Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water

Abstract

Reciprocal relations underscore the mutual caretaking obligations held between nature and society, as intertwining entities that are co-constituted with one another. In this paper, we draw from scholarship on human-nature relations, which emphasizes the intrinsic value and agency of non-human beings and the landscape. Building on this literature, we investigate the practice of reciprocal relations for exemplar communities in Hawai'i, British Columbia (Canada), the Appalachian mountain region (U.S.), and Madagascar that are all actively cultivating stewardship of natural resources in the face of economic, political, and ecological pressures. Our cases illustrate the diverse ways individuals and communities enact reciprocal relations and examine how these acts may increase community access to land and water. We show how communities mobilize reciprocal relations through both formal governance actions (e.g. management planning and legislation) and informal avenues (e.g. daily human-environment interactions). Recognizing "reciprocal relations" to restore community access 401 Our findings expand upon Ribot and Peluso's theory of access by considering the multi-directional flows of benefits and responsibilities between people and places exemplified by reciprocal relations. By reframing environmental governance around mutual responsibilities, we hope to increase recognition of existing reciprocal place-based relationships, and facilitate greater community access to land, water, and resources.

Relational values of nature: leverage points for nature policy in Europe

“…With this, it is recognized that humans and nature also shape and influence each other and how we as humans fundamentally depend on nature. This reciprocity is emphasized by activists, scientists and indigenous communities to express how nature provides for us, but we should also provide for and take care of nature (Diver et al 2019;Gould et al 2019).…”

“…Relational values of nature reflect the manifold relationships between humans and nature and are rooted in these relationships themselves. Examples include social bonding (Sheremata 2018), care (Chan et al 2016), responsibility (Diver et al 2019), place attachment (Chan et al 2016), meaningful life , and spiritual or religious meanings (Knippenberg et al 2018).…”

Cultural ecosystem services and decision‐making: How researchers describe the applications of their work

“…As one prime example, spirituality is mentioned in nearly all CES typologies (Gould & Lincoln, ), and the spiritual values of ecosystems are often intertwined with non‐instrumental approaches to the meaning of those ecosystems (Comberti et al, ; Taylor, Wieren, & Zaleha, ). As another important example, many of the concepts that emerge when people discuss CES are not instrumental benefits that flow from ecosystems to humans, but are instead values based on relationships, reciprocal interaction, emotional connection, or similar phenomena (Arias‐Arévalo, Martín‐López, & Gómez‐Baggethun, ; Chan, Pascual, & Gould, ; Diver, Vaughan, Baker‐Médard, & Lukacs, ; Gould et al, ; Himes & Muraca, ). These values intertwine with the ideas of co‐production – that is, that humans ‘work with’ ecosystems to support those systems and provide desired services (Fischer & Eastwood, ).…”

Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services

“…This services-to-ecosystems idea incorporates ideas of reciprocity between humans and ecosystems. Especially because concepts of reciprocity are particularly central to many Indigenous and local communities (Diver et al 2019), this reconceptualization could serve a strong translational role -i.e., it could package those important ideas of reciprocity in language that resonates with current decision-making structures.…”