Current Status of Ethnobiology in North Macedonia

Background: North Macedonia is a country rich in both bio-cultural and biodiversity. However, the status of ethnobiology in many regions of the country remains virgin. While ethnobiological research is very popular in other parts of the Balkan Peninsula, there is a lack of information on how the field has developed in North Macedonia. 
Methods: We analyzed publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from 1800 to 2024, using key terms ethnobiology and subfields such as ethnobotany, ethnoecology, ethnoscience, ethnomycology, ethnozoology, biocultural studies Socio-ecology and the former and current names of North Macedonia. The number of publications was compared against the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity, including elements of surface and deep culture of the cultural iceberg (language, functional food, gender roles, religion, etc.). To understand the focus of the research, the data was categorized into the five phases of ethnobiology and compared with neighboring countries.
Results and conclusions: A limited number of publications on ethnobiology and subfields were recorded for North Macedonia [16], indicating a significant research gap despite the country’s rich biocultural diversity. Initial results suggest that much of the research is in early exploratory phases, with limited attention to ethnoecological and ethnomycological studies. Not surprisingly, comparisons with other neighboring countries such are Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina require more attention. Taken together, the findings of previous studies highlight the need for further research in all subfields but also their conservation, socio-ecological, and cultural importance.

A closer examination of early ethnobiological studies, such as those conducted by Robbins et al. (1916) and Jones (1941), reveals that the pioneers of ethnobiology recognized the value of local knowledge about plants and animals from various perspectives. In this regard, the field was appreciated not only for its scientific contribution but also for its role in understanding the cultural, ecological, and practical significance of this knowledge. True to its name and a research ethics dominated by colonial principles, early ethnobotanical research primarily examined the relationship between ethnic communities and plants. In this respect Castetter (1944) broadened the scope with the term “ethnobiology” to signify the use of plants and animals by so-called “primitive” people Castetter (1944). Today, ethnobiology has evolved into a multifaceted discipline, encompassing ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnoecology, ethnopharmacology, ethnomedicine, ethnomycology, and ethnoveterinary, each of which explores different intersections of human interaction with nature Conklin (1954).
The history of ethnobotany traces back to ancient civilizations, where humans documented their interactions with plants for food, medicine, and rituals (Silva et al., 2014). Early examples include texts like those of Dioscorides, which cataloged medicinal plants and their uses Beck (2005). The formal term "ethnobotany" was introduced by John W. Harshberger in 1895, though its roots extend to earlier studies of indigenous knowledge by colonial botanists and anthropologists such as Stephen Powers (1840-1904). While global ethnobiology emerged in the context of ancient traditions, including those of Greece and Egypt (Bala, 1985; Žuškin et al., 2008) the historical trajectory of North Macedonia also reflects deep-rooted connections between human communities and biodiversity. Ancient medicinal systems, such as those documented in traditional Balkan practices, highlight the significance of folk knowledge as a precursor to formalized medicinal systems Svanberg et al., 2011.
The phases of ethnobiology, as described by Clement (1998) and expanded upon by Hunn (2007), offer a framework for understanding its evolution. For North Macedonia, these phases align with a shift from documentation of traditional knowledge toward interdisciplinary collaborations. The region is now poised to enter what Wolverton (2013) described as "Phase 5," where ethnobiology addresses contemporary environmental and cultural crises. This necessitates an inclusive approach that integrates traditional knowledge with modern scientific methods, ensuring community participation and sustainable management of biodiversity.  Ethnobiological research in North Macedonia must also grapple with global concerns such as intellectual property rights (IPR) and prior informed consent (PIC), which were institutionalized in the 1992 by the International Society of Ethnobiology in the Code of Ethics (ISE, 2006).
Biocultural diversity (BCD), a concept linking cultural and biological diversity, has gained traction as a framework for sustainable development and conservation in regions like North Macedonia (Damo, Icka & Ismaili, 2012). Despite its biodiversity and cultural richness, North Macedonia lacks comprehensive ethnobiological studies compared to other Southeast European regions. This gap underscores the need for focused research documenting traditional ecological knowledge and its contemporary relevance. By integrating ethnobiology into national conservation strategies and fostering collaboration among linguists, anthropologists, and ecologists, North Macedonia can emerge as a vital contributor to global ethnobiological discourse. The socio-cultural and ecological richness of North Macedonia offers a unique perspective within the Balkan Peninsula. Its rich flora, fauna, and cultural heritage place it at the crossroads of Mediterranean and continental biodiversity (Svanberg et al., 2011). However, much of North Macedonia’s traditional ecological knowledge remains undocumented or poorly integrated into modern ethnobiological research (Žuškin et al., 2008). The regional practices documented in ethnobotanical compilations, such as those related to mountain herbs like Sideritis scardica Griseb. (Mountain Tea), reflect the broader biocultural significance of the area, connecting the tangible natural environment with intangible cultural traditions (Rexhepi & Abdija, 2025 in press). 

This study is inspired by the article Ethnobiology, Political Ecology, and Conservation, published in the Journal of Ethnobiology by Wolverton, S., Nolan, J. M., & Ahmed, W. (2014). The article highlights the interconnectedness of ethnobiology with other subfields. Publications indexed in the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for the period 1800 to 2024 per each phase were identified using "North Macedonia" "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and its historic name "Republic of Macedonia" in combination with various disciplines of ethnobiology as keywords. As North Macedonia has undergone historical and political changes, it was essential to account for publications using earlier references to the region. Key ethnobiological disciplines included in our analysis were ethnobotany, ethnoecology, ethnoscience, ethnomycology, ethnozoology, and biocultural studies. Socio-ecology was included to highlight the role of traditional knowledge in shaping human-environment interactions, which are crucial in the local economic context.
We utilized Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases due to their reliability and breadth, as recommended by studies comparing major academic databases. Studies were considered ethnobiological if they explored human-nature interactions, excluding those purely pharmacological. Extracted data included year of publication, study focus (e.g., ethnobotany, ethnomedicine), and international collaborations. Publications were categorized into five phases of ethnobiological research: 
Table 1: Phases of ethnobiology (Hunn 2007; Wyndham et al., 2011)

Finally, the research output was compared against the number of recognized ethnic groups, languages, and traditional ecological knowledge systems in North Macedonia to evaluate the scope and trends in ethnobiological research for the region.

Ethnobiology in North Macedonia - Analysis
Our query returned more than 82 publications for the period of 1800-2024, from which a total of 17 publications were selected based on the pre-defined criteria for North Macedonia. Of these 17 publications, at least four resulted from international collaborations. The data shows that the number of annual ethnobiological publications has grown gradually from only three in 1984, 1996, and 2007 to 12 publications in 2010–2024; one publication was recorded in the databases for the period of [1800–1969]. Figure [1] provides a quick overview of the increasing number of ethnobiology publications over time.

Figure 1: Trends in ethnobiological research across each phase according to Hunn (2007)

Based on our analysis of Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, ethnobotanical research in North Macedonia truly commenced in 2013, when the first study in the country was published in the prestigious Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine by Andrea Pieroni (phase V). However, since North Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia during the 80th one publication should be considered for phase 4. The ethno-taxonomic dictionary “Fjalorth etnobotanik i shqipes” by Shefki Sejdiu (1984) is considered primarily because it describes the local names of medicinal and aromatic plants. 
The second study recorded from North Macedonia was conducted by Rexhepi et al, who pioneered ethnobiological research of phase 5 in Sharr Mountain in North Macedonia in 2013, in collaboration with Andrea Pieroni & Cassandra L. Quave. Issues regarding TEK about Sharr Mountain were also published as a chapter in the book Ethnobotany and Biocultural Diversities in the Balkans: Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development and Reconciliation (2014) by Rexhepi et al. Ethnobotany and Biocultural Diversities in the Balkans is the first ethnobotany book on one of the most biologically and culturally diverse regions of the world and is a valuable resource for both scholars and students interested in the field of ethnobotany.
If we consider the coining of the term ‘Aboriginal Botany’ in 1874 as the beginning point of academic ethnobiology, then it has taken almost a century for ethnobiology to get started in North Macedonia; like in Europe and elsewhere, North Macedonian ethnobiologists initially focused on the medicinal uses of plants. 
The progression of North Macedonian ethnobiology toward phase 5?
Ethnobiological research in the Republic of North Macedonia has primarily focused on specific regions, with significant studies conducted in the Polog, Southwestern, Pelagonia, and Northeastern regions. These areas have revealed diverse ethnobiological practices, encompassing traditional knowledge about plants, animals, and their ecological significance. However, other regions, including Eastern, Skopje, and Vardar, remain largely unexplored, leaving a substantial gap in understanding the full spectrum of ethnobiological heritage within the country. By extending ethnobiological investigations to these understudied areas, scholars can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of cultural practices, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable resource management across North Macedonia.
Our analysis of the nature of ethnobiology publications from North Macedonia from 1800 to 2024 shows that 3 publications could be classified as phase 4 and 12 as phase 5. Subdiscipline-wise, ethnobotany has received special attention with 9 publications, followed by ethnomedicine (1), ethnozoology (1), and ethnomycology (1). Four publications were categorized as ethnobiology as they dealt with more than one sub-discipline. Data for the past ten years (2014–2024) shows that the last decade has seen a manifold increase in the number of papers. Although in 2013–2014, research from Sharr and Korab Mountain focused on the documentation of biodiversity traditionally used by local people, the majority of such studies involved international collaboration which can be considered as phase 5. 
Comparison with neighboring countries 
The methodological approach of this research is based on comparative analysis. Figure 2 provides data on the number of publications in neighboring countries, where Croatia produced 22 publications, Albania 22, Bosnia and Herzegovina 13, Serbia 12, Kosovo 11, and Montenegro just two.

Figure 2: Comparison of publications for all subfields of ethnobiology.

Between 2010 and 2024, aligned with phase 5, there was a growth in the overall rate of publications. However, it is encouraging to note that 9 publications from North Macedonia during the same period were of phases 3, 4, and phase 5 in nature. This trend is also observed in data from neighboring countries. The table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of ethnobotanical and ethnomedicinal research across the Balkan region, highlighting the significant number of studies conducted in countries such as Albania, Serbia, and North Macedonia. These countries show a high frequency of references, indicating active academic interest in traditional plant knowledge and its uses. Some key authors, particularly Pieroni et al., appear repeatedly, especially in Albania, underscoring their significant contributions to the field. Countries like Kosovo and Montenegro are represented by fewer studies, potentially indicating newer or less extensive research. The focus of these studies is largely on the medicinal and edible uses of plants, reflecting the cultural significance of ethnobotany. The table also reveals patterns of collaboration between local and international researchers, enhancing the exchange of knowledge across borders.

Table 2: Comparison of publications.

It is promising to observe that researchers in these Balkan countries are increasingly prioritizing adherence to ethical standards set by their institutions, governments, or professional codes. They are also emphasizing the importance of obtaining prior informed consent—whether written, verbal, or through direct agreements with communities—and recognizing local people as key knowledge holders by implementing benefit-sharing agreements with them. Notably, during phase 5, four out of seven countries demonstrated a growing interest in biocultural diversity and socioecological systems.

Though North Macedonian ethnobiology only started after Phase 4, it is encouraging to note that the region has kept up with the pace of developments happening in the field. In the future, the international research community should especially work with researchers from Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina since they are considered developed countries with robust economies, which would facilitate local mobilization of resources.