Indigenous peoples' roles in conservation are important because they offer alternate perspectives and knowledge centred on the quality of the human-environment relationship. Here, we present examples of Māori cultural constructs, mechanisms, legislative warrants and customary (traditional and contemporary) interventions fundamental to the development and delivery of biocultural approaches within NZ's future conservation system. Biocultural approaches emphasise greater decision-making for the environment at the local institutional level, and contribute towards rebuilding a 'tuakana-teina' relationship (a reciprocal learning relationship and responsibility shared between older and younger persons) between societies and their environments. We further posit that the matching of social scales with ecological scales within local management is necessary for the effective implementation of biocultural approaches. Failure to do so could undermine motivation, action, energies and confidence of local communities.

Abstract Scale mismatches in social–ecological systems constrain conservation by obscuring signals of environmental change, which could otherwise feed back to inform adaptive responses and solutions. We argue that engaging indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) in place-based environmental management could generate the fine-resolution information and workforce needed to alleviate scale mismatches. We illustrate our argument using a case study initiated by Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand and demonstrate that the current broad scales of hunting regulation and assessment in black swan (kakī anau, Cygnus atratus) management could obscure local ecological drivers of populations. Many IPLC can facilitate adaptive place-based management by continually monitoring ecological feedbacks (e.g., population numbers, habitat conditions) at fine resolutions through customary resource use and observations. However, disregard for IPLC rights, scepticism of traditional ecological knowledge, restricted opportunity to connect with resources, compartmentalization of resource management, and insufficient funding limit IPLC engagement and must be overcome to alleviate scale mismatches.

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration of the landscape matrix are interdependent processes, collectively responsible for most recent species extinctions. Thus, determining the extent to which these landscape processes affect animals is critical for conservation. However, researchers have often assumed that interdependent effects are independently related to animals’ responses, underestimating the importance of one or several landscape processes in driving species declines. We demonstrate how to disentangle the interdependent effects of habitat amount, fragmentation, and edge context on population size by assessing abundance of a rapidly declining grassland songbird species (grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum) in eastern Kansas (USA). We conducted >7,000 point count surveys at >2,000 sites over two breeding seasons, then modelled the direct, interactive, and indirect effects of landscape factors on abundance within spatial scales (200‐, 400‐, 800‐, and 1,600‐m radii) relevant to our focal species’ dispersal behaviour. Sparrow abundance correlated most strongly with landscape structure within 400‐m radii, increasing nonlinearly with grassland area and decreasing with the proportion of grassland near cropland or woody edges. Sparrows’ negative response to cropland edges was mostly an added, indirect consequence of reduced grassland area, whereas sparrows’ stronger negative response to woody edges was not attributable to variation in grassland area. Fragmentation and edge context mattered most in landscapes comprising c. 50%–80% grassland. Synthesis and applications. In our research, abundance of a threatened grassland songbird was influenced more by core grassland area (a function of total grassland area, fragmentation, and edge context) than total grassland area per se. Moreover, a local extinction threshold of c. 50% grassland indicated that small amounts of habitat were unsuitable for our focal species regardless of habitat configuration or matrix type. Local extinction thresholds in response to habitat area provide clear baseline targets for land managers; above those thresholds, configuration and the matrix can be modified to increase abundance of edge‐sensitive animals. Conflicting evidence in the literature regarding the importance of fragmentation and matrix features could be partially explained by species‐level traits, or methodological issues such as defining landscapes at ecologically arbitrary spatial scales, assessing landscape quality using species richness, and ignoring interactive and indirect effects.

No abstract