Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Successful natural resource management is dependent on effective knowledge exchange and utilization. Local/traditional/ indigenous knowledge derived from place-based experience and scientific knowledge generated by systematic inquiry are the most commonly recognized knowledge domains. However, we propose that many natural resource decisions are not based on local or scientific knowledge, but rather on a little recognized domain that we term professional ecological knowledge (PEK). Professional ecological knowledge is founded upon codification of broad ecological principles, but not necessarily scientific evidence, to legitimize agency programs, support operational efficiency, and encourage user compliance. However, in spite of these benefits, PEK may reduce program effectiveness by inhibiting the exchange of local and scientific knowledge and minimizing the development of evidence-based conservation. We describe what we consider to be common facets of PEK through case studies examining the sources of knowledge utilized by forestry agencies in India and by rangeland conservation programs of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Three propositions are presented regarding the origins and continued existence of PEK: (1) minimal information feedbacks regarding the efficacy of agency programs contributes to development of PEK; (2) a narrow scientific agenda and a perception that most scientific knowledge is not relevant to management decisions encourages a divide between scientists and managers; and (3) political interests often benefit from existing applications of PEK. By calling attention to the existence of PEK as a distinctive knowledge domain, we aim to encourage more explicit and critical consideration of the origins of knowledge used in environmental decision making. Explicit recognition of PEK may provide greater understanding of the dynamics of knowledge exchange and decision making in natural resource management.

Assessment of USDA‐NRCS rangeland conservation programs: recommendation for an evidence‐based conservation platform

“…This may also partially explain why federal natural resource management agencies often do not use contemporary science to support their programs. This corroborates the interpretation of Roux et al (2006) that natural resource management agencies frequently possess a limited capacity for knowledge exchange, adoption of scientific knowledge in this case, and it also represents an important attribute of professional ecological knowledge previously discussed (Fleischman and Briske 2016). The CEAP synthesis team also observed the use of dated books and government reports, rather than contemporary scientific evidence, to substantiate the agency conservation practices standards.…”

“…An optimal approach to integrating local and scientific knowledge that does not dilute the core identity of either source has yet to be developed (Raymond et al 2010). Fleischman and Briske (2016) have proposed that natural resource management agencies, including the NRCS, may make decisions on basis of professional ecological knowledge, rather than local or scientific knowledge per se. Fleischman and Briske (2016) have proposed that natural resource management agencies, including the NRCS, may make decisions on basis of professional ecological knowledge, rather than local or scientific knowledge per se.…”

Political ecology of asymmetric ecological knowledges: diverging views on the eucalyptus-water nexus in the Taita Hills, Kenya

“…Formal knowledge of environmental management can be called professional ecological knowledge that Fleischman and Briske (2016: 2) consider to be "founded upon codification of broad ecological principles", for example through scientifically outdated best management practices and technical guidelines, used "to inform and legitimize standard agency…”

“…Problems typically arise when local ecological knowledge is evaluated based on the validation criteria and conceptualizations of western ecological science that hold a hegemonic position in informing environmental management (Nadasdy 1999;Nygren 1999;Watson 2013). Moreover, the official management systems run by state agencies are often slanted by political and economic interests and are based on coded, often outdated, ecological principles of reductionist and selective professional and bureaucratic knowledge (Fleischman and Briske 2016;Hunt and Shackley 1999), which poses further challenges to building dialogues with knowledges produced in complex local settings. On the other hand, many local communities in the developing world have undergone cultural oppression and subalternization under colonial and post-colonial regimes, causing negation and distancing from their traditional knowledge and producing hybridization and assimilation with dominating cultural practices and western knowledge systems (Bhabha 1995;Gramsci 1971;Spivak 1988).…”

Trophy Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Development in Zimbabwe: Issues, Options, and Implications

“…To fill this gap, we incorporated stakeholders and expert opinion on trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe to disentangle the policy and governance issues, emerging issues, and challenges related to trophy hunting locally, regionally and globally. For this, we adopted four forms of ecological knowledge as described by Fleischman and Briske [47], that is, Scientific Ecological Knowledge (SEC), Local Ecological International Journal of Biodiversity 3 …”