Sustaining Natural and Human Capital: Villagers and Scientists

Getz, Wayne M.; Fortmann, Louise; Cumming, David H. M.; Toit, Du; Hilty, Jodi A.; Martin, R. A.; Murphree, Michael; Owen‐Smith, Norman; Starfield, Anthony M.; Westphal, Michael I.

doi:10.1126/science.283.5409.1855

Cited by 78 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we must ask if such areas in Africa and elsewhere are sufficiently large to maintain viable bird populations, among other species. Finally, these results point to an increasing need for community-based conservation (Getz et al 1999). In the case of habitat conversion in the Serengeti region, many trees are cut for use in house construction and replanting often favours exotic species, particularly fast-growing Australian wattle and eucalypts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected areas as biodiversity benchmarks for human impact: agriculture and the Serengeti avifauna

Sinclair

Mduma

Arcese

2002

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas as biodiversity benchmarks allow a separation of the direct effects of human impact on biodiversity loss from those of other environmental changes. We illustrate the use of ecological baselines with a case from the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. We document a substantial but previously unnoted loss of bird diversity in agriculture detected by reference to the immediately adjacent native vegetation in Serengeti. The abundance of species found in agriculture was only 28% of that for the same species in native savannah. Insectivorous species feeding in the grass layer or in trees were the most reduced. Some 50% of both insectivorous and granivorous species were not recorded in agriculture, with ground-feeding and tree species most affected. Grass-layer insect abundance and diversity was much reduced in agriculture, consistent with the loss of insectivorous birds. These results indicate that many species of birds will become confined to protected areas over time. We need to determine whether existing protected areas are sufficiently large to maintain viable populations of insectivorous birds likely to become confined to them. This study highlights the essential nature of baseline areas for assessing causes of change in humandominated systems and for developing innovative strategies to restore biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected areas as biodiversity benchmarks for human impact: agriculture and the Serengeti avifauna

Sinclair

Mduma

Arcese

2002

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A collaborative approach to CBM involves both scientific researchers and residents, including TK holders (Getz et al, 1999;Danielsen et al, 2009;Conrad and Hilchey, 2011); this approach has been referred to as "knowledge co-production" (Kofinas et al, 2002;Armitage et al, 2011;UNESCO, 2012). Collaborative projects using this approach have documented Arctic community members' detailed knowledge of key components of their environment, such as sea ice (Laidler, 2006;Mahoney et al, 2009;Fidel et al, 2014), weather patterns (Lynch et al, 2008;Weatherhead et al, 2010;Fidel et al, 2014), and caribou (Ferguson et al, 1998;Russell et al, 2013).…”

Section: Traditional Knowledge Western Science and Knowledge Co-promentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contributions of Community-Based Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge to Arctic Observing Networks: Reflections on the State of the Field

Johnson¹,

Alessa²,

Behe³

et al. 2015

ARCTIC

116

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Community-based monitoring (CBM) in the Arctic is gaining increasing support from a wide range of interested parties, including community members, scientists, government agencies, and funders. Through CBM initiatives, Arctic residents conduct or are involved in ongoing observing and monitoring activities. Arctic Indigenous peoples have been observing the environment for millennia, and CBM often incorporates traditional knowledge, which may be used independently from or in partnership with conventional scientific monitoring methods. Drawing on insights from the first Arctic Observing Summit, we provide an overview of the state of CBM in the Arctic. The CBM approach to monitoring is centered on community needs and interests. It offers fine-grained, local-scale data that are readily accessible to community and municipal decision makers. In spite of these advantages, CBM initiatives remain little documented and are often unconnected to wider networks, with the result that many practitioners lack a clear sense of the field and how best to support its growth and development. CBM initiatives are implemented within legal and governance frameworks that vary significantly both within and among different national contexts. Further documentation of differences and similarities among Arctic communities in relation to observing needs, interests, and legal and institutional capacities will help assess how CBM can contribute to Arctic observing networks. While CBM holds significant potential to meet observing needs of communities, more investment and experimentation are needed to determine how observations and data generated through CBM approaches might effectively inform decision making beyond the community level.Key words: community-based monitoring; traditional knowledge; observing networks; environmental change; sustainability; knowledge management; natural resource management RÉSUMÉ. Dans l'Arctique, la surveillance communautaire (SC) reçoit un appui de plus en plus grand de la part de nombreuses parties intéressées, dont les membres de la communauté, les scientifiques, les organismes gouvernementaux et les bailleurs de fonds. Dans le cadre des initiatives de SC, des habitants de l'Arctique effectuent des tâches permanentes d'observation et de surveillance ou participent à de telles tâches. Les peuples indigènes de l'Arctique observent l'environnement depuis des millénaires. Souvent, la SC fait appel aux connaissances traditionnelles, connaissances qui peuvent être employées seules ou conjointement avec les méthodes classiques de surveillance scientifique. Nous nous sommes appuyés sur les connaissances dérivées du premier sommet d'observation de l'Arctique pour donner un aperçu de l'état de la SC dans l'Arctique. La méthode de SC est centrée sur les besoins et les intérêts de la communauté. Elle permet d'obtenir des données à grain fin à l'échelle locale, données qui sont facilement accessibles par la communauté et les preneurs de décisions municipaux. Malgré ces avantages, il existe peu de documentation au sujet...

show abstract

“…The various experiments in southern Africa, particularly the Zimbabwean CAMPFIRE programme, have been so extensively reported in the grey literature, and increasingly in the academic literature (e.g. Getz et al, 1999;Hasler, 1996;Murombedzi, 1999) that they have almost achieved iconic status among policy commentators, even (or especially) those who know little of the programme's context, methods and contemporary problems. CBNRM has become the focus of a great deal of attention by social scientists interested in the interface between social action and environmental management in wildlife, forestry and pastoralism (e.g.…”

Section: What Is Community Conservation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question?

Adams¹,

Hulme²

2001

ORX

154

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of community conservation present it as a means of reconciling conservation and development objectives by ensuring that the interests of local people are taken into account in making trade-offs. Conservation critics see it as a challenge to the state-led, scientific management that is necessary to guarantee the preservation of biodiversity. In this paper, we argue that community conservation is not one thing but many. It is evolving both as a concept and as a practice that must be built on. It is not a project or policy 'choice' that can be simply accepted or rejected. The key questions about community conservation are who should set the objectives for conservation policy on the ground and how should trade-offs between the diverse objectives of different interests be negotiated.

show abstract

Sustaining Natural and Human Capital: Villagers and Scientists

Cited by 78 publications

References 11 publications

Protected areas as biodiversity benchmarks for human impact: agriculture and the Serengeti avifauna

Protected areas as biodiversity benchmarks for human impact: agriculture and the Serengeti avifauna

The Contributions of Community-Based Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge to Arctic Observing Networks: Reflections on the State of the Field

If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About