Developing biocultural indicators for resource management

Dacks, Rachel; Ticktin, Tamara; Mawyer, Alexander; Caillon, Sophie; Claudet, Joachim; Fabre, Pauline; Jupiter, Stacy D.; McCarter, Joe; Mejia, Manuel; Pascua, Puaʻala; Sterling, Eleanor J.; Wongbusarakum, Supin

doi:10.1111/csp2.38

Cited by 47 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Not only does this separation of ecological and social limit the ways that sustainability researchers can represent the complexity and inextricability of humans and nature they experience in empirical field studies, but also -and more importantly perhaps -risks perpetuating the same kinds of ineffective and inequitable interventions fostered by modernist approaches (e.g. Haider et al 2018b;Dacks et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

West

Haider

Stålhammar

et al. 2020

Ecosystems and People

264

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In sustainability science, revising the paradigms that separate humans from nature is considered a powerful 'leverage point' in pursuit of transformations. The coupled socialecological and human-environment systems perspectives at the heart of sustainability science have, in many ways, enhanced recognition across academic, civil, policy and business spheres that humans and nature are inextricably connected. However, in retaining substantialist assumptions where 'social' and 'ecological' refer to different classes of entity that interact, coupled systems perspectives insist on the inextricability of humans and nature in theory, while requiring researchers to extricate them in practice-thus inadvertently reproducing the separation they seek to repair. Consequently, sustainability researchers are increasingly drawing on scholarship from the 'relational turn' in the humanities and the social sciences to propose a paradigm shift for sustainability science: away from focusing on interactions between entities, towards emphasizing continually unfolding processes and relations. Yet there remains widespread uncertainty about the origins, promises and challenges of using relational approaches. In this paper, we identify four themes in relational thinking-continually unfolding processes; embodied experience; reconstructing language and concepts; and ethics/practices of care-and highlight the ways in which these are being drawn on in sustainability science. We conclude by critically discussing how relational approaches might contribute to (i) a paradigm shift in sustainability science, and (ii) transformations towards sustainability. Relational approaches foster more dynamic, holistic accounts of human-nature connectedness; more situated and diverse knowledges for decision-making; and new domains and methods of intervention that nurture relationships in place and practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

West

Haider

Stålhammar

et al. 2020

Ecosystems and People

264

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, indicators of well-being need to be culturally attuned and are best articulated within the well-defined boundaries of a specific place or context (Sterling et al 2017a, b), for instance among communities of practice in a particular geographic region who manage communal resources (cf. Dacks et al 2019), or among cultural groups in one particular island nation (cf. McCarter et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of these efforts are focused on a single nation, or include several nations, but mostly address human wellbeing and not environmental components. Dacks et al (2019) take a different tack with their explicitly multidimensional approach to conceptions of well-being (including human and environmental factors) undertaken at a regional scale. Dacks et al's regional approach both fills an expressed need for context-specific definitions of development and provides an important potential scaffolding between internationally derived indicators like SDGs and local-scale impacts (Yap and Watene 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pacific Islands region is distinguished by its high biological and cultural diversity, and by historical and contemporary resilience to environmental and social variability (McMillen et al 2014;Kueffer and Kinney 2017). While specific aspects of well-being can manifest in different ways across the sizable region, Dacks et al (2019) found commonalities that resonate across Pacific Island communities. They developed a list of regionally-derived factors as an adaptable road map and entry point for place-based communities in order to address the diverse needs and priorities in the Pacific Islands region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving sustainable development globally requires multilevel and interdisciplinary efforts and perspectives. Global goals shape priorities and actions at multiple scales, creating cascading impacts realized at the local level through the direction of financial resources and implementation of programs intended to achieve progress towards these metrics. We explore ways to localize global goals to best support human well-being and environmental health by systematically comparing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with regionally-derived well-being dimensions that encompass components of social-ecological resilience across the Pacific Islands. Our research shows that, in the context of the Pacific, there are overlaps but also significant gaps between regional conceptions of well-being and the globally-derived SDGs. Some dimensions, related to human health and access to infrastructure and finances, are well represented in the SDGs. Other dimensions of high importance when localizing perspectives of well-being, such as those regarding connections between and across people and place and Indigenous and local knowledge, are not. Furthermore, internationally generated indicators may result in trade-offs and measurement challenges in local contexts. Creating space for place-based values in global sustainability planning aligns with international calls for transformational changes needed to achieve global goals. We identify challenges in applying SDG indicators at the local level and provide lessons learned to foster equitable and holistic approaches and outcomes for sustainability.

show abstract

“…While the domains of exposure and adaptive capacity are well represented here, cultural and psychological domains of sensitivity are not because they are difficult to capture in an objective and quantitative manner across a large range of fisher's communities. More subjective (Jones, ; Tschakert, ) or more culturally‐grounded indicators (Dacks et al, ; Sterling et al, ) could yield different results and, in particular, reveal new trade‐offs. In addition, since the boundaries between generic and specific aspects of vulnerability may be less clear cut than assumed here (Adger & Vincent, ; Eakin & Lemos, ; Metcalf et al, ; Tol & Yohe, ), synergies or trade‐offs may occur not only between facets but also among domains and across scales and systems (Adger, ; Cinner et al, ; Engle & Lemos, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The concept of vulnerability as the combination of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to a stressor is gaining traction outside of the climate realm, opening new avenues to address contemporary sustainability issues more holistically. Yet, critical notions that underpin vulnerability have yet to be integrated into its application to natural resource management and non-climatic stressors. In particular, the way generic and stressor-specific facets of vulnerability interact and can inform decision-makers about how interventions combine and/or trade-off remains unexplored.2. Here, we investigate the salience of the generic/specific framing in the context of Chilean artisanal fishing communities engaged in rights-based co-management and experiencing pressures from two stressors: poaching and market volatility.Specifically, we draw on market data combined with socio-economic surveys conducted with 446 members and leaders from 42 fisher unions to quantitatively investigate potential trade-offs and synergies between facets of vulnerability to poaching and markets.3. Generic adaptive capacity (i.e. flexibility, assets, learning, organization and agency) likely facilitated stressor-specific adaptive capacities to both stressors. High levels of specific adaptive capacity to one stressor neither increased exposure nor undermined specific adaptive capacity to the other stressor. However, adaptive capacity did not translate into exposure reduction as expected, suggesting that adaptation barriers may prevent fishers from mobilizing adaptive capacity into effective adaptive action. This study illustrates how breaking down vulnerability into generic and specificfacets can help us better anticipate important trade-offs and synergies in management interventions. More generally, it highlights the potential of the climate 574 | People and Nature THIAULT eT AL.

show abstract

Developing biocultural indicators for resource management

Cited by 47 publications

References 68 publications

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About