Maori, like other indigenous peoples, are increasingly involved in attempts to provide appropriate cultural responses to environmental issues. These include efforts to translate and incorporate isolated parts of their language and traditional practises into the prevailing culture. Major problems with this process are the incommensurability of such attempts whereby the real meaning of a custom or word is frequently debased and divorced from its traditional cultural setting, so that its proper functioning is impaired. Added to this is the ignorance on the part of many concerning the conceptual world view, traditional beliefs and practices of the Maori ? or, if knowing these things, a lack of respect for their validity. On the other hand there are some, especially among the modern conservation movement, who have a more empathetic attitude towards indigenous ecological knowledge, but who thereby assume that their environmental ethics and those of indigenous peoples are motivated by similar philosophies and share similar aims. Not only is this assumption often wrong, it may also contribute to the inability of the western conservation movement to properly serve the needs of, and to fully empower, indigenous conservation aspirations as guaranteed to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. This paper addresses some of these issues by providing Maori perspectives on an increasingly important environmental concept: that of kaitiaki, and kaitiakitanga.
The demand for better representation of cultural considerations in environmental management is increasingly evident. As two cases in point, ecosystem service approaches increasingly include cultural services, and resource planners recognize indigenous constituents and the cultural knowledge they hold as key to good environmental management. Accordingly, collaborations between anthropologists, planners, decision makers and biodiversity experts about the subject of culture are increasingly common-but also commonly fraught. Those whose expertise is culture often engage in such collaborations because they worry a practitioner from 'elsewhere' will employ a 'measure of culture' that is poorly or naively conceived. Those from an economic or biophysical training must grapple with the intangible properties of culture as they intersect with economic, biological or other material measures. This paper seeks to assist those who engage in collaborations to characterize cultural benefits or impacts relevant to decision-making in three ways; by: (i) considering the likely mindset of would-be collaborators; (ii) providing examples of tested approaches that might enable innovation; and (iii) characterizing the kinds of obstacles that are in principle solvable through methodological alternatives. We accomplish these tasks in part by examining three cases wherein culture was a critical variable in environmental decision making: risk management in New Zealand associated with Māori concerns about genetically modified organisms; cultural services to assist marine planning in coastal British Columbia; and a decision-making process involving a local First Nation about water flows in a regulated river in western Canada. We examine how 'culture' came to be manifest in each case, drawing from ethnographic and cultural-models interviews and using subjective metrics (recommended by theories of judgment and decision making) to express cultural concerns. We conclude that the characterization of cultural benefits and impacts is least amenable to methodological solution when prevailing cultural worldviews contain elements fundamentally at odds with efforts to quantify benefits/impacts, but that even in such cases some improvements are achievable if decision-makers are flexible regarding processes for consultation with community members and how quantification is structured.
▪ Abstract Conservation in New Zealand is failing to halt an ongoing decline in biodiversity. Classical problems of ecosystem loss and fragmentation have largely been countered in some regions by reservation of 30% of total land area. Unsustainable harvesting of native biodiversity has stopped; indeed harvesting of terrestrial species is rare. In contrast, marine reserves do not cover even 1% of the managed area, and harvest of native species, some of it unsustainable, are a major industry. Introduced pests, especially mammals, are the overwhelming conservation problem. Legislation, management, and considerable public opinion is based on preservationist ideals that demand the sanctity of native land biodiversity. Considerable success in threatened species management, island eradications, and mainland control of pests is increasing opportunities for restoration. New legislation is increasingly built on concepts of sustainability and offers the opportunity for integrating conservation, use, and development. Realization of these opportunities requires greater understanding of the relative merits of preservation versus sustainability, the dynamics and costs of pest control, the need for ecosystem processes in addition to individual species, and the involvement of people, especially the rights of indigenous Maori. Understanding marine environments and linking attitudes to land and sea is also a challenge.
Our objective was to compare the efficacy, safety, and microbiology of once-daily intravenous (IV) tobramycin with conventional 8-hourly tobramycin/ceftazidime IV therapy for acute Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis (CF). CF patients with PA-induced pulmonary exacerbations were allocated to receive either once-daily tobramycin (Mono) or conventional therapy with tobramycin/ceftazidime given 8-hourly (Conv). The two longitudinal groups received therapy in a double-blind, randomized manner over a period of 2 years. Tobramycin doses were adjusted to achieve a daily area under the time-concentration curve of 100 mg x hr/L in both groups. Results were assessed for both short-term changes (efficacy and safety after 10 days of IV antibiotics during acute exacerbations) and long-term changes (efficacy, safety, and sputum microbiology between study entry and exit). Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) on admission were similar in both groups. After 10 days of IV antibiotics, absolute mean improvements in percent of predicted PFTs were 12.8, 12.1, and 13.7 for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced expired flow between 25--75% of FVC (FEF(25--75%)) in the Conv group (n = 51 admissions) compared to 10.6, 9.9, and 10.6 in the Mono group (n = 47)(P<0.05 for all). Sixteen percent in the Conv group and 15% of patients in the Mono group did not respond to therapy by day 10. Long-term PFT patterns were similar for the Conv and Mono groups. The time between admissions did not differ. The Mono group showed a significant increase in tobramycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against PA from study entry to study exit (P = 0.02, n = 27 strains); this failed to reach significance in the Conv group (P = 0.08, n = 25). There was no significant increase in the number of isolates, with MIC> or =8 mg/L in both groups. No short- or long-term changes in audiology or serum creatinine were found in either group. After 10 days of IV therapy, the urinary enzyme N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase/creatinine ratios increased in both groups (P0.05). This increase was greater in the Conv compared to the Mono group (P < 0.05). We conclude that this pilot study indicates once-daily tobramycin therapy to be as effective and safe as conventional 8-hourly tobramycin/ceftazidime therapy. Combination antibacterial therapy appears to offer no clinical advantage over once-daily tobramycin monotherapy. Tobramycin once-daily monotherapy is a potential alternative to conventional IV antibacterial therapy which deserves further investigation, including the impact on susceptibility of PA to tobramycin.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.