ReviewJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2026
Digital technologies in ethnobiology and ethnoecology: methodological opportunities, ethical challenges, and participatory implications.
Review in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing adoption of digital technologies has reshaped methodological practices in ethnobiology and ethnoecology. Mobile data collection platforms, participatory mapping tools, biodiversity databases, remote sensing technologies, and digital analytical environments have expanded researchers' capacity to document, integrate, and analyze biocultural knowledge across spatial and temporal scales. At the same time, digitalization raises critical methodological and ethical questions related to participation, data governance, and the representation of local knowledge systems. This article presents a critical narrative review of digital technologies used in ethnobiological and ethnoecological research, moving beyond an instrumental focus on tools to examine their methodological, ethical, and participatory implications. Digital technologies are organized into six functional categories-structured data collection, participatory mapping, biodiversity cataloging, audio recording and transcription, remote sensing, and data analysis and visualization-used as analytical devices to synthesize recurrent patterns across the literature. The review examines how these technologies shape knowledge production, integration, and communication, with particular attention to their mediating role in relationships between researchers and Indigenous peoples and local communities. Across categories, the analysis highlights trade-offs related to participation, consent, data sovereignty, standardization, and contextual depth. By synthesizing opportunities and limitations documented in empirical and methodological studies, this review argues that the value of digital technologies in ethnobiology lies less in technological novelty than in their capacity to support reflexive, transparent, and ethically grounded research practices when embedded within community-centered governance frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.