Decolonizing botanical gardens Open Access

The seminal work of Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies, has catalyzed profound discussions on the imperative of decolonization within institutional frameworks. As you navigate through the chapters of the book, you come to understand the colonial experience as not only domination over Indigenous Peoples but domination and subjugation of Nature. Our stories of colonialism and violence are intertwined. Moreover, for centuries, Indigenous Peoples have had our stories and connections to Nature told through the colonial gaze of “collections” and other forms of “curiosity cabinets” (Zytaruk, 2011; Duncan, 2019). Indigeneity and its associated novelty and exoticism of people, plants and other non-human kin were consumed through the safety of brick and glass to further promote the worthiness of colonial projects. However, the “artefacts” and their stories were never curated as truth-telling experiences but as colonial expansionism propaganda. As Smith (2021) notes,

In the context of botanical gardens, Smith’s insights have been particularly pertinent, prompting critical reflections on the historical legacies of colonialism embedded within botanical collections (Geniusz, 2022; Neves, 2024; McAlvay et al., 2021; Baxter and Marguin, 2024). Botanical gardens, traditionally conceived as bastions of scientific inquiry, have increasingly acknowledged their complicity in colonial projects of knowledge extraction, production and exploitation (McAlvay et al., 2021). According to Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) (2024a), botanic gardens are “institutions holding documented collections of living plants for the purpose of scientific research, conservation, display, and education” (BGCI, 2024b). BGCI also notes that to be accredited by their organization, as of 2018, a botanic garden must also work to conserve “rare and threatened plants, [comply] with international policies, and sustainability and ethical initiatives” (BGCI, 2024b). Botanical gardens and other institutions that hold botanic and natural science artifacts have inherited a legacy of intellectual colonialism that emerged out of imperialism and colonialism, and many of the methods and processes maintained by these institutions today bare if not exact then replicable, similarities to the colonial endeavors of the original “collectors.” As Smith (2021) notes,

Botanical gardens, therefore, have recognized in recent years the need to confront and dismantle colonial epistemologies that have marginalized Indigenous knowledge systems and practices. To reimagine and, in some instances, dismantle the colonial archive to return power and agency to the places and spaces these beings and stories originate. Against this backdrop, Smith’s call for decolonizing methodologies serves as a guiding framework for reimagining the roles and responsibilities of botanical institutions in fostering more equitable and inclusive approaches to botanical research and conservation. And it begs the question:

In research, Smith’s framework has inspired scholars across disciplines to critically examine the colonial underpinnings of their methodologies and knowledge production processes, encouraging a more reflexive and inclusive approach to inquiry (Joseph et al., 2022). In teaching, educators have incorporated Smith’s insights into curricula, encouraging emerging botany students to interrogate power dynamics, challenge dominant narratives and center Indigenous knowledge systems (Bowcutt, 2021). Moreover, her work has sparked institutional-level reforms, prompting universities and research institutions to implement policies aimed at decolonizing their practices, such as diversifying faculty, revising curricula and advancing partnerships with Indigenous communities (Joseph, 2021; Geniusz, 2022; McAlvay et al., 2021). All of these transformations have also trickled into the world of botanical gardens, which, in many instances, are interwoven with university systems and or receive funding through similar streams that now require decolonial practices such as Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (Philpott et al., 2022; Oruç and Çahantimur, 2024; Kukutai and Taylor, 2016; Carroll et al., 2020). Smith’s influence extends beyond academia, permeating public discourse and catalyzing broader societal conversations on the imperative of decolonization in relationship to plants and traditional ecological knowledge (Geniusz, 2022; Joseph et al., 2022; Tuck and Yang, 2012). As a result, her work stands as a transformative force in reshaping institutional norms and advancing more equitable and just botanical stewardship.

Smith’s scholarship has served as a catalyst for profound changes within botanical gardens, ushering in a paradigm shift towards decolonial practices and significantly influencing the evolution of these institutions. By interrogating the colonial legacies embedded within botanical knowledge systems, Smith’s work has prompted botanical gardens to critically reassess their roles, responsibilities and relationships with Indigenous communities. In response, many botanical gardens have embarked on initiatives to decolonize their collections, exhibitions and educational programs, actively engaging with Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and integrating Indigenous knowledge and science into their practices (Krishnan and Novy, 2017). The design and methodology of this article involve a narrative literature review and comparative case study analysis (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006; Amprazis and Papadopoulou, 2020; Maunder et al., 2001; Goodrick, 2014). A narrative review of the literature was undertaken to summarize the available literature on the topic of decolonizing botanical gardens (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). Less systematic but for descriptive purposes, this narrative review situates the current discourse on “decolonization,” “Indigenous Peoples,” and “botanic gardens” in conversation with Decolonizing Methodologies to underscore the continued relevance of Smith’s (2021) work to botanical garden practices and the emergent conceptualization of botanical justice. A comparative case study analysis of decolonizing initiatives to advance Indigenous rights, sovereignty and governance was conducted across four botanical gardens in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (Goodrick, 2014; Yin, 2003). Moreover, a living case study of ongoing decolonizing collaborations from the author’s Indigenous nation, the Shinnecock Nation, with the New York Botanical Garden is highlighted.

In recent years international mechanisms such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have affirmed the rights of Indigenous Peoples to the protection of our territories, lands, waters and knowledge of plant species and ecosystems (BGCI, 2024b). The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC, 2010) emerged out of the CBD and includes provisions for reciprocity and engagement with Indigenous Peoples (BGCI, 2024b). Additionally, the recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes statements recognizing the value of legal systems that honor the “rights of nature and rights of Mother Earth” as integral to biodiversity conservation (UNEP, 2024). Furthermore, Smith’s insights have spurred botanical gardens to acknowledge and address the historical injustices perpetuated through colonial botanical expeditions and the exploitation of Indigenous plant knowledge (Geniusz, 2006; Pardoe et al., 2024). As a result, these institutions and the ethnobiologists, botanists and ecologists who work within them are increasingly committed to cultivating respectful collaborations, supporting Indigenous-led conservation efforts and amplifying Indigenous voices within their spaces (McAlvay et al., 2021). In this way, Smith’s scholarship has not only instigated tangible changes within botanical gardens but has also contributed to the broader transformation of these institutions towards more equitable and inclusive practices rooted in decolonial principles.

The historical context of botanical gardens is deeply intertwined with colonialism, reflecting the broader dynamics of power, exploitation and knowledge production that characterized the colonial era. From their origins in the Renaissance to their proliferation during the age of European imperialism, botanical gardens have played a complex role in the expansion of colonial empires and the circulation of botanical knowledge across continents (Baber, 2016; Brockway, 1979). Botanical gardens emerged out of Europe as sites of scientific inquiry, horticultural experimentation and aesthetic appreciation (Mogren, 2013). The first botanical gardens, such as the Orto Botanico di Padova established in Italy in 1545, were often affiliated with universities and served as living laboratories for the study of plants and their medicinal properties (Rakow and Lee, 2015; Rhodes, 1984). These early gardens were shaped by the intellectual currents of the Renaissance, which emphasized the importance of empirical observation and the classification of natural phenomena (Rakow and Lee, 2015).

However, it was during the age of European exploration and colonial expansion that botanical gardens took on a more overtly colonial character. As European powers established colonies around the world, botanical gardens played a pivotal role in the exchange of plants, seeds and knowledge between colonizers and colonized regions. As such, botanical gardens were not passive recipients of colonial extraction; they were active participants at times, leading expeditions and providing funding for the collection of specimens. These events are well documented as part of the colonial project, and Smith (2021) discusses them as examples in Decolonizing Methodologies, stating,

Botanical expeditions, sponsored by colonial governments and scientific institutions, were sent to distant lands to collect exotic plants for cultivation in European gardens and to study their potential economic value. One of the most famous examples of this botanical imperialism is the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in England, which was founded in 1759 and became a center for the study and cultivation of plants from the British Empire. Kew Gardens played a key role in the global transfer of botanical specimens, serving as a hub for the exchange of plants between colonies and metropoles (Nielsen, 2023). Plants such as tea, coffee and rubber were introduced to European colonies for commercial exploitation, while colonial botanists conducted research on Indigenous flora for medicinal and economic purposes (Schiebinger and Swan, 2007). Today, these collections remain, in large part, the “property” of botanical gardens and continue to contribute to research, conservation and education initiatives of botanical gardens.

The colonial botanical enterprise was not merely about collecting plants; it was also intimately connected to broader projects of knowledge production, domination and control. Colonial botanists often appropriated Indigenous botanical knowledge without acknowledgment, reinterpreting it through the lens of European science and taxonomy. Indigenous Peoples were often relegated to the role of passive informants or laborers in the collection and cultivation of plants, and our traditional knowledge systems were marginalized or co-opted by colonial authorities (Sanjad et al., 2021; da Fonseca-Kruel et al., 2019; McAlvay et al., 2021). Moreover, botanical gardens served as showcases of colonial power and prestige, with elaborate glasshouses and landscaped gardens designed to impress visitors with the diversity and abundance of flora from around the world (Mogren, 2013; Pandey Sharma, 2018; Rutherford, 2015). As Smith (2021) underscores, colonialism is embedded within notions of property and the subjugation of property. Indigenous Peoples and places and spaces, including plants and plant knowledge, were viewed as property to be collected. She states,

These gardens and the collectors who supported them were often symbols of imperial dominance, reflecting the unequal relationships between colonizers and colonized Peoples and Plants.

An examination of colonial practices within botanical gardens reveals a complex legacy characterized by the exploitation of Indigenous knowledge, the commodification of plants and the reinforcement of colonial hierarchies (Baber, 2016). Historically, botanical gardens served as instruments of colonial expansion, facilitating the extraction of plants and botanical knowledge away from Indigenous Peoples and territories. Colonial collectors or botanists often appropriated Indigenous plant knowledge without attribution, rebranding it within Eurocentric scientific frameworks and language. Furthermore, botanical gardens were used to showcase the botanical wealth of colonial empires, perpetuating narratives of superiority and dominance (Brockway, 1988). Not only were these plant relatives stolen from our homelands and waters, but they were also renamed in languages unknown to the plants and Indigenous Peoples. Later, when botanical gardens were built on colonized spaces, they too became sites of erasure where new names, terminology and practices of care for the land replaced Indigenous systems. As Smith (2021) writes, often the most destructive forces of colonialism are those that attempt to dismantle language, spiritual and ceremonial practices of Indigenous Peoples. In Decolonizing Methodologies, she states,

Additionally, botanical gardens played a role in disseminating colonial ideologies, framing plants and landscapes through a colonial gaze that reinforced existing power dynamics, namely the ideas of Terra nullius and that these species were “newly discovered” (Endersby, 2019). Perhaps even more destructive is the reimagining of plants as property rather than relatives to whom humans have a duty of care and responsibility for protection (Kozich et al., 2021; Herron, 2018; Geniusz, 2022; Kimmerer, 2013). For many Indigenous Peoples, plants are relatives that hold spirit, and their life-sustaining forces persist even after harvesting, pressing and storing in collections (Gomez, 2024; Kimmerer, 2013; Greene et al., 2023). Moreover, some of the botanical artifacts in botanic garden collections are Indigenous Peoples’ biocultural materials created from plant relatives, such as baskets, robes and roping, among others that are also living as they remain imbued with cultural, ceremonial and spiritual power.

The impact of colonialism on Indigenous plant knowledge and practices has been profound, reshaping traditional relationships between Indigenous communities and our botanical environments while often marginalizing and erasing Indigenous knowledge systems in the dominant narrative of plant stories. Colonial encounters led to the disruption of Indigenous land management practices, the displacement of communities from our traditional territories and the introduction of new plants and agricultural methods that often-supplanted Indigenous crops and techniques (Leonard et al., 2020; Baber, 2016; Neves, 2024; Schiebinger and Swan, 2007). The whole project, as Smith (2021) highlights, became the consumption of Indigenous existence by the “weeds” of imperialism and colonialism. Moreover, colonial policies aimed at assimilation and cultural suppression frequently targeted Indigenous plant knowledge as a threat to colonial dominance, leading to the erosion of traditional practices and the loss of intergenerational knowledge transmission (Turner and Turner, 2008). As Turner and Turner (2008) note, the legacy of forced assimilation and residential schools left many Indigenous Peoples severed from our languages, territories and ecosystems where plant knowledge would typically but for colonization be nurtured and nourished.

Indigenous botanical knowledge, which encompasses a deep understanding of plant properties, uses and ecological relationships, was often dismissed as primitive or superstitious by colonial authorities, further undermining Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy over our botanical relatives and knowledge. Additionally, the commodification of plants for colonial economic interests led to the exploitation and overconsumption of Indigenous plant relatives, jeopardizing both biodiversity and the cultural significance of these plants to Indigenous communities (Neves, 2019; Whitt, 1998). Despite these challenges, Indigenous plant knowledge and lifeways have persisted through resilience and resistance, with many communities working to reclaim and revitalize traditional plant-based livelihoods and ecological stewardship practices (Joseph and Turner, 2020). In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the value of Indigenous plant knowledge for biodiversity conservation, sustainable agriculture and climate resilience, leading to efforts to support Indigenous-led initiatives and integrate Indigenous knowledge into global conservation and biodiversity agendas (Joseph et al., 2022; Ruelle and Kassam, 2011; BGCI, 2024b).

However, the legacies of colonialism continue to shape the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and our botanical environments, highlighting the ongoing need for decolonizing methodologies that center Indigenous voices, knowledge and rights in efforts to promote botanical justice. In this way, botanical justice promotes principles of fairness, equity, participation, reciprocity and relationality to address global biodiversity crises and botanical colonialism. Botanical justice recognizes the inherent rights of nature and Mother Earth and the inherent rights, responsibilities and relationships of Indigenous Peoples to care for plant relatives and the lands, waters and sky as planetary life support systems. Botanical justice works to rematriate plant relatives to their homelands and waters and ensure their stories, as detailed in botanical collections, provide proper attribution for Indigenous Peoples traditional and biocultural knowledge as protected under international law and ethical protocols for Indigenous data sovereignty and governance.

In recent decades, there has been a significant shift towards incorporating Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) in botanical research, recognizing the value of Indigenous knowledge systems and the importance of developing equitable partnerships between scientists and Indigenous communities (McAlvay et al., 2021). This shift reflects a growing acknowledgment of the limitations of western scientific paradigms in addressing complex ecological challenges and the need for more holistic and culturally grounded approaches to botanical research and conservation (Wali and Collins, 2023; Primack et al., 2021; Leonard et al., 2020). Indigenous science offers unique insights into the relationships between plants, ecosystems and human communities, drawing on centuries of accumulated knowledge and observations passed down through oral traditions and applied science. By incorporating Indigenous scientists and knowledge, botanical research has the potential to become more inclusive, interdisciplinary and contextually relevant, addressing not only scientific questions but also social, cultural and ethical considerations.

One key aspect of the shift towards incorporating Indigenous communities and scientists in botanical research is the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as active rights holders and knowledge holders rather than passive subjects or informants. This is in large part due to transformations in international law such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007). Indigenous communities are increasingly being engaged as partners and collaborators in research projects, with our knowledge, values and priorities informing research questions, methodologies and outcomes (Martins et al., 2021; Adams et al., 2014). This collaborative approach not only enhances the quality and relevance of research but also fosters mutual respect, trust and reciprocity between scientists and Indigenous communities, laying the groundwork for more meaningful and sustainable partnerships.

Furthermore, incorporating Indigenous knowledge and science in botanical research requires a willingness to challenge and decolonize existing scientific frameworks and methodologies that may be biased towards western ways of knowing and doing science. This involves critically examining the assumptions, biases and power dynamics inherent in scientific practices and working towards more inclusive and participatory research approaches that recognize and respect diverse knowledge systems and ways of knowing. Moreover, incorporating Indigenous science in botanical research has the potential to contribute to more socially just and environmentally sustainable outcomes by embracing Indigenous values such as reciprocity, stewardship and languages to reclaim understandings of place, plants and people (Oruç and Çahantimur, 2024).

Decolonizing botanical gardens presents both challenges and opportunities, reflecting the complex legacy of colonialism within these institutions and the imperative of botanical justice in research, conservation and education. One of the primary challenges lies in confronting the historical injustices and power imbalances embedded within botanical gardens, including the appropriation of Indigenous plant knowledge, the exploitation of botanical relatives and the marginalization of Indigenous voices and knowledge systems. Providing opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to have access to collections, visit plants held by botanic gardens and regenerate knowledge to distribute back to the home communities of these plants is an essential decolonizing strategy (Cabalzar et al., 2017; Martins et al., 2021). Decolonizing botanical gardens requires acknowledging and addressing the legacies of colonialism while actively working to dismantle institutional barriers and transform organizational cultures.

Another challenge in decolonizing botanical gardens is navigating the tensions between conservation priorities, diversity of science training and Indigenous rights and sovereignty. Botanical gardens often prioritize the conservation of plant species and ecosystems based on western scientific criteria, which may not always align with Indigenous knowledge systems or land management practices. Emerging projects and resources for training on Indigenous data sovereignty and governance exist, and protocols for restoring and “restorying” attribution to plants in collections is another important decolonizing strategy (Golan et al., 2022; Ruckstuhl, 2021; Reyes-García et al., 2024; Corntassel, 2020). Decolonizing botanical gardens requires reconciling these different value systems and finding ways to prioritize Indigenous knowledge and science in conservation and institutional decision-making processes in a respectful and culturally appropriate manner.

Furthermore, decolonizing botanical gardens involves rethinking the roles and responsibilities of these institutions within broader social, cultural and political contexts. This includes recognizing the agency and self-determination of Indigenous Nations and communities in the stewardship of our botanical kin and relatives, supporting Indigenous-led conservation initiatives and advocating for Indigenous rights and sovereignty (McAlvay et al., 2021). However, implementing these changes may require challenging existing power structures, redistributing resources and relinquishing control over botanical collections and knowledge production processes, which can be met with resistance from institutional leaders, donors and other stakeholders.

Collaborative approaches in botanical gardens that center Indigenous voices represent a transformative shift towards more equitable, inclusive and culturally sensitive botanical practices. These approaches recognize the expertise, knowledge and rights of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of our ancestral lands and botanical relatives, nurturing partnerships based on mutual respect, reciprocity and shared decision-making. Botanical gardens can enrich their research, conservation and education initiatives by involving Indigenous Knowledge Keepers in decision-making and governance while promoting cultural diversity, social justice and environmental sustainability.

One key aspect of collaborative approaches includes involving Indigenous Peoples in the design, implementation and evaluation of botanical research projects, conservation initiatives and educational programs, ensuring that our cultural protocols, priorities and concerns are respected and integrated into project planning and outcomes. Botanical gardens can ensure that their initiatives are relevant, culturally appropriate and responsive to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities by developing strategies for ensuring all collections contain proper attribution information for Indigenous source communities. Furthermore, collaborative approaches in botanical gardens involve recognizing and respecting Indigenous intellectual property rights and Indigenous knowledge systems embedded within plants and ecosystems (McAlvay et al., 2021; Smyth et al., 2020; Anderson, 2015). This includes obtaining free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous communities for the collection, use and dissemination of Indigenous plant knowledge and plant relatives, as well as ensuring that Indigenous Peoples benefit equitably from any commercial or scientific outcomes derived from our knowledge and contributions (Smyth et al., 2020; Park et al., 2023). Recently, these ideas have been advanced through Indigenous Data Sovereignty projects such as Local Contexts and the application of biocultural and traditional knowledge notices and labels to collections to return attribution and provenance to the Indigenous Peoples and communities from which the collections stem (Liggins et al., 2021; McAlvay et al., 2021; Sharrock and Davis, 2023; Carroll et al., 2020). Botanical gardens can help to protect and promote Indigenous cultural and biocultural heritage by adopting Indigenous data sovereignty and governance protocols, following the CARE principles (Carroll et al., 2020), that affirm Indigenous attribution through tools such as Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural labels and notices in partnership with the source Indigenous communities, thereby advancing their commitment to reconciliation and reciprocity (Anderson and Hudson, 2020; Anderson and Christen, 2013, 2019).

Moreover, collaborative approaches in botanical gardens involve building capacity within Indigenous communities to actively participate in botanical research, conservation and education activities. This may include providing training, mentorship and resources to Indigenous individuals and organizations to develop their scientific and technical skills, as well as supporting initiatives that promote Indigenous-led research, conservation and education initiatives. Botanical gardens can facilitate the rematriation of plant relatives to Indigenous communities through transfer of ownership of collections or loan agreements where gardens continue to steward the collections, but rights are restored to the Indigenous home community who can request their relatives be returned to their territories at such a time where the Indigenous community can care for them, or the plant relatives are ceremonially returned to Mother Earth. Indigenous Peoples have a right to maintain our botanical heritage and are leaders in shaping the future of botanical science and conservation.

Some botanical gardens are actively working to advance decolonization strategies and initiatives in their respective settler-colonial states. Given the diversity of approaches and institutional plantscapes present globally across botanic gardens, this article aims, through comparative case analysis, to document opportunities for learning and decolonial intervention transferability across botanical institutions (Yin, 2003). The following comparative analysis presents findings of relevant decolonizing practices by the Montreal Botanical Garden (Canada), The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (Australia), The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (United Kingdom) and the New York Botanical Garden (United States).

Montreal Botanical Garden (MBG) in Quebec, Canada, has been actively engaged in decolonizing its practices and building partnerships with Indigenous communities. The garden has established the First Nations Garden, a dedicated space that showcases Indigenous plants and traditional knowledge systems, as well as serves as a site for cultural revitalization and reconciliation. Additionally, the garden has collaborated with Indigenous Elders, Knowledge Keepers and artists to develop educational programs, tours and community events that celebrate Indigenous plant heritage and promote cross-cultural understanding. Moreover, MBG has established research partnership agreements for furthering botanical studies that serve as a model for other institutions and has been heralded by international organizations such as Botanic Gardens Conservation International for these initiatives (Cuerrier et al., 2012; BGCI, 2024a).

The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust developed a First Nations Engagement Strategy (2021) that provides a plan for the advancement of Indigenous relations in key areas, including “Cultural awareness and change,” “Aboriginal employment and retention,” “Aboriginal community engagement,” and “Aboriginal procurement and business support” (p. 6). Within these domains, there are clear pathways where processes for decolonization strategies can occur not only in science, research and education but also in the financial resources of botanical institutions to redistribute wealth and economic benefits to Indigenous Peoples and territories whom the plants and plant knowledge belong.

Kew is currently undergoing a large digitization project for its collections. Beyond digitization, the institution also works directly with communities. Kew seeks to rematriate knowledge and resources back to source communities, even when geographical and technological barriers exist. For instance, one notable project involves working with Indigenous communities in the Amazon to develop plant guidebooks and educational resources. Given that many of these communities cannot visit the collections in person in the United Kingdom or lack Internet access to view digitized archives, the creation of these guidebooks has proven invaluable. Two examples of key publications that support this work include Manual de Etnobotânica: Plantas, Artefatos e Conhecimentos Indígenas (Cabalzar et al., 2017) and A Maloca entre Artefatos e Plantas: Guia da Coleção Rio Negro de Richard Spruce em Londres (Martins et al., 2021) (Roberts and Nicholls, 2023; See Figure 1). These books not only restore access to the knowledge held within Kew’s collections but also integrate Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge into classroom resources within communities.

Another project focuses on the care and preservation of a rare Māori cloak made from the leaves of Tikumu. Through this partnership, Māori leaders, through a local London community group, Ngāti Rānana London Māori Club, have developed care protocols that reflect cultural values and traditional knowledge (Dovgan Nurse, 2008; Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2024). This initiative not only safeguards an important biocultural artifact but also opens new avenues for communities to engage with the collection in meaningful ways.

The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) has embraced decolonization by engaging with Indigenous communities and integrating Indigenous knowledge systems into its research, conservation and education initiatives. Collaborating with local Indigenous communities, such as the Lenape and Shinnecock, NYBG highlights the cultural significance of the Thain Family Forest through interpretive signage and educational programs (NYBG, 2024a, b, c). Additionally, the NYBG’s Institute of Economic Botany, inclusive of the Center for Plants, People and Culture, facilitates collaborative research projects with Indigenous scholars, resulting in publications and exhibitions that amplify Indigenous voices (NYBG, 2024a, b, c). NYBG also provides cultural competency training for staff, revises exhibit designs to represent Indigenous plant knowledge accurately and fosters a more inclusive organizational culture (McAlvay et al., 2021; Balick, 2016; NYBG, 2024a, b, c). Through these efforts, NYBG contributes to broader initiatives promoting reconciliation, equity and solidarity with Indigenous Peoples while advancing decolonial approaches to botanical research and conservation.

Expanding from the decolonizing strategies identified above, which exist within the organizational cultural transformation of botanic gardens the following living case study repositions botanical justice through Indigenous-led initiatives. These initiatives aim to decolonize research relationships and restore plant stories through rematriation and processes of restorying Indigenous Traditional and Biocultural Knowledge of plants in collections.

In recent years, the Shinnecock Nation, a federally recognized Tribe located on Long Island, New York, set out to reimagine its relationship with botanical gardens, including prominent institutions such as the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG). Historically, Indigenous communities like the Shinnecock Nation have often been marginalized or excluded from botanical spaces, which then perpetuated colonial narratives and practices, furthering the erasure of eastern Indigenous Peoples and our plant knowledge.

However, the Shinnecock Nation has been actively working to assert its sovereignty and reclaim its cultural heritage within these botanical spaces. One notable initiative is the collaboration between the Shinnecock Nation and NYBG on the Shinnecock Ethnobotany Project. This partnership has led habitat assessment through ecological surveys of the Shinnecock Territory to better manage and restore ecosystems while integrating Shinnecock ecological knowledge and land management practices. Through this collaboration, the Shinnecock Nation has played a central role in shaping conservation efforts and promoting cultural exchange within NYBG.

Similarly, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden has also engaged with the Shinnecock community to foster greater inclusivity and cultural representation. One significant initiative is its interpretive trail, which is in collaboration with Shinnecock citizen Chenae Bullock. She shares cultural traditions, including plant knowledge, storytelling and art, with garden visitors. This trail provides an opportunity for the Shinnecock language and cultural heritage to be highlighted while also raising awareness for Shinnecock environmental concerns and practices to advance protections for Ohke (Mother Earth) among the broader public who visit BBG.

In June 2024, the Shinnecock Nation Ethnobotany Project hosted a visioning workshop with NYBG staff and community members to discuss opportunities for future collaborations and advancing Indigenous data sovereignty and governance for botanical justice. The discussions not only touched on the historic legacies of colonialism but also called for everyone to restore and regenerate connections not only with our plant relatives but one another. The conversation emphasized developing shared policies and protocols with Indigenous source communities (See Figure 2). Ultimately, all participants acknowledged the immense power of botanical gardens, such as NYBG, as global leaders that can set the example of how to realize botanical justice by following Indigenous protocols and embracing Indigenous-led research design and collaborations.

These partnerships between the Shinnecock Nation, Knowledge Keepers and botanical gardens represent a paradigm shift in botanical practices, emphasizing the importance of amplifying Indigenous plant knowledge, acknowledging source communities, promoting local Knowledge Keepers as experts and prioritizing respectful relationships with local Tribal Nations.

As this living case study highlights, decolonizing botanical gardens also presents significant opportunities for operationalizing botanical justice through more inclusive, equitable and impactful organizational practices that promote principles of fairness, equity, participation, reciprocity, and relationality. By centering Indigenous science, knowledge and voices, botanical gardens have the potential to become hubs of cultural exchange, collaborative research and community engagement, bridging the gap between diverse scientific traditions. Moreover, decolonizing botanical gardens can contribute to broader efforts toward reconciliation, environmental justice and social transformation by promoting dialogue, understanding and solidarity across diverse cultural and ecological landscapes and plantscapes.

Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s groundbreaking work on decolonizing methodologies has profoundly influenced botanical garden practices by challenging conventional approaches and advocating for more inclusive, just and respectful engagement with Indigenous communities and knowledge systems. Through her scholarship, Smith has highlighted the importance of centering Indigenous knowledge and science, promoting cultural sensitivity and prioritizing collaborative partnerships in botanical research, education and conservation efforts. Her work has inspired botanical gardens and institutions worldwide to embrace decolonization as a foundational principle for botanical justice, leading to the development of innovative initiatives that integrate Indigenous plant knowledge, traditional ecological practices and community-based approaches into their programs and policies (See Table 1).

Decolonizing initiatives in botanical gardens worldwide encompass a range of efforts aimed at confronting colonial legacies, amplifying Indigenous voices and nurturing more equitable and inclusive botanical practices. Many botanical gardens have established dedicated Indigenous gardens or exhibits showcasing plant diversity, traditional knowledge and cultural practices of Indigenous Peoples (Galbraith, 2024; Krishnan and Novy, 2017). These spaces serve as platforms for sharing stories, values and connections to the land while educating visitors about the importance of Indigenous plant species and conservation. Collaborative research projects with Indigenous communities provide opportunities for the co-existence of a plurality of knowledge systems and methodologies, exploring topics such as Indigenous land management and ethnobotany (Bailleul et al., 2024; NYBG, 2024a, b, c). Cultural competency training for staff, volunteers and researchers raises awareness about colonial histories, power dynamics and Indigenous histories (McAlvay et al., 2021; Sharrock and Davis, 2023).

Some gardens undertake initiatives to repatriate botanical specimens and artifacts, acknowledging historical injustices and encouraging healing (Thiers, 2024; Park et al., 2023; Mabry et al., 2024; dos Santos, 2016). Contemporary repatriation efforts also include initiatives for collection digitization and digital twin projects so that the plant data may be accessible to Indigenous Peoples and the public (if Indigenous cultural protocols permit) (Park et al., 2023; Mabry et al., 2024; Arthur and Ryan, 2024). Community engagement and consultation prioritize involvement in decision-making processes, ensuring decolonization and Indigenization initiatives are culturally sensitive and responsive (Park et al., 2023; McAlvay et al., 2021). Policy and governance reform, such as diversifying leadership and integrating Indigenous data sovereignty and governance protocols, align with decolonial principles (Carroll et al., 2020; McAlvay et al., 2021). Education and outreach programs highlight Indigenous plant knowledge and cultural practices through tours, workshops and storytelling sessions, engaging visitors in learning about Indigenous contributions to botanical science (Krishnan and Novy, 2017). These efforts represent important steps towards building more respectful and reciprocal relationships with Indigenous Peoples and cultivating a more just “biodiverse” and sustainable botanical future (Hassouna, 2023).

Despite these advancements promoting decolonization within botanical gardens, these initiatives have also faced challenges within institutions and from the public, who view “decolonization” as a polarizing and politicizing activity. Some of the decolonizing initiatives described earlier emerged from the social justice movements of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd and the global call to consciousness advanced by Black Lives Matter (Nielsen, 2023). Since 2020, there has been a considerable backlash to social justice and decolonizing practices, which impacts botanical garden staff and Indigenous communities (Harden and Eigler, 2023; Shain et al., 2023; Andreassen et al., 2023). Despite these responses and detractors, there is a path forward for botanical justice. By acknowledging botanical gardens’ colonial legacies and working to redress power imbalances, botanical researchers and institutions can contribute to more ethical, effective and sustainable conservation practices that respect and honor Indigenous rights, knowledge and sovereignty. Future research can explore how botanical gardens and connected institutions navigate the decolonization backlash and strategies for addressing systemic injustices. Moreover, future research should advance authentic research partnerships that are Indigenous-led and where Indigenous Peoples are able to not only set but design the botanical research agenda. Smith’s legacy is a powerful reminder of the transformative potential of decolonization in institutions including botanical gardens and its capacity to foster greater equity, diversity and resilience in our relationships with plants and people alike for botanical justice.

As we commemorate 25 years of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s seminal work on Decolonizing Methodologies, it is paramount that we translate her insights into tangible actions within botanical gardens. The recommendations and future directions outlined in this article provide a roadmap for botanical gardens to embark on this journey, but true transformation requires ongoing dedication and effort from botanical gardens across the international community. Botanical gardens must honor Smith’s legacy by prioritizing decolonization as a central tenet of their mission and vision, embedding it into every aspect of their operations, from governance and policymaking to research, education, conservation and public engagement. This requires a shift in mindset and culture within botanical institutions, away from colonial modes of thinking and towards practices that center Indigenous knowledge, science and voices.

Furthermore, botanical gardens must actively engage with Indigenous communities and rightsholders, listening to our needs and priorities and co-creating solutions that honor Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. This means establishing meaningful partnerships based on trust, respect and reciprocity and committing to long-term collaboration and shared decision-making. Additionally, botanical gardens must advocate for systemic change within the discipline of botany and beyond, challenging institutionalized racism, colonial legacies and structural inequalities that perpetuate injustice and marginalization of Indigenous science and plant knowledge. This entails advocating for policies, funding mechanisms and ethical guidelines that prioritize Indigenous data sovereignty and governance in botanical research, conservation and education. Moreover, it cannot be emphasized enough the importance of continuous reflection, learning and adaptation in the decolonization process. Botanical gardens must remain open to feedback, critique and self-examination, acknowledging and addressing their own complicity in colonialism and working towards meaningful reconciliation and restitution. As guided by Indigenous-led research and collaborations, pathways towards collective regeneration and reconnection with plant relatives can be a powerful decolonizing act.

Ultimately, the journey toward decolonization is a collective endeavor that requires collaboration, solidarity and persistence. Botanical gardens, researchers, educators, policymakers and community members should join forces in this important work, recognizing that decolonization is not only a moral imperative but also essential for creating a more just, equitable and sustainable world for future generations. Together, let us commit to the ongoing pursuit of decolonial practices and the realization of botanical justice in honor of Decolonizing Methodologies and Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s enduring legacy.

This paper forms part of a special section “Honouring 25 Years of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples”, guest edited by Dr Jennifer Markides, Dr Stephanie Bartlett, Dr Lucy Delgado, Dr Laura Forsythe, Dr Sarah Green, Dr Jennifer MacDonald, Dr Robin Minthorn, Dr Julie Morin, Dr Meagan Ody, Dr Hangsel Sanguino, Dr Darlene St. Georges, Dr Mila Mary Rose Tucker and Dr Angie Tucker.

This article draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Science Foundation Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science.