User:Csh0911/Local Ecological Knowledge

Local Ecological Knowledge

Introduction

Local ecological knowledge is the process of linking social and ecological systems using traditional knowledge of indigenous or rural communities combined with scientific information. The subjects’ information often involves personal observation and the experiences, knowledge, practices, beliefs and values of the community surrounding a local ecosystem. Olsson & Folke (2001) defined local ecological knowledge in rural conditions as “knowledge held by a specific group of people about their local ecosystem” and “a mix of scientific and practical knowledge, being site specific and often involving a belief component.” Local ecological knowledge has been used in various fields such as, wildlife management (Gilchrist et al. 2005), forestry management (Higgins 1998) fisheries (Johannes, 1998; Neis et al., 1999) and social science (Berkes and Folk 1998; Olsen and Folk 2001). It used to complement scientific ecological data with human dimensions in order to make effective management decisions about resource allocation. This tool has been used by social scientists to involve stakeholders in the decision making process and increase communication among interested parties. It can also be used as a baseline to determine the goals and objectives of research interests. For example, LEK is used in fisheries when scientists are trying to understand the movement and habitat use of a particular species. To properly manage the species, scientists begin interviewing the local fishermen for information about their observations on diel periodicity and migration patterns of the species. The combination of local ecological knowledge along with scientific data is used to make more informed management decisions about a fishery. Local ecological knowledge can be subjective and debated for its relevance in scientific research. While the debate continues, modern science has been able to blend scientific knowledge with information based on a community observations and experiences in the natural environment (Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005). However, the “grass roots” effort of collecting local ecological knowledge was actually established in order to “complement the more general knowledge developed by professional science, with site specific, contextualized knowledge generated by local users through local observations and experience” (Berkes et al. 2003). It may also serve the purpose of challenging traditional scientific methods and broaden the scope of the research.

Methodology and Data Collection

Several studies have been conducted on the use of local ecological knowledge in science and the role that it plays in various fields of study (Davis and Wagner 2003; Bone et al. 2011). The methodologies for which local ecological knowledge “experts” are chosen have been heavily scrutinized by scientists. While most studies provide their overall methodology, often the method of selecting interview subjects is not reported in the journal article. Identifying interview subjects usually comes down to three main options: 1) Through participants of local associations 2) By using a reference system provided by one or more peers 3) By completing a survey or pilot study to find the resource users (Davis and Wagner 2003). Interviewing local associations has proven to be the least effective form of collecting local ecological knowledge because “they have often lost touch with the community” (D. Griffith, personal communication, 2011). Utilizing a reference system often works well because usually the community knows the experts in a specific area of interest. In this scenario, once and individuals name continually surfaces in an informal conversation about the issue, then they are added to the list of experts. Finally, the pilot study or survey will develop a cultural consensus analysis in which interviews will develop consistent statements that ultimately agree with others (i.e., cultural competence). Interviews are completed among these designated experts until a “saturation point” has been achieved in the findings. The saturation point means that researchers have completed enough interviews to establish that the informant’s observations have begun to overlap to produce a consistent point of view from the population. Social Science and Local Ecological Knowledge Social science provides the foundation for making generalized findings which can lead to a broader understanding of how and what people will do, think and act in different situations. Theories such as the ecological modernization theory, the relationship between non-scientists (policy makers, stakeholders, managers) and scientists provides the foundation for future possibilities of the general public being involved in the decision-making process (Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005). Local ecological knowledge provides a voice to the general population about matters that directly influence their use of natural resources. Davis and Wagner (2003) back this statement because local ecological knowledge develops a “ways and means to provide the peoples most directly dependent on natural resources with the capacity to assume more direct control over local resource management.” Whether resource managers are educating the public or purely getting stakeholder input in future management decisions, social science can assist resource managers in determining public perception. Social norms, behaviors, and attitudes must be evaluated in order to move forward with any policy, rules, or regulations that would actually be effective in producing goals and objectives of research. Social norms are a way in which members of a group share a standard or personal norms, when an individual’s own expectations are learned from others expectations. Norms can help managers determine why people act in certain ways and allow us to manage a resource based on those behaviors. They can also determine the most effective way to communicate to the public and make management decisions that include the human dimension. Norms provide the foundation for understanding how humans interact with the environment. Berkes & Folke (1998) state that “institutions have to deal with the two fundamental management problems… how to control access to the resource (the exclusion problem), and how to institute rules among users to solve the potential divergence between individual and collective rationality.” As a result, it is the role of social science to collect local ecological knowledge to effectively determine public perception. Local ecological knowledge provides managers with a framework of analysis for current and future perceptions in providing the optimal level of research and legitimacy in resource allocation.

Local Ecological Knowledge in Fisheries Management

Local ecological knowledge is a method used to bring all stakeholders to the table (i.e., scientists, managers, recreational and commercial fishermen) to make decisions about future regulations being imposed on a fishery. These situations call for boundary organizations which provide the forum for scientists and non-scientists to sit at the same table, but represent their sector without losing their own identity. Local ecological knowledge is fundamental in providing the foundation for a boundary organization (i.e., fishery management councils) and a representation in research that is critical for making fisheries management decisions. The conflict that exists in fisheries management usually results because of a lack of representation by interested parties. For example, scientists go out in the field and collect data that is independent of the fishermen. As a result, the fishermen believe that the data has legitimacy issues without considering their intimate knowledge of stock aggregations and migration patterns. The solution to the problem of data being considered “incomplete” should result in the inclusion of local ecological knowledge in fishery management decisions. Local ecological knowledge incorporates the expertise of fishermen making the policy more legitimate with all parties of vested interest. Davis and Wagner (2003) support this by stating LEK “is considered critical to providing fishers and their representatives with research results that offer the greatest likelihood of impacting upon fisheries management and regulations, i.e., of being meaningful and beneficial”. While social norms and ecological modernization theory support planning practices today, decision making through local ecological knowledge will be the resource management strategy of the future.

References

Berkes, F. and C. Folke (Eds.). 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (Eds.). 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bone C., L. Alessa, M. Altaweel, A. Kliskey, and R. Lammers. 2011. Assessing the Impacts of Local Knowledge and Technology on Climate Change Vulnerability in Remote Communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8(3): 733-761.

Davis, A. and J. R. Wagner. 2003. Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology 31(3): 463-490.Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory and F. Merkel. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10(1): 20.

Higgins, C. 1998. The role of traditional ecological knowledge in managing for biodiversity. Forestry Chronicle 74(3): 323–326.

Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case of data-less marine resource management: Examples from tropical nearshore. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243–246.

Olsson, P. and Folke, C. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4: 85-104.

Neis, B., Schneider, D.C., Felt, L.F., Haedrick, R.L., Fischer, J., and Hutchings, J.A. 1999. Fisheries assessment: What can be learned from interviewing resource users? Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56: 1949–1963.

Yli-Pelkonen,V. and J. Kohl. 2005. The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 1(1): 3-14.