Biocultural Hysteresis Inhibits Adaptation to Environmental Change

As environmental conditions deteriorate, conservation policy frequently limits the engagement of IPLCs with their environments through resource use.Even if these restrictions are intended to be short-term measures, the period of reduced engagement by IPLCs with their environment can have irreversible consequences, such as loss of knowledge or the breakdown of power structures, which prevent culturally appropriate management from resuming or adapting to current conditions when restrictions are lifted.Indigenous knowledge and culturally appropriate management practices can bring significant environmental benefits, but these benefits are threatened when IPLCs are prevented from engaging with their environments, even temporarily. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) often use natural resources as both a reason and mechanism for environmental management, yet a number of environmental, social, and economic drivers disrupt this relationship. Here, we argue that these drivers can also trigger a set of feedback mechanisms that further diminish the efficacy of local management. We call this process biocultural hysteresis. These feedbacks, which include knowledge loss and a breakdown of social hierarchies, prevent IPLC from adapting their management to change. Biocultural hysteresis worsens as IPLC spend an increasing amount of time outside their social–ecological context. Therefore, we argue for adaptive policies and processes that favour protecting and enabling IPLC engagement with their environment. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) often use natural resources as both a reason and mechanism for environmental management, yet a number of environmental, social, and economic drivers disrupt this relationship. Here, we argue that these drivers can also trigger a set of feedback mechanisms that further diminish the efficacy of local management. We call this process biocultural hysteresis. These feedbacks, which include knowledge loss and a breakdown of social hierarchies, prevent IPLC from adapting their management to change. Biocultural hysteresis worsens as IPLC spend an increasing amount of time outside their social–ecological context. Therefore, we argue for adaptive policies and processes that favour protecting and enabling IPLC engagement with their environment. Global environmental transformations have degraded and homogenized both biological and human cultural diversity 1.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, 2005Google Scholar, 2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 3.Johnson C.N. et al.Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene.Science. 2017; 356: 270-275Crossref PubMed Scopus (428) Google Scholar; in particular that of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) – ‘which are, typically, ethnic groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently’ 4.Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.https://www.ipbes.net/glossary/indigenous-peoples-local-communitiesDate: 2019Google Scholar. Worse still, this cultural extinction process further threatens biodiversity, and limits the scope for its management. The traditional territories of IPLC are often characterized by high biological diversity 5.Garnett S.T. et al.A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 369Crossref Scopus (448) Google Scholar, 6.Sobrevila C. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural, but Often Forgotten Partners. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2008Google Scholar, and therefore indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems are heavily informed by interactions with nature. Such experiences are frequently associated with ecologically responsible behaviour 7.Johannes R.E. Did indigenous conservation ethics exist?.Trad. Mar. Res. Manage. Know. Info. Bull. 2002; 14: 3-6Google Scholar, 8.Berkes F. Sacred Ecology.3rd edn. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 9.Amel E. et al.Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation.Science. 2017; 356: 275-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (145) Google Scholar and lead to positive environmental discovery and social outcomes 10.Ens E.J. et al.Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: review and insight from Australia.Biol. Conserv. 2015; 181: 133-149Crossref Scopus (145) Google Scholar, 11.Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollinations and Food Production. IPBES, 2016Google Scholar, 12.Roué M. Molnár Z. Indigenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe and Central Asia. Outcomes from the Europe and Central Asia Dialogue Workshop. UNESCO, 2016Google Scholar. The benefits emerging from IPLC engaging with their environments, combined with threats to cultures and ecosystems, have underpinned calls for greater consideration of biocultural approaches in environmental management 2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 13.Maffi L. Woodley E. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 14.Rozzi R. et al.Ten principles for biocultural conservation at the southern tip of the Americas: the approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park.Ecol. Soc. 2006; 11: 43Crossref Scopus (90) Google Scholar. Biocultural approaches focus on sustaining both the cultural and biophysical components of IPLC social–ecological systems 13.Maffi L. Woodley E. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 15.Molnár Z. et al.Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system.J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015; 11: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar. Yet, there are situations in which the effectiveness of biocultural approaches have been questioned 16.Smith E.A. Wishnie M. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000; 29: 493-524Crossref Scopus (296) Google Scholar, and where IPLC interactions with biodiversity have led to negative environmental outcomes 17.Perry G.L. et al.A high-precision chronology for the rapid extinction of New Zealand moa (Aves, Dinornithiformes).Quat. Sci. Rev. 2014; 105: 126-135Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar. Therefore, understanding when and why biocultural approaches succeed or fail remains a critical goal for environmental management. A key consideration for understanding the success or failure of biocultural approaches to environmental management is the dynamic nature of ILK and culture 2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar. IPLC rely heavily on use of their environments to gauge, interpret, and respond to internal and external feedbacks 19.Sandemose P. Local People and Protected Areas: The Ban of NTFP Collection for Commercial Use and Effects on Cash Incomes and Livelihoods of the Soligas in B.R. Hills, India. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 2009Google Scholar, transmit knowledge, and adapt it to new and changing social, technological, environmental, and political contexts 20.Berkes F. et al.Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management.Ecol. Appl. 2000; 10: 1251-1262Crossref Scopus (2374) Google Scholar, 21.Holling C.S. Gunderson L.H. Resilience and adaptive cycles.in: Gunderson L.H. Holling C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, 2002: 25-62Google Scholar. Because diverse worldviews and knowledge sets contribute to adaptive resilience 22.Davidson-Hunt I.J. et al.Biocultural design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities.Sapiens. 2012; 5: 33-45Google Scholar, the effectiveness of biocultural approaches is degraded by any forces that undermine these knowledge generation and adaptation processes 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, 23.Brodt S.B. A systems perspective on the conservation and erosion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in central India.Hum. Ecol. 2001; 29: 99-120Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar. Moreover, decoupling from the environment can become self-reinforcing (a feedback mechanism), because environmental degradation and/or resource scarcity typically precipitate other threats to ILK 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, such as conservation policies in that from the and focus on the of nature for its for Island Press, Scholar, Indigenous conservation 2017; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et in a of 2018; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. with IPLC for resource use be both the and a mechanism for the environment et science and traditional ecological for Soc. Google Scholar]. we a set of environmental, social, and economic drivers and feedback mechanisms that the and of culture and knowledge to management of the environment by We the to the of these drivers and we focus on reduced engagement of IPLC with their environment Z. et on a in local ecological 2014; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar] as a for feedback processes that further ecological environmental can critical ecological feedbacks internal to the can the is a conceptual framework for Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar, et 2006; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. is which in to the of the of a on its current and the to systems can also have and hysteresis in these systems to a a is M. et al.Defining for systems – an Res. 2018; Scopus (90) Google Scholar]. and of are of social–ecological systems M. et al.Defining for systems – an Res. 2018; Scopus (90) Google Scholar, et of human and natural PubMed Scopus Google Scholar], and are typically by feedbacks that and/or prevent to a a is in ecological and social–ecological systems a Soc. 2014; 3Crossref Google Scholar, M. et for critical PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. this we argue that a number of social and environmental drivers the engagement of IPLC with their and feedbacks that biocultural hysteresis. is to that these drivers trigger a set of mechanisms that the social–ecological a new which typically in a reduced or of and to negative environmental we that the of this with the of time for which engagement with the environment is reduced or we argue that adaptive engagement be to the feedbacks that biocultural to cultural and to ILK to adapt to social and environmental and knowledge systems can a of which are often to the and nature of the that have with the environment et a framework for of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management.Ecol. Soc. Scopus Google Scholar, P. et al.A of a environmental Soc. 2017; Scopus Google Scholar]. A is that cultural and knowledge systems are and through use and engagement the local environment Z. et al.Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system.J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015; 11: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar, et a framework for of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management.Ecol. Soc. Scopus Google Scholar, M. Resilience and Resilience Scholar]. the of and practices in for a number of social and environmental drivers can 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar and the of engagement with the environment Z. et on a in local ecological 2014; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, M. on management in the Scopus Google Scholar]. conservation can prevent or the use or of culturally and a key through which IPLC with their environment of Knowledge and Zealand is a to New Zealand and a culturally significant for and as a for and and for P. et al.A of a environmental Soc. 2017; Scopus Google Scholar]. in and policies of New indigenous – an 2014; Scholar] of this which to the loss and of traditional knowledge, and with the of with the resilience and of traditional knowledge and of the cultural and the if the the of the current conservation be the loss of the cultural with the and its management. The Zealand is a to New Zealand and a culturally significant for and as a for and and for P. et al.A of a environmental Soc. 2017; Scopus Google Scholar]. in and policies of New indigenous – an 2014; Scholar] of this which to the loss and of traditional knowledge, and with the of with the resilience and of traditional knowledge and of the cultural and the if the the of the current conservation be the loss of the cultural with the and its management. both the drivers and the in engagement with the environment can trigger a set of mechanisms that a feedback the of ILK and environmental engagement if the original is through or the feedback mechanisms prevent knowledge and from to their and further engagement with the environment the appropriate cultural for traditional practices associated with the practices even be as to in the management of biodiversity on the to of the there is of of and in for Scholar, M. and and management in the Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar]. in the IPLC have their and approaches by more with the of the power local for local and indigenous is key to environmental 2016; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar], and sustainable use and management of Scopus Google in these it that management have been or the of cultural and of the for local and that biocultural management engagement of IPLC with their environments, but a new of cultural can lead to such as or at an time to M. on management in the Scopus Google the – the and of that have from to the M. et of in an Google Scholar]. this and the cultural of to and in the region, the of the of and development the et in a of 2018; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. management focus and been on subsistence use of the if these restrictions are intended to be communities and cultural and to which to can a significant for and for knowledge and and the of traditional knowledge and management systems for These outcomes further the engagement of communities with the environment a and peoples have the and knowledge is of the social–ecological biocultural hysteresis the – the and of that have from to the M. et of in an Google Scholar]. this and the cultural of to and in the region, the of the of and development the et in a of 2018; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. management focus and been on subsistence use of the if these restrictions are intended to be communities and cultural and to which to can a significant for and for knowledge and and the of traditional knowledge and management systems for These outcomes further the engagement of communities with the environment a and peoples have the and knowledge is of the social–ecological biocultural hysteresis A of this biocultural hysteresis is that even that the engagement of IPLC with their environments can of reduced cultural and reduced success of the biocultural management it As with hysteresis in any is to these feedbacks and the a culturally appropriate processes and mechanisms and to the to a New and mechanisms of hysteresis to the of biocultural systems can mechanisms such as the loss of knowledge by adaptive for the of indigenous knowledge and from New Zealand the of a to the of a sustainable of from Island by the of for biocultural for of and New of Conservation and to the of the of that have from for use of from to traditional and use of from for the of traditional to New conservation are to further or drivers and mechanisms of cultural hysteresis. and mechanisms of hysteresis to the of biocultural systems can mechanisms such as the loss of knowledge by adaptive for the of indigenous knowledge and from New Zealand the of a to the of a sustainable of from Island by the of for biocultural for of and New of Conservation and to the of the of that have from for use of from to traditional and use of from for the of traditional to New conservation are to further or drivers and mechanisms of cultural hysteresis. A number of drivers IPLC from their biocultural contexts and and in these are the drivers that ILK and and Gavin the drivers of traditional knowledge and threats that contribute to a set of threats 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar. policies and have the local and of IPLC for local and indigenous is key to environmental 2016; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, Indigenous and local communities and the 2002; Scholar, International Biodiversity with in the University of New Press, Scholar]; prevented by IPLC to their traditional territories and with and or the and of and C. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural, but Often Forgotten Partners. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2008Google Scholar, of Indigenous Report on the of the Human of the of Indigenous 2016Google Scholar]. These threats traditional for local and indigenous is key to environmental 2016; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar], biocultural and can have for the natural the can that who their as indigenous or local their to to traditional practices of in and have been to local who on their such that greater time from and outside of traditional the cultural loss – for Knowledge on and the Scholar]. to these and S.B. A systems perspective on the conservation and erosion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in central India.Hum. Ecol. 2001; 29: 99-120Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar]; an increasing of IPLC from rural F. of the of use can rural to in Scopus Google Scholar]; a in or and The Indigenous of of the Scholar, L. Indigenous to Google Scholar], to social–ecological to knowledge to is a critical of cultural as it with their environments, and cultural also the of local to informed their The of peoples from their traditional lands and environment by the threats this M. and Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar] with a in ILK 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, a of feedbacks that cultural and ecological systems a critical or feedbacks the social–ecological toward a degraded or et of in Sci. 2016; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, E. and of a in Soc. 2014; Scopus Google Scholar, et in a Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar, a new for ecological Scholar]. new can ecosystem the of IPLC to adapt to conditions and the environmental benefits of engagement by even if is Here, we of these feedbacks, where to the classification of 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google to environment and natural resources to cultural of biodiversity through and degradation of with and resource and and and and ILK [18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, and for IPLC to with their local environmental degradation the knowledge and engagement for management of the environment by IPLC for ecological conservation and Soc. Scopus Google Scholar, et for the conservation and of R. Soc. Google Scholar], and a feedback to further of knowledge which knowledge in of to the environment or to in practices by IPLC can have the of knowledge in Indigenous and local knowledge is a dynamic and social–ecological framework and through and 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar. of from and processes for the environment in knowledge to and the to or adapt to in the social, or biophysical environment. Such a to L.H. Holling C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Scholar], a feedback that of a social–ecological et the adaptive an approach to the resilience of social Soc. 2015; Scopus Google Scholar] and hysteresis. also that cultural and the of are of if are at ecological of knowledge which can be for IPLC who often have a and time of can in the loss of knowledge M. consequences, and Ecol. Evol. 2018; Scopus Google Scholar, Indigenous knowledge as a for Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar]. These can prevent knowledge from and through social processes 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar. the of environmental degradation a to be when the degraded as and to other policies that traditional and the of are a significant to the of biocultural approaches by IPLC 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, C. New new New Zealand and University of Press, 2016Google Scholar. The of new can in the breakdown of social or which lead to negative outcomes for the or the of to ecologically responsible behaviour M. and and management in the Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar]. approaches that knowledge and IPLC and can in the development of but management practices Z. et and and practices of and conservation the for a conservation 2016; or natural in biodiversity, the of traditional and the of traditional by or the of a in and in often in favour of and traditional systems of indigenous Rev. PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et and of in Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et of to in Google Scholar]. These can be further when resource scarcity to or human and increasing and or resource degradation can to the for resource management. can further the from culturally significant by IPLC if to use a – in a and in the of 2014; Scopus Google Scholar] and to traditional and practices threats to knowledge 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google to a with a we have that biocultural hysteresis can the of cultural and knowledge systems which engagement with the environment is is to that to social–ecological systems can be an of and the adaptive by C.S. The resilience of local and global R.E. of the the and the Global University Press, Scholar for ecosystems, for social systems by et the adaptive an approach to the resilience of social Soc. 2015; Scopus Google Scholar], a for as of this the time a culture outside of its social–ecological the of the ILK the of the for culture or knowledge and the mechanisms that hysteresis and or when the social–ecological a The of IPLC to and with the environment and biodiversity on their by the and of is a significant the and from biocultural hysteresis. A key of the of a to adapt is the to from experiences and behaviour et the adaptive an approach to the resilience of social Soc. 2015; Scopus Google Scholar] therefore heavily on the of a culture to and from its with the environment through its and processes for the and of ILK 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar for an also et ecosystem the adaptive of local environmental 2015; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, E. et ecological knowledge and global environmental and policy Soc. PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, E. in traditional ecological Ecol. Scopus Google Scholar, et of indigenous ecological Soc. 2014; Scopus Google Scholar, et and of traditional the Sci. 2014; Scholar, Z. et the of of Knowledge in a 2014; Scopus Google are for this adaptation cultures is as culture and its knowledge and a new social, and if a or is from drivers L. A that indigenous knowledge systems and rural development in Soc. Sci. 2016; Scholar]. The for adaptive engagement be to the knowledge a where it an of and with the environment. to the social–ecological benefits that from this knowledge, and the power and to that knowledge et indigenous and knowledge on in the for environmental management and Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. from biocultural hysteresis a to knowledge, and but it to a of the social–ecological where ILK and are and to the current human and biophysical context. the loss of ILK more for its conservation 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, such a for of peoples with their IPLC the of loss of engagement for cultural it is to to in or of in an to or environmental These are also knowledge, and and the of local and social et importance of indigenous knowledge in the loss of and 2016; Scopus Google Scholar]. the success of local management in and the hysteresis mechanisms to power The of knowledge can new and to with biodiversity and ecosystem and processes M. et diverse knowledge systems for ecosystem the base 2014; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. the ecological and knowledge and et of indigenous and approaches for Appl. 2018; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. Such to other that IPLC have for and their environment. these approaches to be with mechanisms for the of knowledge M. consequences, and Ecol. Evol. 2018; Scopus Google Scholar, et of indigenous knowledge for in a from Conserv. Scopus Google Scholar, et to conservation in through Soc. Scopus Google Scholar]. this these approaches to become as culture as biodiversity Indigenous peoples and of Press, Google Scholar], and to that culture be on for and the environment. and policy that by IPLC to the and of biodiversity or are of time policy is also to IPLC to and adapt their knowledge systems through and to as these cultural and to new and drivers of environmental of and are that IPLC can their knowledge their cultural and social–ecological of local is therefore critical to the and of situations where or are and use is an that biocultural approaches of with biodiversity and knowledge and Biocultural that to and with a or and on an in the hysteresis is biocultural are the social and environmental drivers that the engagement of IPLC with their and biocultural social and environmental drivers trigger a set of mechanisms that social–ecological a new which typically in a reduced or of and to negative environmental time that IPLC are with their environment the of biocultural can adaptive engagement the feedbacks that biocultural to cultural and to ILK to adapt to social and environmental The by the of and and for from the of and and We for and the for their