Socioecological Approaches for Combining Ecosystem-Based and Customary Management in Oceania

Abstract

This paper summarizes various integrated methodological approaches for studying Customary Management for the purpose of designing hybrid CM-Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) systems in Oceania. Using marine conservation in the Western Solomon Islands as an example, the paper illustrates various interdisciplinary human ecological methods that can assist in designing hybrid conservation programs. The study of human-environmental interactions from a socio-ecological perspective allows us to discern people's understanding of their immediate environment, differential forms of local resource governance and use (e.g., sea tenure and foraging strategies), and existing conflicts between various stakeholders, among other social and ecological factors. More generally, the paper shows how coupled studies of natural and social processes can foster management regimes that are more adaptive and effective and that move toward holistic, ecosystem-based marine conservation in the Pacific Island region.

Market access, population density, and socioeconomic development explain diversity and functional group biomass of coral reef fish assemblages

“…The marine boundary was defined as the area, within the vicinity of where the fish were surveyed, which was likely to be exploited by people living in villages on the adjacent coastline (Brewer et al, 2009). Alternative methods exist for estimating resource use boundaries, including friction mapping using thiessen polygons (Muller and Zeller, 2002), ethnographic studies (Aswani, 1999), and participatory GIS mapping (Aswani, 2011). However, the large-scale nature of this study inhibited the use of these more localized resource use mapping techniques.…”

Determinants and patterns of the endangered brown bearUrsus arctoshabitat use in the French Pyrenees revealed by occupancy modeling

“…It could also be combined with a mapping of attitudes towards brown bears (Piédallu et al , 2016a) to identify areas that combine positive attitudes towards bear presence and low attack risk, and as such could be primary targets of future management decisions. This might be the first step towards the development of socio-ecological models designed to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts (Aswani, 2011, Dupont et al , 2011, Estoque and Murayama, 2014).…”

The creation of coastal space – how local ecological knowledge becomes relevant

“…However, our fisher's knowledge is qualitative and about the parts of the ecosystem he interacts with. Moreover his knowledge is purposive towards maximising his catch (Valdés-Pizzini and García-Quijano 2009;Aswani 2011). The process we have described for collection and defining of LEK is about how this knowledge is translated through specific procedures into a more formal set of spatial properties.…”

“…All together, these elements form a body of practical knowledge about certain ecological relationships. Our perspective differs from Berkes's (2007) holistic approach, as we do not see this knowledge (LEK/FEK) as total or holistic knowledge about a particular or bounded ecosystem but rather as practical experience derived from particular relationships in a certain environment (Aswani 2011;Valdés-Pizzini and García-Quijano 2009), often formulated and presented on the backdrop of or in relation to modern science that to some extent has provided the users with their language and their concepts for talking about their experiences. Thus, LEK/FEK research can be seen as a process of coding, standardising and refining LEK/FEK into a scientifically refined fishing knowledge or, what Holm (2003) called FEK* (Davis and Wagner 2003;Murray et al 2008) d .…”