The study, led by Yojan Gutiérrez-Rojas of the Norwegian Human Rights Fund in Bogotá, together with Edgar Martínez-Moyano of CONICET in Argentina and Nicole Sibelet of CIRAD and the University of Montpellier in France, set out to answer a deceptively simple question: how do you actually measure quality of life among Indigenous families whose economic lives do not fit the standard categories used by national statistics agencies? Conventional poverty metrics, built around monetary income and consumption, systematically fail to capture the realities of communities where food comes from the chagra, the ancestral polyculture garden; where housing, medicine, and tools derive from the forest; and where spiritual and social life is inseparable from the land itself. The researchers instead designed a methodological framework adapted to the actual economic dynamics of the families they studied, arguing that quality of life is closely linked to territorial autonomy, the development of traditional ways of life, and the conservation of the natural environment.

The empirical core of the research rests on 94 semi-structured interviews conducted with families from five Indigenous communities in the municipality of Solano, in the department of Caquetá, Colombia. From these interviews, the team extracted and analyzed a total of 93 variables covering what the researchers describe as Livelihoods, Livelihood Strategies, and Fundamental Human Needs. The analytical approach drew on the sustainable livelihoods framework and the community capitals framework, both widely used in rural development research, which treat households as managers of multiple asset bases: natural capital such as forest, water, and soil; physical capital such as tools and infrastructure; financial capital such as cash and credit; human capital such as knowledge and labor; social capital such as kinship networks and communal institutions; and cultural capital such as language, ritual, and traditional ecological knowledge. Using multivariate statistical methods implemented in the R computing environment, including tools for clustering and dimensionality reduction, the team grouped families into distinct economic types based on how they combined these different capitals.

The analysis revealed three clearly differentiated groups. The first, labeled the Mixed Economy, comprised families that combined traditional production with market participation, selling surpluses and periodically engaging in wage labor while maintaining their chagras and forest activities. The second, the Traditional Economy, consisted of families whose livelihoods remained anchored almost entirely in traditional productive practices: shifting cultivation of manioc and other staples, hunting, fishing, gathering, and the communal exchange relationships that bind families together. The third, the Dependent Economy, included families that had become largely reliant on external income sources, purchased food, and government transfers, with weakened connections to their own productive base. This typology allowed the researchers to move beyond averages and ask whether the way a family makes its living shapes how well it lives.

To answer that question, the team constructed four composite indices for each group. The Community Capital Index, or CCI, measured the strength of the asset base across the multiple capitals. The Livelihood Strategies Index, or LSI, captured the diversity and robustness of the economic activities a family pursued. The Fundamental Human Needs Index, or FHNI, assessed satisfaction of the categories articulated in Max-Neef’s framework of fundamental human needs, spanning subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and freedom. Finally, the Quality-of-Life Index, or QLI, integrated these dimensions into an overall measure of well-being designed to be meaningful within the cultural context of the communities themselves rather than imposed from outside.

The results were striking in their consistency. Families in the Traditional Economy group scored highest on the Community Capital Index, the Livelihood Strategies Index, and the Quality-of-Life Index, while the Dependent Economy group paradoxically recorded the highest values on the Fundamental Human Needs Index, a pattern the researchers interpret carefully. Higher FHNI scores among dependent families may reflect greater access to certain externally provided services and goods that map onto some need categories, yet this did not translate into superior overall quality of life. On the integrated measure that mattered most, the QLI, traditional families came out ahead. The finding suggests that dependence on external economies can inflate measures of consumption or service access while eroding the underlying capitals and strategies that sustain genuine, self-determined well-being over time.

For the researchers, the explanation lies in the internal logic of the traditional economy itself. The chagra is not simply a garden; it is a sophisticated agroecological system that embeds families within cycles of knowledge transmission, ritual obligation, and communal labor. In the communities studied, many of them belonging to the Murui-Muinaɨ people, the cultivation of coca, tobacco, and sweet manioc carries deep cosmological significance, and the chagra functions simultaneously as a source of physical food and of spiritual and social nourishment. Families practicing these systems retain control over their own food production, maintain dense social networks of reciprocity, preserve encyclopedic knowledge of forest species and their uses, and exercise the territorial autonomy that the authors identify as a precondition for quality of life. The diversity of livelihood activities within traditional economies also confers resilience, buffering families against the shocks, whether climatic, economic, or political, that devastate households dependent on a single external income stream.

The findings carry pointed implications for policy in Colombia and across the Amazon basin. The study region sits in a landscape scarred by decades of armed conflict, coca cultivation, oil exploration, and deforestation, and government programs have often treated Indigenous poverty as a problem to be solved through market integration, cash transfers, and agricultural modernization. If the authors are right, such approaches risk undermining precisely the assets and strategies that produce the best measured quality-of-life outcomes. The research instead supports policies that strengthen territorial autonomy, protect collective land tenure, and support traditional productive practices as legitimate and effective development strategies in their own right. This aligns with a growing international body of evidence that Indigenous-managed lands show lower deforestation rates and higher biodiversity than surrounding areas, and that Indigenous knowledge systems constitute critical infrastructure for climate adaptation and conservation.

Methodologically, the study also makes a contribution to how science measures human well-being. By insisting on an approach adapted to Indigenous economic dynamics, and by grounding its indices in the lived categories of the communities themselves, the research demonstrates that rigorous quantitative comparison is possible without flattening cultural difference into a single monetary yardstick. The team worked closely with the ASCAINCA association and with the Amazon Conservation Team Colombia, which facilitated field visits, and the authors emphasize that the research would not have been possible without the trust and collaboration of the participating families. The combination of ethnographic sensitivity and multivariate statistics offers a template other researchers can adapt to contexts where conventional indicators mislead.

The study is not without its limitations and complexities. With 94 households across five communities, the sample, while substantial for field research in remote Amazonian terrain, captures a specific region at a specific moment, and the cross-sectional design cannot fully disentangle whether traditional economies cause higher quality of life or whether healthier, more autonomous families are better able to maintain traditional economies. The researchers themselves frame the results as underscoring the significance of traditional productive practices rather than as a definitive causal demonstration. Even so, the pattern they document, in which the highest integrated quality-of-life scores coincide with the strongest community capitals and the most diverse livelihood strategies, is difficult to reconcile with development models that assume traditional lifeways are a stage to be outgrown.

As debates over the future of the Amazon intensify, with governments weighing extractive revenue against conservation commitments and Indigenous movements demanding a seat at every table, this study offers something rare: hard numbers in support of what Indigenous communities have long asserted. The families of Northwestern Amazonia who continue to plant their chagras, hunt and fish under ancestral norms, and govern their territories according to their own plans of life are not merely surviving on the margins of the market economy. By the measures that matter most to their own conception of a good life, they are, on the evidence of this research, living better than those who have been drawn into dependence on it. The message for science, for policy, and for anyone who cares about the future of the world’s largest rainforest is that sustainability and well-being may be two names for the same traditional strategy.

The research underscores that the burning of allochthonous woods was not merely an environmental necessity but an integral aspect of the socio-cultural fabric of these indigenous communities. This practice was significant for various reasons, including the cultivation of agricultural lands, the management of fire regimes, and the establishment of communal rituals. It also demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of their environment, as the communities adeptly managed and manipulated their surroundings to align with their subsistence needs.

By examining archaeological remnants and employing advanced analytical techniques, the study reveals how agro-pastoralists adapted their resource use in relation to climatic and ecological shifts in the landscape. The transition from forest to desert poses considerable challenges to traditional lifestyles, yet this research indicates a remarkable resilience and adaptability among the communities. Understanding these ancient coping strategies sheds light on contemporary issues of climate change and environmental degradation faced by modern societies.

Moreover, the authors meticulously analyze charcoal samples found at archaeological sites, which provide crucial data on the timing and extent of wood burning practices. These analyses point to variations in species selection and burning techniques over time, suggesting a highly developed knowledge system regarding fire management. Such insights not only inform us about ancient environmental practices but also contribute significantly to our understanding of biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource management today.

In their exploration of the Yungas and Puna regions, the researchers highlight the importance of geographical context in shaping cultural practices. The transition from a biodiverse forest to a high-altitude desert inevitably influenced the materials available for construction, fuel, and craftsmanship. The reliance on allochthonous woods indicates a flexible approach to resource use, showcasing the community’s innovative spirit and their ability to maintain sustainable practices despite ecological constraints.

Additionally, this study emphasizes the role of fire as a tool for landscape management. Fire regimes employed by these societies were not only about clearing land but were also integral to promoting the growth of desired plant species, enhancing soil fertility, and preventing invasive species from taking hold. This integrated approach to land management serves as an important lesson for modern ecological practices, especially in an age where land degradation is rampant.

As societies across the globe grapple with the effects of climate change, the study’s findings can inspire contemporary conversations about sustainable agricultural practices. The research highlights how ancient societies effectively navigated environmental challenges, employing wisdom that can be translated into modern-day resilience strategies. By learning from the agro-pastoralist practices of the South Central Andes, current agricultural stakeholders can rethink their approaches to cultivate lands in harmony with ecological systems.

Another noteworthy aspect includes the cultural dimensions associated with wood burning. The ritualistic aspects tied to fire management reflect deeper social values and community cohesion. Such practices often included ceremonies and traditions that reinforced group identity and social bonds among community members. The blending of ecological and cultural narratives provides a holistic view of how indigenous practices can contribute to maintaining biodiversity while also fostering social unity.

In conclusion, the work by Rodriguez and Babot is not merely an academic endeavor; it is a vital exploration that bridges the past with the present. By examining how agro-pastoralist societies adapted to their changing environments over a millennium ago, the study is a clarion call to recognize the significance of traditional ecological knowledge. It encourages modern scientists and policymakers to engage with indigenous practices and wisdom, which may hold a key to building sustainable futures amid ongoing environmental crises.

As we advance toward an uncertain future marked by global climate shifts, the insights derived from ancient practices in the South Central Andes could be pivotal. They serve as reminders of human resilience and adaptability, as well as the intricate bonds we share with our environment. This revolutionary research spells optimism for future generations, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration that honors both the lessons of history and the exigencies of contemporary ecological challenges.

In reading this research, we glean that the temperature of historical relevance is not merely of the past; it propels us into an urgent dialogue about how we may engage responsibly and sustainably with our environment moving forward. The wisdom of these ancient agro-pastoralists provides a guiding light for all of humanity, inviting us to cultivate a relationship with the earth that is both respectful and sustainable.

Subject of Research: Ancient agro-pastoralist practices and environmental adaptation in the South Central Andes.

Article Title: From the Yungas subtropical mountain forest to the Puna high desert: insights on the burning of allochthonous woods by agro-pastoralist societies of the South Central Andes of Argentina (1584 − 830 BP).

Article References: Rodriguez, M.d., Babot, M.d. From the Yungas subtropical mountain forest to the Puna high desert: insights on the burning of allochthonous woods by agro-pastoralist societies of the South Central Andes of Argentina (1584 − 830 BP). Archaeol Anthropol Sci 17, 205 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02312-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02312-5

Keywords: Agro-pastoralism, wood burning, South Central Andes, resilience, ecological adaptation, cultural practices, sustainability, indigenous knowledge.