Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Improving conservation management practices – Isabel Herstell

Abstract:

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) systems focus on the relationship of living things to the environment. Information is transmitted culturally through generations, and is adaptive to changes in the environment. The practice of conservation management can benefit from the long-term, feedback learning that is characteristic of TEK, while short-term scientific studies can incorporate TEK into the identification of baseline conditions, and historic distribution and use of resources in environments. A comparative study of the predictive ability of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) habitat selection models based on TEK, and western science, indicated that while the models were able to similarly predict habitat selection, both models provided unique insights. By comparing the two models, a more complete understanding of the ecosystem was garnered. TEK should be included in conservation management planning from its earliest stages to ensure that the best environmental outcomes can be achieved.

Intro:

Indigenous groups can provide alternative types of knowledge, acquired through locally developed resource use practice (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000; Kendrick & Manseau, 2008). This is referred to as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and is a body of knowledge and practice, relating to the relationship of living beings and the environment, that has evolved through adaptive processes, and succeeded through generations by cultural transmission (Berkes, 1999; Berkes, 2004; Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000).

Conservation management can benefit from the feedback learning characteristic of TEK, and can use it in complement with western science to guide the direction of future management strategies (Anadon et al., 2009; Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000). Existing literature, such as the Polfus (et al., 2014) study of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), demonstrate that robust combinations of TEK and western science have the potential to improve management decisions, and ensure the validity of ecological inferences. TEK is acquired over long temporal scales and includes inferences at the population level that can complement short-term scientific studies, in identification of baseline conditions (Moller et al., 2004, Rist et al., 2010) and description of historic distributions and resource use (Ferguson and Messier 2000, Santomauro et al., 2012).

What is TEK?

TEK can be likened to western science in that it is based on a series of observations, though more commonly incorporates uncertainty into management strategies (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000). TEK approaches to ecosystem management are diverse, and include practices such as multi-species management, resource rotation, succession management and species switching (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000).

Unlike western science, TEK assumes that nature is dynamic and uncertain, and is based on observations acquired over generations of experience with the land (Anadon et al., 2009; Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000). It is undertaken through qualitative management, whereby resource and ecosystem changes feedback to inform the direction that resource management should move, with reference to some form of baseline state (Moller et al., 2004, Rist et al., 2010). It is location specific learning, and is accumulated through time to help monitor the status of a resource (Moller et al., 2004, Rist et al., 2010). An example of this could be changes in the catch per unit effort of species of fish in the local river informing what harvest should be (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000).  

TEK as a predictor of woodland caribou habitat selection:

Two habitat models, one based on western science, and the other on TEK, were tested for their ability to predict the spatial habitat selection of woodland caribou within the territory of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN) of British Columbia (Polfus et al., 2014). The TEK habitat selection index (HSI) model was based on interviews with 8 elders and their experiences hunting caribou (Polfus et al., 2014).The western science model was created based on data from 10 GPS collared caribou, and used to build a resource selection function (RSF) model that assesses the probability of caribou using or avoiding resources relative to their availability (Polfus et al., 2014).

Both models were able to predict that in summer, alpine habitat was used, and during winter low elevation lodgepole pine was used (Fig.1) (Polfus et al., 2014). The study found that the TEK model identified lakes as escape terrain in winter (Ion & Kershaw, 1989), whereas the RSF model suggested that lakes were avoided, demonstrating the inability of the RSF model to relay the importance of crucial, but seldom used habitat (Polfus et al., 2014). Both models offer unique insights into the spatial habitat selection of woodland caribou; comparisons of the two can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystems (Polfus et al., 2014).

Around the world, governments are acknowledging the importance of traditional knowledge in management of natural resources (Kendrick & Manseau, 2008; Polfus et al., 2014). In 2011 the TRTFN and British Columbia signed a joint land-use plan that incorporated explicit direction from both parties as to how the land should be managed (Taku River Tlingit First Nation, and British Columbia, 2010).

Fig.1 RSF maps generated with GPS data (left column) and HSI model maps generated with TEK of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (right column)  showing habitat use (2000–2002) of northern woodland caribou in British Columbia, Canada.

Implications of TEK for conservation:

TEK can fill gaps in our understanding of ecosystems that western science can not. It can be used to collect information in areas where undertaking western science is difficult, it can indicate important ephemeral resources that may be overlooked in short-term studies, and can be useful in identifying areas of historic ecological significance, currently avoided due to human developments, that could be used for habitat restoration (Ion & Kershaw, 1989; Kendrick & Manseau, 2008; Polfus et al., 2014).

The adaptive nature of TEK addresses the criticism of western science being equilibrium-based and having an underlying assumption of ecological stability in the emphasis on things such as ‘maximum sustainable yield’ and ‘steady states’ (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2000). By acknowledging and managing feedbacks from ecosystems, as TEK systems do, western science can move away from the use of yields and assumptions of environmental stability, and place more emphasis on resource and ecosystem change as an indicator of which direction management should move towards (Anadon et al., 2009; Moller et al., 2004, Rist et al., 2010). TEK should be incorporated into management planning, right from its inception to create Informed, adaptive management, using area-specific knowledge, to improve environmental outcomes (Anadon et al., 2009; Moller et al., 2004, Rist et al., 2010).

Conclusion:

Managers must find new ways to incorporate TEK into conservation practice and environmental management plans. A collaboration of western science and TEK will allow for a more holistic understanding of ecosystems and their resources, both past and present. The adaptive nature of TEK can inform different approaches to the management of natural resources, that actively incorporate environmental feedbacks. Studies such as that of Polfus (et al., 2014) demonstrate that the use of western science and TEK in complement can equip managers with a more fulsome understanding of ecology, which will better equip them to sustainably manage resources.

References:

Anadón, J. D., Giménez, A., Ballestar, R., and Pérez, I.. 2009. Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conservation Biology 23: 617– 625.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology, traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621– 630.

Ferguson, M. A., & Messier, F. (2000). Mass emigration of arctic tundra caribou from a traditional winter range: population dynamics and physical condition. The Journal of wildlife management, 168-178.

Ion, P. G., and Kershaw, G. P.. 1989. The selection of snowpatches as relief habitat by woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Macmillan Pass, Selwyn/Mackenzie, Mountains, N.W.T., Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research 21: 203‐211.

Kendrick, A., and Manseau, M.. 2008. Representing traditional knowledge: resource management and Inuit knowledge of barren‐ground caribou. Society and Natural Resources 21: 404– 418.

Moller, H., Kitson, J. C., & Downs, T. M. (2009). Knowing by doing: learning for sustainable muttonbird harvesting. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 36(3), 243-258.

Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., Hebblewhite, M., & Taku River Tlingit First Nation. (2014). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112-121.

Rist, L. (2010). The use of traditional ecological knowledge in forest management: An example from India. Ecology and Society : A Journal of Integrative Science for Resilience and Sustainability., 15(1), Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability. , 2010, Vol.15(1).

Santomauro, D., Johnson, C. J., & Fondahl, G. (2012). Historical‐ecological evaluation of the long‐term distribution of woodland caribou and moose in central British Columbia. Ecosphere, 3(5), 1-19.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation, and British Columbia. 2010. Interim collaborative harvest management plans for Atlin caribou, Atlin East sheep and moose and lower Taku grizzly bear. Report of the Framework Agreement for Shared, Decision Making Respecting Land Use and Wildlife Management. Integrated Land Management Bureau, Smithers, British Columbia, Canada.

Culture, values, and knowledge – Being selfish

Dominic Koch

Abstract

Conservation has undergone numerous changes, evolving with society. This has been reflected in how conservation has been conducted. Where once we considered nature and humans separate. Today, we considered humans and nature one. We recognise the importance nature has both culturally, socially and economically. Conservation in New Zealand today is beginning to undergo another conservation shift, we are beginning to evaluate how we are conducting conservation and for what purpose.

Intro – what’s the deal with conservation?

Conservation is not a science. While it is informed by science, actions and decisions taken reflect those involved in the conservation project. Conservation instead, is mission driven (mace, 2014). Throughout time the goals and values carried and practised change, and this is reflected in how conservation has been conducted. We choose which species or habitats to invest heavily in because of our cultures, values and knowledge (Schultz et al, 2005). If we do not value something why would we endeavour to protect it? We are selfish as conservationists and as people, but this isn’t necessarily bad. We choose to invest resources into something because its of value to us, and I’d argue that’s what makes conservation so effective in New Zealand, because part of our cultural identity is in the birds threatened with extinction (like the kiwi), and part of our cultural identity we wish to preserve (Garibaldi & Turner, 2004). How we conduct conservation must however be considered. In this brief essay conservation as it stands today will be explored and the role of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) has, and what the future of conservation looks like in a growingly inclusive discipline.

Conservation – change over time/progression.

Culture, values and knowledge are of extreme importance in conservation and influence the outcomes. Conservation and the way people perceive nature has undergone multiple reforms (Mace, 2014). This is derived from the values we hold and how they have changed over time. Conservation reflects these values. Conservation prior to the 1960s was very exclusive of humans from nature and this has carried through to today in the form of reserves and preserves (Mace, 2014). The mindsets at the time perceived nature as ‘nature for itself’ and people apart from nature. This is a prevalent dualism, the human-nature dualism (Durkheim, 2005). We regard nature and humans as separate, much the same way we separate native from invasive or natural from unnatural.

This dualism along with our values effects how we conduct conservation and interact with nature (Durkheim, 2005). Conservation prior to the 1960s prioritised wilderness and intact natural habitats (Mace, 2014). These wild places were perceived to be largely untouched by humans, as at that time we did not consider ourselves (at least in western culture) as part of nature (Plumwood, 1991). In the same sense, we pushed our Western ideas of conservation onto other nations and cultures (Adams & Mulligan, 2003). This is not to say other cultures did not practise conservation but the ideologies behind western conservation were different to other cultures. For example, Maori perceived themselves as guardians of the land or American Indians as an integral part of nature (Roberts et al, 1995; Greider & Garkovich, 1994). This Dominant Western ideology of humans separate to nature continues to be a dominant perspective today (Durkheim, 2005).

The 1970-80’s saw a rapid growing awareness of humans impacts on the environment and its destruction (Mace, 2014). This realisation lead to conservation focussing on the threats presented to both species and habitats posed by humans, and ways to mitigate and reverse the effects (Mace, 2014). Conservation at the time focussed on ‘nature despite people’ (Mace, 2014). At the same time, this was when ideas of sustainable harvest and population viability arose, as well as debating the effectiveness of community-based management (Hutton et al, 2011).

By the 1990’s it became clear that current conservation strategies were not working, extinction rates were climbing (Mace, 2014). At the same time, it became clear that the goods and services nature provides are invaluable and irreplaceable to humans, and yet our ignorance saw their quality decline due to mismanagement (Rao, 2002). The potential benefits to be gained from proper management became evidently clear. A conservation focus shift occurred (Mace, 2014). Conservation shifted from individual species to entire ecosystems and sustainable management of those ecosystems was at the forefront of conversation (Rao, 2002). With the aim of providing benefits to all through improved ecosystem goods and services. This came as the next change in direction of conservation management, improving nature for the benefit of people – ‘nature for people’.

Fast forwarding to today, people and nature are more widely accepted of being the same. The way we use and perceive nature, however, has grown increasingly utilitarian (Kellerts, 1993). Following on, conservation within New Zealand is likely to undergo reform. Presently, we are caught in a state of remorse, morning for biodiversity we’ve lost (Trigger& Mulcock, 1970). We are too eager to blame our loss on those we brought with us rather than to blame ourselves for the destruction of the environment and loss of biodiversity. This unifying morning has been used to further emphasis blame onto introduced species, by forming campaigns such as the battle for the birds or war on weeds (DOC, 2019). We are omitting blame where it is due. We are currently caught trying to recreate and go back to the past in a world constantly moving forward. People and nature are one of the same and must move forward with the constantly changing world. Outside western culture, this is widely accepted (Salmon, 2000). Indigenous cultures are instead living with and connected to nature (Salmon, 2000). they look to the future rather than at the past. Because of this TEK is becoming increasingly relevant in the scientific community. The new culture we develop must be able to accommodate future changes and adapt.

Conclusion – what’s next?

Conservation has undergone a series of reforms. The way society perceives nature has changed, and for the better. Today we recognise the value nature holds both in terms of its serves and natural beauty. New Zealand conservation is beginning to undergo another reform, we are starting to become more self-aware of our actions and the implications they have on the environment and on biodiversity. As conservationists, we must stop grieving the past and instead look to the future.

References

Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation?. Science, 345(6204), 1558-1560.

Hutton, J., Adams, W. M., & Murombedzi, J. C. (2005, December). Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. In Forum for development studies (Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 341-370). Taylor & Francis Group.

Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 36(4), 457-475.

Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and society, 9(3).

Durkheim, E. (2005). The dualism of human nature and its social conditions. Durkheimian Studies, 11(1), 35-45.

Plumwood, V. (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6(1), 3-27.

Adams, W. M., & Mulligan, M. (Eds.). (2003). Decolonizing nature: strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Earthscan.

Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59(1), 1-24.

Rao, M. (2002). Wild-meat use, food security, livelihoods, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 16(3), 580-583.

Trigger, D., & Mulcock, J. (1970). Native vs exotic: cultural discourses about flora, fauna and belonging in Australia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 84.

Humans as a part of nature, traditional land management in nature conservation

By Tom Hewitt

Abstract:

For much of modern history humans have viewed themselves as separate from nature, this attitude has shaped the way in which we interpret the natural world and how we prioritise species conservation and ecosystem management. It is also in this vein that ecological research is been conducted with scientists often prioritising research on natural and undisturbed ecosystems whilst ignoring those most modified by humans. Fixation on these systems has prevented us from studying and managing ecosystems in the places where people live, where the benefits of conservation are often the most tangible. Traditional land management techniques provide alternative conservation strategies to produce cultural and environmental vales from landscapes and utilise traditional ecological knowledge to create human based ecologies that treat humans as part of the natural world. The loss and underutilisation of these practices represents a great loss to conservation. 

Conservation values.

It can be tricky to establish the ethical justification for nature conservation beyond providing the support systems necessary for human survival. However most human societies apportion some intrinsic value to nature which often form the basis of regional identity as well as cultural and spiritual practices. Over the past century conservation has tended towards reservation type conservation where human modification of land is kept to a minimum. This approach is also a manifestation of the human nature dualism that assigns value to landscapes according to their perceived naturalness freedom from human interference (Peterson, 2006). It is increasingly acknowledged that virtually all landscapes exhibit some form of human influence which calls into question the validity of valuing naturalness in ecosystems (Cronon, 1996). In some cases, the natural landscapes which we have tried to preserve are in fact artefacts of human influence and removing people from the landscape has led to a loss of both cultural and biological values for which they were originally protected (Brook, 2006).

Modern restoration ecology is also heavily influenced the view of humans as antithetical to nature, with restoration ecologists often aiming to replicate systems as they would appear without human modification. This approach is often assumed to produce the greatest benefits in terms of biodiversity, but this is in part based on the belief that species and ecosystems associated with humans are inherently worse (Ehrlich, 2002; Yanco, 2019). This cookie cutter approach to restoration can ignore the local social and environmental realities of the landscapes and species which they want to restore and passes up on the opportunities to create human based ecologies which can deliver cultural, economic and biodiversity values (Gavin et al, 2015).

Traditional knowledge:

For most of human history a close relationship with the living world was the norm, societies were acutely aware of changes in the world around them and upon which their survival depended. This close relationship with nature would have created a large amount of informal but extensive knowledge about species, ecosystems and landscapes. For example, in traditional new Guinean societies, which can rely on farming and hunting and gathering, there exists an all most encyclopaedic knowledge of the species of plants and animals in this environment, many of which are yet to be formally described by science (Radcliffe et al, 2016). In a more globalised world these cultural associations have been eroded and people have become more detached from the natural processes which enable their existence (Schultz, 2003). This represents a great loss not only in terms of cultural associations but also of useful knowledge about the world around us which we can use to inform conservation and create sustainable land management practices. Much of this local and traditional knowledge is not actively utilised by scientists and neglected as a source of ecological information because it is seen as lacking scientific rigour or its existence simply not known. The overwhelming complexity of different ecosystems and local conditions means that often adequate scientific knowledge about the functioning of a specific ecosystem is lacking, in these instances traditional knowledge about ecosystems may be the best or only information available (Berkes, 2000).

Figure 1 Stone age cave art in the Chauvet Cave in France, for most of human history detailed knowledge of the natural world was the norm. Image  Source: UNESCO

Traditional land management:

Land management practices which incorporate traditional ecological knowledge are in many instances able to provide economic, cultural and environmental benefits not always produced by conventional land management. Traditional farming methods are often less intensive and take advantage of local conditions rather than relying on large scale landscape modification and the addition of nutrient subsidies to be productive. In many instances natural features of the landscape are maintained and these environments can support higher levels of biodiversity than conventional farming and in some cases wild ecosystems. Traditional management practices are also adaptive and have been altered over generations in response to unpredictable and infrequent events not easily studied by modern scientists (Uprety et al, 2000). The decline of traditional management practices has been implicated in the decline of associated species (Bernaldez, 1991), for instance the decline of semi natural grasslands in Sweden due to changes in farming practices have been correlated with the declines of many associated species such as grassland butterflies (Dahlstrom et al, 2008).

Figure 2 A traditional European wildflower meadow, the decline of traditional farming practices has led to a loss of these landscapes and their associated wildlife. Image Source: Financial Times

The use of traditional management practices also promotes active management from members of the community. This allows people to engage with nature in a direct way, the extent to which people feel that they are a part of nature has been reported as effecting the amount to which people value the environment (Schultz, 2003; Linnell et al, 2015). In many instances allowing a sustainable harvest of resources from the environment through traditional management fosters a sense of ownership and stewardship in local communities and better management of the resource. For instance, the sustainable harvest of Titi (Puffinus griseus) on Stewart island in New Zealand by Rakiura Maori maintains the cultural significance of the species to local people whilst maintaining traditional knowledge about sustainable management (Moller, Kitson & Downs, 2009).

Of course, traditional land management practices are not enough to solve all conservation problems and more conventional conservation which reduces human interference is necessary for many species. Specialist species with highly specific habitat requirements are unlikely to benefit from traditional management techniques. The high biodiversity values provided by some of the least human impacted habitats on earth cannot easily be reproduced by human focused ecologies and in these instances, reservation is still the best option. Traditional management practices utilising traditional ecological knowledge should be considered as one of the many ecological tools in the toolbox for conservation and can be used to produce a range of values.

Conclusions:

In recent history humans have tended to treat themselves as separate from nature, this approach has yielded many benefits for species conservation but has resulted in an underutilisation of traditional knowledge and land management practices representing a loss for conservation. By acknowledging that humans are a part of the environment we can incorporate a wider range of solutions to ecological problems and satisfy the cultural, economic and biological values of society.

References:

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262

Bernaldez, F, G. (1991). Ecological consequences of the abandonment of traditional land use systems in central Spain. Options Mediterraneennes, 15, 23-29

Bogner, F, X., & Wiseman, M. (1997). Environmental perception of rural and urban pupils. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 111-122

Brook, I. (2006). Restoring landscapes: the authenticity problem. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 31(13)

Dahlstrom, A., Lennartsson,T., Wissman, J., & Frycklund, I. (2008). Biodiversity and Traditional Land use in South-Central Sweden: The Significance of Management Timing. Environment an History, 14, 385-403

Ehrlich, P, R. (2002). Human Natures, Mature Conservation, and Environmental ethics. BioScience, 52(1), 31-42

Financial Times. (2017). Return of Britain’s hay day? How to grow your own meadow. Retrieved from: https://www.ft.com/content/e9e3729c-185e-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a

Gavin, M, C., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J, R., Peterson, S., & Tang, R. (2015). Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(3), 140-145

Kawharu, M. (2000). Kaitiakitanga: A Maori anthropological perspective of the Maori Socio-Environmental ethic of resource management. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 109(4), 349-370

Linnell, J, D, C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N., & Boitani, L. (2015). Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 978-985

Mace, G, M. (2014). Whose conservation?. Science, 345(6204), 1558-1560

Manfredo, M, J., Bruskotter, J, T., Teel, T, L., Fulton, D., Schwartz, S, H., Arlinghaus, R., Oishi, S., Uskul, A, K., Redford, K., Kitayama, S., & Sullivan, L. (2016). Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(4),

Merico, A. (2017). Models of Easter Island Human-Resource Dynamics: Advances and Gaps. Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution, 5(154), 1

Moller, H., Kitson, J, C., & Downs, T, M. (2009). Knowing by doing: Learning for sustainable mutton bird harvesting. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 35, 243-258

Peterson, B. (2006). Ethics for Wildlife Conservation: Overcoming the Human-Nature dualism. BioScience, 56(2), 144-150

Radcliffe, C., Parissi, C., & Anantanarayanan, R. (2016). Valuing Indigenous knowledge in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea: A Model for Agricultural and Environmental Education. Australian Jounral of Environmental Educaton, 1-17

Schultz, P, W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J, J., Khazian, A, M. (2003). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42

UNESCO. (2019). Decorated Cave of Pont d’Arc, known as Frotte Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardeche. Retrived from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1426

Uprety, Y., Asselin, H., Bergeron, Y., Doyon, F., & Boucher, J, F. (2012). Contribution of traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: Practices and applications. Ecoscience, 19(3), 225-237

Yanco, E., Nelson, M, P., & Ramp, D. (2019). Cautioning against overemphasis of normative constructs in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology, 0(0), 1-12