Vanishing Cultural Landscapes: White Sage, Indigenous Knowledge, and Conservation Across Borders

Incorporating local ecological knowledge aids participatory mapping for marine conservation and customary fishing management

Despite the growing interest in the topic, there has been little quantitative research about the causes and rate of acquisition and loss of local ecological knowledge. Some researchers have linked the loss of local ecological knowledge to the expansion of the market economy (Godoy et al., 1998; Ross, 2002; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2005a), others have found persistence in local ecological knowledge despite large socio-economic changes (Zarger and Stepp, 2004), and still others have found that integration into the market economy through an economic activity based in the natural environment could accelerate the acquisition of local ecological knowledge (Guest, 2002). The debate matters for policy-making because if integration to the market erodes local knowledge, there would be no possibility of simultaneously achieving conservation of local knowledge and economic development. In contrast, if integration to the market economy does not affect or does not always affect local knowledge, then some forms of market incorporation could develop without eroding local ecological knowledge. In this article we test how various forms of integration to the market economy affect local ecological knowledge. Local knowledge has many domains (i.e., myth, cosmology), including local ecological knowledge, which itself comprises many subdomains, such as plants, animals, insects, or soils. We proxy local ecological knowledge with ethnobotanical knowledge. We use a new way of measuring ethnobotanical knowledge that stresses skills that draw on ethnobotanical knowledge, and compare results with standard measures of ethnobotanical knowledge that stress passive knowledge. We hypothesize that only some forms of integration to the market economy, namely activities that take individuals out of their culture and environment, are associated with less local ecological knowledge. To explore the topic, we draw on information from 476 Tsimane’—a foraging-horticultural society in the Bolivian Amazon.

The local ecological knowledge of coffee agroforestry farmers regarding earthworms serves as one of the soil fauna indicators of soil fertility and quality. This knowledge is inherited through generations from observations and experiences of coffee farmers, sometimes differing from modern ecological knowledge. This study aims to analyze the relationship between farmers Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) in simple coffee agroforestry systems and their socio-demographic characteristics; to examine their understanding of the ecological roles of earthworms and Lepidiota stigma; and to identify and assess the gap between Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) and Modern Ecological Knowledge (MEK). Local ecological knowledge was obtained through in-depth interviews with coffee agroforestry farmers concerning soil management, the role of earthworms, and pests in maintaining soil quality on the slopes of Mount Tambora (NTB). In-depth interviews were conducted with key respondents and coffee agroforestry farmers grouped by gender, age, and educational background using predetermined questions. Based on interviews with 50 coffee farmers, the percentages of soil quality indicators recognized by them ranked as follows: earthworms (80%), soil color (74%), plant growth (36%), humus or litter (10%), and soil structure (6%). Furthermore, 72% (n=50) of coffee farmers indicated that soil organisms significantly influence soil fertility. This study highlights the scientific value of Local Ecological Knowledge in sustainable soil management and encourages its integration with modern science through participatory research.

INTRODUCTIONThe knowledge related to fish names is an integral part of being a fisherman and considered as a proof of competence within fishermen communities. This local knowledge is designated as folk taxonomy, and is in some ways predictably similar to the scientific (Linnaean) naming system (Berkes et al. 2001; Berlin 1992; Jernudd and Thuan 1984). Such knowledge is local in scope and thus highly variable by geographic region, language, and ethnic group depending on local culture, biodiversity patterns, and fishing practices. It is also assumed to vary in time. Due to widespread anthropogenic pressure causing the collapse of fishing stocks and local extinctions of species, young fishermen will have had little probability to meet as many species and in such numbers as have their predecessors. This folk taxonomy knowledge in its different dimensions is intimately associated with Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK), and its description is often a prerequisite to gather local biological and ecological knowledge (Berkes et al. 2001; Eugene Hunn 2011; Freire and Pauly 2003; Haggan et al. 2007). The relevance of ecological information is likely to be anecdotal if the accuracy of taxonomic identification is not guaranteed (Albuquerque et al. 2014). Local ecological knowledge has become an essential source of information for conservation ecology (Ruddle and Davis 2013), especially in data-poor ecosystems.Morocco presents an interesting case for examining variability in fish naming due to great diversity of species, as well as long and varied sociolinguistic traditions. Bordered by both Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines of Northwestern Africa, Morocco is the center of the transition zone between temperate and tropical waters, populated with diverse species communities (Masski and Tai 2014; Tai et al. 2013). For bony fish alone, FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2011) lists more than 766 species for Morocco. Fishing activity is widespread along the Moroccan coast, involving culturally diverse populations. Cultural diversity, an additional variable to consider, has its origin in the geopolitical situation of the country, which has always put indigenous people in close interaction with the people of Europe, Africa, and Arabia.What is considered by one as a diversity of local knowledge is seen by others as a variability in seafood labelling and represents a central issue in trade control and regulation, and in fisheries science and conservation (Fraser 2012; Leunda Urretabizkaia et al. 2009). In developing countries, where the adoption of a standard for naming fish is uncommon, vernacular (folk) and common names are also used in national fisheries statistics systems (Previero et al. 2013). Due to the high variability in folk taxonomy, the same fish species can be named differently in different regions, and one name can be attributed to different fish species (Berlin 1973, 1992). Furthermore, the use of fishery statistics databases for scientific purposes is therefore restricted to well-identified species, which impedes fisheries management procedures (Kifani et al. 2008). The usual answer to such a situation is the adoption of a standard, which is the goal of the Moroccan fisheries management agencies.The success of the targeted standardization is, in our opinion, dependent on the strength of reflection and research previously conducted. Thus, and far from wanting to carry out a comprehensive inventory of vernacular names, the present study aims to 1) build correspondence lists between folk and scientific names for a set of species in different locations along the Moroccan coast and, on this basis, 2) to analyze the structure and variability of the Moroccan folk taxonomic system. We hope that the results from our study will help to improve the use of folk taxonomy in formal management procedures, facilitate local ecological knowledge gatherings, and clarify the view for the ways to achieve a standardization process. …

The challenges and opportunities of incorporating information collected through scientific studies with the experience-based knowledge of resourcedependent communities have been the focus of numerous studies (e.g., Freeman 1992, Agrawal 1995, Weeks and Packard 1997, Turner et al. 2000). However, there are relatively few examples in which ecological science and local knowledge have both been successfully incorporated to provide meaningful input into resource management (Berkes 2004). In their recent article in Ecology and Society, Gilchrist et al. (2005) provide a thorough evaluation of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) using expert-based ecological studies often referred to as “western science.” Although we applaud their recognition of the value of and desire to promote LEK, it is unfortunate that they use expert-based ecological data as a “test” to determine the “reliability” of LEK. Even though the authors indicate their wish to use the two different approaches to identify “constraints and limitations of both approaches,” they fail to discuss the assumptions, limitations, or constraints of the ecological studies that they use. We do not take issue with their ecological studies; we presume they are of the highest quality. However, to assume that the ecological studies are error free and without any bias or limitation is perhaps somewhat misguided, albeit an assumption that many scientists still make (Harding 1991, Rykiel 2001). Indeed, Freeman (1992) provides examples in which conflicts occurred in the Canadian Arctic between LEK and expert-based science over aerial surveys of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea and caribou in what is now Nunavut, where local perceptions of the state of these wildlife populations were initially considered “unreliable” but were resolved when biases in ecological studies were corrected using local knowledge. These case studies illustrate the limitations of ecological research and monitoring, and provide a cautionary tale against accepting them as “truth.”

Since the concept of "local knowledge" proposed by Clifford Geertz was introduced into ecological anthropology and cultural anthropology, local ecological knowledge has remained a hot research topic. The Lopliks have long lived on the desert fringe of the extremely arid Lop Nur region in the southeastern part of the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, China. Based on their adaptation to the harsh ecological environment, they have developed a rich and effective local ecological knowledge system. This paper aims to explore the traditional local ecological knowledge of the Lopliks,mainly focusing on the economic and cultural foundations, main content, types, and the underlying cultural logic of the local ecological knowledge of the Lopliks. This article primarily employs qualitative research methods, specifically adopting anthropological fieldwork, delving into the living environments of the subjects, and obtaining a large amount of firsthand data through in-depth interviews, participant observation, and other means, laying an important foundation for the analysis presented in the article. The traditional ecological knowledge system of the Lopliks is built upon their cognition of the surrounding ecosystem. These local knowledge and cognitive schemas are integrated with their diverse religious beliefs, cosmology, and cultural customs, fully demonstrating their strong vitality and cultural rationality in adapting to specific ecological environments and protecting the ecosystem. By examining local values, belief systems, social structures, and ritual traditions, anthropology provides unique insights into the interplay between culture and the environment. This allows us to uncover the ecological wisdom, significance, and value embedded within local cultures, and identifying the root causes of environmental problems and potential solutions derived from the local cultural context.

Three species of wolffish have been listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act with consequences for commercial fisheries. Because harvester based local ecological knowledge (LEK) and science knowledge differ in goals, spatial and temporal scale, and mode of generalization, the current system struggles with including LEK along with traditional assessments in species at risk (SARA) processes. The differences in LEK and science led us to consider the concept of consilience in the sense of strengthened inductive knowledge via convergence or concordance of evidence from disparate sources. We used three criteria when considering consilience: a general concurrence of data, presence of unexplained inconsistencies, and a degree of complementarity between two disparate sources. Using wolffish in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence we examined the feasibility of applying these criteria to two disparate sources of information: scientific stock assessments and data from structured fish harvester local ecological knowledge (LEK) interviews. We found that for wolffish there was consistency in observed trends and locations of high wolffish catch rates from both harvester LEK interviews and fishery-independent survey data. There was inconsistency between observed variability in catch sizes in harvester interviews and stock assessment maps. The science and LEK evidence were complementary in that observations took place at different spatial and temporal scales. They were complementary in that LEK was inshore, compared to science data from offshore. The explicit criteria we developed permit use of fishers’ knowledge that, in the past, has often been discounted to zero, often thereby reducing trust by harvesters in the results of species at risk assessments. The concept of consilience shifts the focus from controversy to dialogue in the use of evidence and, so, is important in rebuilding marine fishing communities.

Local ecological knowledge (LEK) can shed light on ecosystem change, especially in under- researched areas such as South Africa's Wild Coast. However, for ecosystem planning purposes, it is necessary to assess the accuracy and validity of LEK, and determine where such knowledge is situated in a community, and how evenly it is spread. Furthermore, it is relevant to ask: does LEK add value to science, and how do science and local knowledge complement one another? We assessed change in woodland and forest cover in the Nqabara Administrative Area on South Africa's Wild Coast between 1974 and 2001. The inhabitants of Nqabara are Xhosa-speaking people who are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. More recently, however, infrastructural development has influenced traditional lifestyles at Nqabara, although poverty remains high and formal education levels low. We assessed LEK about changes in woodland and forest cover over the past 30 years by interviewing 11 local experts, who were recognized as such by the Nqabara community, and 40 senior members of randomly selected households in each village. We also analyzed land-cover change, using orthorectified aerial photos taken in 1974 and 2001. Forest and woodland cover had increased by 49% between 1974 and 2001. The 11 had a nuanced understanding of these changes and their causes. Their understanding was not only remarkably consistent with that of scientists, but it added considerable value to scientific understanding of the ultimate causes of land-cover change in the area. The experts listed combinations of several causal factors, operating at different spatial and temporal scales. The 40 randomly selected respondents also knew that forest and woodland cover had increased, but their understanding of the causes, and the role of fire in particular, was somewhat simplistic. They could identify only three causal factors and generally listed single factors rather than the combinations of factors listed by the experts. In some instances, their understanding even appeared to be seriously flawed. In contemporary Xhosa society, ecological knowledge is unevenly spread and held by individuals rather than by groups. Therefore, it is important to work with experts rather than randomly selected individuals in ecological studies that incorporate local knowledge. Expert local knowledge adds value to science by providing detailed insights into the ultimate causes of change, and by contributing a rare historical perspective. Scientists add value to local knowledge through their ability to study and predict obscure processes such as the impact of atmospheric change on vegetation. Scientists must, however, acknowledge that positivist studies that compare local knowledge to science are fraught with ethical and methodological challenges. Certain aspects of local knowledge, particularly in terms of fire, are sacred and do not have the same origins as Western science. Local knowledge and science can complement one another, but we advise against integrating them in a way that co-opts local knowledge for scientific purposes.

The unknown known – A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation

Amidst the failures of fisheries across the globe and the perceived failure of scientific fisheries management, some recent scholarship has focused attention on the nature and collection of fishers’ knowledge, and on the potential utility of that knowledge to fisheries management. This chapter summarises the results of recent research on fish harvesters’ local ecological knowledge (LEK) and its interactions with fisheries science and management in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. We treat LEK, science and management as parallel, interacting socio-ecological knowledge systems that are internally complex and dynamic. We begin by characterising the dynamism of LEK in Newfoundland fisheries and then describe the rise of a linked fisheries science and management framework in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s that contributed to the marginalisation of fish harvesters’ LEK, particularly that of small boat fishers. We then explore the changing interactions between LEK, governance and science in Newfoundland, associated with a recently shifting international discourse that highlights the need for participation and the devolution of some responsibility and authority for fisheries management from centralised state bureaucracies and government-funded and controlled fisheries science to harvesters and other ‘stakeholder’ groups. Two case studies, comparing and contrasting the role of harvesters and LEK in the management of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and American lobster (Homarus americanus) fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1992, are then used as examples of the interactions between these actors and their knowledge systems in practice. We conclude with a discussion of some of the potential benefits and dangers associated with this emerging contemporary relationship between harvesters and their knowledge, fisheries science, participation and governance in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Local ecological knowledge is knowledge and beliefs that are largely derived from observations of the ecological processes of resources in the surrounding area and the various factors that influence them based on the logical interpretation of local communities. Local ecological knowledge has an important role in informing sound spatial, spatial and temporal management approaches for marine spatial planning. The aim of this research is to identify the ecological knowledge of local communities regarding the mangrove ecosystem and 2) Community perceptions regarding the management of mangrove ecotourism in Talaga Yenelo in Sagea Village and 3). The level of perception of local communities regarding Ecotourism activities. The method used in this research is determining the sample in this research using a purposive sampling method, namely respondents who participate are deliberately selected by researchers according to the criteria of research respondents. To determine people's knowledge and perceptions, it is based on a Likert scale assessment system and multiple linear regression analysis to see the influence of several independent variables on one dependent variable. The research results show that the people of Sagea and Kiya villages have better knowledge of the local ecology of mangrove forests, especially mangrove habitat, factors of mangrove damage and the impact of mangrove damage compared to the function of mangroves. with the level of utilization of the mangrove ecosystem in the villages of Sagea and Kiya varying greatly. While understanding of mangrove ecotourism activities is very minimal, they agree with the ecotourism activities carried out. Therefore, there is a need for follow-up action from the government regarding mangrove forest management based on the mangrove forest environment.

Questions centered on the development of local and traditional ecological knowledge and the relationship of that knowledge to the development of conservation and management practices have recently attracted critical attention. We examine these questions with respect to the dynamic commercial fisheries of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The knowledge of fish harvesters coevolves with fishing practices and is embedded in a dynamic socioecological network that extends into and beyond the fisher, fishery households, and communities to include management, technologies, markets, and marine ecological conditions. Changes in these networks have moved knowledge and practices related to fishing in directions defined by policy, science, economic rationality, and new ecological realities. We characterize this movement as a shift along a continuum from local ecological knowledge (LEK) towards globalized harvesting knowledge (GHK) as harvesters become increasingly disconnected from socioecological relationships associated with traditional species and stocks. We conclude with a discussion of how LEK/GHK have interacted over time and space with other knowledge systems (particularly science) to influence management, and suggest that contingent, empirical evaluations of these interactions will provide a fruitful avenue for future interdisciplinary research.

Even though small-scale fisheries throughout the globe are based on local ecological knowledge (LEK), it is often not involved in the decision-making process. An attempt is made to review the potential of using LEK of traditional coastal fisher communities in Sri Lanka and self-governing institutions in managing fisheries commons sustainably. Fisheries management in Sri Lanka is mainly a top-down system through the state legislation, while many fishing communities still maintain some level of informal or traditional management systems. The traditional community-based fisheries management (CBFM) systems in coastal fisheries of Sri Lanka, which are essentially based on LEK of fisher communities, hold long history from several decades to centuries. In active fisheries, i.e ., beach seining and stilt fishing, traditional fishers accurately use LEK for day-to-day fishing activities for predicting harvests before operating the fishing gear. Long-term viability of beach seining, stilt fishing, brush park fishing, kraal fishing and stake net fishing systems in coastal fisheries of Sri Lanka confirms that CBFM systems in coastal fisheries provide better economic and livelihood standards for fisher communities. Empirical studies confirm that the coastal fisher communities manage fisheries commons through self-governing institutions through which the property rights are vested to fisher communities averting the common pool dilemma. This synthesis confirms that fishers’ LEK is an integral part of CBFM systems of coastal fisheries, which strengthen the collective action of the fishers, and is invaluable for sustaining the CBFM systems for the long run. It is clear that CBFM systems governed through robust customary institutions and evoked by traditional authority and LEK of fishers are vital for the sustainability of the coastal fisheries. In conclusion, CBFM systems and LEK can be hailed as smart management options, which can be an alternative to centralized fisheries management in Sri Lanka.

The published literature on local ecological knowledge (LEK) is rich with debate on its merits (e.g., Berkes et al. 2000, Huntington 2000), but tangible examples of its application to wildlife management are rare (e.g., Lyver 2002). Brook and McLachlan (2005) recently critiqued our manuscript in which we compared information derived from scientific empirical studies with LEK (Gilchrist et al. 2005). Although they agreed that there are few examples in which ecological science and LEK have been compared simultaneously, they took issue with our attempts to do so. Frankly, we find little value in producing more papers that simply discuss LEK, and would rather write papers that apply it. However, we believe that Brook and McLachlan (2005) raise several points that perpetuate ongoing misconceptions between empirical scientists and those working principally with LEK, and that these warrant a response.

Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest