A systematic literature review of Indigenous food sharing practices to inform the design of transformative food-service initiatives and experiences

Existing sub-optimal food system configurations create a paradox where 2.33 billion people experience moderate or severe food insecurity (FAO, 2024), yet global food loss and waste exceed US$1tn per annum (UNEP, 2024). Edible surplus food that becomes waste not only represents a missed opportunity to address hunger but also negatively affects social, economic and environmental wellbeing (Agarwal et al., 2024). Over the past decade, numerous food programmes and initiatives have emerged to address food insecurity and unsustainable food consumption. However, many have been criticised for failing to empower individuals and for perpetuating stigma associated with the acceptance of surplus food (Vittuari et al., 2017). Consumers’ lack of proper service experiences with such initiatives limits the overall effectiveness of these food waste reduction programmes (Middleton et al., 2018). To improve the effectiveness of these efforts, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 2021) advocates for learning from Indigenous Peoples’ food systems and adopting cultural practices to enhance food security and strengthen systemic capacity to reduce food waste.

Indigenous Peoples are the ancestral inhabitants of lands across six continents, with cultures predating colonisation and modern nation-states. They are recognised by their distinct cultures, unique knowledge and belief systems (Knorr and Augustin, 2025). Hofstede (1984, p. 21) describes culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another”. Lindsay (2005) notes that most Indigenous cultures generally emphasise collectivism (prioritising communal over personal wellbeing), low power distance (shared decision-making), low uncertainty avoidance (adaptability to changing circumstances) and high femininity (nurturing social values). These cultures prioritise long-term sustainability by placing strong emphasis on intergenerational knowledge transfer and preservation of traditions (Ahmed et al., 2024).

FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT (2021) and Kawharu (2020) argue that combining Indigenous and contemporary knowledges can strengthen food systems. Building on this idea, incorporating Indigenous cultural practices of food sharing into the design of contemporary service-based food initiatives (Carter et al., 2025; Fillion et al., 2014) can meaningfully engage consumers in experiences that enhance overall wellbeing (Ahmed et al., 2024). Designing services is acknowledged as a transformative force for systemic change, developing effective solutions and creating holistic service experiences (Karpen et al., 2017; Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021). As Indigenous cultural values can serve as vital enablers of sustainable consumption initiatives (Edmonds, 2012), service design can create conditions to translate these values into contextual or unique service experiences (Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018). Thus, this paper leverages service design approaches from transformative service research (TSR) (Ostrom et al., 2015) to inform the blueprint of surplus food-service initiatives that integrate Indigenous food sharing practices. It specifically adopts transformative service design principles (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021), including: overall transformation (action-oriented, human-centred and collaborative approaches for developing new service futures), scope (shared visions to align multiple perspectives and enable value co-creation), endurance (reforms for long-term change) and paradigmatic radicalness (challenging conventional ways of doing things by envisioning or experimenting with radically new services). By applying these design principles, it reconfigures standard food initiatives into transformative food-service initiatives. Table 1 presents the definition of key terms used in this SLR.

The emerged domain of TSR at the intersection of wellbeing and service research (Finsterwalder et al., 2025) underscores the necessity for systemic change by establishing transformative service initiatives to empower people and maximise wellbeing outcomes (Boenigk et al., 2021). Notably, TSR’s shared vision of creating possibilities to enhance holistic wellbeing through collaborative, human- and eco-centric approaches aligns with Indigenous cultural values of collectivism and environmental stewardship (Russell-Bennett et al., 2023; Ahmed et al., 2024). While TSR aims to achieve multi-level wellbeing outcomes by using transformative services and supportive ecosystems (Finsterwalder et al., 2025), Indigenous cultural values emphasise collaborative, regenerative approaches to sustain holistic wellbeing (Ahmed et al., 2024; Kawharu, 2020).

TSR views wellbeing as a co-created process, centred on balanced and reciprocal relationships, where actors integrate their resources to achieve mutual benefits (Finsterwalder and Tombs, 2021). Similarly, reciprocal relationships are central to Indigenous social and cultural practices, in which community members share resources without an immediate expectation of return (Wenzel, 1995). Additionally, both streams advocate environmental stewardship and collaboration to reduce social inequalities (Kabadayi et al., 2023; Omura, 2023; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023). Together, these shared principles establish a solid foundation for an integrated approach to redesigning contemporary transformative food-service initiatives to disrupt conventional ways of dealing with surplus food.

Despite the scant inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in recent TSR studies (e.g. Finsterwalder and Tombs, 2021; Russell-Bennett et al., 2023), Indigenous food sharing practices remain underrepresented in efforts to drive systemic change from wasteful, linear models towards regenerative food-service ecosystems. Nevertheless, the broader literature confirms that inclusion of cultural dimensions shapes perceptions of service experiences (Furrer et al., 2000). Ladhari et al. (2025) highlight the importance of embedding cultural dimensions into the design of sustainable service experiences and explicitly call for further research. In addition, Vink et al. (2025) emphasise that service design must draw lessons from Indigenous practices to guide transformative efforts. To address these gaps, the present study conducts a thematic Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on Indigenous food sharing practices. The objective is to incorporate these themes into the design of contemporary food-service initiatives to improve consumer engagement and shape perceptions of transformative service experiences.

While some scholars have reviewed Indigenous food systems for transformative change in certain regions (Zimmermann et al., 2023), none have examined the potential of integrating Indigenous food practices into service initiatives for redistributing surplus food. Therefore, for the TSR domain, this review fills this gap. It identifies the key cultural aspects of Indigenous food sharing practices, specifically the underlying reasons why Indigenous Peoples share food, identifies various types of redistributing surplus food and pinpoints the resulting dimensions of wellbeing. The findings of this SLR offer practical guidance for overcoming barriers and building capacity to transition towards regenerative food systems. This can be achieved by designing transformative service initiatives that enable the dignified and meaningful redistribution of surplus food. Thus, this paper addresses the following research question:

How can cultural food sharing practices of Indigenous Peoples inform the design of contemporary food sharing initiatives and novel transformative service experiences for surplus food sharing?

This paper is organised into four main sections. Section 2 describes the SLR methodology, outlining the key stages of planning and conducting the review. Section 3 presents the findings from the reviewed literature, followed by Section 4 that identifies themes from Indigenous food sharing practices. Finally, Section 5 discusses how these themes can be integrated into the design of food-service initiatives, examines practical implications and identifies directions for future research.

This thematic SLR adheres to the PRISMA framework (Page et al., 2021) to ensure a transparent and reproducible research design (Pickering and Byrne, 2014). Adopting these guidelines enhances the reliability of the SLR strategy used to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise relevant literature by minimising biases in the selection of Indigenous-focused studies. The protocol for literature identification, screening and final selection is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram displayed in Figure 1.

As non-Indigenous researchers conducting this review, we acknowledge the complexities of presenting Indigenous knowledge (Raciti, 2023). To uphold the credibility of Indigenous voices and lower the risk of a lack of reliability, we selected articles published in Scimago-ranked (Q1–Q4) journals explicitly committed to Indigenous scholarship. Journals were identified as Indigenous-focused when their title, scope, aims, objectives and website stated a commitment to Indigenous knowledge systems and communities. This focus ensured that findings emerged primarily from Indigenous scholars and community-led research. Such an approach ensured that the published literature reflected authentic Indigenous cultural protocols, worldviews and epistemologies that mainstream journals may have overlooked by imposing a deductive or reductionist lens on the Indigenous concepts and ways of knowing (Drawson et al., 2017). Insights from Indigenous cultural food sharing practices can provide a foundational blueprint for redesigning modern food-service initiatives. Integrating these practices into the service design of novel food initiatives can facilitate their transferability to modern contexts across urban, multicultural and digital service landscapes. For these reasons, excluding mainstream journals was a strategic choice.

To ensure the selection of highly relevant and high-quality literature, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, as presented in Table 2. To retrieve relevant literature on Indigenous food sharing practices, a list of 77 Indigenous-focused journals was organically compiled through an extensive online search of institutional repositories, library catalogues, publisher websites and academic databases. This list was developed with the assistance of an Indigenous scholar, which provides a layer of cultural validity and key insights on selecting source titles. The first author compiled the initial list, which was then independently reviewed by the other authors to verify the Indigenous focus of the compiled source titles. Each journal on the list was categorised according to its corresponding Scimago-ranked quartile. As of 31^st March 2025, 30 of these journals were identified as Scimago-ranked and subsequently used as source titles for the keyword search in Scopus (see Table A1 for the list of ranked journals).

The Scopus database was searched to retrieve articles from a predefined list of 30 Indigenous-focused journals. The final search was conducted in Scopus on 31^st March 2025 using the string: TITLE-ABS-KEY (food AND shar*) AND SRCTITLE (“Journal Name 1” OR “Journal Name 2” OR “…” OR “Journal Name 30”). This search string was chosen to capture the social and cultural dimensions of food sharing practices across Indigenous cultures. The search limited its parameters to English, the predominant language in scientific publications. This study examined research and review journal articles and did not apply any time restriction to the search criteria. This was because food sharing practices among Indigenous Peoples have been longstanding cultural customs over time.

The Scopus search retrieved 179 records. After verifying the source titles against our predefined list of journals, 78 records were removed. No duplicates were found, and the remaining 101 records were exported to Excel for screening. Authors one and two independently screened all titles, abstracts and keywords. To ensure the focus on food sharing practices, disagreements regarding record inclusion (n = 8) were resolved at a consensus meeting. Through discussion, all authors mutually determined the eligibility of the contested records. This further clarified and defined the body of records included after full-text assessment. In total, 65 records were excluded.

The remaining 36 records underwent full-text assessments to evaluate their focus on socio-cultural dimensions of food sharing and their broader aspects. After reviewing the records, the authors agreed to exclude 15 records. Five articles (n = 5) were excluded due to misalignment with Indigenous food sharing practices, as their discussions referred to unrelated food topics (e.g. political motives, cooking classes and nutrition). Seven records (n = 7) were ineligible because food sharing was used only as an indirect or passing reference. Two studies (n = 2) did not meet the inclusion criteria because they lacked in-depth discussion. One article (n = 1) was excluded for insufficient reporting of the methodology used. This left 21 articles for analysis. By using the technique of reference chaining (Page et al., 2021), four additional articles were identified from the reference lists of the selected articles, all published in Indigenous-focused journals. This led to 25 articles for the qualitative synthesis.

Using Nvivo 15, data were extracted and analysed by using the three-stage thematic process (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Themes were defined as any aspect highlighted or described as being essential to Indigenous food sharing practices. Line-by-line open coding was performed to inductively capture the meaning of the text and generate initial codes (Thomas and Harden, 2008). To ensure consistency and minimise subjective bias, inter-rater reliability was used, with two researchers comparing the coding of randomly selected articles (Malikah and Shin, 2025). No major disagreements or conflicts emerged, thus confirming the reliability of the process. In the second stage, all researchers jointly organised or grouped the codes into clusters and developed descriptive themes. In the final stage, analytical themes and sub-themes were developed through iterative analysis of codes to capture patterns and commonalities across themes. The final themes, sub-themes and codes were cross-checked by two authors for relevance, coherence and accuracy of the data.

Understanding the significance of historical trends remains crucial for analysing emerging patterns in Indigenous food sharing practices, which have evolved with the passage of time (Ready, 2017). Figure 2 displays the number of publications (y-axis) on the topic from 1995 to 2025 (x-axis), which indicates a notable interest of researchers from 2019 onwards. The number of publications per year is not substantial, which underscores the need for further research into Indigenous food sharing practices across diverse contexts.

The included journals cover a broad range of food-related topics. However, research on food sharing practices remains scarce within these outlets. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the 25 included articles (x-axis) across journals (y-axis). Arctic and Hunter Gatherers Research published five papers, followed by the International Journal of Circumpolar Health, which published four articles. Additionally, Arctic Anthropology published three articles, while Rural and Remote Health and MAI Journal published two articles each. One article appeared in each of the Journal of the Polynesian Society and Current Developments in Nutrition. Notably, 21 of the 30 selected journals published nothing on the topic. This trend indicates that scholars working on Indigenous food systems are urged to publish more in Indigenous-focused outlets to amplify the visibility and impact of Indigenous knowledge across the broader academic and Indigenous communities.

Figure 4 presents a pie chart of Indigenous Peoples in the reviewed data. Inuit communities received the most coverage, appearing in 17 articles. First Nations communities were covered in five articles, Māori in two and Tongan in one. These results reveal a major gap in the representation of Indigenous cultures worldwide, with many groups underrepresented or entirely absent from Indigenous-focused journals. This highlights the need for more inclusive research to amplify diverse Indigenous voices and food sharing experiences.

Before presenting the thematic analyses (see Table A2 for the full list of themes, sub-themes and sample codes), it is crucial to recognise that Indigenous food systems fundamentally differ from existing industrialised food systems. Indigenous cultural foodways centre on hunting, gathering and sharing of locally acquired foods, including land and sea animals, birds, plants, berries, eggs, herbs and other country-specific food resources (Ahmed et al., 2024; Kawharu, 2020; Quintal-Marineau, 2019). Harvested foods are shared among family members, extended kin and the wider community in accordance with complex cultural food distribution rules (Omura, 2023). These sharing practices carry deep cultural meanings that extend beyond economic transactions (Collings et al., 1998; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Scholars describe these practices as subsistence (Ready, 2017) or social economy (Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Quintal-Marineau, 2019), distinguishing Indigenous food systems from Western food systems that predominantly rely on store-bought food (Collings et al., 1998).

The findings reveal that all 25 articles mainly focus on the sharing of country food, not store-bought food, within Indigenous food practices. Seven studies place greater value on sharing cultural food, though one article notes that store-bought food items are increasingly becoming a part of the Indigenous social economy (Quintal-Marineau, 2019). Despite the fundamental differences between Indigenous and industrial food systems, these cultural sharing practices offer transferable insights for contemporary surplus food redistribution initiatives. The findings of this review are organised and synthesised into five major themes that collectively address our research question. These include the determinants (Theme 1), types (Theme 2) and impact (Theme 3) of food sharing on wellbeing, highlight the barriers to food sharing (Theme 4) and outline capacity building (Theme 5) approaches. Each theme includes sub-themes, and their various aspects are supported by evidence drawn from the reviewed literature (article counts are indicated in brackets below).

Food sharing emerges as a fundamental practice in all reviewed Indigenous cultures, i.e. the Inuit, First Nations, Māori and Tongan. Although food acquisition methods vary to some extent among these cultures, the essence of food sharing remains consistent and is deeply rooted in cultural identity. Sharing food with family, extended kin and a wider community through established sharing networks is a cornerstone of Inuit culture (Caughey et al., 2024; Collings, 2011; Lardea et al., 2011; Rana et al., 2024; Ready, 2017; Tomaselli et al., 2018) and plays an inherent role in shaping Inuit identity (Collings et al., 1998; Fillion et al., 2014; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Wenzel, 1995). Food sharing is also integral to the Inuit worldview (Omura, 2023), as one participant in Carter et al. (2025, p. 10) describes it as “it’s our livelihood, it’s our culture… It’s a survival thing for Inuit”. Another participant in Caughey et al. (2024, p. 325) expresses the centrality of food sharing by saying, “we grow up eating with other people”. Despite evolving environmental and socio-economic conditions, food sharing remains a key characteristic of Inuit identity (Martin, 2011; Quintal-Marineau, 2019).

Food acquired through subsistence activities and shared within and beyond communities is central to First Nations cultures (McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Natcher et al., 2021; Natcher, 2019). These practices embody foundational teachings of their worldview (Ahmed et al., 2024). One Elder (knowledge-holder) in Neufeld and Richmond (2020) describes these practices as instilling pride, freedom and identity. Similarly, for Indigenous Māori, growing, preparing and sharing food with family and the wider community carries deep cultural significance and is closely linked to feelings of wellness, happiness and belonging (Kawharu, 2020; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015). Likewise, food sharing remains vital for preserving Tongan identity (Neill and Toloke, 2021).

This is one of the primary determinants of Indigenous food practices. The reviewed Indigenous cultures indicate that Elders bear responsibility for transmitting traditional foodways, knowledge and values to younger generations (Caughey et al., 2024; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Traditionally, they impart their experiences and wisdom during community gatherings centred on meal sharing (Ahmed et al., 2024; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Omura, 2023). In addition, joint preparation, distribution and consumption of meals further reinforce intergenerational learning of food harvesting, preparation techniques, preservation skills and sharing protocols (Ahmed et al., 2024; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Neill and Toloke, 2021; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). These practices help preserve knowledge, language and social capital (Carter et al., 2025; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Natcher et al., 2021). However, colonisation, wage economies and climate change have led to a decline in Indigenous knowledge transfer (Collings et al., 1998; Guo et al., 2015; Ready, 2017), resulting in the loss of subsistence-related language, weakened social connections and communal responsibilities (Ahmed et al., 2024; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Tomaselli et al., 2018).

Sharing food with families and communities is often attributed to generalised reciprocity, in which resources are shared without an immediate expectation of return (Wenzel, 1995). For example, successful hunters often provide free access to food for close relatives and community members, who reciprocate by assisting with butchering, processing and preparing communal meals (Ahmed et al., 2024; Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Ready, 2017). However, Wenzel (1995) cautioned against oversimplifying the common assumption that hunters and gatherers always engage in generalised reciprocity, emphasising that multiple motives and complex social dynamics underpin Indigenous food sharing practices.

The essence of cultural food sharing is to support family and community, particularly those unable to participate in harvesting activities (Ahmed et al., 2024; Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Lardea et al., 2011; McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Food is particularly shared with those who lack access to food resources or face food shortages (Dombrowski et al., 2013; Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012). These practices serve as a vital support mechanism, helping community members in need (Lardea et al., 2011; Martin, 2011; Rana et al., 2024) and those unable to afford food (Kawharu, 2020; Quintal-Marineau, 2019).

The review reveals that food sharing also occurs without any reciprocal expectations, prioritising community support and ensuring that everyone is cared for and no one is left hungry (Dombrowski et al., 2013; Martin, 2011; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Quintal-Marineau, 2019). In Indigenous cultures, the selfless act of sharing food often occurs even before a formal request is made by those in need (Carter et al., 2025). One knowledge holder in Carter et al. (2025, p. 10) illustrates, “So, sharing country food really goes a long way. When you share, you never know who in need you may be really helping”. However, a lack of mechanisms often makes it difficult for people to identify community members who need food (Natcher, 2019).

Generosity constitutes a fundamental cultural value and moral obligation among Indigenous Peoples, distinguished by its substantial influence on the widespread distribution of food resources and the enhancement of collective wellbeing (Collings et al., 1998; McMillan and Parlee, 2013). Food is generously shared within the entire community (Carter et al., 2025). Quintal-Marineau (2019) observes that food sharing is not limited to subsistence, and store-bought food is also generous sharing of store-bought food within family networks and broader communities (Dombrowski et al., 2013).

Despite shifting socio-economic conditions, climate change and government policies (see Theme 4), Indigenous communities demonstrated resilience and the zeal of food sharing remains unchanged (Collings, 2011; Martin, 2011; Quintal-Marineau, 2019). Indigenous Peoples use reciprocal sharing networks as a key mechanism for coping with challenges (Ahmed et al., 2024). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Inuit communities in Nunavut, Canada, mobilised to support one another through extensive resource and food sharing practices (Rana et al., 2024). Rana et al. (2024, p. 8) quote a participant as saying, “We helped out each other, we had to, I couldn’t get through without my community helping us out. People would drop food for us at our door. We pulled together”.

Subsistence is inherently rooted in the principle of equality (Ready, 2017). Beyond mere survival, food sharing functions as a normative mechanism to uphold communal equity by discouraging hierarchical structures that would otherwise allow individuals to monopolise and store food resources (Omura, 2023). Indigenous cultures obligate generous food redistribution that strengthens social cohesion, prevents disparities in access, creates social balance and sustains collective wellbeing (McMillan and Parlee, 2013).

A food sharing social network is defined as a web of kin and non-kin relationships through which individuals interact to access, distribute or receive food (Collings, 2011). Kinship dominates food redistribution practices across the literature (Ahmed et al., 2024; Collings, 2011; Collings et al., 1998; Dombrowski et al., 2013; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Natcher et al., 2021; Natcher, 2019; Quintal-Marineau, 2019; Ready, 2017; Tomaselli et al., 2018; Wenzel, 1995). Food is primarily shared through kinship-based networks that encompass immediate and close family members, extended relatives, village co-residents, and, in some cases, inter-community relations (Collings et al., 1998; Quintal-Marineau, 2019; Wenzel, 1995). Social network analysis repeatedly shows that the highest volume and frequency of country and store-bought food transfers occur within close kinship networks (Collings et al., 1998; Dombrowski et al., 2013; McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Natcher, 2019). Despite the integration of wage economies and commercial foods, kinship retains its structural dominance, with store-bought food items and other resources circulating mainly through kin-based ties and obligations (Dombrowski et al., 2013; Quintal-Marineau, 2019).

Once food is distributed within immediate social networks, any surplus is shared with the broader community. This includes invitations to distant relatives or non-kin households and individuals experiencing vulnerability, such as families without an active hunter, Elders or widows (Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Wenzel, 1995). Invitations are typically issued formally or informally, often by phone calls or by sending a child as a messenger (Collings et al., 1998; McMillan and Parlee, 2013). Additionally, surplus from large harvests is occasionally announced over local FM radio stations for redistribution to the wider community (Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Ready, 2017; Wenzel, 1995).

Another key form of food access is demand-sharing and request-based sharing (Wenzel, 1995). Rather than waiting passively for food, individuals directly request hunters, harvesters and households for food to satisfy cravings or dietary needs (Carter et al., 2025; McMillan and Parlee, 2013). Such requests are frequent from Elders, who seek specific types of country food believed to benefit their physical health or spiritual wellbeing (Ahmed et al., 2024; Collings et al., 1998). Declining such requests generally violates cultural norms and carries significant social consequences, as fulfilling these demands is an obligatory expression of reciprocity, respect and communal responsibility (Quintal-Marineau, 2019; Wenzel, 1995). Amid socio-economic changes and the growing integration of store-bought food into Indigenous food systems, demand-sharing now includes a wide variety of commercial food items such as fruit, vegetables, tea and sugar, which are increasingly requested to be shared (Martin, 2011; Wenzel, 1995). These commodities are routinely shared using the same cultural practices.

Another prevalent form of food sharing in Indigenous sharing networks is gifting, where food is given to kin and non-kin members without any prior request (Collings et al., 1998; Wenzel, 1995). Food is often shared as gifts with those in need (McMillan and Parlee, 2013). In today’s context, gifting store-bought food is preferred over cash, which not only reinforces Indigenous values but also reduces the risk of money being used for alcohol (Quintal-Marineau, 2019). Similarly, in Māori communities, gifting a significant portion of the harvest to the community is a valued practice and an expression of generosity and collective wellbeing (Kawharu, 2020).

Delivering food to individuals, households and various community establishments is another identified sharing practice (Carter et al., 2025; Collings et al., 1998). This ensures that Elders, people with mobility limitations, and those with limited food access receive their harvest share or surplus food. In Arctic regions, food is delivered through multiple channels. These include commercial or community-based shipment services (Collings, 2011), aerial delivery to remote and isolated regions via small aircraft and helicopters (Lardea et al., 2011) and the use of land and water transport, such as snowmobiles, boats and vehicles (McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Rana et al., 2024).

This is one of the most visible and common forms of food sharing identified in the reviewed literature. In this form of sharing, harvested food is made openly accessible to community members and the general public, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous (Collings et al., 1998; Kawharu, 2020). Community-wide food sharing is characterised by expressions of generosity and altruism. A respondent described this as follows: “[…] the lineups are very, very long. There’s lots of people that want country food when it’s caught and when it’s available. Everyone is giddy and excited waiting for their share” (Carter et al., 2025, p. 10). Indigenous cultures discourage storing excess food, and it is obligatory for households to redistribute surplus food with the broader community when they acquire an extra food supply from a successful hunt or gathering (Martin, 2011; Ready, 2017).

Indigenous community-wide sharing uses traditional and contemporary ways to redistribute surplus food. This includes large communal feasts and gatherings (Ahmed et al., 2024; Collings et al., 1998; Wenzel, 1995), direct sharing with neighbours (Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Neill and Toloke, 2021; Ready, 2017), online sharing (Kawharu, 2020), food banks, community restaurants (Lardea et al., 2011) and public pantries and freezers (Dombrowski et al., 2013). Indigenous cultures recognise that redistributing large subsistence harvests can feed the entire community, which is far more affordable than store-bought food (Caughey et al., 2024; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Food sharing also extends to inter-community interactions (Carter et al., 2025), with exchanges stabilising Indigenous food systems (Tomaselli et al., 2018).

Eating together at communal feasts or sharing prepared meals is central to Indigenous cultures (Collings et al., 1998; Omura, 2023). One form of meal sharing is open commensality, in which meals are shared openly with community members (Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Wenzel, 1995). Furthermore, ritualistic sharing also occurs, such as sharing meals at weekly Sunday gatherings, when families prepare extra meals to share with neighbours or community members (Neill and Toloke, 2021). As Indigenous cultures are affected by modernisation, commercial food items are now regularly incorporated into these shared meals (Harder and Wenzel, 2012).

In many Indigenous cultures, hunters or harvesting groups traditionally formed formalised partnerships to ensure food availability for their communities. These structured alliances based on mutual agreements of resources and skills sharing and long-term reciprocity have now largely diminished (Collings et al., 1998; Wenzel, 1995). Nevertheless, the underlying principle of collaboration has evolved into contemporary institutional partnerships. Today, Indigenous communities collaborate with government agencies, non-governmental organisations and research institutions to enhance food access (Ahmed et al., 2024; Kawharu, 2020; Lardea et al., 2011; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Natcher et al., 2021; Natcher, 2019; Rana et al., 2024). Notable examples include community food banks, soup kitchens (Lardea et al., 2011), harvesting and hunting programmes (Ahmed et al., 2024; Caughey et al., 2024; Tomaselli et al., 2018), regenerative gardening (Kawharu, 2020), food mail programmes (Martin, 2011), hunter support programmes (Natcher, 2019) and food hamper programmes (Rana et al., 2024). Overall, these initiatives facilitate community-based food sharing to enhance collective wellbeing.

Food sharing in Indigenous cultures is fundamentally motivated by achieving holistic wellbeing outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2024), particularly by sustaining the physical health of individuals, families, relatives and the wider community (Ahmed et al., 2024; Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Martin, 2011; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Indigenous Peoples consider food acquired from land or water to be healthier and to be “real food”, whereas the consumption of store-bought food is discouraged for maintaining better health (Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). Therefore, specific foods are requested by community members, who believe they are essential for maintaining physical health and vitality (Carter et al., 2025; McMillan and Parlee, 2013). Such requests are typically met through community sharing and social support systems (Lardea et al., 2011).

Indigenous food practices nurture subjective and psychological wellbeing (Ahmed et al., 2024). For many, these practices evoke feelings of happiness, comfort and emotional stability (Caughey et al., 2024; McMillan and Parlee, 2013; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015). According to one participant (cited in Carter et al., 2025, p. 10), “[t]he best is when people are walking by or driving by and you randomly stop them to give them a fish or some meat of any sort, people are so happy!” Furthermore, sharing food is considered important for uplifting emotional and mental health, as it fosters social interactions that form new relationships, reduces isolation and strengthens a shared sense of responsibility (Martin, 2011; Natcher, 2019).

Within Indigenous cultures, participation in food sharing activities is linked to attaining spiritual wellbeing, transcending conventional expressions of interconnectedness with nature (Ahmed et al., 2024; Carter et al., 2025; Martin, 2011). These practices are perceived not merely as social or economic exchanges but as spiritual acts affirming reciprocal relationships with land, water, animals, ancestors and spiritual entities (Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Omura, 2023). For many, subsistence activities are an expression of gratitude, responsibility and respect to animals and land, which directly connect individuals with the soul-nourishing spiritual realm (Omura, 2023). Through participation, Indigenous Peoples strengthen their belongingness and perform their roles with pure intentions to improve wellbeing within a larger web of existence.

Indigenous food sharing practices prioritise collective wellbeing, embodying cultural values of equitable access to resources and communal responsibility (Collings et al., 1998; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; McMillan and Parlee, 2013). This ethos enforces mutual care obligations, supporting family and community needs (Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Natcher, 2019; Wenzel, 1995). The distribution of food resources maintains community resilience and social structures (Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Rana et al., 2024), instilling community harmony, mutual trust and a sense of cultural solidarity that binds the community together (Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Quintal-Marineau, 2019).

Food sharing is integral to forming and maintaining social relationships within Indigenous communities (Ahmed et al., 2024; Natcher, 2019; Ready, 2017). Harder and Wenzel (2012) characterised food as a social currency that facilitates interaction and relationship building (Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). These practices strengthen social ties at both individual and collective levels (Carter et al., 2025; Caughey et al., 2024; Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Neill and Toloke, 2021; Omura, 2023). The reinforcement of food sharing practices has important implications for uplifting social wellbeing (Martin, 2011).

The principle of reciprocal relationships extends beyond personal and communal wellbeing and encompasses the environment itself. Indigenous Peoples’ strong cultural values of stewardship and guardianship are embedded in cultural codes and social protocols (Carter et al., 2025; Omura, 2023). Indigenous Peoples show high respect for the land and water, which provide all sources that nourish life (Kawharu, 2020; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015). Their worldviews reject the exploitation of natural resources but favour harmony with nature (Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Rana et al., 2024). This is reflected in food sharing practices, where wasting food is considered disrespectful and sharing ensures everyone in the community is taken care of (Martin, 2011). The principle of stewardship and guardianship is simple and translates to the idea that if you take care of the land, the land will continue to provide (Martin, 2011).

Indigenous cultures achieve long-term sustainability through environmental stewardship and resource sharing (Carter et al., 2025; Kawharu, 2020). By using traditional food preparation practices, they actively minimise food waste by using every available part of a harvested plant or animal (Ahmed et al., 2024; Rana et al., 2024). In addition, surplus food is shared with others, ensuring everyone has enough to eat and nothing is wasted (Martin, 2011; Tomaselli et al., 2018). As a result, nothing goes to waste. These practices maintain ecological balance while nurturing community wellbeing.

Rooted in the principles of reciprocity and environmental stewardship, Indigenous food practices emphasise taking only what is needed, leaving resources to regenerate for future generations and to maintain a healthy environment (Carter et al., 2025; Kawharu, 2020). In addition, these practices manage surplus food by redistributing it across communities. This reduces overall demand for food resources, which ultimately decreases the collective harvest pressure on land and water use. In this way, Indigenous food systems play a vital role in conserving land and water resources (Carter et al., 2025).

Modernisation has significantly eroded Indigenous cultural values and practices (Collings et al., 1998). Sharing networks, once central to community life, have weakened due to the loosening of strong social ties. Rapid population growth, urban migration and changing regional demographics have further faded out feelings of belonging and community cohesion, leading to cultural disconnection and depleted sharing practices (Guo et al., 2015; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). In particular, younger generations are increasingly disengaged from cultural food practices (Ahmed et al., 2024). Such disconnection from native roots evokes feelings of loss, sadness and frustration, which negatively affects the wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples (Caughey et al., 2024).

Shifts in socio-economic systems have raised serious concerns about the sharp decline in Indigenous food sharing practices (Lardea et al., 2011; Natcher, 2019). Modern economies that promote wage employment have reduced the time available for subsistence activities, resulting in marginalisation of individuals’ participation in customary harvesting and gathering (Carter et al., 2025; Collings et al., 1998; Quintal-Marineau, 2019). In comparison with the Indigenous social economy, this integration has led Indigenous communities to greater isolation and disconnection from their own cultural food practices and networks (Collings, 2011; Guo et al., 2015; Natcher et al., 2021; Natcher, 2019; Ready, 2017). Some Indigenous individuals with steady cash incomes now purchase country food, which goes against the norms of some Indigenous cultures (McMillan and Parlee, 2013).

The rising cost of equipment and housing, along with low incomes, are major financial barriers that pose immense pressure on food insecurity and lower subsistence activities (Carter et al., 2025; Guo et al., 2015; Martin, 2011; Ready, 2017; Tomaselli et al., 2018). High prices for store-bought food further limit overall accessibility of food (Lardea et al., 2011; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Neill and Toloke, 2021; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). Although sharing meals remains a cultural expectation and norm, these higher prices strain household budgets (Quintal-Marineau, 2019).

Strict conservation regulations governing land hunting and sea fishing, rising costs of licensing equipment and permits for harvesting, the imposition of tax obligations on farmers and livestock and the allocation of Indigenous land to industries severely hinder subsistence activities (Ahmed et al., 2024; Caughey et al., 2024; Martin, 2011; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Natcher et al., 2021; Ready, 2017). These excessive measures restrict Indigenous Peoples’ access to land and water resources and undermine their self-determination and food sovereignty, that is, the right of Indigenous communities to control and sustain food systems in line with cultural values and community needs (Carter et al., 2025; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015).

Ecological imbalance has majorly disrupted Indigenous food systems (Ahmed et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2015; Lardea et al., 2011; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Unpredictable and extreme weather patterns have made it difficult for hunters to travel long distances safely (Natcher, 2019; Ready, 2017). Additionally, water pollution from shipping traffic and industrial activities has damaged marine ecosystems, reducing the availability of key species essential for physical health and wellbeing (Carter et al., 2025; Fillion et al., 2014; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015). This reduced availability of food produces less surplus to redistribute, which complicates cultural sharing expectations (Natcher, 2019).

Historically self-sufficient Indigenous communities are now experiencing alarming rates of food insecurity (Caughey et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2015; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Natcher, 2019; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Food insecurity emerges when food systems are strained, restricting access, availability and quality of food (Carter et al., 2025; Lardea et al., 2011; Rana et al., 2024). All the barriers discussed above collectively undermine Indigenous food systems, making it difficult to uphold cultural values centred on food sharing (Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). Today, the scarcity of country food and its unaffordability restrict food sharing closer to kin and making it difficult to share with the wider community (Dombrowski et al., 2013; Ready, 2017). Households now increasingly rely on unhealthy food alternatives, which cause nutrient deficiencies and related health problems (Martin, 2011). Indigenous food practices have strong potential to mitigate food insecurity (Harder and Wenzel, 2012), and realising this requires capacity building through revitalising Indigenous food practices and developing food initiatives (Ahmed et al., 2024; Fillion et al., 2014).

Strengthening Indigenous food practices offers a pathway to increase food security (Ahmed et al., 2024; Caughey et al., 2024; Ready, 2017). Traditional food sharing networks and social ties are vital enablers for supporting households facing food shortages (Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Lardea et al., 2011). Therefore, enhancing access to surplus food through culturally grounded food initiatives offers a key strategy to address food insecurity, health and wellbeing and environmental sustainability (Carter et al., 2025; Fillion et al., 2014; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020; Rana et al., 2024). Addressing these challenges necessitates multi-sector collaboration between organisations, governments, institutions and communities (Guo et al., 2015; Moeke-Pickering et al., 2015).

Contemporary approaches to reducing waste, such as the circular economy, are aligned with Indigenous regenerative approaches (Kawharu, 2020). Circularity in Indigenous cultures extends beyond food sharing, aiming to generate zero waste by fully using all parts of harvested plants and animals. For example, feathers from harvested birds are used to make blankets and pillows, skin is used to make boots, clothes and beddings and bones are used to make hunting tools (Ahmed et al., 2024; Carter et al., 2025; Harder and Wenzel, 2012; Hovelsrud-Broda, 1999; Martin, 2011; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Thus, the behavioural coding embedded in the Indigenous worldview ensures that nothing is wasted (Martin, 2011).

The literature highlights several food initiatives that revitalise Indigenous food sharing practices to address food insecurity and waste. Notable examples include community kitchens where participants prepare traditional meals together or learn cultural cooking techniques (Ahmed et al., 2024; Fillion et al., 2014; Lardea et al., 2011). Kawharu (2020) argues that well-designed, Indigenous community-led food initiatives offer better opportunities to revive Indigenous practices (Collings et al., 1998; Natcher, 2019; Rana et al., 2024). Elders advocate programmes centred on cultural foodways to transmit traditional knowledge, skills and values to younger generations (Caughey et al., 2024; Neufeld and Richmond, 2020). These initiatives not only encourage a renewed connection with ancestral practices but also maintain cultural identity (Ahmed et al., 2024).

Incorporating Indigenous food sharing practices into contemporary food initiatives offers an effective way to redistribute surplus food (Carter et al., 2025; Caughey et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2015; Kawharu, 2020; Lardea et al., 2011). Such initiatives can re-engage communities disconnected from their cultural heritage (Ahmed et al., 2024; Kawharu, 2020). Community-led initiatives empower participants to take ownership of their food systems and preserve cultural heritage (Quintal-Marineau, 2019; Rana et al., 2024). Inclusive food sharing initiatives create supportive environments that boost community engagement, food security and overall wellbeing. (Ahmed et al., 2024; Lardea et al., 2011).

This SLR synthesised 25 articles to examine Indigenous food sharing practices and extracted culturally grounded principles for designing contemporary food initiatives that can enable transformative service experiences. The synthesis reveals five major themes, summarised in Figure 5. This figure illustrates a sequential view of food sharing practices, underpinning why food is shared (Theme 1: determinants of sharing food), how it is shared (Theme 2: types of sharing food), what impact food sharing creates (Theme 3: wellbeing outcomes), what prevents food sharing (Theme 4: barriers and challenges) and how to build competence (Theme 5: capacity building approaches) to revitalise Indigenous food sharing practices.

The reviewed literature addresses a diverse array of food-related topics, ranging from the sharing of country food to the systemic challenges Indigenous communities face in sustaining cultural food practices. Despite the broad geographic contexts and varied methodologies across these studies (detailed in Table A3), the findings remain consistent across the identified themes. This SLR mapped and synthesised the guiding principles of Indigenous food sharing practices across Inuit, First Nations, Māori and Tongan cultures. By distilling these practices into service design logics, this discussion advances TSR objectives. The findings provide actionable insights for service researchers and practitioners, offering a pathway towards more equitable and regenerative food systems.

Indigenous cultural values frame food as a basic human right essential for human flourishing (Varney and Soma, 2025). Placing this perspective at the heart of food-service initiatives guides practitioners to implement transformative service design through its core elements (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021). Integrating Indigenous food sharing practices into the design of contemporary urban, multicultural and digital food-service initiatives enables human-centred, collaborative and action-oriented approaches to emerge (Knorr and Augustin, 2025), supporting the principle of overall transformation. Furthermore, this integration bridges Indigenous objectives of achieving holistic wellbeing with the purpose of contemporary initiatives. It creates conditions for inclusive and relational strategies that unlock further possibilities for value co-creation (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021; Vink et al., 2025). This relates to the design principle of scope. Moreover, these strategies support the endurance necessary to reform existing food systems for long-term sustainability (FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 2021). This embeddedness achieves paradigmatic radicalness by challenging existing norms and negative perceptions of surplus food experiences (Varney and Soma, 2025; Vittuari et al., 2017).

Human-centred service design, which prioritises both cultural and personal values while addressing user needs, offers problem-solving solutions that create unique value and service experiences (Karpen et al., 2017; Ladhari et al., 2011). As illustrated in Figure 6, the amalgamation of Indigenous food sharing determinants, ways of sharing and wellbeing objectives into the design of a transformative food-service initiative reconfigures previously fragmented service experiences, helping to dismantle systemic barriers. This approach builds the capacity of food-service initiatives to deploy resources to maximise wellbeing outcomes (Karpen et al., 2017). The following sections discuss the specific implications of each of the five identified themes when applying transformative service design principles.

Our findings suggest that determinants of Indigenous food sharing enrich existing motivations for participating in contemporary surplus food initiatives (Schanes and Stagl, 2019). Embedding these determinants in service design makes underlying motivations more visible. This visibility aligns user motives with service experiences across touchpoints (Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018) and creates conditions for diverse actors to mobilise them in urban and multicultural settings to take collective surplus food redistribution actions. This corresponds to the design principle of scope. Furthermore, it also enables the projection of future action trajectories to navigate systemic challenges and advances the principle of overall transformation by moving beyond mere service exchanges towards relational value creation systems (Finsterwalder et al., 2025). Re-illuminating Indigenous food practices also contributes to relational service design (Vink et al., 2025), strengthens reciprocal consumer-service relationships and shapes dignified surplus food experiences (Finsterwalder and Tombs, 2021; Varney and Soma, 2025).

Indigenous ways (types) of food sharing offer a multi-channel framework that diversifies the customer journey. By blending these methods within digital or other platforms, food initiatives can move beyond centralised pickup points (Diprose et al., 2025) and create varied service experiences that empower broader consumer segments (Chen et al., 2019). For example, delivering surplus to geographically or socially isolated marginalised populations (Stein, 2023) reframes food assistance as an act of social participation and forms community-based social experiences (Edwards, 2021). As such, multi-channel service delivery increases user engagement and enables scalable service models (Chen et al., 2019), which resonate with the design principle of scope. Furthermore, presenting surplus food as “gifts” rather than “charity” dismantles food donor-receiver hierarchies and restores human dignity (Edwards, 2021). Drawing on the Indigenous perspective, the evolving transformative service design disrupts the fundamental assumption of surplus food for the needy and reframes it as food for all. This transition can break free from the limiting beliefs attached to surplus food initiatives and contribute to gradual, long-term system transformation.

Although current food initiatives focus on improving sustainability, circularity and food security (Vittuari et al., 2017), the absence of explicit wellbeing considerations in conventional service design can lead to unintended consequences for service users (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020; Polonsky et al., 2026). By placing personal, communal and environmental wellbeing at the centre of new food-service initiatives, this advances the TSR objectives of human flourishing by leveraging service design (Ostrom et al., 2015). This approach informs value propositions that offer contextual experiences better suited to consumer needs (Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018), providing cues that encourage consumer engagement across service touchpoints. As consumers interact with the service to achieve their goals, they generate subjective wellbeing outcomes that emerge from their experiences and verily depend on the service user, circumstances and sociocultural factors (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020). Thus, the Indigenous dynamics of achieving wellbeing are associated with the endurance principle, providing the new ways of thinking by readjusting surplus food redistribution practices.

While the first three themes addressed the internal mechanisms of Indigenous food sharing practices, the fourth identified barriers. Service designers can address these challenges by adopting collaborative approaches and co-design methodologies, particularly those that align with Indigenous research approaches such as community-based participatory research (Drawson et al., 2017). These co-design strategies embody paradigmatic radicalness by encouraging the exploration of alternative ways of doing things and shifting beliefs and norms (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021). Based on Indigenous values, such initiatives challenge conventional practices, empower individuals, maintain human dignity and improve food security (Lopes et al., 2025). They also reduce inequalities (Davey et al., 2023) and advance TSR’s objective of fair and dignified service-resource access by dismantling systemic barriers (Kabadayi et al., 2023). Rather than developing restrictive policies, governments should establish mechanisms that allow stakeholders to collaborate and co-design action-oriented, transformative food-service initiatives capable of effectively overcoming identified barriers to food redistribution.

The synthesis of this review further reveals that adopting the “low-power distance” dimension and nurturing values of Indigenous cultures in co-designing transformative food-service initiatives builds capacity for enduring food systems (Swiderska et al., 2022). Adopting these cultural values supports a shift towards regenerative models (Fischer et al., 2024) that maximise holistic wellbeing (McKinley and Walters, 2023). This aligns with the design principle of endurance, which implies long-term systemic change through transformative service design (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2021). Furthermore, this integration improves service design capabilities to support transitions towards regenerative service ecosystems (Russell-Bennett et al., 2023). Hence, embedding Indigenous food sharing practices reconfigures contemporary food initiatives and transforms them into transformative food-service initiatives.

While this review affirms the potential for incorporating Indigenous food practices into the design of contemporary food service initiatives to uplift holistic wellbeing, it lacks empirical evidence to evaluate their effectiveness. Future research should address this gap by developing multi-level wellbeing metrics specifically tailored for transformative service initiatives. Although various measures have been applied to evaluate multi-level wellbeing outcomes (Landry and Furrer, 2023), this study advances the TSR domain by putting forward the development of wellbeing metrics grounded in the dimensions identified in this review, such as personal (micro level), communal (meso level), societal (macro level) and environmental (meta level) wellbeing (Finsterwalder et al., 2025). Such wellbeing-focused metrics could enhance consumer engagement with service initiatives by clearly demonstrating how individuals contribute to their own wellbeing and that of their families, communities, societies and the environment.

This review provides a blueprint for incorporating Indigenous food practices into food-related service initiatives that can alleviate food insecurity, minimise inequality, mitigate food vulnerability and enhance broader wellbeing outcomes. To assess long-term impact, future research should use longitudinal case studies that track effects on consumers over time. Additionally, a comparative analysis of Indigenous grounded and contemporary food sharing initiatives can examine differences in user engagement rates, vulnerability reduction, perceived user dignity and overall wellbeing outcomes.

The following Table 3 presents a detailed list of questions organised in accordance with identified themes:

This study systematically reviewed 25 articles from Indigenous-focused journals to examine Indigenous food sharing practices and their implications for designing transformative food-service initiatives. This review extends the TSR discourse by highlighting how integrating Indigenous food determinants, sharing types and wellbeing objectives into service design allows practitioners to overcome barriers and build capacity for sustainable, dignified and regenerative food systems. Furthermore, this paper equips practitioners with identified Indigenous food sharing elements (Figure 5) and strategies that enhance consumer engagement and reshape their perspectives of service experiences by adopting transformative service design principles.

This study is limited to English-language publications, potentially introducing linguistic bias and overlooking perspectives published in Indigenous or other languages. It intentionally excluded mainstream journals to preserve cultural epistemic integrity and prioritise Indigenous-focused journal articles across all Scimago quartiles. It also excluded other sources of knowledge, such as books, trade journals, conference papers and commentaries. Future reviews can include mainstream journals and other sources to enhance the existing understanding of Indigenous food sharing practices. Despite these limitations, the current SLR establishes a foundation for co-designing transformative food-service initiatives.

The authors are indebted to Indigenous scholar Associate Professor Tyron Love, with tribal affiliations to Te Atiawa (Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Wellington), Ngāti Ruanui and Taranaki, for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Search String for Scopus (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Food AND Shar*) AND SRCTITLE (“Aboriginal History” OR “AlterNative” OR “American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research” OR “American Indian Culture and Research Journal” OR “Anthropological Linguistics” OR “Arctic” OR “Arctic Anthropology” OR “Arctic Review on Law and Politics” OR “Arctic Science” OR “Australian Journal of Indigenous Education” OR “Current Developments in Nutrition” OR “Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education” OR “EcoHealth” OR “European Expansion and Indigenous Response” OR “Hunter Gatherer Research” OR “Indiana” OR “International Indigenous Policy Journal” OR “International Journal of Circumpolar Health” OR “International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies” OR “Journal of African Cultural Studies” OR “Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved” OR “Journal of the Polynesian Society” OR “MAI Journal” OR “New Zealand Journal of Psychology” OR “Oceania” OR “Psychology and Developing Societies” OR “Rural and Remote Health” OR “Studies in American Indian Literatures” OR “Transcultural Psychiatry” OR “Wellbeing, Space and Society”)