Knowledge coproduction improves understanding of environmental change in the Ethiopian highlands

Abstract

Knowledge coproduction that draws on local and scientific knowledge presents opportunities for more holistic understanding of environmental change. We describe our use of a multiple-evidence based approach to investigate the causes and consequences of environmental change in a community-protected grassland and its surrounding landscape in the Ethiopian highlands. We explore the interaction of biophysical change (precipitation and vegetation) and social change (political and management institutions), and discuss potential impacts for ecosystem service provisioning. We quantified current distributions of locally defined land use/cover classes using a supervised classification, with an overall accuracy of 87.1%. Local community members then described and ranked the ecosystem services associated with each land class according to their perceived importance for society. Vegetation and precipitation changes were assessed using satellite time series beginning in the early 1980s, while local narratives describe changes back to the 1970s. The knowledge coproduction process brought together ethnographic and remote sensing approaches, revealing both complementary and contradictory findings across knowledge systems. Results with high agreement across knowledge systems clarify and reinforce understanding of certain threats and changes to the area, such as the rapidly declining native forests, the disappearing belg rainy season (p = 0.01), and the impact of insecure land tenure on natural resource extraction. Compelling areas of disagreement point to topics in need of further investigation, including increased attention to the spatial and temporal variability of change across a seemingly homogeneous cultural landscape, and the process of shrub encroachment into the protected grassland.

A systematic review of participatory scenario planning to envision mountain social-ecological systems futures

“…Developing stakeholder proficiency in envisioning can be a time-and engagement-intensive process , particularly for isolated MtSES communities who may find it difficult to imagine divergent futures from present/usual conditions because having to select a limited number of drivers of future change might contradict participants' lived experiences in multifunctional MtSES (FAO 2015). Yet, local knowledge can provide critical insights into MtSES processes (e.g., Klein et al 2014, Thorn 2019, Steger et al 2020, and the inclusion of diverse actors in PSP is essential for understanding and managing appropriate future trajectories of MtSES that fulfill the needs and desires of local communities.…”

“…Central to the well-being and survival of much of humanity, MtSES are confronted by climate change, biodiversity loss, land use conversion, and other long-term social-economic challenges (Cuni-Sanchez et al 2018, Hagedorn et al 2019, Klein et al 2019a, b, Rahbek et al 2019b, Steger et al 2020. For instance, the rate of warming is amplified as elevation increases (Hagedorn et al 2019), resulting in higher exposure to climate change in MtSES than the global average or in lower elevation regions (Pepin et al 2015, IPCC 2018.…”

Reconciling livestock production and wild herbivore conservation: challenges and opportunities

“…Engaging livestock producers and conservation practitioners in the co-generation of knowledge relating to livestock-wild herbivore interactions [64] could help address some of the challenges highlighted in this review [65]. In particular, co-participation in monitoring and knowledge exchange could ensure better alignment of real and perceived impacts of wild herbivores on livestock production, thereby minimising uncertainty and distrust between stakeholders [66].…”

Guiding restoration of riparian ecosystems degraded by plant invasions: Insights from a complex social-ecological system in the Global South

“…researchers and specialists) are trained to run educational programs for local people to help them acquire knowledge about degraded ecosystems and to facilitate the recovery of these systems (Pérez et al 2019 ; Garzón et al 2020 ). Bringing multiple sectors, disciplines, and stakeholders together to ‘co-produce’ knowledge has been recommended as a solution to understand and adaptively manage social–ecological systems (Steger et al 2020 ). Knowledge co-production is regarded as an iterative, transdisciplinary process that integrates diverse knowledge systems and capacities from various stakeholders (academic and non-academic) through a collaborative social learning process with the intention of generating innovative and legitimate knowledge to inform decision making (Angelstam et al 2017 ; Djenontin and Meadow 2018 ).…”