Julia Bello-Bravo1*
Denis Pilares2Luiz F. Brito3Alejandra M. Toro Ospina3Luis P. B. Sousa Junior3Gerardo Cornelio Mamani Mamani3Jon Schoonmaker3Jennifer Richardson4- 1Department of Agricultural Science Education and Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
- 2Departamento de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa UNSA, Arequipa, Peru
- 3Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
- 4Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
This conceptual review addresses the social sustainability challenges facing traditional alpaca pastoralism in Peru, particularly in light of economic and environmental interventions such as selective breeding for international market demands. While efforts to prioritize economic and environmental sustainability are well-documented, the neglect of social sustainability threatens the survival of traditional Andean knowledge, practices, and cultural resilience. Utilizing a triple-bottom-line framework, this review explores the social impacts of genetic biodiversity conservation efforts within the Peruvian alpaca value chain. It highlights how selective breeding, driven by global market preferences, risks eroding not only the genetic diversity of alpacas but also the sustainability of traditional herding practices. The review underscores the need for increased attention to social dimensions when implementing technical solutions to economic and environmental challenges, emphasizing the preservation of indigenous knowledge systems and practices to sustain the livelihoods and cultural heritage of alpaqueros. Recommendations include prioritizing social sustainability by integrating traditional practices into development agendas, fostering greater participation from indigenous communities, and encouraging the transmission of intergenerational knowledge to ensure the long-term viability of Peruvian pastoralism. Future research directions are also discussed.
Introduction
The historical resilience of alpacas and pastoralist traditions of alpaqueros in Peru highlight the lasting significance of this relationship, which continues to provide economic livelihoods for approximately 1.5 million pastoralists and contributes, in principle, to the environmental biodiversity of the region and the social wellbeing of traditional Andean peoples generally (Ens et al., 2016). Nonetheless, alpacas and their traditional herders now currently face such an extent of environmental and economic pressures and impacts to their sustainability that their future is at risk (Astacio, 2022).
This conceptual review applies a triple-bottom-line framework (discussed below) to explore how impacts from economic and environmental factors on the social sustainability of traditional Peruvian alpaca herding—especially selective breeding practices aimed at meeting international market demands for specific alpaca fiber traits (e.g., more readily dyeable white colors and low medullation)—can affect the genetic biodiversity of alpacas and, consequently, the sustainability of traditional pastoralism. Salas (2003), for example, could draw attention in 2003 to the then-increasing threat of biological extinction facing the Suri breed of alpaca in Peru; a situation subsequently turned around thanks to environmental (genetic) and economic conservation efforts (GEF, 2018; Salas, 2015). A more immediate impact involves hereditary deafness associated with genetic loci and selective breeding for white pigmentation in many species, including alpacas (Gauly et al., 2005; Strain, 2015). The core issue here is not selective breeding per se, given that the initial domestication of alpacas ∼6,000 years ago (Browman, 2014) and 200 years of an “alpaca wool industry” (Astacio, 2022, p. 1) in Peru have required selective breeding; rather, the issue is whether the long-term effects of current selective breeding practices aimed at meeting international market demands will sustainably conserve genetic biodiversity in Peruvian alpacas (Salas, 2015). Numerous Peruvian studies and projects (not documented in English) address the technical (environmental/genetic) aspects of this question (e.g., Chupillón Vásquez and López Cotrina, 2019; Córdova Flores et al., 2023; Espinosa-Heywood, 2010; Inocente Valverde and Miranda Diaz, 2021; Jara Ortega et al., 2019; Makini et al., 2020; Mercado Herida, 2023; Rosas, 2013; Salas and Belén, 2019; Salas, 2003; Sandi Ochoa, 1998). Prospects for extending successes like those described by Salas (2015) and other efforts to national-level breeding programs have been discussed (Gutierrez et al., 2018; Wurzinger and Gutiérrez, 2022).
However, the specific focus of this conceptual review is the social sustainability of traditional pastoralism in Peru facing these impacts. Notably, Astacio (2022) has expressed concern that the traditional knowledge and practices of pastoralist cultures in Peru have become unsustainable, primarily due to the “the ways in which extreme poverty, state abandonment, and climate change make alpaca herding itself an unsustainable practice” (Astacio, 2022, p. 1). Like other research (Bello-Bravo, 2023a; Bendix, 2000; Corntassel, 2008; Nadasdy, 2005; Watson, 2001), Astacio (2022) rightly notes that essentializing, or romanticizing, indigenous cultural knowledge and practices can contribute to its unsustainability, if not its demise, when it is imagined as fixed in time and not liable to (or permitted to) evolve and change (Bello-Bravo, 2023a). By “traditional” knowledge and practice we mean precisely any long-standing indigenous knowledges and practices that continue to evolve, adapt, and respond (like any other cultural form) to contemporary influences (Kimmerer, 2013; Waller and Reo, 2018).
Spanning at least six millennia, these contemporary influences have included indigenous, colonial, and post-colonial eras—from the initial adaptation of pastoralism and the domestication of wild alpacas as a response to the Andean environment’s unsuitability for large-scale agriculture and their increasingly complex role over the rise of the Inca Empire, through colonialism’s accelerating social displacements due to the introduction of new livestock, European diseases, and the suppression of indigenous culture, then post-colonial political instability, civil war, neoliberal globalization, zootechnical changes to alpaca production and breeding, and the degradation of grazing habitats from outsized climate variation, mismatches between larger herd sizes and available forage driven by increasing international demand for alpaca fiber, and the resulting deterioration of alpaca dentition and increased mortality rates, especially among newborns (Browman, 2014; Campos et al., 2021; Gill, 2019; Mengoni Goñalons, 2008; Klarén, 2022; Radolf et al., 2022; Soto and Ruelas, 2022; Wheeler et al., 1995).
In general, these are the well-known problems raised by unsustainable industrialized livestock production, especially when transitioning or attempting to modify indigenous or previously non-industrialized pastoralism (Tejon Tejon, 1982; Thompson and Nardone, 1999). However, it must also be stressed that despite two centuries of selective breeding for markets (Astacio, 2022), an alarming decline of non-white alpacas was first noted in the 1970s (Bustinza Choque et al., 2021). It is especially these problems posed by present-day environmental and economic impacts that Astacio (2022) cites as making traditional pastoralism in Peru now unsustainable. That the disappearance or destruction of languages and the cultures its speakers embody can be likened to an extinction (Ogwudile, 2023; Ortiz et al., 2020), it may be, as for the Suri alpaca in 2003, Peruvian pastoralism may now require concerted efforts to socially move it away from the brink of extinction.
Conceptual framework: triple-bottom line sustainability
Because no mechanism exists to enforce any standardization or consensus around what sustainability is, means, or does (Apetrei et al., 2021), we provide an abbreviated declaration of our framing of it for this paper, primarily for brevity, relying on previous work to elaborate any details not brought in here (Bello-Bravo and Lutomia, 2022; Giovannoni and Fabietti, 2013; Glavič and Lukman, 2007).
Since the time of its most-cited formulation by Brundtland et al. (1987), sustainability has been linked to triple-bottom-line decision-making, which evaluates the anticipated benefits or drawbacks of a proposal, solution, intervention, or approach across three key domains: economic, social, and environmental (Schweikert et al., 2018). Rather than focusing on one domain in isolation, this framework prioritizes one or more while treating the others as collateral or supporting benefits. For example, prioritizing environmentally sustainable practices at a factory can reframe expenditures for training and equipment, as well as the enterprise’s improved social perception, as benefits rather than costs (Ketelsen et al., 2020). Similarly, prioritizing industrialization for national economies and unlimited growth can reframe the use of seemingly unused or indigenously occupied environments, along with the transformation of long-standing socio-cultural knowledge and practices, as goods rather than losses (Desai, 2017; Fressoz and Bonneuil, 2017). These examples draw attention to two points: first, that decisions can allocate benefits across different domains without treating them as trade-offs; and second, that a further evaluation is needed to assess whether a given configuration of benefits is more or less sustainable than others (discussed below).
While the sufficiency and coherence of various framings of triple-bottom-line decision-making have been questioned (e.g., Bello-Bravo and Lutomia, 2022; Longoni and Cagliano, 2018; O’Neil, 2018; Schweikert et al., 2018; Sridhar and Jones, 2013; Svensson et al., 2018), a core emphasis is not to equalize sustainability’s three pillars but to configure them such that the ability of future generations to meet their needs are not compromised by meeting our needs in the present (Brundtland et al., 1987); importantly, Brundtland et al. (1987) specifically mandates a first task of sustainability is to give overwhelming priority to meeting of the needs of the world’s human poor (p. 41). This provides one evaluative criterion for determining whether a given decision is more or less sustainable.
To be clear, we say “the world’s human poor” in part because that is the tacit assumption in Brundtland et al. (1987)—the “our” in the subtitle’s Our Common Future embraces no species other than humans—but also because the sustainability of all other life on the planet is generally assimilated to the environmental. At the same time, numberless indigenous traditions—which sustainably maintained the persistence of the human species for hundreds of thousands of years—recognize the world’s other species of life as sovereign beings, as our brothers and sisters, to whom we owe a moral regard at least analogous to (if not identical with) our regard for our fellow human beings (Baynes-Rock, 2012; Kimmerer, 2013; Mangena, 2013; Waller and Reo, 2018). In that light, we must reckon them, like ourselves, among the world’s poorer or more well-to-do, not simply of world generically (the environment) (Kimmerer, 2013). Nor do we raise this point to additionally complicate the already intractable stakes of this paper. Nonetheless, we can (if not must) still acknowledge how sustainability can (if not must) include other life-forms in our decision-making, especially in a context of social sustainability for a form of indigenous pastoralism that recognizes alpacas are not simply livestock or a “natural resource” to be used at will (Parsons et al., 2021; Semplici, 2023; Trosper, 2002).
However we widen or narrow this scope of sustainability, another criterion for its decision-making metric echoes the medical decision-making principle (traditionally associated with Hippocrates) “to help, or at least to do no harm” (Smith, 2005, p. 371). Both in the practice of medicine and international development, this means making the most effective, least invasive short-term intervention with the smallest, and least detrimental long-term impacts (Bello-Bravo and Lutomia, 2022). Accordingly, interventions with smaller, less detrimental long-term impacts are by definition more sustainable than alternatives for any given effective, least invasive short-term intervention, ceteris paribus (Bello-Bravo, 2023b). Moreover, adherence to sustainability principles means selecting those more sustainable interventions.
If this provides insight into how to assess the sustainability of decisions, what is social sustainability itself? Here again, no consensus exists about it or its operationalization, and it is well-beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate its details or metrics sufficiently (see Baffoe and Mutisya, 2015; Colantonio, 2009; Desiderio et al., 2022). By social sustainability, we mean those continuities and supports for cultural knowledge and practices that contribute to communities’ futures. While material wellbeing can be implicated in this, immaterial wellbeing is of no less (but probably greater) importance, i.e., qualities of community relationships between people and the world, mental and spiritual health, intergenerational continuity of knowledge and traditions, and the sheer prospects and hopes for a future itself (Williams, 1989).
Prioritizing the world’s human poor in this paper—as the most basic criterion for sustainability (Brundtland et al., 1987)—means centering the social sustainability of the traditional relationship between alpacas and alpaqueros and the continuity of its culture, knowledge, and practices. If—as Salas (2003) warned—a short-term intervention was necessary to prevent a potential long-term extinction of the Suri alpaca—clearly an unsustainable outcome for the species—then the same logic applies to safeguarding the cultural knowledge and practices of Peru’s traditional pastoralism to avoid its long-term erasure, which would be equally unsustainable. This does not mean that Peruvian pastoralism must remain unchanged, but rather that any changes should not be so drastic that it is no longer exists for future generations.
Method and discussion
In February of 2024, Google Scholar (GS) was selected to conduct a review of the literature on impacts from economic and environmental factors on the social sustainability of traditional Peruvian alpaca herding, because although GS can be more time-intensive than Web of Science to work with (Cantrell et al., 2024), studies have found that its search results equal or exceed the Internet and other repositories as bibliographic sources (Cantrell et al., 2024; Gerasimov et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2023).
Generally, intitle-delimited searches (IDS) were conducted to ensure that key search topics were robustly represented, but this was supplemented at times by non-IDS searches (and searches in Spanish) due to limited relevant search results. Two factors complicated the initial non-IDS searches for relevant studies on alpacas in Peru: 1) the prevalence of zoological research that broadly addresses camelids as a group, and 2) the socio-cultural significance of herding various livestock species—including alpacas, llamas, vicuñas, and sheep—as part of Peru’s pastoralist traditions. As a result, isolating studies focused solely on alpacas was not only challenging but also, in some cases, not desirable given the cultural interconnected of species. Moreover (as the Findings indicate), themes associated with social sustainability are often buried quite incidentally inside of otherwise explicitly zoological (genetic or alpaca breeding) studies; for example, Quispe et al. (2011) notes that farmers’ traditional practice of a “willingness to exchange males across herds by different farmers” (p. 116) complicates scientific tab-keeping for breeding inputs and outcomes.
After trial and error experimentation with searches, a baseline intitle: “alpaca OR alpacas OR camelids” -“llama OR llamas” Peru search (yielding 2,290 results) was then further IDS and non-IDS for specific topics (e.g., sustainability, genetics, breeding, etc.). Duplicates were eliminated, and articles were reviewed for relevance to the review. The sections that follow present specific search terms used and findings for relevant studies, as well as discussion organized thematically for 1) economic and environmental sustainability, 2) genetic and breeding issues, and 3) social sustainability. Throughout, our metric for social sustainability configures traditional knowledge and practices as priorities such that environmental and economic aspects provide collateral or supporting benefits.
Environmental and economic sustainability
Narrowing the baseline with a non-IDS for “sustainability OR sustainable” (and later “sostenible OR sostenibilidad”) yielded 702 results (7% of the 9,220 overall); further refining this as an IDS for the terms in English and Spanish yielded 17 items (0.18% of the 9,220 overall), with only 6 in English (e.g., Al Faruque et al., 2018; Andrade et al., 2024; Astacio, 2022; Gillespie and Terrill, 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2024; Van Dyke, 2002).
Only 1 of these studies significantly addresses the central theme of this review (Astacio, 2022, discussed in the section on social sustainability below). Of the remaining five, 2 generically invoke the sustainability of alpaca herding in the United States (Gillespie and Terrill, 2009; Van Dyke, 2002); 1 addresses sustainable energy within the alpaca fiber value-chain (Gutiérrez et al., 2024), and 2 address issues around sustainable alpaca fiber dyeing (Al Faruque et al., 2018; Andrade et al., 2024). Specifically, Andrade et al. (2024) addresses “environmental sustainability of the removal of alpaca fiber dye using a thermally modified sludge from a drinking water treatment facility,” while Al Faruque et al. (2018) describes a “chemical-free biocompatible and natural pigment based dyeing technique to colour acrylic fibres” (p. 1).
What is critically important to emphasize here is how the benefit to social sustainability is framed in terms of, or consequent to, environmental (and possibly economic) benefits for fiber processers. That is, one can readily imagine how more environmentally sustainable energy and chemical processes for producing whitened alpaca fibers could have collateral social benefits for traditional pastoralists in Peru. But as the first task of sustainability is prioritizing the needs of the world’s human poor (not its manufacturing sector), these undeniably positive and helpful proposals for greater environmental sustainability are by definition less sustainable than similar efforts that forefront social sustainability itself.
Alternatively, how might prioritizing the social sustainability of alpacas and traditional alpaca herding yield more sustainable energy and more environmentally sustainable, less environmentally harmful, fiber processing approaches? Removing industrialized mass-production from the value-chain is the most obvious answer, even as that must surely result in a decreased fiber supply; nonetheless, the resultant exclusivity and rareness of the product might then generate a higher-end, not necessarily less profitable market for downstream stakeholders (McGrath et al., 2004). Alternatively, let an environmentally less toxic or non-toxic method of fiber processing be developed and placed under traditional herders’ control as a value-added step to increase the downstream sale of the fiber (see the analogous example of neem use in Bello-Bravo et al., 2023a, p. 178). Not ignoring the difficulty, entrenched interests, or even the “Andean inhabitants aversion to risk” (Reyna, 2005, p. 3) toward implementing such changes, we can also at least not ignore that these alternatives are clearly (if not vastly) more sustainable than either current practices or the studies’ proposals.
Further refining the 9,220 results IDS terms “indigenous,” “traditional,” and “alpaquero OR alpaqueros” yielded 4, 2, and 19 results, respectively; 19 in Spanish, 1 in Japanese, an English discussion of novel methods for sustainable control of gastrointestinal nematodes in llamas and alpacas in the southeastern United States (Gillespie and Terrill, 2009), and 2 addressing international importation of alpacas.
In one of these, Espinosa-Heywood (2010) frames economic and environmental issues around the impacts of the United States’ “booming alpaca industry” on Peruvian alpacas within its socio-historical context of illegal smuggling that afforded international alpaca markets (in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand) in the first place. Partly in response to this, national legislation in 1991 made the export of alpacas by Peruvian farmers legal for the first time in a century (Reyna, 2005), although a 1996 law then “declared alpacas and llamas … a genetic reserve of the country and put a ban on export on animals which won prises in fair” (Wurzinger and Gutiérrez, 2022, p. 1). Espinosa-Heywood (2010) specifically refers to this development by highlighting how international conventions continue to fail to recognize violations of such national “collective property rights” (Espinosa-Heywood, 2010, p. 29). In light of this social history, it is especially ironic that Sen (1995), in English, sounds an alarm that the importation of Chilean alpacas “may threaten indigenous species” in Canada (p. 1).
Genetics and breeding
Refining the initial 9,220 results with IDS terms “genetics OR genetic OR gene OR breeding” yielded 222 results (with 124 focused on Peru specifically). Understandably, the majority (120) in English addressed economic and technical aspects of alpaca (or camelid) genomics and diversity, reproductive and cria health traits, nutrition, and alpaca products (including meat and 65 studies on high-quality fiber, its improvement, low medullation, and avoidance of micron blowout) without any significant reference to social aspects.
Among the 4 studies that emphasized socio-cultural elements significantly, the excellent overview by Wurzinger and Gutiérrez (2022) highlights two important facts: 1) that genomic studies, although indisputable in value for livestock improvement (c.f., Meuwissen et al., 2016), also drive up production costs and will price out less well-to-do producers; and 2) that farmers are generally paid by weight for ideally finer alpaca fiber, which inherently weighs less; thus, there is an “antagonistic relationship between these two characteristics” (p. 2). Nevertheless, the authors also note some changes in the industry to pay farmers for the fineness of the fiber rather than its weight, and that it is “possible to consider both traits simultaneously … to achieve genetic progress in both” (p. 2). Related literature about community-based breeding programs (CBBPs) not limited to Peru raise similar themes (c.f., Haile et al., 2019; Wurzinger and Gutierrez, 2017; Wurzinger et al., 2021).
The authors also note farmer support and a measure of political will to establish a national breeding program in Peru, although the details and coordination for doing so are by no means at a consensus. They also cite two interviewed farmers, who expressed concerns about who would (or could) participate in such a program. The response of the authors also shows how it is possible to consider two traits at once (in this case social and genetic/environmental sustainability) for sustainable decision-making:
Social inequalities must certainly also be taken into account in any implementation. But also from a technical perspective, the possible GxE [genetic by environmental] interaction has to be considered, as the management of the animals can vary greatly between farms with more or less technical equipment and financial resources (p. 5).
Prince (2015) raises socio-cultural issues, noting a “cultural reluctance to culling as a management method” and that democratic “changes to leadership and politics in different communities can potentially jeopardise the longevity of any initiative” (p. 14) comprise two “barriers to production and intervention strategies” (p. 14) for alpaca breeding; Prince (2015) also states that farmers “not knowing about modern medicine can lead to superstitions” (p. 14, emphasis added) about starting vaccination programs for alpacas, despite also noting that farmers had reported concerns about alpacas becoming ill after being vaccinated. One hopes that framing Andean indigenous people’s “aversion to risk” (see Reyna, 2005 below) as “superstition” and their traditional cultural/political practices as “barriers” is not intentionally dismissive; either way, it illustrates how indigenous peoples’ culturality and identity can become framed as “obstacles” (see Astacio, 2022 below, but also; Bello-Bravo, 2020; Desai, 2017; Nemutandani et al., 2016; Sanya et al., 2018; Watson, 2001).
In another publication, Reyna (2005) contextualizes why “the Andean inhabitant has an ‘aversion to risk’ … that is [a] product of [the] broken promises of the politicians in the past” (p. 3):
Andean people prefer to keep their current technology and not to try something new as they are afraid [of] adverse results … [Also] in the political area, … legislation has been created to promote the breed of formed species like cattle and sheep, and the resources available were oriented to develop techniques in these species, failing to remember the importance of the camelids for the Andean inhabitant (pp. 3-4).
Lastly, Quispe et al. (2011) indirectly captures a social sustainability element when contrasting communal (collective) breeding strategies compared to centralized ones in Huancavelica. Specifically, although communal approaches showed a slower rate of genetic progress toward breeding goals, they had higher levels of farmer participation compared to centralized approaches (especially ones that used artificial insemination) (p. 111). Perhaps this decreased participation reflects a “risk aversion” to adopting artificial insemination as a technological innovation or continuities with a traditional valorization and interpersonal relatedness at play between alpacas and alpaqueros in Peruvian pastoralism (Alaica and Gonzalez de La Rosa, 2019; Curatola and Szeminski, 2016). Either way, the observed preference for communal approaches itself suggests linkages to Andean ayni (Shepard, 2005), i.e., one of the many forms of traditional collective practices of reciprocal assistance to others in a community, like Rwandan umuganda, Kenyan bulala, and Amish frolics (Lutomia et al., 2018; Shepard, 2005).
Since increased participation is valuable both intrinsically and for fostering more equitably distributed social benefits, drawing on the social sustainability of this cultural collectivity may disclose pathways toward greater economic and environmental sustainability, including a potential for faster genetic progress. Culturally and practically, Quispe et al. (2011) also emphasize the need to incentivize farmers’ participation in breeding programs (by highlighting the financial advantages of doing so), even if some additional costs will result from expenditures to prevent cross-herd disease contamination, especially given farmers’ cultural habit of loaning males for breeding purposes (p. 117; also see Wurzinger et al., 2008). Viewing these preferences for collective action and mutual assistance as socio-cultural strengths can enhance economic sustainability by producing higher-valued, finer and more uniform fiber and promote environmental sustainability by maintaining genetic diversity, increasing alpacas’ resilience to disease and environmental changes, and supporting the long-term viability of herds.
Social sustainability
Outside of Espinosa-Heywood (2010), only 1 already-referenced article by Astacio (2022) explicitly focuses on economic and environmental factors affecting the social sustainability of traditional Peruvian alpaca herding. This is not to suggest a lack of attention (in English) to broad issues affecting alpacas generally, e.g., 1) the international marketization of indigenous goods (like alpaca fiber, shea butter, or cocoa) (Bello-Bravo and Lutomia, 2023; Elias, 2003; Lovett, 2010; Striffler and Moberg, 2003), 2) environmental and ecosystems studies into genetic biodiversity and conservation (Belew et al., 2016; Oguh et al., 2021), or 3) more effective zootechnical control (of breeding, animal health, and hygiene) globally for sustainable (economic) development generally. It seems, rather, to reflect less consideration of these issues’ intersection as well as other findings that sustainability’s economic axis typically receives disproportionately greater emphasis (Afful et al., 2020), and that, for key terms in international development, “‘economic’ perspectives dominate ‘sustainability’ and ‘social’ perspectives by a factor of 2 and 4.67, respectively” (Luetz and Walid, 2019, p. 301).
Thus, in an address at the Tufts Hoch-Cunningham Environmental Lecture Series in 2022, Astacio (2022) cautions:
Despite its over two-hundred-year existence, the alpaca wool industry relies on the herding and animal care practices of Quechua-speaking herders in the Peruvian highlands. I argue that this persistence of indigenous forms of breeding and animal care are not only read by fashion industry actors as an assurance of sustainability, but this essentializing view of indigenous peoples as stewards of the environment obscures the ways in which extreme poverty, state abandonment, and climate change make alpaca herding itself an unsustainable practice (p. 1, italics added).
In our reading of Astacio (2022), she highlights how the romanticization of indigeneity—even when well-intentioned or enthusiastic—creates a problematic framework that “pins” indigenous cultures to a permanently static time and place, which is not only inaccurate but also politically disenfranchising and threatens the practice with cultural extinction (Bandi, 2013; Bello-Bravo, 2019; Bendix, 2000; Corntassel, 2010; Watson, 2001). However, indigenous cultures have never been purely static and have engaged, like any other culture, with endogenous and exogenous influences as they emerge.
Notably, 0 results were found for a search of the baseline and the non-IDS term “social sustainability” itself; removing the intitle-delimitation for “alpaca OR alpacas,” 65 results were returned, with 55 results for non-IDS term “farmers OR farmer” and 57 for the non-IDS term “indigenous.” Thus, while all of the articles at least allude to alpacas and alpaca pastoralism, it is often not the focus of the article; in fact, an IDS for “Peru” specifically returned only 8 results, none focused specifically on alpaca pastoralism (e.g., seed quality in perennial grasses, green interventions for urban water infrastructures, Canadian mining companies in Peru, institutional science and technology policy, and terrace farming for potatoes); what Bhattacharya (2021) concludes in a Masters’ thesis “Heritage-Led Planning for Rural Community Resilience: Terrace Landscapes in Peru,” certainly applies to indigenous experiences generally:
Research results indicate that heritage in rural Andean communities in Peru is defined by strong social relationships which are sustained over generations. Results corroborate that terraces [traditional practices] contribute to community resilience through increased social bonds, closeness with the environment and economic stability (p. 2).
Even broadening the cast of the net, the majority of studies concern non-alpaca sectors of the Peruvian economic landscape under the banner of social sustainability (e.g., the asparagus and cocoa value-chains, impacts from road development projects, ecological and gastronomic tourism, frameworks or critiques of the fashion industry, global agricultural digitalization, historical/political analyses of the Peruvian scene generally, and technology policy, especially for adaptation to climate change). Direct references are scant. Becchetti et al. (2011) utilize a social wellbeing framework and metrics to analyze one of their study’s case studies on Peruvian women’s textile weaving traditions. Cancino et al. (2022) use a social capital framework to note that indigenous farmers can (and should be) allies in soil conservation efforts. As part of UNEP’s Toolkit to Support Conservation by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, Corrigan and Hay-Edie (2013) highlight traditional Peruvian kite-making as a way to photograph and document the impacts of extractive mining.
The near-total absence of women’s experiences is particularly striking, not only because of the central role of women’s labor in traditional alpaca pastoralism (Arrosquipa, 2014; Oliveira, 2022), but also due to the critical importance of social sustainability for women (Wheeler and Nye, 2024) and their extensive involvement in agricultural, domestic, and birth services labor (Bello-Bravo, 2016; Bello-Bravo, 2023c; Bello-Bravo et al., 2015; Bello-Bravo et al., 2017); in fact, narrowing the baseline search with the term “gender” gives more results for alpaca females than humans. Again, while these issues are not unacknowledged—though clearly less prevalent and specific compared to other topics—the connection between social sustainability and (indigenous) women’s knowledge and practices is rarely made. Considering the generally greater poverty faced by (indigenous) Peruvian women (Bourque and Warren, 2010), further exacerbated by neoliberal economic policies from 1990 to 2000 (Boesten, 2010), sustainability efforts that prioritize the world’s poor must recognize that interventions centered on women are inherently more sustainable than those that treat gender neutrally or exclude gender considerations. Moreover, while greater educational attainment can provide Peruvian women with more resilience against major social shocks (Glewwe and Hall, 1998), it is important to recognize that residual confounders, such as socioeconomic status, may obscure or distort the true relationship between education and policy outcomes (Langa and Bhatta, 2020; Sorjonen et al., 2021). This distinction matters because it influences where solutions are directed—whether toward providing more information and education or addressing poverty reduction more directly.
Lastly, the life of traditional pastoralism in Peru is acknowledged as vanishingly difficult—if not now unsustainable (Astacio, 2022). In Spanish, Fernandez et al. (2016) summarize the situation and one solution:
At one end of the camelid value chain in the high Andean lands, at least 34,000 shepherd families live as part of Peru’s poorest and most vulnerable rural population. With an average herd of 150 alpacas, the annual net income of a shepherd family does not exceed 1,500 soles (less than 500 USD) after deducting the production costs of fiber and meat. On the other side of the same alpaca chain, two industrial companies in an oligopoly position process 90% of the fiber produced in the country, with the remaining 10% distributed between COOPECAN-Peru and several small family businesses. In addition to facing extreme weather and soil conditions, the vast majority of these families do not belong to an organization strong enough to face the market, nor do they benefit from the results of research conducted to improve their current conditions. Without access to formal credit due to a lack of real guarantees, they also lack capital to invest. (p. 25, my translation) … Through a dual strategy that affects both the management of natural resources and camelids as well as social organization, the Cooperative for Production and Special Services of Andean Camelid Producers Ltd. (Coopecan-Peru) has succeeded in increasing the productivity and net income of its members, positioning itself in the camelid value chain by altering traditionally unfavorable conditions. The practice changes described in this article, in addition to being socially and financially sustainable, have a positive environmental impact by reducing overgrazing in the high Andean lands (p. 24, my translation).
These harsh conditions, coupled with decades of urban displacement and the allure of better opportunities—whether real or perceived—in urban centers, have led younger generations to abandon alpaca herding in search of more promising prospects in cities. This trend, marked by a decline in intergenerational knowledge transfer, is a key factor contributing to the erosion of traditional pastoral practices.
María Elena Garcia has noted the complex interweaving and transformations to identity that such displacement entails for younger generations (García, 2000; García, 2005). de la Cadena (2000) traces the 20th century’s arc of these developments, while Planas et al. (2016) explores its more recent, highly nuanced shape for Quechua women. These transformations are not simply unilinear “losses” of indigenous culture but are ongoing iterations of a reshaping of cultural identity in response to contemporary events. Nonetheless, the disappearance of intergenerational knowledge is explicitly unsustainable, as its extinction ensures that future generations will no longer benefit from its value. A straightforward intervention into this situation would be to include the recording and conservation of traditional practices and knowledge—just as one might bank germplasm to preserve alpaca genomics—as a basic part of any breeding or genetic improvement program. Efforts do exist to preserve Peruvian indigenous knowledge, including for alpacas (Bhattacharya, 2021; Corrigan and Hay-Edie, 2013; Gutiérrez et al., 2014); it would be more sustainable for this to be ubiquitous.
Limitations, recommendations, and future directions
Limitations
Like all reviews, the central limitation here hinges on capturing an adequate range of publications on the topic (Moher et al., 2009); this limitation is offset by a thorough, iterative, and creative search approach and the emergence of data saturation, i.e., when varying searches begin to yield only the predominantly same themes (Francis et al., 2010). For the present conceptual review (in English), this necessarily excludes Spanish-language peer-reviewed and grey literature (especially reports on alpaca biodiversity and conservation efforts under the pressure of international market demand for particular qualities of alpaca fiber) (e.g., Chupillón Vásquez and López Cotrina, 2019; Córdova Flores et al., 2023; Espinosa-Heywood, 2010; Inocente Valverde and Miranda Diaz, 2021; Jara Ortega et al., 2019; Makini et al., 2020; Mercado Herida, 2023; Rosas, 2013; Salas and Belén, 2019; Salas, 2003; Sandi Ochoa, 1998).
For the overall state of knowledge in English publications on the social sustainability of potential impacts from efforts to preserve or improve the genetic biodiversity of alpacas in Peru, this review finds 1) considerably more focus (prioritization) on work addressing the host of technical (genetic and environmental) processes and “by-products” introduced along the industrialized alpaca value-chain and 2) little to no focused prioritization on impacts to traditional knowledge and practice. This reflects not only the documented general deprecation of social sustainability itself (Afful et al., 2020; Luetz and Walid, 2019) but also a subordination of efforts and issues related to social sustainability (e.g., cultural practices, identity, and community wellbeing) that treat these as resources to be used (sustainably or not) to support more prioritized economic and environmental sustainabilities.
Recommendations and future directions
Overall, this conceptual review’s recommendations and directions for future research call for more strategies for prioritizing social sustainability when researching, designing, and implementing (technical) economic and environmental problems. These recommendations can be applied to any of the technical issues identified in this review along the alpaca value chain, including 1) genomic losses to alpaca biodiversity, 2) selective breeding to meet international market demand, and 3) the long-term viability and adaptability of alpacas facing forage changes due to climate change.
Accordingly, the first recommendation is to prioritize greater attention to the social dimensions that arise as consequences of solving technical solutions. For example, even when innovative approaches to distributing information, resources, or solutions are developed, they often fail (again) to reach historically marginalized demographics—those isolated by poverty, remote locations, or barriers related to gender and educational access (Bello-Bravo et al., 2023b). Equally, the lack of integration between the alpaca literatures in English and Spanish (and other languages’) and the vastly more abundant attention given to economic and environmental sustainability indicates a social problem itself (Afful et al., 2020; Hensley and Steer, 2019; Luetz and Walid, 2019).
Although the obvious recommendations (as solutions to these problems) are better bridges between the literatures across languages and giving overwhelming priority to social sustainability as per Brundtland et al. (1987) from nearly 40 years ago, the persistence of these issues is telling; analogies with the challenges of implementing inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary research practices are illustrative (Gidley, 2013; Milena et al., 2024; Van Biljon, 2011). Future research might qualitatively investigate 1) perceptions and beliefs that lead to such deprioritization, 2) case studies of successful implementations where social sustainability was prioritized, and 3) practical applications of those findings for ameliorating technical and social problems in projects, including breeding programs for high-quality alpaca fiber in Peru.
Second, we recommend that solution designers amplify the goodwill of their efforts by spending time to explore a prioritization of the social sustainability of traditional alpaca knowledge and practices when imagining solutions for technical problems. This is especially germane for the (social) problem of mandates for alpaqueros (and alpacas) to abandon traditional behaviours and practices if they would participate in (technical) solutions on offer. By centering the social sustainability of traditional alpaca herding, programs for solving technical problems might also dedicate resources to documenting and preserving traditional herding knowledge, practices, and even languages of the local communities involved (UNESCO, 2022; UNESCO Liaison Office in New York, 2016).
Equally, against the tendency to disregard or even denigrate indigenous (traditional) knowledge and practices around the ecological stewardship (Gandugade et al., 2017; Kimmerer, 2013; McGrath et al., 2004; Nemutandani et al., 2016; Waller and Reo, 2018), it seems expressly irrational not to give decision-making and agenda-setting priority to the participation, experiences, and ideas of traditional stakeholders, even in service of non-traditional innovations. Much research documents the socially and practically negative impacts of overly hierarchical collaborative relations and advocates for less vertical power relations (Corntassel, 2012; Eisler, 2007; Eisler, 2015; Eisler and Potter, 2014; Jackson, 2020; Kimmerer, 2002; Lawrence and Dua, 2005; Lutomia et al., 2020; Mangena, 2016). Such advocacy already resonates with the traditional pastoralist understanding of a more horizontal, mutually beneficial relationship that exists between a herder and the herd, the community, and the world.
Third, echoing Astacio (2022), research must find ways to navigate treacherous conceptual and practical waters so as not to condemn currently unsustainable traditional alpaca herding to extinction by overly romanticizing its social knowledge and practices on the one hand while, at the same time, not transforming it so completely in response to industrialized fiber production pressures that it disappears. If we are not going to accept that Peruvian pastoralism should die out, then the principle of sustainability mandates that our use of it now to meet our needs in the present must leave it still available for generations in the future. Besides encouraging or requiring the documentation and preservation of traditional knowledge and practices by any project that directly or indirectly affects Peruvian alpaca pastoralism, future research must 1) investigate and develop solutions to remediate the degraded environmental and economic landscape making pastoralism unfeasible, 2) more actively support traditional pastoralist leadership in projects that directly affect their culture, and 3) especially investigate existing, and potential, efforts to rebuild the lost bridge of intergenerational knowledge and identify what perceptions and beliefs can make being an alpaca pastoralist attractive.
Conclusion
Throughout this review, we have offered suggestions for more sustainably intervening into the potential impacts of efforts to preserve or improve the genetic biodiversity of alpacas. These are not criticisms or deprecations of such efforts but potentially an amplification of the benefit(s) they aim at, amplifications that more accurately align with the commitments to sustainability that inform so many efforts around the world today.
Even only as a design principle used when developing technical innovations for the alpaca value chain, prioritizing social sustainability (and the people most affected by the world’s inequalities) asks us to pause and not immediately dismiss the solutions that come into view. At a minimum, possible additions to our own knowledge and practices will become productively visible. Even if we cannot then fully implement those solutions, such an approach is not a benefit solely for the traditional pastoralists we place ourselves in solidarity with, but our own long-term sustainability as well.
Author contributions
JB wrote the initial draft, and all authors then contributed, reviewed, and revised the text. JB-B, LB, and DP edited the revised text. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the Arequipa Nexus Institute, a collaboration between the National University of San Agustin (Arequipa, Peru) and Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN, United States)
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Afful, A., Kumi-Acquah, G. K., and Agyekum, K. (2020). Level of knowledge of design professionals on the principles of social sustainability in Ghana. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3511538 (Accessed April 27, 2019).
Alaica, A. K., and Gonzalez de La Rosa, L. M. (2019). A look to the north and south: camelid herding strategies in the desert coast of Peru. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 34, 143–163. doi:10.17863/CAM.59711
Al Faruque, M. A., Remadevi, R., Haque, A. N. M. A., Razal, J., Wang, X., and Naebe, M. (2018). Sustainable approach for colouration of acrylic fibres using waste alpaca fibres. Tianjin, China: International Forum on Textiles for Graduate Students.
Andrade, G. C., Jiménez Orihuela, A., Challco Hihui, A., Tejada Meza, K., Pacheco, C. R., and Terán Hilares, R. (2024). Environmental sustainability of the removal of alpaca fiber dye using a thermally modified sludge from a drinking water treatment facility. Sustainability 16 (18), 7876. doi:10.3390/su16187876
Apetrei, C. I., Caniglia, G., von Wehrden, H., and Lang, D. J. (2021). Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science. Glob. Environ. Change 68, 102222. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222
Arrosquipa, P. (2014). El lugar de la cultura y la cultura del lugar: Prácticas y conocimientos de los criadores de camélidos en el sur peruano. Chungará (Arica) 46 (2), 259–270. doi:10.4067/S0717-73562014000200007
Astacio, P. A. (2022). “Always already sustainable: how alpaca wool’s associations with Andean indigeneity help define it as environmentally sustainable,” in Tufts Hoch-Cunningham Environmental Lecture Series.
Baffoe, G., and Mutisya, E. (2015). Social sustainability: a review of indicators and empirical application. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 4 (2), 242–262. doi:10.5296/emsd.v4i2.8399
Bandi, M. (2013). Forest-dependent people, their livelihood challenges and forest rights act: a review. Mainstream 51 (37), 23–24.
Baynes-Rock, M. (2012). Hyenas like us: social relations with an urban carnivore in Harar, Ethiopia. Dissertation. Sydney, AU: Macquarie University.
Becchetti, L., Castriota, S., and Solferino, N. (2011). Development projects and life satisfaction: an impact study on fair trade handicraft producers. J. Happiness Stud. 12, 115–138. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9179-9
Belew, A. K., Tesfaye, K., Belay, G., and Assefa, G. (2016). The state of conservation of animal genetic resources in developing countries: a review. Int. J. Pharma Med. Biol. Sci. 5 (1), 58. doi:10.18178/ijpmbs.5.1.58-66
Bello-Bravo, J. (2016). Rural Women and the Agriculture of Burkina Faso. Sourou, Burkina Faso: Provincial Fair of Agricultural Products.
Bello-Bravo, J. (2019). When is indigeneity: closing a legal and sociocultural gap in a contested domestic/international term. AlterNative: An Int. J. Indig. Peoples 15 (2), 111–120. doi:10.1177/1177180119828380
Bello-Bravo, J. (2020). Getting the message across: characterizing a need to bridge public health messaging for tuberculosis across a rural/urban and CHW/traditional healer divide in Madagascar (A Review). Sci. Afr. 8 (July 2020), e00321. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00321
Bello-Bravo, J. (2023a). “I carry my people with me”: contrasting the discourses of indigeneity and immigrancy to further secure peoples’ mobile personhood. Crossings J. Migr. Cult. 14 (2), 235–253. doi:10.1386/cjmc_00085_1
Bello-Bravo, J. (2023b). “New wine in old bottles”: structures of feeling for a new way to see new wood products. Forests 14 (3), 524. doi:10.3390/f14030524
Bello-Bravo, J. (2023c). Preserving tradition in the here and now: barriers to the preservation and continuity of traditional healing knowledge and practices in Madagascar. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 8 (1), 100696. doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100696
Bello-Bravo, J., Lovett, P. N., and Pittendrigh, B. R. (2015). The evolution of shea butter’s “paradox of Paradoxa” and the potential opportunity for information and communication technology (ICT) to improve quality, market access and women’s livelihoods across rural Africa. Sustainability 7 (5), 5752–5772. doi:10.3390/su7055752
Bello-Bravo, J., and Lutomia, A. (2022). Sustainable development or developmental sustainability: two cases of indigenous knowledge and practices for sustainable sourcing for wood-based design-solutions. Trees, For. People 8, 100253. doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100253
Bello-Bravo, J., and Lutomia, A. N. (2023). “Using Information Technologies (ICTs) to improve Theobroma cacao extension service: lessons from the case of Ghanaian Bean farmers,” in Shifting frontiers of Theobroma cacao: opportunities and challenges for production. Editors S. O. Agele, and O. S. Ibiremo (London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen), 1–16. doi:10.5772/intechopen.112646
Bello-Bravo, J., Lutomia, A. N., and Pittendrigh, B. R. (2017). Information literacy to prevent bean losses using animated videos: a pilot study of women entrepreneurs in cape coast, Ghana. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5 (3), 445–459.
Bello-Bravo, J., Medendorp, J. W., Lutomia, A. N., and Pittendrigh, B. R. (2023a). “Changing for the future: two case studies of gender, resilience, and ICT4D in Burkina Faso and Ghana,” in Gender, digitalization, and resilience in international development: failing forward (London, United Kingdom: Routledge), 169–194. doi:10.4324/9781003226383
Bello-Bravo, J., Medendorp, J. W., Lutomia, A. N., and Pittendrigh, B. R. (2023b). Gender, digitalization, and resilience in international development: failing forward. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003226383
Bendix, R. (2000). “Heredity, hybridity and heritage from one fin de siecle to the next,” in Folklore, heritage politics, and ethnic diversity: a festschrift for Barbro Klein. Editors P. J. Antonnen, A.-L. Siikala, S. R. Mathisen, and L. Magnusson (Botkyrka, SE: Multicultural Centre), 37–54.
Bhattacharya, S. (2021). Heritage-led planning for rural community resilience: terrace landscapes in Peru. Thesis. Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph.
Boesten, J. (2010). Intersecting inequalities: women and social policy in Peru, 1990-2000. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Press.
Bourque, S. C., and Warren, K. B. (2010). Women of the Andes: patriarchy and social change in two Peruvian towns. University of Michigan Press.
Browman, D. L. (2014). “Origins and development of Andean pastoralism: an overview of the past 6000 years,” in The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation. Editor J. Clutton-Brock (Routledge), 256–268.
Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., et al. (1987). in Report of the world commission on environment and development: our Common future. Editor O. U. Press (World Commission on Environment and Development).
Bustinza Choque, A. V., Machaca Machaca, V., Cano Fuentes, V., and Quispe Coaquira, J. (2021). Evolución y desarrollo de las razas de Alpaca: Suri y Huacaya. Rev. Investig. veterinarias del Perú 32 (5), e19876. doi:10.15381/rivep.v32i5.19876
Campos, C. A. B., Mariazza, E. R. R. F., and Vásquez, J. A. Ñ. (2021). Alpaca herders: vulnerability, adaptability and sensitivity to climate change. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Cancino, N., Rubiños, C., and Vargas, S. (2022). Social capital and soil conservation: is there a connection? Evidence from Peruvian cocoa farms. J. Rural Stud. 94, 462–476. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.07.002
Cantrell, A., Booth, A., and Chambers, D. (2024). A systematic review case study of urgent and emergency care configuration found citation searching of Web of Science and Google Scholar of similar value. Health Inf. Libr. J. 41 (2), 166–181. doi:10.1111/hir.12428
Chupillón Vásquez, R. E. N., and López Cotrina, M. L. (2019). Cadena de valor y Comercialización Internacional en el sector alpaquero Arequipa-2018. Trujillo, Perú: Universidad César Vallejo.
Colantonio, A. (2009). “Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods,” in Sue-Mot conference 2009: second international conference on whole life urban sustainability and its assessment, Loughborough, United Kingdom, April 22–24, 2009 (Loughborough, United Kingdom: Loughborough University).
Córdova Flores, R. H., Cruz Villegas, P. J., Quenaya Córdova, K. M., and Tisoc Cayllahua, J. A. (2023). Modelo prolab: Alpaca Golds, una propuesta sostenible para promover el desarrollo económico de los criadores de alpaca en la provincia Espinar. San Miguel, Perú: Cusco Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Corntassel, J. (2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: rethinking the contemporary Indigenous-rights discourse. Altern. Glob. Local, Polit. 33 (1), 105–132. doi:10.1177/030437540803300106
Corntassel, J. (2010). Who is indigenous? “Peoplehood” and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous identity. Natl. Ethn. Polit. 9 (1), 75–100. doi:10.1080/13537110412331301365
Corntassel, J. (2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination. Decolonization Indig. Educ. and Soc. 1 (1), 86–101.
Corrigan, C., and Hay-Edie, T. (2013). A toolkit to support conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities: building capacity and sharing knowledge for indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs). Cambridge, United Kingdom: UNEP-WCMC.
Curatola, M., and Szeminski, J. (2016). El Inca y la huaca: La religión del poder y el poder de la religión en el mundo andino antiguo. San Miguel, Perú: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
de la Cadena, M. (2000). Indigenous mestizos: the politics of race and culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919-1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Desai, K. (2017). Girlscape: Transnational productions of neoliberal girlhoods. Dissertation. New York City, NY: Teachers College.
Desiderio, E., García-Herrero, L., Hall, D., Segrè, A., and Vittuari, M. (2022). Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: a systematic literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 30, 527–540. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015
Eisler, R. (2007). The real wealth of nations: creating a caring economics. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Eisler, R. (2015). The partnership way: what you can do to create a more equal and caring world. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Eisler, R., and Potter, T. (2014). Transforming interprofessional partnerships. Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.
Elias, M. S. (2003). Globalization and female production of African shea butter in Rural Burkina Faso. MSc. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.
Ens, E., Scott, M. L., Rangers, Y. M., Moritz, C., and Pirzl, R. (2016). Putting indigenous conservation policy into practice delivers biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodivers. Conservation 25 (14), 2889–2906. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1207-6
Espinosa-Heywood, C. (2010). Globalization and the separation of indigenous genetic resources from indigenous peoples: the booming alpaca industry in the USA and its impact on Andean “alpaqueros”. Fourth World J. 9 (1), 27–40. doi:10.3316/informit.456620575267470
Fernandez, D., Hibon, A., Ope, G., Basilio, J., and Paco, J. (2016). Innovación para la sostenibilidad de una organización de pequeños criadores de camélidos. El caso de COOPECAN (Innovation for the sustainability of an organization of small alpaca breeders. COOPECAN case). LEISA 2 (24-27).
Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., et al. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health 25 (10), 1229–1245. doi:10.1080/08870440903194015
Fressoz, J.-B., and Bonneuil, C. (2017). “Growth unlimited: the idea of infinite growth from fossil capitalism to green capitalism,” in History of the future of economic growth. Editors I. Borowy, and M. Schmelzer (London, United Kingdom: Routledge), 52–68.
Gandugade, P. V., Nlooto, M., and Naidoo, P. (2017). Willingness and rationale of traditional health practitioners to collaborate with Allopathic doctors in the eThekwini Metro of Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa. PULA Botsw. J. Afr. Stud. 31 (1 Suppl. 1), 151–161.
García, M. E. (2000). “To be Quechua is to belong”: citizenship, identity, and intercultural bilingual education in Cuzco. Peru: Brown University.
García, M. E. (2005). Making indigenous citizens: identities, education, and multicultural development in Peru. Stanford University Press.
Gauly, M., Vaughan, J., Hogreve, S. K., and Erhardt, G. (2005). Brainstem auditory-evoked potential assessment of auditory function and congenital deafness in llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (L. pacos). J. veterinary Intern. Med. 19 (5), 756–760. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2005.tb02757.x
GEF (2018). Diamonds of the Andes: conserving genetic resources of Suri alpaca in Peru. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/news/diamonds-andes-conserving-genetic-resources-suri-alpaca-peru (Accessed April 4, 2024).
Gerasimov, I., Kc, B., Mehrabian, A., Acker, J., and McGuire, M. P. (2024). Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google scholar, web of science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite. Scientometrics 129 (7), 3681–3704. doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5
Gidley, J. M. (2013). Global knowledge futures: articulating the emergence of a new meta-level field. Integral Rev. A Transdiscipl. and Transcult. J. New Thought, Res. Praxis 9 (2), 1–28.
Gill, N. (2019). Understanding the role of pastoralism in civilization. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-pastoralism-p2-116903 (Accessed January 5, 2022).
Gillespie, R.-A., and Terrill, T. (2009). Novel methods for sustainable control of gastrointestinal nematodes in llamas and alpacas in the southeastern United States (Final Report for GS06-054). Fort Valley, GA: Fort Valley State University.
Giovannoni, E., and Fabietti, G. (2013). “What is sustainability? A review of the concept and its applications,” in Integrated reporting: concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability. Editors C. Busco, M. Frigo, A. Riccaboni, and P. Quattrone (Springer), 21–40. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02168-3_2
Glavič, P., and Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1875–1885. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006
Glewwe, P., and Hall, G. (1998). Are some groups more vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks than others? Hypothesis tests based on panel data from Peru. J. Dev. Econ. 56 (1), 181–206. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(98)00058-3
Gutiérrez, B. L. S., Santos, R. I. R., Merino, J. C. A., Salvador, K. B. S., Cortez, L. P. S., and Ventura, G. K. A. (2024). Sustainable energy: a case study of an alpaca wool production unit in cashapata san Mateo-Huarochiri-Peru. Nanotechnol. Perceptions 20 (S7), 636–652. doi:10.62441/nano-ntp.v20iS7.55
Gutierrez, G., Gutierrez, J., Huanca Mamani, T., and Wurzinger, M. (2018). “Challenges and opportunities of genetic improvement in alpacas and llamas in Peru,” in World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Auckland, New Zealand, February 12–16, 2018.
Gutiérrez, J., Cervantes, I., Pérez-Cabal, M., Burgos, A., and Morante, R. (2014). Weighting fibre and morphological traits in a genetic index for an alpaca breeding programme. Animal 8 (3), 360–369. doi:10.1017/S1751731113002358
Haile, A., Wurzinger, M., Mueller, J., Mirkena, T., Duguma, G., Rekik, M., et al. (2019). Guidelines for setting up community-based small ruminants breeding programs. Beirut, Lebanon: ICARDA.
Hensley, N., and Steer, P. (2019). “Ecological formalism; or, Love among the ruins,” in Ecological form: system and aesthetics in the age of empire. Editors N. Hensley, and P. Steer (Fordham University Press), 1–17.
Inocente Valverde, S. S., and Miranda Diaz, K. G. (2021). La influencia de la moda sostenible en la exportación de cárdigan de fibra de alpaca a EE. UU. en la región Arequipa entre los años 2014 al 2020. Lima, Perú: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas.
Jackson, Z. I. (2020). Becoming human: matter and meaning in an antiblack world. New York City, NY: NYU Press. Available at: https://www.google.com/books?id=fAS5DwAAQBAJ (Accessed April 4, 2024).
Jara Ortega, C. E., Jara Rodrı́guez, D. E., and Huamán Callo, F. V. (2019). Incidence of IFRS for SMES in the financial sustainability on the Alpaquero textile sector of Perú, 2018. J. Adm. Bus. Stud. 5 (6), 316–322. doi:10.20474/jabs-5.6.2
Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M., and Hamm, U. (2020). Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging-A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120123. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120123
Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: a call to action. BioScience 52 (5), 432–438. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
Klarén, P. (2022). Peru since independence, a tortured history. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 53 (4), 847–856. doi:10.25222/larr.773
Langa, N., and Bhatta, T. (2020). The rural-urban divide in Tanzania: residential context and socioeconomic inequalities in maternal health care utilization. Plos One 15 (11), e0241746. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241746
Longoni, A., and Cagliano, R. (2018). Sustainable innovativeness and the triple bottom line: the role of organizational time perspective. J. Bus. ethics 151 (4), 1097–1120. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3239-y
Lovett, P. N. (2010). “Sourcing shea butter in 2010: a sustainability check,” in Global ingredients and formulations guide 2010: the green book of cosmetics. Editor R. Fischer (Thannhausen, Germany: Verlag für Chemische Industrie), 62–68.
Luetz, J. M., and Walid, M. (2019). “Social responsibility versus sustainable development in United Nations policy documents: a meta-analytical review of key terms in human development reports,” in Social responsibility and sustainability. Editor W. L. Filho (Springer), 301–334. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03562-4_16
Lutomia, A. N., Bello-Bravo, J., Medendorp, J., and Pittendrigh, B. R. (2020). A positive project outcome: lessons from a non-dominant government university-based program. Interdiscip. J. Partnersh. Stud. 7 (2), 3. Article 3. doi:10.24926/ijps.v7i2.3482
Lutomia, A. N., Sibeyo, D., and Lutomia, N. I. (2018). Bulala as an Ubuntu-inspired approach to enhancing organizational culture in rural Kenya. J. Pan Afr. Stud. 11 (4), 102–121.
Makini, F., Mose, L., Kamau, G., Mulinge, W., Salasya, B., Akuku, B., et al. (2020). The status of ICT infrastructure, innovative environment and ICT4AG services in agriculture. Food Nutr. Kenya 5 (11), 75.
Mangena, F. (2016). African ethics through Ubuntu: a postmodern exposition. Africology J. Pan Afr. Stud. 9 (2), 66–80.
McGrath, D. G., Peters, C. M., and Bentes, A. J. M. (2004). “Community forestry for small-scale furniture production in the Brazilian Amazon,” in Working forests in the neotropics: conservation through sustainable management? Editors D. Zarin, J. Alavalapati, F. Putz, and M. Schmink (Columbia University Press), 200–224. doi:10.7312/zari12906-013
Mengoni Goñalons, G. L. (2008). Camelids in ancient Andean societies: A review of the zooarchaeological evidence. Quat. Int. 185 (1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.05.022
Mercado Herida, I. (2023). El desarrollo sostenible se teje con alpaca. La Paz, Bolivia: Universidad Mayor de San Andrés.
Meuwissen, T., Hayes, B., and Goddard, M. (2016). Genomic selection: a paradigm shift in animal breeding. Anim. Front. 6 (1), 6–14. doi:10.2527/af.2016-0002
Milena, G.-V. A., Alicia, I.-G., and Yeferson, G.-L. (2024). Transversality and transdisciplinarity in the curricular design of higher education: a systematic review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 231, 589–594. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.12.255
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G.PRISMA Group*, t. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (4), 264–269. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Nadasdy, P. (2005). Transcending the debate over the ecologically noble Indian: indigenous peoples and environmentalism. Ethnohistory 52 (2), 291–331. doi:10.1215/00141801-52-2-291
Nemutandani, S. M., Hendricks, S. J., and Mulaudzi, M. F. (2016). Perceptions and experiences of allopathic health practitioners on collaboration with traditional health practitioners in post-apartheid South Africa. Afr. J. Prim. Health Care and Fam. Med. 8 (2), 1–8. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v8i2.1007
Oguh, C., Obiwulu, E., Umezinwa, O., Ameh, S., Ugwu, C., and Sheshi, I. (2021). Ecosystem and ecological services; need for biodiversity conservation-a critical review. Asian J. Biol. 11 (4), 1–14. doi:10.9734/ajob/2021/v11i430146
Ogwudile, C. E. (2023). Globalization as a cause for language extinction: a case study of Nigerian indigenous languages. IGIRIGI A Multi-Disciplinary J. Afr. Stud. 3 (1), 53–61.
Oliveira, B. P. d. (2022). Delineando Agentes e Políticas de Valor na Economia Turística do Vale Sagrado de Cusco. Anuário Antropológico 47 (1), 228–243. doi:10.4000/aa.9511
O'Neil, J. (2018). “‘People, planet, profits’ and perception politics: a necessary fourth (and fifth) bottom line? Critiquing the current triple bottom line in the Australian context,” in The goals of sustainable development. Editors D. Crowther, S. Seifi, and A. Moyeen (Springer), 19–42.
Ortiz, A. A., Fránquiz, M. E., and Lara, G. P. (2020). Co-editors’ introduction: culture is language and language is culture. Biling. Res. J. 43 (1), 1–5. doi:10.1080/15235882.2020.1741303
Parsons, M., Taylor, L., and Crease, R. (2021). Indigenous environmental justice within marine ecosystems: a systematic review of the literature on indigenous peoples’ involvement in marine governance and management. Sustainability 13 (8), 4217. doi:10.3390/su13084217
Planas, M.-E., Middelkoop, B., Cruzado, V., and Richters, A. (2016). Navigating ethnicity in Peru: a framework for measuring multiple self-identification among indigenous Quechua women. Lat. Am. Caribb. Ethn. Stud. 11 (1), 70–92. doi:10.1080/17442222.2016.1125047
Prince, C. (2015). Evaluating the barriers to effective breeding and husbandry in communal alpaca herds in Pucara. Peru: Nunoa Project.
Quispe, E., Paúcar, R., Poma, A., Flores, A., and Alfonso, L. (2011). “Comparison of different breeding strategies to improve alpaca fibre production in a low-input production system,” in Fibre production in South American camelids and other fibre animals. Editors M. Á. Pérez-Cabal, J. P. Gutiérrez, I. Cervantes, and M. J. Alcalde (Wageningen Academic), 111–121. doi:10.3920/9789086867271_015
Radolf, M., Wurzinger, M., and Gutiérrez, G. (2022). Livelihood and production strategies of livestock keepers and their perceptions on climate change in the Central Peruvian Andes. Small Ruminant Res. 215, 106763. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2022.106763
Reyna, J. (2005). Alpaca breeding in Peru and perspectives for the future. New Zealand Alpacas, 18–21.
Rosas, J. E. A. (2013). Implementación del clúster alpaquero como estrategia de desarrollo comunitario sostenible en la provincia de Candarave–Tacna. Lima, Perú: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Salas, C., and Belén, V. (2019). Producción de fibra de Alpaca, ejemplo de sostenibilidad. Arequipa, Perú: Universidad Católica de Santa María.
Salas, P. E. (2003). La alpaca suri de colores naturales: ¿una raza en proceso de extinción? LEISA 19 (3), 22025.
Salas, P. E. (2015). La alpaca suri, de la extinción a la conservación de la biodiversidad de colores y la importancia de la bioartesanía textil en el distrito de Nuñoa (Melgar-Puno). Rev. Investig. Altoandinas 17 (3), 291–300.
Sandi Ochoa, J. (1998). La producción y comercialización de la fibra de alpaca y llama de los departamentos de La Paz y Oruro (1988-1996) (un caso de desarrollo sostenible). La Paz, Bolivia: Universidad Mayor de San Andrés.
Sanya, B. N., Desai, K., Callier, D. M., and McCarthy, C. (2018). Desirable and disposable: educative practices and the making of (non) citizens. Curric. Inq. 48 (1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/03626784.2017.1421308
Schweikert, A., Espinet, X., and Chinowsky, P. (2018). The triple bottom line: bringing a sustainability framework to prioritize climate change investments for infrastructure planning. Sustain. Sci. 13 (2), 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0431-7
Semplici, G. (2023). The futures of the pastoralist systems of Southern Andean Peru. Available at: https://pastres.org/2023/02/24/the-futures-of-the-pastoralist-systems-of-southern-andean-peru/ (Accessed May 19, 2024).
Shepard, C. J. (2005). Agricultural development NGOs, anthropology, and the encounter with cultural knowledge. Cult. Agric. 27 (1), 35–44. doi:10.1525/cag.2005.27.1.35
Singh, P., Singh, V. K., and Piryani, R. (2023). Scholarly article retrieval from web of science, scopus and dimensions: a comparative analysis of retrieval quality. J. Inf. Sci., 01655515231191351. doi:10.1177/01655515231191351
Smith, C. M. (2005). Origin and uses of primum non nocere—above all, do no harm! J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45 (4), 371–377. doi:10.1177/0091270004273680
Sorjonen, K., Falkstedt, D., Wallin, A. S., Melin, B., and Nilsonne, G. (2021). Dangers of residual confounding: a cautionary tale featuring cognitive ability, socioeconomic background, and education. BMC Psychol. 9, 145–147. doi:10.1186/s40359-021-00653-z
Soto, J. D. C., and Ruelas, E. P. (2022). Capacidad de carga y parametros vegetacionales en praderas del hábitat de alpacas en la región puno, CAMPAÑA 2018. Ñawparisun - Rev. Investig. Científica Ing. 4 (1), 82–94. doi:10.47190/nric.v4i1.9
Sridhar, K., and Jones, G. (2013). The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line approach: an empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2 (1), 91–111. doi:10.1007/s13520-012-0019-3
Strain, G. M. (2015). The genetics of deafness in domestic animals. Front. Veterinary Sci. 2, 29–20. doi:10.3389/fvets.2015.00029
S. Striffler, and M. Moberg (2003). Banana wars: power, production, and history in the Americas (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Carlos Sosa Varela, J., and Sarstedt, M. (2018). Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. J. Clean. Prod. 197 (Part 1), 972–991. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.226
Thompson, P. B., and Nardone, A. (1999). Sustainable livestock production: Methodological and ethical challenges. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61 (2-3), 111–119. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00061-5
Trosper, R. L. (2002). Northwest coast indigenous institutions that supported resilience and sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2), 329–344. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00041-1
UNESCO (2022). International decade of indigenous languages 2022 – 2032. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/indigenous-languages.html (Accessed September 1, 2022).
UNESCO Liaison Office in New York (2016). United Nations general assembly proclaims 2019 as the international year of indigenous languages and invites UNESCO to take the lead. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco-liaison-office-in-new-york/about-this-office/single-view/news/united_nations_general_assembly_proclaims_2019_as_the_intern (Accessed March 27, 2019).
Van Biljon, J. (2011). A critical review on the reporting of surveys in transdisciplinary research: a case study in information systems. J. Transdiscipl. Res. South. Afr. 7 (2), 337–350. doi:10.4102/td.v7i2.246
Van Dyke, J. (2002). Golden Fleece alpaca ranch: a sustainable business venture for southwest Montana. Thesis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Waller, D. M., and Reo, N. J. (2018). First stewards: ecological outcomes of forest and wildlife stewardship by indigenous peoples of Wisconsin, USA. Ecol. Soc. 23 (1), 45. doi:10.5751/ES-09865-230145
Watson, I. (2001). “One Indigenous perspective on human rights,” in Indigenous human rights. Editors S. Garkawe, L. Kelly, and W. Fisher (Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney), 21–40.
Wheeler, J. C., Russel, A., and Redden, H. (1995). Llamas and alpacas: pre-conquest breeds and post-conquest hybrids. J. Archaeol. Sci. 22 (6), 833–840. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(95)90012-8
Wheeler, R., and Nye, C. (2024). The health and well-being of women in farming: a systematic scoping review. J. Agromedicine, 1–21. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2024.2407385
Williams, R. (1989). Resources of hope: culture, democracy, socialism. London, United Kingdom: Verso Books.
Wurzinger, M., and Gutierrez, G. (2017). Analysis of a multi-stakeholder process during the start-up phase of two community-based llama breeding programs in Peru. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 29 (10), 1–8.
Wurzinger, M., and Gutiérrez, G. (2022). Alpaca breeding in Peru: from individual initiatives towards a national breeding programme? Small Ruminant Res. 217, 106844. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2022.106844
Wurzinger, M., Gutiérrez, G. A., Sölkner, J., and Probst, L. (2021). Community-based livestock breeding: coordinated action or relational process? Front. Veterinary Sci. 8, 613505. doi:10.3389/fvets.2021.613505
Keywords: alpaca production, social sustainability, biodiversity, Andean culture, climate change adaptation, Peru
Citation: Bello-Bravo J, Pilares D, Brito LF, Toro Ospina AM, Sousa Junior LPB, Mamani Mamani GC, Schoonmaker J and Richardson J (2024) Social sustainability and genetic biodiversity in Peruvian alpaca production: a review. Pastor. Res. Policy Pract. 14:13668. doi: 10.3389/past.2024.13668
Received: 18 August 2024; Accepted: 22 November 2024;
Published: 11 December 2024.
Edited by:
Derradji Harek, Algerian National Institute for Agronomic Research INRAA, AlgeriaCopyright © 2024 Bello-Bravo, Pilares, Brito, Toro Ospina, Sousa Junior, Mamani Mamani, Schoonmaker and Richardson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Julia Bello-Bravo, bWJlbGxvYnJAcHVyZHVlLmVkdQ==