Adaptive mechanisms in a continuing landscape: assessing biocultural diversity as a form of resilience

The International Conference on Biological and Cultural Diversity held in Montreal on June 2010, produced the Declaration on Biocultural Diversity and the UNESCO-SCBD Joint Programme on the linkages between cultural and biological diversity. The first meeting for the implementation of the Joint Programme was held in Florence (Italy) in April 2014. The scientific and policy dimensions of the linkages between cultural and biological diversity are of utmost importance in Europe where policies are devoted to the conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage, but rarely focused on the result of interactions between nature and culture expressed by the rural landscape. The Florence Conference gathered scientists from different disciplines considering biocultural diversity as a good example of a topic requiring a transdisciplinary approach not always supported by university and research. This not only for an effective understanding of the biodiversity associated with landscapes shaped by the man, but also for the further development of the Joint Programme in terms of research and political implementation. The meeting was organized into a scientific part and a workshop for the drafting of a declaration on biocultural diversity. The declaration states that the European rural landscape (about 80 % of the European Union territory) is predominantly a biocultural multifunctional landscape, while the current state of biological and cultural diversity in Europe results from the combination of historical and ongoing environmental and land-use processes and cultural heritage. This book shows the existence and the importance of biocultural diversity associated to European landscape. This heritage should be studied, preserved and valorized by public policies.

Karim-Aly S. Kassam: Biocultural Diversity and Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Human Ecology in the Arctic

The amount of agricultural drought vulnerability in an underdeveloped rain-fed agro-based economy at the local, regional, and national level is most prominent factor for measurement. The desiccation of rain in agricultural sector becomes apprehensive to intercontinental food supply chain. So, adequate investigation and development of sustainable agricultural methodology are key factors to sustain the food security of a territory. In this research, delineation of agricultural drought vulnerability (ADV) status has been carried out by multidimensional mixed-method index approach using remote sensing and geographic information system. An integrated three-dimensional model is utilized to enrich this study. The three indices of this model include exposure index (EI), sensitivity index (SI), and adaptive capacity index (ACI). The ACI has been constructed by combining the environmental adaptive capacity (EAC), social adaptive capacity (SAC), and economic adaptive capacity (EcAC) index. The 40 parameters for ADV modeling are picked up by analyzing meteorological, geo-environmental, social, and remote sensing data. There are six exposure parameters, seven sensitivity parameters, twelve environmental adaptive capacity parameters, six social adaptive capacity parameters, and nine economic adaptive capacity parameters. Each index has been computed by assigning the weights based on their relative importance by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Final results were classified into five vulnerability zones, e.g., very low, low, moderate, high, and very high covering an area 362.32 km2, 186.68 km2, 568.69 km2, 547.05 km2, and 266.89 km2 respectively. Results have been validated with long-term Aman paddy yield data (2004 to 2014) through the yield anomaly index (YAI). Finally, the model ADV is a good model fit (R square = 0.894) and all the relationships were found significant, when SI, EI, and ACI are considered its predictors. While SI (B = 0.391, p < 0.001) and EI (B = 0.223, p < 0.001) are positively associated with ADV, ACI is negatively associated with ADV (B = - 0.721, p < 0.001). This regional agricultural drought vulnerability model can be useful to identify drought-responsive areas and improve drought mitigation measures.

Biocultural diversity, which refers to the inextricable link between biodiversity and cultural diversity, has been predominantly associated with the traditional ways in which indigenous people in tropical countries interact with the natural environment. But it does not have to be restricted to these circumstances. Biocultural diversity may also be regarded as an interesting concept for understanding how people in industrialized and globalized societies deal with nature. This paper explores biocultural diversity in 20 European cities by considering (i) how biocultural diversity is interpreted in urban planning and governance, and (ii) what actual manifestations of biocultural diversity are present in these cities. Despite the fact that the concept of biocultural diversity was hardly recognized by city authorities, interviewees gave many examples of how biodiversity and cultural diversity are taken into account in (in) formal city policies. The research revealed two main manifestations of biocultural diversity within urban Europe: biocultural diversity grounded in ecological features, and cultural values as a basic foundation for biocultural diversity. Consequently, urban biocultural diversity was found to have two spatial levels: the city level and the site level. The former is the domain of governmental policy makers who discuss biocultural diversity in ‘green space networks’ in a rather static way. The latter is the domain where citizens participate in decisionmaking and the management of green spaces; it is here that cultural dynamics are most acknowledged.

Simple SummaryBiocultural diversity espouses an inseparable link between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity. Biocultural diversity is not alone in using the term ‘biocultural’. The term has been used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural studies. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity use the term ‘biocultural’ as adjective to generate new terminologies such as ‘biocultural approach’ with varying connotations. Such a confusing scenario might hinder theoretical advancements in biocultural diversity. Hence, I propose that proponents of biocultural diversity explore possibilities of adapting the term ‘ecoculture’ from cultural studies. Perhaps using the term ‘ecocultural’ instead of ‘biocultural’ as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term ‘bioculture’.Biocultural diversity has made notable contributions that have furthered our understanding of the human culture-nature interrelationship. However, the usage of the term ‘biocultural’ is not unique to biocultural diversity. It was first used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural diversity. The existing literature on biocultural diversity does not acknowledge the prior existence of biocultural studies, or provide a clear demarcation between usages of the two terms. In this article, I discuss the varying contexts in usage of the term ‘biocultural’ between biocultural diversity and biocultural anthropology. While biocultural diversity deals with the linkages between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, biocultural studies in anthropology deal with the deterministic influence of physical and social environment on human biology and wellbeing. In biocultural studies, ‘biocultural’ refers to the integration of methodically collated cultural data with biological and environmental data. ‘Bio’ in biocultural anthropology therefore denotes biology, unlike biocultural diversity where it refers to biodiversity. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity apply ‘biocultural’ as descriptor to generate overlapping terminologies such as ‘biocultural approach’. Such a confusing scenario is not in the interest of biocultural diversity, as it would impede theoretical advancements. I propose that advocates of biocultural diversity explore its harmonies with ecoculturalism and the possibilities of suitably adapting the term ‘ecoculture’ in lieu of ‘bioculture’. Using ‘ecocultural’ instead of ‘biocultural’ as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term ‘bioculture’.

As an initial step in more extensive research into the links between biological and cultural diversity in present-day Italy, we reviewed Biocultural Diversity studies that explore the relationship between biological and cultural patterns of diversity to determine whether any direct causal relationships or common drivers could be inferred. We found no significant attempts to quantitatively measure biocultural diversity in the country as a whole. Italy shows a high number of mutual interactions, but common drivers and patterns between biological and cultural diversity were not evident. This could be either a problem of quantification due perhaps to an inherent incommensurability between the two dimensions, or different causative patterns that drive biological and cultural diversity.

The emerging concern in the last few decades for conserving 'diversity' is an impetus to conserve not only the whole spectmm of biota i.e. the total sum of genes, species and ecosystems but also indigenous culture, traditions, spiritual beliefs and values. This phenomenon is named Biocultural Diversity, which is a synthesis of both Biological Diversity (biodiversity) and Cultural Diversity. 1980 's was considered the decade of biodiversity, 1990's that of cultural diversity and 2000's a new field of Bio-Cultural diversity. In the first half of this paper the . interrelationship and interdependence between biodiversity and cultural diversity is discussed and in the second half how the modern global economic system is engulfing this diversity of life, knowledge, cultural heritage and practices are analysed The global distribution and patterns of biodiversity coincide with that of cultural diversity, therefore if languages and cultures disappear due to global pressure of homogenization we also lose knowledge about our environment leading to biodiversity depletion~ It is quite noticeable that the countries with people speaking largest number of languages; and countries with greatest number of traditional livelihoods and indigenous communities obviously have the greatest biological diversity. Thus only a sustainable approach can bridge the gap between modern visions of human beings and traditional cultural aspirations thereby ensuring holistic development.

The importance of montane regions for biological diversity is well known. We also know that mountains contain a great deal of cultural diversity, despite the relatively small number of people living in mountains compared to other regions. What has been less explored is the interrelationship between mountains, biological diversity, and cultural diversity. The study of biocultural diversity involves a search for patterns across landscapes. As an inherently spatial phenomenon, biocultural diversity can readily be explored through the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Our research has resulted in the development of a global database and map noting the linkage between high linguistic diversity and high plant diversity in montane regions throughout the world. In the present paper we focus mainly on the island of New Guinea to illustrate how important mountains are for biocultural diversity. The implications of this research for identifying areas in need of conservation and development strategies aimed at both biological and cultural diversity are briefly discussed.

The Indian marine fishing community faces multiple climate and non-climate related stresses, such as unpredictable and extreme weather events, declining fish stocks and pollution. Prompted by these changes, some community members have adopted strategies such as motorization and mechanization of their boats and using GPS (Global Positioning System) for navigation, to ensure a greater fish catch as well as safety in the sea. Capacity to adapt is crucial for retaining livelihoods. This study attempts to measure and develop indices denoting the strength of adaptation and adaptive capacity of the community, using suitable indicators. Percentage of the community implementing the adaptation strategies are used to develop the adaptation index. According to the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, capacity to adapt can be determined by access to different capitals. Hence, adaptive capacity of the community is measured through indicators for human, physical, economic and social capitals. These community-level indices are developed for seventy Indian coastal districts. The results suggest that Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh and Rajkot in Gujarat have the lowest adaptation and adaptive capacity index respectively. Further, the indices are validated by evaluating the relation between adaptation and adaptive capacity through regression and Monte Carlo simulation. Results indicate that adaptive capacity has low but significant influence on adaptation levels in the community, concluding that the indices are quite adept. The results of the study facilitate identification of the coastal districts in urgent need of policies and actions to develop adaptation and adaptive capacity of the community.

Introduction: Places with high species diversity have high linguistic diversity, whereas areas with low species diversity tend to have low linguistic diversity. Objective: To characterize the intriguing relationship between biological and cultural diversity, a correlation that has been discussed at a global scale, but here tested for the first time in Mexico. Methods: We compiled exhaustive databases on both endangered species and endangered languages, and reviewed available literature on Mexico’s biocultural diversity with a focus on endangered and critically endangered species and languages. Results: With 364 living languages, Mexico is the world’s fifth most linguistically diverse country, but 64 of these languages are facing a very high risk of disappearance and 13 have already disappeared. Mexico is also the fourth most biologically diverse country, but 1 213 species of its flora and fauna are threatened with extinction and at least 127 species were recently extinct. Conclusions: Indigenous peoples are custodians of much of the world’s biocultural diversity. As the world grows less linguistically and culturally diverse, it is also becoming less biologically diverse. Mexico’s biological and linguistic diversity show strong geographic overlap, with the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, Guerrero, and Michoacán harboring most species and most languages. Similarly, Mexico’s biodiversity hotspots mirror language hotspots, and areas with the highest number of endangered species overlap with areas where the endangerment of languages is also the highest.

With the convention on biological diversity (CBD) office in UNEP acting as global focal point for biodiversity, and UNESCO acting as global focal point for cultural diversity, the two institutions launched in 2010 the Joint Programme on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity (JP-BiCuD) to strengthen the linkages between biological and cultural diversity initiatives, and to enhance the synergies between interlinked provisions of conventions and programmes dealing with biological and cultural diversity at relevant scales. The first meeting for the implementation of the Joint Programme was held in Florence (Italy) in April 2014 and produced a declaration to promote the Joint Program in the European Continent. The scientific committee received 165 paper proposals. The selection operated by the Steering Committee accepted 63 papers considered highly relevant for the topic of the conference and also 11 posters, from 25 countries. The expert meeting for the drafting of the final declaration was attended by 42 experts from 14 countries and about 33 organizations, including FAO, ICOMOS, IUCN, and IUFRO among others. The Florence Declaration (UNESCO and SCBD 2014) was drafted taking into account the results of the conference works, and has not only produced political indications for the implementation on the Joint Programme, but also indicated some of the most important issues concerning research activities for the promotion of the concept of biocultural diversity:

The diversity of life sensu lato comprises both biological and cultural diversity, described as "biocultural diversity." Similar to plant and animal species, cultures and languages are threatened by extinction. Since drylands are pivotal systems for nature and people alike, we use oases in the Sahara Desert as model systems for examining spatial patterns and trends of biocultural diversity. We identify both the underlying drivers of biodiversity and the potential proxies that are fundamental for understanding reciprocal linkages between biological and cultural diversity in oases. Using oases in Algeria as an example we test current indices describing and quantifying biocultural diversity and identify their limitations. Finally, we discuss follow-up research questions to better understand the underlying mechanisms that control the coupling and decoupling of biological and cultural diversity in oases.

BackgroundThe intensification of production and socio-economic changes have accelerated the loss of local traditional knowledge and plant resources. Understanding the distribution and determinants of such biocultural diversity is essential in planning efficient surveys and conservation efforts. Because the concept of biocultural diversity in socio-ecological adaptive systems comprises biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, linguistic information should serve as a surrogate for the distribution of local biological and cultural diversity. In this study, we spatio-linguistically evaluated the names of local trees and rice landraces recorded in Ehime Prefecture, southwestern Japan.MethodsHierarchical clustering was performed separately for the names of local trees and rice landraces. By considering innate flora differences and species having multiple local names, a novel distance index was adopted for local tree names. For the names of rice landraces, Jaccard distance was adopted. V-measure and factor detector analysis were used to evaluate the spatial association between the isogloss maps of the folk nomenclature derived from the clustering and multiple thematic maps.ResultsLocal tree names showed stronger spatial association with geographical factors than rice landrace names. One folk nomenclature group of trees overlapped well with the slash-and-burn cultivation area, suggesting a link between the naming of trees and the traditional production system. In contrast, rice landraces exhibited stronger associations with folklore practices. Moreover, influences of road networks and pilgrimages on rice landraces indicated the importance of human mobility and traditional rituals on rice seed transfer. High homogeneity and low completeness in the V-measure analysis indicated that the names of local trees and rice landraces were mostly homogenous within current municipalities and were shared with a couple of adjacent municipalities. The isogloss maps help to illustrate how the biological and cultural diversity of wild trees and rice landraces are distributed. They also help to identify units for inter-municipal collaboration for effective conservation of traditional knowledge related to those plant resources and traditional rice varieties themselves.ConclusionsOur spatio-linguistic evaluation indicated that complex geographical and sociological processes influence the formation of plant folk nomenclature groups and implies a promising approach using quantitative lexico-statistical analysis to help to identify areas for biocultural diversity conservation.

Development and psychometric testing of the Adaptive Capacity Index, an instrument to measure adaptive capacity in individuals with advanced cancer

The conceptualization of interrelations between biological and cultural diversity since the 1980s indicates a biocultural turn in discourses and policies regarding nature conservation, sustainable development, and indigenous peoples. These interrelations frequently manifest as conflicts between local communities who derive their livelihoods and identity from their lands and resources, and external actors and institutions who claim control over these areas, invoking superior interests in nature conservation, development, and modernization. In these asymmetric conflicts over biocultural diversity, framed in discourses that demand the preservation of both biological and cultural diversity, the opportunities for local communities to assert their claims crucially depend on external discursive and legal frameworks.Based on a study of the Karen ethnic minority groups in the Thung Yai World Heritage Site in Thailand, this article explores challenges and chances for local communities to assert claims and rights to lands, resources, and self-determination in the context of the biocultural turn in environment and development discourses as well as heterogeneous legal frameworks. Human rights as individual rights are widely recognized, but may be difficult to enforce and of limited suitability in conflicts over biocultural diversity. Group rights like indigenous rights are increasingly devised to protect ethnic minorities and perpetuate cultural diversity, but are often disputed on the national level and may be ambiguous regarding heterogeneous communities. In Thailand and globally, community rights provide another promising framework with regard to conflicts over biocultural diversity if the claims of communities to livelihoods and self-determination are respected.