Ethnobiology, Political Ecology, and Conservation

Abstract

Ethnobiology is increasingly recognized from within and outside of its boundaries as interdisciplinary. The Society of Ethnobiology defines the field as “the scientific study of dynamic relationships among peoples, biota, and environments.” Ethnobiologists are able to skillfully assess challenges of biocultural conservation across the divides of political ecology. They are situated to mediate between conservation programs that target biodiversity preservation with little concern for the needs of human communities, and those (such as the New Conservation movement) that privilege those needs. Ethnobiology also transcends the pervasive assumption in these fields that Western knowledge and economic goals should guide change. Because of ethnobiology's importance as a bridging discipline, it is important to ask what unifies ethnobiology. Is it common subject matter? Or, is there an underlying emphasis representing an “ethnobiological perspective?” Answers to these questions are explored here using content analysis and discourse-and-ideology analysis. We use the results to identify the unique roles ethnobiologists play in biocultural conservation. This analysis also proved useful in the systematic identification of four salient themes that unify ethnobiology—ethics in ethnobiology, shared environmental and cultural heritage, interdisciplinary science and non-science, and ecological understanding. How ethnobiologists conceive of themselves is critical for further enrichment of the field as interdisciplinary human-environmental scholarship, particularly in reference to biocultural conservation. Self-definition makes explicit the unique strengths of the field, which by its very nature integrates a sophisticated understanding of political ecology with appreciation of the value of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), social science, and the biological sciences.

What is biological cultural heritage and why should we care about it? An example from Swedish rural landscapes and forests

“…Maffi 2005, Agnoletti and Rotherham 2015. Although there are other related concepts, for example "ecodiversity" (Naveh 1998) and "ethnobiology" (Wolverton et al 2014), biocultural diversity has become dominating in the discourse linking different aspects of cultural diversity with use of natural resources and for identifying how these links promote and maintain both cultural and biological diversity .…”

“…Maffi 2005, Pretty et al 2009, Wolverton et al 2014, Gavin et al 2015 and local rural communities (e.g. Galluzzi et al 2010, Dahlström et al 2013, Otero et al 2013, Cohen et al 2015, Vallejo et al 2015, Rangel-Landa et al 2016.…”

Defining biocultural approaches to conservation

“…Conserving diverse sets of knowledge can provide human and biological communities with greater adaptive capacity to cope with current and future disturbances [16,19]. Several authors have also noted the importance of securing the rights of indigenous and local people and a focus on social justice [18,19,21]. The study of biocultural diversity has led to the call for the development of approaches that seek to maintain and revitalize biocultural heritage [19,22,23].…”

“…Social-ecological systems: : coupled human and natural systems that are complex, dynamic, unpredictable, and heterogeneous at multiple spatial and temporal scales, shaped by reciprocal feedback loops, and characterized by nonlinear dynamics, time lags, thresholds, and linked social and ecological processes [24]. study of biocultural diversity has emphasized the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity via coevolution processes, common threats, and geographic overlap [14][15][16][17][18]. Biocultural heritage encompasses indigenous and local community knowledge, innovations, and practices, which are developed within, and linked to, the social-ecological context [19].…”

Revamping the Metaphysics of Ethnobiological Classification

“…In recent years, it has become common to describe ethnobiology as having entered an "age of application" (Wolverton et al 2014) and many ethnobiologists embrace this development as a necessary step for engaging with pressing questions of environmental justice and ''the needs of a world coping with rapid ecological change and shifting political economies'' (Wyndham et al 2011, 124; see also Sillitoe 2006;Wolverton et al 2014). Many ethnobiologists would agree that this emphasis of applied significance should not be played off against theoretical issues in ethnobiology and that "there is no fundamental conflict between seeing human knowledge as intellectually satisfying and at the same time useful" (Hunn 2014, 147; see also Nazarea 1999).…”