Values-led management: the guidance of place-based values in environmental relationships of the past, present, and future

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The prevalence of widespread, human-caused ecological degradation suggests that fundamental change is needed in how societies interact with the environment. In this paper we argue that durable models of environmental relationships already exist in approaches of place-based peoples, whose values connect people to their environments, provide guidance on appropriate behaviors, and structure sustained people-place relationships. To illustrate, we identify and discuss concordant values of indigenous peoples at opposite ends of the Pacific Ocean: the Māori of Aotearoa (New Zealand), and First Nations of the West Coast of Canada. We find that values of relatedness to, respect of, and reciprocity with other species and places correspond with sustained long-term relationships between people and places, and illustrate with examples from both regions. We propose that by integrating a values-led foundation into management broadly, values-led management could enable similar sustained relationships in places where they have been recently disrupted or where they are altogether lacking. We characterize values-led management as being founded on values that underpin stewardship-like relationships between people and place and that in turn guide related objectives, policies, and practices. We examine two contemporary values-led management plans that follow this structure, and provide additional examples of emergent values-led approaches elsewhere. From these we compile a set of questions that might guide the conception of place-based values-led management in decolonizing contexts, in contexts where people have a desire for place-based approaches but have not yet distilled foundational values for guidance, or in contexts where people have a united set of values but have not yet translated them into specific management approaches. We conclude by discussing both the challenges and learning opportunities that the resumption, or commencement, of values-led management might entail.

Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring

“…Insights from the GBR can inform similar EM scenarios with overlapping governance structures and a diversity of worldviews. When the provincial agencies developed EM protocols, agendas, and resources that did not incorporate LEK or IK (Price et al 2009, Service et al 2014 or formalize support to protect longestablished ties between social and ecological systems, they disregarded existing EM structures that have been in place for thousands of years, e.g., the potlatch system (Trosper 2002, Turner et al 2013, Artelle et al 2018. Similar errors have occurred in many intercultural EM scenarios and are contributing to negative outcomes for biocultural resilience and biodiversity conservation globally (Maffi and Woodley 2012, Howitt et al 2013, Cuerrier et al 2015, Sterling et al 2017a.…”

“…Management plans provide a tool that enables in situ agencies to communicate goals and priorities across cultures to bridge knowledge disconnects. For example, in both Canada and New Zealand, First Nations have developed written management plans that are guided by Indigenous law and cultural values that have always governed stewardship practices in those territories (Borrows 2005, Artelle et al 2018, Kitasoo/Xai'xais 2018. In some cases, these management plans are considered living documents that allow for https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art21/ continual development.…”

“…In some cases, these management plans are considered living documents that allow for https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art21/ continual development. The resurgence of values-led approaches to EM is helping to reinforce critical components of social and cultural well-being, such as relationships or connections to place (Artelle et al 2018).…”

“…In contrast to functional ecological approaches, biocultural approaches to EM projects, and their indicator development, typically start with values important to local governments, communities, and stakeholders. Measures are developed based on in situ values (Garibaldi and Turner 2004, Maffi 2005, Maffi and Woodley 2012, Cuerrier et al 2015, Gavin et al 2015, 2018, Sterling et al 2017a, Artelle et al 2018. For example, in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands a collaborative group of place-based researchers and community members are codeveloping sustainability and well-being indicators based on values, perceptions, and observations of community members resulting in indicators at various scales, e.g., habitat and species level .…”

“…Biocultural approaches to EM foster human well-being and ecosystem integrity at the subregional scale, both major components of modern EM and global sustainability goals (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Mascarenhas et al 2010, Gavin et al 2015, 2018, Hausmann et al 2016, Bennett et al 2017, Sterling et al 2017a. Emphasizing their relevance and potential for governance resurgence by Indigenous nations is the acknowledgment that biocultural approaches to EM have promoted social-ecological resilience for thousands of years (Berkes et al 2000, Trosper 2002, Haggan et al 2006, Atlas et al 2017, Artelle et al 2018. Despite this history, however, there is currently no overarching set of criteria to aid in the selection of biocultural indicators in today's complex resource management world, in which scientific approaches and tools are available and several governance arrangements often interact in managing the same landscapes, i.e., Indigenous, regional, state, federal, and international.…”