REA identifies the types of engagement strategies employed, assesses their reported effectiveness where available, and highlights the challenges and opportunities of such approaches. It further makes visible the existing knowledge-gaps around IPLC engagement in peatland governance. It is hoped that the findings will inform evidence-based policy and programming, emphasising the integration of local knowledge, participatory governance, and long-term sustainability in peatland management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis REA does not offer universal definitions for the broad categories and concepts under review. This subject-matter/field of research engages with more experiential or culturally-rooted relationships to the non-human environment. Therefore, in attempting to glean meaningful evidence from a global examination of peatland initiatives, it is understood that this often necessitates subjective interpretations of a diverse range of meanings, values, and contexts. With this in mind, the authors recognise their own positionalities as researchers within their institutional and geographical contexts, and acknowledge that these orientations may be reflected in the conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo conduct the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), a team of nine researchers with diverse geographical and disciplinary backgrounds developed a focused research question and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The team designed keyword search codes, identified relevant databases, conducted systematic searches, and applied multiple screening stages (rapid and in-depth). Data were subsequently extracted and synthesised to identify patterns in engagement methods and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEligibility criteria:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our systematic search, we included studies that focused on local communities or Indigenous peoples in sustainable peatland management initiatives, which included but were not limited to conservation, restoration, re-wetting, and livelihood improvement. The REA applied six predefined criteria: (1) geography, (2) populations, (3) outcomes, (4) interventions, (5) timescale, and (6) type of literature. For each criterion, explicit inclusion and exclusion parameters were established to ensure transparency and replicability.Studies had to mention keywords related to peatlands, local communities and management initiatives, and/or describe specific engagement methods and reported associated outcomes. The review excluded conceptual or theoretical papers without empirical evidence. Only peer-reviewed articles or grey literature published between 2010 and 2024 in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were considered. No geographic restrictions were applied in order to capture the broadest scope of evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInformation Sources and Search Strategy:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSearches were conducted in Scopus, ScienceDirect, Scielo, and Google Scholar using language-specific search strings combining terms related to peatlands, communities, engagement, and sustainability. Filters were applied to restrict results by language and publication period. In databases with high volumes of results, screening was limited to the top 200 records sorted by relevance. Detailed search strings and PRISMA flow diagrams are provided in the supplementary material (Figures S1\u0026ndash;S3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelection process:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTitles and abstracts were screened manually using a traffic-light system (green\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;include, yellow\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;maybe, red\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;exclude), with full texts assessed against predefined eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion among reviewers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData extraction:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the included studies, we systematically extracted information using a structured data extraction form designed in Google Forms. The form captured key dimensions of each initiative, including the type and context of engagement, geographic location, characteristics of the peatland and initiative, stakeholder groups involved, and reported outcomes (e.g. participation, capacity building, livelihood improvements), as well as study characteristics (qualitative or quantitative). It also recorded specific engagement methods, barriers and challenges, and evidence of effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtracted data were tabulated and coded to enable comparative and thematic analysis. Across initiatives, multiple approaches to engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) were identified. The primary methods included participatory decision-making, co-design and co-creation, capacity building and training, incorporation of traditional knowledge, awareness-raising activities, community-based monitoring, and financial incentives. These categories provided the basis for synthesising patterns in engagement strategies and assessing their reported outcomes. While these categories of engagement were not universally defined across all of the literature, to streamline our results as much as possible, we generated broad definitions (See table)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngagement Method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore Definition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipatory Decision-Making\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvolvement of stakeholders at the initial decision-making stage or throughout implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePuspitaloka et al. (2024); Međugorac et al. (2023); Flood et al. (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCo-design / Co-creation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual participation in design, prioritizing traditional/place-based knowledge over scientific \"expert-only\" models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlood et al. (2022); Purnomo et al. (2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCapacity Building / Training\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMobilizing existing local resources through vocational training and mentorship/skills development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJaya et al. (2022); Robins et al. (2022); Arifudin et al. (2013); Farrell et al. (2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTraditional Knowledge Incorporation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaningful engagement with indigenous ecological understandings, local histories, and community mapping.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTerer et al. (2012); Armanto et al. (2025); Purnomo et al. (2025); Flood et al. (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAwareness-Raising Campaigns\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional engagement to increase knowledge of peatland degradation risks and restoration opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXiaohong et al. (2011); Kamphorst et al. (2017)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCommunity-Based Monitoring\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIPLC-led routine observation for data collection and assessing intervention effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDanielsen et al. (2022); H\u0026auml;yrynen et al. (2021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFinancial Incentives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePayment-based mechanisms, including PES, public-private financing, and livelihood initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarrell et al. (2024); Kamphorst et al. (2017); Jaya et al. (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRisk of Bias:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies were assessed for clarity of methods, reporting quality, and depth of engagement. As previously addressed, we acknowledge the nature of research around efficacy and/or value-making as often subjective, as well as the more technical potential biases due to language restrictions, incomplete indexing of local initiatives, and limited double-checking of all studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSynthesis:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the predominance of qualitative data and the heterogeneity of interventions, we used a narrative synthesis. Studies were grouped by engagement type (e.g., participatory mapping, co-management, livelihood integration) and contextual factors (region, type of IPLC group). The synthesis focused on characteristics of effective engagement, barriers and enablers, and evidence gaps across contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eA rapid evidence synthesis was undertaken using a structured process to search for, and summarise relevant peer-reviewed literature, following recognised rapid review methods to ensure rigour, transparency and consistency. The assessment aimed to identify and synthesise evidence on the participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in peatland restoration and management. Searches were conducted across five bibliographic databases in three languages, yielding 64,397 records. The top 200 results from each database-language combination, a total of 1488, were screened by title, producing an initial shortlist of 586 publications. Abstract-level screening refined this to 200 relevant studies, and 98 full-text articles were reviewed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Of these, 48 records (50% of the full-text reviewed articles) met the inclusion criteria and were retained for the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal articles accounted (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39) for 81% of the final records screened, followed by Book Chapters and Conference Papers. 71% of the articles were published in English, with the remainder in Spanish (29%). Searches in Portuguese did not retrieve relevant studies. Studies published between 2020-2024represent 71% of the dataset, with nearly 27% of the total publications in 2024 alone demonstrating an increase in the trend of publication over the past five years. Geographically, initiatives were concentrated in Indonesia (46%), with smaller numbers of publications from Ecuador, Colombia, Ireland Malaysia, Kenya, Mexico, China, and multi-country studies covering mainly Europe, Asia and Latin America (Map 1). Tropical peatlands, such as Palm swamp forests, Papyrus peatlands and Mangroves were the most commonly reported peatland types (5/31 each, 16%), followed by Bog, Fens, Mires and Moorlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMap 1: Country-wise number of studies shortlisted for REA\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of these studies examined peatlands under varied governance frameworks, ranging from strict protection regimes in National Parks and Nature Reserves to participatory, community-inclusive models, such as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, the latter being more frequently reported. As most of the peatland sites had been used for various resources and managed as per their land use categories, most of the studies reported on degraded or drained peatlands (30/48, 63%), followed by under restoration (7/48, 15%), unknown status (5/31, 16%), and only four studies reported intact or natural condition of the peatland sites (4/48, 8%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The REA reveals that conservation (38), restoration (41), rewetting (10), sustainable use/livelihoods (41), community-based management (41), and financial mechanisms (12) are the most commonly reported peatland management interventions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the 48 studies included in this REA for final analysis, co-design/co-creation (25/48), participatory decision-making (23/48), community-based monitoring and incorporation of traditional knowledge (20/48 each), capacity building /training (19/48 and) awareness-raising campaigns (17/48) were the most frequently reported engagement methods. Also, financial incentives (18/48) were commonly reported in the reviewed studies. (7, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe studies were also screened for mention of effectiveness of peatland restoration, conservation or management interventions. Of the 48 studies, 31 studies discussed effectiveness of peatland interventions and engagement of local communities, whereas 17 did not or vaguely discussed effectiveness. Many initiatives reported improved restoration outcomes, rewetting, reduced fires, and improved ecosystem conditions. Initiatives were most effective when communities were fully engaged, empowered, and able to self-organise. Some of the studies also highlighted mixed, partial, or ineffective outcomes that were not analysed further.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe principal observation from the REA is that, despite the growing recognition of the importance of IPLC engagement, the effectiveness of different engagement strategies remains underexplored. Most studies document or recommend activities without systematically evaluating outcomes, and there is limited evidence on long-term ecological and social impacts. Explicit, well-described evaluations of effectiveness are scarce: while many records describe activities (training workshops, participatory monitoring, awareness campaigns, mapping exercises and PES schemes), few provide systematic, transparent assessments of whether those activities delivered lasting social or ecological benefits. Where outcomes are reported, they are most commonly described in qualitative or narrative terms. For example, \u0026ldquo;increased awareness,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;improved participation,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;continued local restoration activities,\u0026rdquo; rather than measured against pre-defined indicators, baselines, theory of changes or other methods. Furthermore, much of the documented literature is concentrated in specific tropical regions, primarily published in English, leaving locally led initiatives and non-tropical peatlands underrepresented. This knowledge gap constrains evidence-based policy and program design for equitable and effective peatland restoration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe temporal distribution of studies indicates a growing body of literature, with nearly a third of included studies published in 2024. This suggests increasing recognition of the importance of IPLC engagement in sustainable peatland management. However, the evidence base over-represents tropical peatlands, especially in Southeast Asia, with temperate peatlands under-represented. Despite this growth, a striking gap remains in the evaluations of initiative effectiveness. Around 94% (46 studies) reported the involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP\u0026amp;LCs). However, a substantial proportion of these studies did not report on the effectiveness of the initiative (around 20%), and many provided limited detail on how community engagement was implemented. This highlights a persistent gap in the literature: while IP\u0026amp;LC participation is widely claimed, relatively few studies systematically assess the outcomes or effectiveness of engagement processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence of effective engagement converges on several elements as shown by the reviewed literature: co-creation and shared decision-making; local empowerment and awareness; integration of traditional knowledge; and, where appropriate, financial incentives. Strong social relations and two-way communication are central to co-designing peatland restoration initiatives, including joint problem identification and targeted sensitisation, particularly of youths, to enable them to act as agents of change. These processes help reconcile differing perceptions among local groups and support more workable restoration frameworks. Recognising local expertise encourages the sharing of traditional knowledge (e.g., techniques/technologies) that can bolster restoration initiatives and support effective governance. This type of bottom-up integrative approach increases community social acceptance and openness to addressing over-exploitation and misuse, as well as reducing or eliminating risks associated with restoration initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing legal, economic and social barriers was also identified as important, especially where government/state agencies are championing the restoration initiative. Without viable alternative livelihoods, peatland restoration is likely to be undermined. Initiatives should incorporate economic incentives for communities dependent on peatland resources and provide fair compensation for local services (e.g., traditional knowledge sharing, consultations, monitoring). Such measures facilitate participation, build trust and encourage community leadership of the restoration initiative. For long-term efficacy, governance should be bottom-up and \u0026ldquo;top-light,\u0026rdquo;ie. community-led, with enabling support and minimal bureaucracy from higher levels to sustain engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolicy Implications, recommendations for engagement:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromote community-led, bottom-up governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngage Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the outset and throughout all stages of peatland project design, implementation, and monitoring. Establish participatory decision-making mechanisms that are guided by Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and ensure that local governance structures are recognised in national peatland policies. Support co-management arrangements that include women and youth, and other underrepresented groups, to build legitimacy and long-term compliance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrate local and traditional knowledge into conservation and restoration strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormally recognise multiple ways of knowing peatlands by embedding local and traditional knowledge systems and practices alongside scientific data in national and subnational policies, planning, and implementation. Promote participatory mapping, community-based monitoring, and inclusion of customary practices, such as sustainable papyrus use or traditional farming methods, to enhance restoration outcomes and strengthen local ownership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlign financial incentives with livelihood priorities and long-term sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign financing mechanisms that reflect the real costs of peatland action and the economic realities of participating communities. Prioritise long-term, predictable funding over short project cycles to maintain engagement and ecological outcomes. Link financial support to sustainable livelihood activities such as agroforestry, paludiculture, or eco-enterprises that generate income while maintaining peatland integrity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecure land and resource rights to empower equitable participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormally recognise the land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as a foundation for effective and lasting peatland restoration. Clear and enforceable tenure arrangements build trust, encourage active participation, and reduce conflict. Integrating these rights into national legal and policy frameworks strengthens community ownership and long-term stewardship of restored peatlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthen capacity and awareness through inclusive education and training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop awareness-raising and capacity-building programmes that include diverse age groups, genders, and social groups. Co-design activities with communities and combine them with concrete incentives such as livelihood support, small grants, or restoration-related income opportunities. Strengthen partnerships between local institutions, NGOs, and research organisations to sustain technical capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbed adaptive management and continuous monitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign peatland restoration initiatives with flexibility to respond to ecological and social change. Incorporate mechanisms for regular review, adjustment of management practices, and shared learning among partners. Define success using indicators that capture both environmental outcomes and community well-being, ensuring that adaptation is integral to implementation rather than an afterthought.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddress data gaps and standardise the evaluation of engagement effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop standardised frameworks and locally grounded methodologies to measure how Indigenous and local community engagement contributes to conservation, restoration, and sustainable use outcomes. Evaluate engagement effectiveness separately for local and Indigenous communities, using participatory evaluation frameworks co-developed with each group to ensure cultural relevance, equity, and shared ownership of results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlign and coordinate policy frameworks for effective multi-level governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnsure coherence between national, regional, and local peatland policies by establishing coordination mechanisms across the environment, agriculture, and land ministries. Promote collaboration among communities, government agencies, and the private sector through national task forces and regional knowledge platforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinancial and in-kind support for this research was provided by the British Academy, the United Nations Environment Programme Global Peatlands Initiative, the Institute for Methods Innovation (IMI) and Scotland\u0026rsquo;s Rural College (SRUC). In particular, the authors thank Prof. Mark Reed (SRUC), Prof. Eric Jensen (IMI) and Dr Lydia Cole (St Andrews University) for their input into this research as part of the Evidence Synthesis and Policy Engagement Training Programme delivered by IMI.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupporting information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eString in English:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Peat\u0026quot; OR \u0026ldquo;Peatland\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026quot;Fen\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Bog\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Mire\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Swamp\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Papyrus Wetland\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Andean Moorlands\u0026quot; AND \u0026quot;Local communities\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Indigenous communities\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Traditional groups\u0026quot; AND \u0026quot;Engagement\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Restoration\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Conservation\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Management\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Wise use\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Wise-use\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Monitoring\u0026quot; AND \u0026quot;Sustainable\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;Livelihood\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eString in Portuguese:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u0026quot;turfeira\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;turfeiras\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;turfa\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;brejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;p\u0026acirc;ntano\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pantanal\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;charco\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;charneca\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;comunidade local\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;comunidades locais\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;povo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;popula\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;grupo local\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;grupos locais\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;tradicional\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;tradicionais\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;\u0026iacute;ndio\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;ind\u0026iacute;gena\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;restaura\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;participa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;participativo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;consultas p\u0026uacute;blicas\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;educa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o ambiental OR \u0026quot;governan\u0026ccedil;a\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;di\u0026aacute;logo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;oficinas\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;gest\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;manejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;sustent\u0026aacute;vel\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;monitoramento\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;engajamento\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;uso inteligente\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;meio de vida\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;subsist\u0026ecirc;ncia\u0026quot;)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaptation for Science Direct\u003c/em\u003e: (\u0026quot;turfa\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;brejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pantanal\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;comunidade\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;tradicional OR \u0026quot;ind\u0026iacute;gena\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;restaura\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;participa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot;)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaptation for Scielo\u003c/em\u003e: (\u0026quot;turfeira\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;turfeiras\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;turfa\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;brejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;p\u0026acirc;ntano\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pantanal\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;comunidade\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;tradicional\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;tradicionais\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;ind\u0026iacute;gena\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;restaura\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;participa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;participativo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;di\u0026aacute;logo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;gest\u0026atilde;o\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;manejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;sustent\u0026aacute;vel\u0026quot;)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eString in Spanish:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaptation for Scopus:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(turb* OR turbera OR turba OR pantano OR cienaga OR \u0026quot;pantano de palmera*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;bosque pantanoso\u0026quot; OR hualves OR manglar OR paramo* OR bofedal*) AND (\u0026quot;comunidad* local*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;comunidad* indigena*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pueblos originarios\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;poblacion local\u0026quot; OR indigena) AND (restauracion OR conservacion OR proteccion OR manejo OR gestion OR uso* OR monitoreo OR sostenible OR sustentable OR \u0026quot;medios de vida\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;modos de vida\u0026quot;) AND PUBYEAR \u0026gt; 2009 AND PUBYEAR \u0026lt; 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE,\u0026quot;Spanish\u0026quot; )\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaptation for Scielo:\u003c/em\u003e (subject:((turbera) OR (turba) OR (pantano) OR (cienaga) OR (pantano de palmera) OR (bosque pantanoso) OR (hualve) OR (paramo) OR (bofedal)) AND ((comunidad local) OR (indigena) OR (comunidad) OR (pueblo originario) OR (poblacion local) OR (afro)) AND ((restauracion) OR (conservacion) OR (proteccion) OR (manejo) OR (gestion) OR (uso) OR (monitoreo) OR (sostenib*) OR (sustentab*) OR (medio de vida) OR (modo de vida)))\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaption for Google Scholar:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(\u0026quot;turbera\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;turba\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pantano\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;ci\u0026eacute;naga\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pantano de palmera\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;bosque pantanoso\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;hualves\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;manglar\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;p\u0026aacute;ramo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;bofedal\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;comunidad local\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;comunidad ind\u0026iacute;gena\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;pueblos originarios\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;poblaci\u0026oacute;n local\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;ind\u0026iacute;gena\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;restauraci\u0026oacute;n\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conservaci\u0026oacute;n\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;protecci\u0026oacute;n\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;manejo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;gesti\u0026oacute;n\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;uso\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;monitoreo\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;sostenible\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;sustentable\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;medios de vida\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;modos de vida\u0026quot;) -\u0026quot;turbo\u0026quot; -\u0026quot;turbina\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlint, A., \u0026amp; Jennings, B. (2020). Saturated with meaning: Peatlands, heritage and folklore. Time and Mind, 13(3), 283\u0026ndash;305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2020.1815293\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgussabti, A., Zikri, I., Rahmaddiansyah, R., Humam Hamid, A., Baihaqi, A., \u0026amp; Takahashi, M. (2022). Exploring the social science of tropical peatland restoration: Towards more effective community empowerment initiatives for the Aceh peatland ecosystem. Mires and Peat, 28(06), 1\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026ldquo;16. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2022.OMB.StA.2376\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlam, M. J., Rengasamy, N., bin Dahalan, M. P., Halim, S. A., \u0026amp; Nath, T. K. (2022). Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of a community-based restoration of peatland swamp forests in Peninsular Malaysia: A 5Rs approach. Land Use Policy, 122, 106390.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlam, M. J., Rengasamy, N., Dahalan, M. P. B., Abdul Halim, S., Istihat, Y., \u0026amp; Nath, T. K. (2022). Rules-in-use and actors\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026trade; interaction in a community-based peatland restoration program in peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 41(3-5), 398-412.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAldama, C., Coloma, M., Espinoza, D., Guerrero, J., Hanna, D., Salinas, T., Dupuits, E., y Intriago, M. (2024). Justicia h\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;drica y reciprocidad entre la ciudad y las comunidades del p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo de \u0026Atilde;\u0026lsquo;ukanchik Urku en Cangahua, Ecuador. Esferas, 5, pp. 101-120. https://doi.org/10.18272/esferas.v5i.3046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAldama, C., Coloma, M., Espinoza, D., Guerrero, J., Hanna, D., Salinas, T., Dupuits, E., y Intriago, M. (2024). Justicia h\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;drica y reciprocidad entre la ciudad y las comunidades del p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo de \u0026Atilde;\u0026lsquo;ukanchik Urku en Cangahua, Ecuador. Esferas, 5, pp. 101-120. https://doi.org/10.18272/esferas.v5i.3046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArifudin, Nasrul, B. \u0026amp; Maswadi (2012). Program of Community Empowerment Prevents Forest Fires in Indonesian Peat Land. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.02.020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustin, K.G., Elsen, P.R., Coronado, E.N.H., DeGemmis, A., Gallego-Sala, A.V., Harris, L., Kretser, H.E., Melton, J.R., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S.D., Swails, E., Wijaya, A., Winton, R.S., Zarin, D., 2025. Mismatch Between Global Importance of Peatlands and the Extent of Their Protection. Conservation Letters 18, e13080. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13080\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiancalani R. and Avagyan A. 2014. Towards climate-responsible peatlands management. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture series 9, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonn, A., Reed, M.S., Evans, C.D., Joosten, H., Bain, C., Farmer, J., Emmer, I., Couwenberg, J., Moxey, A., Artz, R., Tanneberger, F., von Unger, M., Smyth, M.-A., Birnie, D., 2014. Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Ecosystem Services 9, 54\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonn, A., T. Allot, M. Evans, H. Joosten, and R. Stoneman. 2016. Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services: Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Palma, V. (2014). Wasteland: A history. Yale Univ. Pr. Maltby, E. (2009). The Changing wetland paradigm. In E. Maltby \u0026amp; T. Barker (Eds.), The wetlands handbook (pp. 3\u0026ndash;42). Wiley-Blackwell.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDohong, A., A. A. Aziz, and P. Dargusch. 2017. \u0026ldquo;A Review of the Drivers of Tropical Peatland Degradation in South-East Asia.\u0026rdquo; Land Use Policy 69: 349\u0026ndash;360.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFabiano, E., Schulz, C., \u0026amp; Mart\u0026iacute;n Bra\u0026ntilde;as, M. (2021). Wetland spirits and indigenous knowledge: Implications for the conservation of wetlands in the Peruvian Amazon. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. 2020. Peatlands mapping and monitoring \u0026ndash; Recommendations and technical overview. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8200en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarrell, C. A., Connolly, J., \u0026amp; Morley, T. R. (2024). Charting a course for peatland restoration in Ireland: A case study to support restoration frameworks in other regions. Restoration Ecology, 32(7), e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeehan, J., O\u0026rsquo;Donovan, G., Renou-Wilson, F., \u0026amp; Wilson, D. (2008). The bogs of Ireland: An introduction to the natural, cultural and industrial heritage of Irish peatlands. University College Dublin. Environmental Institute.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlood, K., Mahon, M., \u0026amp; McDonagh, J. (2022). Everyday resilience: Rural communities as agents of change in peatland social-ecological systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 96, 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.11.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlores, saskia, UrsUla Groten, saskya lUGo y Patricio Mena V\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;sconez (Comps.) (2012) Gente, Vida y Agua en los Cerros. Una sistematizaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del Proyecto P\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo Andino en el Ecuador. Quito: EcoCiencia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFluet-Chouinard, E., B. D. Stocker, Z. Zhang, et al. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Extensive Global Wetland Loss Over the Past Three Centuries.\u0026rdquo; Nature 614: 281\u0026ndash;286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;mez Aguirre, A. M., \u0026amp; Turbay, S. (2016). Relaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n de una comunidad de pescadores del golfo de Urab\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl; (Colombia) con los ecosistemas de manglar y su conservaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n. Revista De Estudios Sociales, 1(55), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.7440/res55.2016.07\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGolson, J., Denham, T., Hughes, P., Swadling, P., \u0026amp; Muke, J. (Eds.). (2017). Ten Thousand Years of Cultivation at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea (Vol. 46). ANU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1trkk6d\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;lez\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026macr;Guevara, D.\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026macr;F. (2020). Las transformaciones de las instituciones comunitarias y su relaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n con el estado de conservaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del ecosistema de p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo: El caso de dos comunidades en la sierra central del Ecuador (Tesis de maestr\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;a, FLACSO Ecuador) [Repositorio digital]. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO Ecuador. Recuperado de https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/16567/2/TFLACSO-2020DFGG.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuti\u0026Atilde;\u0026copy;rrez-Campo, R. D., \u0026amp; Vel\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;zquez-Hern\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ndez, E. (2022). La implantaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n de una Unidad de Manejo de la Vida Silvestre de manglar y la construcci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n de sujetos ambientales locales en una zona de humedales marino-costeros en el Golfo de M\u0026Atilde;\u0026copy;xico. Revista CS, 36, 179-206. https://doi.org/10.18046/recs.i36.4732\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrera Var\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n, Yenifer. (2018). De la biolog\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;a y la pedagog\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;a para el reconocimiento del p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo del Parque Nacional Natural el Cocuy como patrimonio natural y cultural. Bio-graf\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;a. 11. 127-140. 10.17227/bio-grafia.vol.11.num20-8599. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiller, B., \u0026amp; Fisher, J. (2023). A Multifunctional \u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026tilde;Scape Approach for Sustainable Management of Intact Ecosystems\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026rdquo;A Review of Tropical Peatlands. Sustainability, 15(3), 2484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032484\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eI\u0026Atilde;\u0026plusmn;iguez-Gallardo, V., \u0026amp; L\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;pez-Rodr\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;guez, F. (2024). Gobernanza participativa para manglares en Ecuador. Madera y bosques, 30(4), e3042612. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2024.3042612\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJalilov, S.-M., Lestari, S., Winarno, B., Yuwati, T. W., Sakuntaladewi, N., \u0026amp; Mendham, D. (2024). Why is tropical peatland conservation so challenging? Findings from a livelihood assessment in Sumatra, Indonesia. Mires and Peat, 30(03), 1\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026ldquo;20. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2022.OMB.Sc.1985391\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaya, A., Elia, A., Antang, E. U., Octora, M., Ichriani, G. I., Dohong, S., \u0026amp; Sulistiyanto, Y. (2022). A study of agroforestry farming for tropical peatland conservation and rehabilitation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Mires and Peat, 28, 22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamphorst, D. A., Bouwma, I. M., \u0026amp; Selnes, T. A. (2017). Societal engagement in Natura 2000 sites. A comparative analysis of the policies in three areas in England, Denmark and Germany. Land use policy, 61, 379-388.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrisdianto, Slamat, Anshari, F., \u0026amp; Susilawati, I. O. (2020). Permaculture Technology in Tropical Freshwater Swamp. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 499(1), 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/499/1/012018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeifeld, J., C. W\u0026uuml;st-Galley, and S. Page. 2019. \u0026ldquo;Intact and Managed Peatland Soils as a Source and Sink of GHGs From 1850 to 2100.\u0026rdquo; Nature Climate Change 9: 945\u0026ndash;947.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMe\u0026Auml;\u0026lsquo;ugorac, V., \u0026amp; Schuitema, G. (2023). Why is bottom-up more acceptable than top-down? A study on collective psychological ownership and place-technology fit in the Irish Midlands. Energy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 96, 102924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102924\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendham, D.S., Sakuntaladewi, N., Ramawati, Yuwati, T.W., Budiningsih, K., Prasetyo, B.D. \u0026amp; Handoyo. (2024). Facilitating new livelihoods to promote peatland restoration in Indonesia -what are the challenges for ensuring sustainable and equitable livelihood transitions? Mires and Peat, 30(4), pp.1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurdiyarso, D., Lilleskov, E. \u0026amp; Kolka, R. Tropical peatlands under siege: the need for evidence-based policies and strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 24, 493\u0026ndash;505 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-9844-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePan, Y., R. A. Birdsey, O. L. Phillips, et al. 2024. \u0026ldquo;The Enduring World Forest Carbon Sink.\u0026rdquo; Nature 631: 563\u0026ndash;569.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurnomo, H., Puspitaloka, D., Okarda, B., Andrianto, A., Qomar, N., Sutikno, S., ... \u0026amp; Brady, M. A. (2024). Community-based fire prevention and peatland restoration in Indonesia: A participatory action research approach. Environmental Development, 50, 100971.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePuspitaloka, D., Purnomo, H., Juniyanti, L., Andrianto, A., Kusumadewi, S. D., Okarda, B., \u0026amp; Dermawan, A. (2024, March). Adaptive business model development for community-based peatland restoration in Riau. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1315, No. 1, p. 012053). IOP Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRandy, A. F., Hutomo, M., \u0026amp; Purnama, H. (2015). Collaborative Efforts on Mangrove Restoration in Sedari Village, Karawang District, West Java Province. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 23, 48\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026ldquo;57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRenou-Wilson, F., Wilson, D., \u0026amp; Flood, K. (with Environmental Protection Agency). (2025). \u003cem\u003ePeat Hub Ireland: 2022-NE-1129\u003c/em\u003e (Online version). Environmental Protection Agency.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaafsma, M., Van Beukering, P., \u0026amp; Oskolokaite, I. (2017). Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: A case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 27, 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuwarno, A., Hein, L., Weikard, H., Van Noordwijk, M., \u0026amp; Nugroho, B. (2018). Land-use trade-offs in the Kapuas peat forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 75, 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSze, J. S., D. Z. Childs, L. R. Carrasco, \u0026Aacute;. Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Llamazares, S. T. Garnett, and D. P. Edwards. 2024. \u0026ldquo;Indigenous Peoples\u0026apos; Lands Are Critical for Safeguarding Vertebrate Diversity Across the Tropics.\u0026rdquo; Global Change Biology 30: e16981.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTapia Zavala, F. (2020). Costos de conservaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del manglar: Casos Las Huacas y Pongalillo, en la provincia de El Oro, al sur de Ecuador. Investigatio, (13), 65\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026ldquo;76. https://doi.org/10.31095/investigatio.2020.13.7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerzano, D., Attorre, F., Parish, F., Moss, P., Bresciani, F., Cooke, R., Dargusch, P., 2022. Community-led peatland restoration in Southeast Asia: 5Rs approach. Restoration Ecology 30, e13642. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13642\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorres, M. C., \u0026amp; Naranjo, E. (2024). Limitaciones para la aplicaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n de tecnolog\u0026Atilde;\u0026shy;a social en la protecci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo [Constraints to the Application of Social Technology for the Protection of p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo; Limita\u0026Atilde;\u0026sect;\u0026Atilde;\u0026micro;es para a aplica\u0026Atilde;\u0026sect;\u0026Atilde;\u0026pound;o de tecnologia social na prote\u0026Atilde;\u0026sect;\u0026Atilde;\u0026pound;o do p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo]. Estudios de la Gesti\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n, (16), 29\u0026acirc;\u0026euro;\u0026ldquo;51. https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2024.16.2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuretsky, M. R., B. W. Abbott, M. C. Jones, et al. 2020. \u0026ldquo;Carbon Release Through Abrupt Permafrost Thaw.\u0026rdquo; Nature Geoscience 13: 138\u0026ndash;143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard, C. F. M., Stringer, L. C., Warren-Thomas, E., Agus, F., Hamer, K. C., Pettorelli, N., Hariyadi, B., Hodgson, J., Kartika, W. D., Lucey, J. M., \u0026amp; Nurida, N. L. (2020). Wading through the swamp: what does tropical peatland restoration mean to national‐level stakeholders in Indonesia? Restoration Ecology, 28(4), 817\u0026ndash;827. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13133\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiaohong, Z., Hongyu, L., \u0026amp; Zisheng, X. (2011). Challenges and solutions for sustainable land use in Ruoergai-the highest altitude peatland in Qinhai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Energy Procedia, 5, 1019-1025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYasir, Y. (2020). Environmental Communication Model of Farmer Community in Peatlands Ecotourism Development. 1655, 012133. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012133\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, Z., J. Loisel, D. P. Brosseau, D. W. Beilman, and S. J. Hunt. 2010. \u0026ldquo;Global Peatland Dynamics Since the Last Glacial Maximum.\u0026rdquo; Geophysical Research Letters 37, no. 13: L13402.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZ\u0026Atilde;\u0026ordm;\u0026Atilde;\u0026plusmn;iga, Tapia \u0026amp; Jimenez Gonz\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;lez, Alfredo \u0026amp; Fuel, Cu\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;squer \u0026amp; Cabrera-Verdesoto, C. \u0026amp; C.A., \u0026amp; \u0026Atilde;lvarez, Caisedo. (2017). Evaluaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del programa de conservaci\u0026Atilde;\u0026sup3;n del ecosistema p\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;ramo y sus efectos socioambientales en una comuna rural. 5. 287 - 300. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Map 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eMap1 is available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"United Nations Environment Programme","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"indigenous peaople, local communities, peatlands, wetlands, sustainable management, participatory decision-making, co-creation, capacity building, traditional knowledge, community-based monitoring","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePeatlands are critical for climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water management, yet they face growing threats from unsustainable and extractive land use practices. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are increasingly recognised as essential actors in peatland restoration, but the effectiveness of different engagement strategies remains poorly understood. This Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) synthesises empirical evidence on IPLC engagement in peatland conservation, restoration, and sustainable management. Our final dataset included 48 studies, predominantly journal articles. Engagement methods identified include participatory decision-making and co-design, community-based monitoring, awareness campaigns and capacity building, integration of traditional knowledge, and financial incentives. Multi-method, bottom-up approaches were generally more effective than single interventions. Key challenges include structural constraints, method-related issues (e.g., limited participation, knowledge gaps), and poorly aligned incentives. Our findings highlight the need to promote community-led governance, integrate local knowledge, align incentives with livelihoods, secure land and resource rights, invest in education and capacity building, embed adaptive management, and link local initiatives with national strategies. Evidence gaps remain in evaluating effectiveness, documenting non-tropical peatlands, and assessing locally led initiatives in local languages.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Rapid Evidence Assessment on Engagement with Indigenous People and Local Communities in Sustainable Peatland Management Initiatives.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-03 07:52:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8764080/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e2bdc8a8-7c4e-4415-8911-4e6fd0eb3418","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 3rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62155486,"name":"Environmental Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-03T07:52:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-03 07:52:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8764080","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8764080","identity":"rs-8764080","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}