Developing biocultural indicators for resource management

Abstract

Resource management and conservation interventions are increasingly embracing social–ecological systems (SES) concepts. While SES frameworks recognize the connectedness of humans and nature, many fail to acknowledge the complex role of sociocultural factors in influencing people's interactions with the environment. As such, when indicators in SES frameworks are used to measure the social dimension, easy to measure, socioeconomic indicators are the norms, while more complex social and cultural indicators are rare. To develop meaningful indicators of resilience in SES we need to understand local definitions of resilience. In this paper we describe methods used in a biocultural approach to illuminate sociocultural factors that Pacific Islanders identify as important for resilient communities. We focus specifically on two dimensions of sociocultural factors, “Connectedness to People and Place” and “Indigenous and local knowledges, skills, practices, values and worldviews,” which relate to many interventions, but are not usually monitored. We offer examples of indicators that may be appropriate to measure under these dimensions. Increased use of biocultural indicators will bring additional insight on the types and combinations of indicators that work best in given contexts.

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

“…Not only does this separation of ecological and social limit the ways that sustainability researchers can represent the complexity and inextricability of humans and nature they experience in empirical field studies, but also -and more importantly perhaps -risks perpetuating the same kinds of ineffective and inequitable interventions fostered by modernist approaches (e.g. Haider et al 2018b;Dacks et al 2019).…”

Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs

“…However, indicators of well-being need to be culturally attuned and are best articulated within the well-defined boundaries of a specific place or context (Sterling et al 2017a, b), for instance among communities of practice in a particular geographic region who manage communal resources (cf. Dacks et al 2019), or among cultural groups in one particular island nation (cf. McCarter et al 2018).…”

“…Many of these efforts are focused on a single nation, or include several nations, but mostly address human wellbeing and not environmental components. Dacks et al (2019) take a different tack with their explicitly multidimensional approach to conceptions of well-being (including human and environmental factors) undertaken at a regional scale. Dacks et al's regional approach both fills an expressed need for context-specific definitions of development and provides an important potential scaffolding between internationally derived indicators like SDGs and local-scale impacts (Yap and Watene 2019).…”

“…The Pacific Islands region is distinguished by its high biological and cultural diversity, and by historical and contemporary resilience to environmental and social variability (McMillen et al 2014;Kueffer and Kinney 2017). While specific aspects of well-being can manifest in different ways across the sizable region, Dacks et al (2019) found commonalities that resonate across Pacific Island communities. They developed a list of regionally-derived factors as an adaptable road map and entry point for place-based communities in order to address the diverse needs and priorities in the Pacific Islands region.…”

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

“…While the domains of exposure and adaptive capacity are well represented here, cultural and psychological domains of sensitivity are not because they are difficult to capture in an objective and quantitative manner across a large range of fisher's communities. More subjective (Jones, ; Tschakert, ) or more culturally‐grounded indicators (Dacks et al, ; Sterling et al, ) could yield different results and, in particular, reveal new trade‐offs. In addition, since the boundaries between generic and specific aspects of vulnerability may be less clear cut than assumed here (Adger & Vincent, ; Eakin & Lemos, ; Metcalf et al, ; Tol & Yohe, ), synergies or trade‐offs may occur not only between facets but also among domains and across scales and systems (Adger, ; Cinner et al, ; Engle & Lemos, ).…”