Measuring progress toward sustainability goals is a multifaceted task. International, regional, and national organizations and agencies seek to promote resilience and capacity for adaptation at local levels. However, their measurement systems may be poorly aligned with local contexts, cultures, and needs. Understanding how to build eff ective, culturally grounded measurement systems is a fundamental step toward supporting adaptive management and resilience in the face of environmental, social, and economic change. To identify patterns and inform future eff orts, we review seven case studies and one framework regarding the development of culturally grounded indicator sets. Additionally, we explore ways to bridge locally relevant indicators and those of use at national and international levels. Th e process of identifying and setting criteria for appropriate indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems needs further documentation, discussion, and refi nement, particularly regarding capturing feedbacks between biological and social-cultural elements of systems.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
Environment and Society
Free related PDFsRelated papers
Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs
Sustainability Science
Achieving sustainable development globally requires multilevel and interdisciplinary efforts and perspectives. Global goals shape priorities and actions at multiple scales, creating cascading impacts realized at the local level through the direction of financial resources and implementation of programs intended to achieve progress towards these metrics. We explore ways to localize global goals to best support human well-being and environmental health by systematically comparing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with regionally-derived well-being dimensions that encompass components of social–ecological resilience across the Pacific Islands. Our research shows that, in the context of the Pacific, there are overlaps but also significant gaps between regional conceptions of well-being and the globally-derived SDGs. Some dimensions, related to human health and access to infrastructure and finances, are well represented in the SDGs. Other dimensions of high importance when loca...
Free PDF
Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales
Complex global environmental challenges call for innovative, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to research-based policy and action 1,2. Monitoring and evaluation are central to ensuring these approaches are effective 3–5. Developing accurate indicators and relevant success criteria to assess the local outcomes of sustainability management actions, and linking them to broader national and international policy targets, remains a key challenge for resource managers, policymakers, and scientists 2. What indicators we decide to measure and how we measure them impact the people and activities that are included in or affected by a given initiative. Efforts to evaluate well-being or resource use that are developed solely on regional or global scales may leave out Monitoring and evaluation are central to ensuring that innovative, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability are effective. The development of relevant indicators for local sustainable management outcomes, and the ability to link these to broader national and international policy targets, are key challenges for resource managers, policymakers, and scientists. Sets of indicators that capture both ecological and social-cultural factors, and the feedbacks between them, can underpin cross-scale linkages that help bridge local and global scale initiatives to increase resilience of both humans and ecosystems. Here we argue that biocultural approaches, in combination with methods for synthesizing across evidence from multiple sources, are critical to developing metrics that facilitate linkages across scales and dimensions. Biocultural approaches explicitly start with and build on local cultural perspectives — encompassing values, knowledges, and needs — and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and human well-being. Adoption of these approaches can encourage exchange between local and global actors, and facilitate identification of crucial problems and solutions that are missing from many regional and international framings of sustainability. Resource managers, scientists, and policymakers need to be thoughtful about not only what kinds of indicators are measured, but also how indicators are designed, implemented, measured, and ultimately combined to evaluate resource use and well-being. We conclude by providing suggestions for translating between local and global indicator efforts.
Free PDF
Caillon_et_al_2017_-_Moving_beyond_the_n.pdf
Diverse and productive ecosystems and human well-being are too often considered opposing targets. This stems mainly from nature being perceived as separate from culture, which results in resilience indicators that focus predominantly on either ecosystems or humans, and that overlook the interplay between the two. Meanwhile, global targets for biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing have yet to be satisfactorily achieved. We believe that in order to develop effective, culturally appropriate, and equitable conservation strategies that ensure social-ecological resilience, conservation planners and practitioners must conceive of human and ecological wellbeings as an interrelated system. By giving nature a voice, and by viewing nature and people as an undifferentiated whole, some indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) have philosophical bases for achieving well-being for both humans and nature. Biocultural approaches to conservation ground management in local knowledges, practices, and ontologies. These approaches encompass both the biological and cultural aspects of a system, address complex relationships and feedbacks within human and ecological well-being, and offer flexible frameworks that facilitate synthesis across different metrics, knowledge systems, and ontologies. The process of developing indicators of resilience with a biocultural approach could help (1) overcome the human–nature dichotomy that often makes global approaches incompatible with local approaches by integrating local peoples’ diverse forms of relating to nature, (2) reflect two-way feedbacks between people and their environment by focusing on processes, not just final states, and (3) define, measure, and monitor ecological and human well-being as a whole. It can also facilitate dialog between IPLCs and global decisionmakers who are disconnected from local realities, and between people from a diversity of disciplinary, ontological, and professional background
Free PDF
Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring
Ecology and Society, 2019
Free PDF
Small islands, valuable insights: systems of customary resource use and resilience to climate change in the Pacific.
Understanding how social-ecological systems are and can be resilient to climate change is one of the world's most crucial problems today. It requires knowledge at local and global scales, the integration of natural and social sciences, and a focus on biocultural diversity. Small Pacific Islands and the knowledge-practice-belief systems of their peoples have a long history of resilience to environmental variability and unpredictability, including in areas with marginal habitats and with periodic, severe disturbance (e.g., drought, flood, storms, and tsunami). We review the state of research on these knowledge systems as it pertains to resilience and adaptation, and we highlight critical research needs to address the interrelated areas of: (1) local-scale expertise and observations of change with regard to weather, life-history cycles, and ecological processes; (2) customary resource management institutions and practices (i.e., with agroforests and the nearshore marine environment); and (3) the roles of leaders, social institutions, and social networks in the context of disturbance and change. We conclude that these knowledge systems can contribute high-resolution observations, benchmark data, and insights into practices that enhance resilience and adaptive capacity in integrated terrestrial and marine systems. Community-based and participatory approaches can complement and ground-truth climate models and direct culturally appropriate resource management, research, and adaptation measures. Although most islands in the Pacific are small, their knowledge systems include valuable insights on seasonal cycles, ecological processes, and the management of biocultural diversity that are relevant at a broad scale for understanding resilience and adaptability to the social-ecological effects of climate change.
Free PDF
Community Conserved Areas: A review of status & needs in Melanesia and Polynesia
ICCA regional review …, 2009
Free PDF
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in
Social-Ecological Systems
Eleanor Sterling, Tamara Ticktin, Tē Kipa Kepa Morgan, Georgina Cullman,
Diana Alvira, Pelika Andrade, Nadia Bergamini, Erin Betley, Kate Burrows,
Sophie Caillon, et al.
To cite this version:
Eleanor Sterling, Tamara Ticktin, Tē Kipa Kepa Morgan, Georgina Cullman, Diana Alvira, et al..
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Journal for the History of
Environment and Society, Brepols, 2017, 8 (1), pp.63 - 95. 10.3167/ares.2017.080104. hal-02107230
HAL Id: hal-02107230
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02107230
Submitted on 23 Apr 2019
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience
in Social-Ecological Systems
Eleanor Sterling, Tamara Ticktin, Tē Kipa Kepa Morgan, Georgina Cullman,
Diana Alvira, Pelika Andrade, Nadia Bergamini, Erin Betley, Kate Burrows,
Sophie Caillon, Joachim Claudet, Rachel Dacks, Pablo Eyzaguirre, Chris Filardi,
Nadav Gazit, Christian Giardina, Stacy Jupiter, Kealohanuiopuna Kinney,
Joe McCarter, Manuel Mejia, Kanoe Morishige, Jennifer Newell, Lihla Noori,
John Parks, Pua’ala Pascua, Ashwin Ravikumar, Jamie Tanguay,
Amanda Sigouin, Tina Stege, Mark Stege, and Alaka Wali1
n
ABSTRACT: Measuring progress toward sustainability goals is a multifaceted task. International, regional, and national organizations and agencies seek to promote resilience
and capacity for adaptation at local levels. However, their measurement systems may
be poorly aligned with local contexts, cultures, and needs. Understanding how to build
effective, culturally grounded measurement systems is a fundamental step toward supporting adaptive management and resilience in the face of environmental, social, and
economic change. To identify patterns and inform future efforts, we review seven case
studies and one framework regarding the development of culturally grounded indicator sets. Additionally, we explore ways to bridge locally relevant indicators and those of
use at national and international levels. The process of identifying and setting criteria
for appropriate indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems needs further documentation, discussion, and refinement, particularly regarding capturing feedbacks
between biological and social-cultural elements of systems.
n
KEYWORDS: biocultural indicators, indicator sets, Indigenous Peoples, local
communities, resilience, sustainability, well-being
Indigenous and other place-based, local communities increasingly face an assortment of externally codified development and sustainability goals, regional commitments, and national policies and actions that are designed, in part, to foster adaptation and resilience at the local level.
Resilience refers to the capacity of a system to absorb shocks and disturbances and to catalyze
renewal, adaptation, transformation, and innovation (Béné et al. 2013). Identifying and setting
criteria for the underlying factors that confer resilience to a community are the first steps toward
effectively aligning external sustainability-seeking processes, often associated with resourcing
mechanisms, with locally relevant and locally embraced approaches to sustaining environmental health and community well-being in the face of environmental, social, and economic change
(Fazey et al. 2011; Folke et al. 2003).
Environment and Society: Advances in Research 8 (2017): 63–95 © Berghahn Books
doi:10.3167/ares.2017.080104
64
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
Here we present case studies on locally grounded indicators of resilience that include both
social-cultural (institutions, networks, knowledge systems) and ecological (biodiversity, habitat,
ecosystem services) components and their combined ability to respond to disturbances (Gunderson and Holling 2002). “Measuring” social-ecological resilience is particularly challenging,
because neither organizational processes nor ecological processes can be understood in isolation (Olsson et al. 2004). For example, conventional indicators of ecosystem health (species
richness, soil fertility, etc.) are not designed to capture dimensions of individual and community well-being, only rarely provide historical depth, and are not designed to engage traditional
knowledge that can provide practical insights into local ecology or the social-cultural interactions that often govern ecosystem functioning and resilience (van Oudenhoven et al. 2011).
Indicator sets typically seek to provide credible qualitative or quantitative data-driven insights
that allow for better understanding of a system while distilling complexity. Trend and state indicators are widely used by a range of entities—from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and
local governments to international governing bodies—to track change within and across complex systems, identify stabilizing processes and drivers of positive or negative change, inform
management and planning, and communicate patterns to constituents, managers, and policy
makers. Further, indicator sets can measure the status of resources units, resources systems, or
governance systems and actors in a social-ecological systems framework (SES) (Ostrom 2009)
or measure relational elements within a framework (e.g., a driving forces, pressures, states,
impacts, responses framework, or DPSIR) (Sparks et al. 2011).
Indicator sets are grounded in a vision or plan that forms the basis for responses to important questions such as indicators for whom, about what, and toward which goals. Externally
developed goals, targets, and indicators, such as those associated with the United Nations (UN)
Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals, are intended for use
at high levels and, by necessity, are general. Goals, targets, and indicators influence a range
of scales, including local contexts. For example, the near-universal use of economic indicators
based on gross domestic product (GDP) often drives policies that promote material progress
over the less tangible “well-being.” As a result, such initiatives may prescribe actions to increase
GDP with limited benefit for, or negative impact on, local communities (Cochran et al. 2008).
Elsewhere we have argued that in situ, culturally grounded approaches to developing indicators of human well-being and coupled ecological resilience—what we term biocultural
approaches—can lead to effective local action as well as communication about local needs to
national and international actors (Sterling et al. forthcoming). Ideally, when local communities are involved in indicator development, they create or co-create indicators that capture the
social, cultural, and environmental context for managing coupled human and natural systems
(Ens 2012; Preuss and Dixon 2012). Locally developed indicators and criteria greatly facilitate
local understanding of their development and use, and therefore may also increase community
ownership, adoption, and acceptance. Locally tailored metrics also present challenges, including the potential time commitment, costs, and feasibility involved in the process of developing
and monitoring such metrics.
In this article, we assess seven case studies and one model framework for in situ, culturally
grounded indicator development to derive broadly relevant insights and lessons learned for
future indicator development. Each contribution was written by authors who were part of an
indicator or framework development process; additionally, some authors assessed indicators
through community focus groups, ran programs to support and expand the use of the indicators, and/or used the indicators in their research and management. Case study and framework
authors addressed guiding elements shown in Table 1 and were encouraged to share any unique
attributes of their case studies.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
65
Table 1: Guiding Elements for Case Study and Framework Authors
Authorship
Who developed indicator set?
Author(s)’ relationship to the case study
Goals
What catalyzed development of indicator set? For whom was it developed?
Indicator set’s primary objective (e.g., measuring well-being)
Development process
Where was indicator set developed?
How were indicators developed?
Indicator set characteristics
Total number of indicators (if applicable)
What indicator domains are assessed (e.g., environmental, social/cultural,
political/governance)
Level of indicator focus (e.g., household, community, national)
How is data collected and by whom?
Standardization
Methods of standardization (if any)
Is indicator set regionally specific or more broadly applicable?
Applicability
Where has indicator set been applied?
How is indicator set relevant to local decision makers?
How has indicator set been used in decision making?
The authors of these contributions are among the leaders in implementing practical approaches
to resource management using techniques that span social and ecological characteristics of a
system; many have not yet published extensively on these practical experiences. All of these
contributions describe initiatives that are “biocultural,” meaning they take an approach strongly
grounded in local culture and values for understanding and managing social-ecological systems.
The majority of the initiatives presented here have been developed within social-ecological systems in Pacific Island environments. However, the lessons learned can be applied more broadly.
Case Study Contributions
Indicators of Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes
Nadia Bergamini and Pablo Eyzaguirre
This indicator set is intended for use at the community level, was designed for use in diverse
settings, and has been used across the world. Its outcomes are geared toward social-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. The term “social-ecological production landscapes
and seascapes,” or SEPLS, was coined under the Satoyama Initiative to refer to mosaic production landscapes, which have been shaped through long-term harmonious interactions between
humans and nature in a manner that fosters human well-being while maintaining biodiversity
and ecosystem services (Gu and Subramanian 2012). Monitoring of natural resource management practices and how these adjust to changing conditions can contribute to evaluation of the
resilience of SEPLS.
Through an iterative process of indicator development—which included on-the-ground testing to capture each community’s priority elements of resilience and consultation with community members, local NGOs, and research institutes to ensure that local views and values
66
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
were properly captured—a suite of researchers from international organizations designed 20
indicators to measure a community’s capacity to build resilience and harness ecosystem services
through innovation, adaptation, and the sustainable use of biodiversity (Mijatović et al. 2013;
UNU-IAS et al. 2014; van Oudenhoven et al. 2011). The indicators cover the cultural, social,
economic, ecological, and agricultural dimensions that influence, in positive or negative ways,
biodiversity maintenance and therefore resilience in SEPLS. They can be customized to reflect
the circumstances of each particular landscape and its associated communities. They encompass both qualitative and quantifiable indicators based on observations, tallies, perceptions,
desires, visions, and experiences of local communities. The indicators do not provide precise
measurements of resilience but rather serve as a framework for communities to discuss and
analyze SEPLS resilience, and build community sense of ownership over landscape planning by
incorporating biocultural views.
The spatial scale of SEPLS encompassed by the indicators depends on how local communities identify the area they depend on for their survival and livelihoods. It generally includes
the mosaic of land uses from which communities derive the goods and services on which they
depend directly or indirectly and where they have a direct impact on the resource base and
regular interaction with biodiversity. The indicators are grouped into five areas (Table 2): SEPLS
resilience and landscape/seascape diversity (Colding et al. 2003), biodiversity (Thaman et al.
2002), knowledge and innovation (Folke et al. 2003), governance and equity (Lebel et al. 2006),
and livelihoods and well-being (Adger 2000).
These indicators may be adapted to and applied in different areas and can be used alongside other types of indicators. The ways in which social-ecological indicators are employed
by communities, policy makers, and external scientists may differ. Indigenous communities
may use them to monitor the impacts of conservation projects on traditional livelihoods and
lifeways, or, once a “baseline” has been established, to monitor at regular intervals socialecological dynamics and define priorities for community and conservation action. Lessons
and knowledge generated by these activities can then be used by communities to communicate
local visions and strategies for resilient SEPLS as input for higher-level policies and programs
that affect community livelihoods, as well as further conservation and resource-management
planning. Policy makers in turn can use the results to promote participatory SEPLS landscape
management among different stakeholders and identify an integrated approach in project
planning and implementation. The indicators and biocultural approach can deepen Western
scientific understanding of human-environment interactions and how these may be supported
in a conservation context.
These indicators have been piloted across varied ecosystems in more than 25 different SEPLS
in several countries. While refining the indicators, it was sometimes difficult to predict the overall sustainability of a given agroecosystem and measure the direct effects of management practices on ecosystem services. In this regard, Western knowledge can be applied in synergy with
traditional knowledge systems. The goal is to learn from and strengthen the innovation present
in traditional approaches to managing productive landscapes, not to support the marginalization or fossilizing of traditional lifestyles. The designers of the indicator set developed a dedicated tool kit for facilitators to conduct resilience assessments, which consists of a preparation
stage, an assessment workshop, and a follow-up stage. During the preparation stage, facilitators obtain information about the SEPLS and plan the community based-resilience assessment
workshop. During the assessment workshop, 10 to 15 community members of mixed age and
gender come together to score the 20 indicators and provide their perception on trends (i.e.,
improving, no change, worsening) over a time span of 5 to 20 years. Scoring is first done individually and then as a group. The group discussion is important to both identifying different
views within the community, and in reaching a common understanding of the SEPLS state,
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
67
Table 2: Indicators of Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)
Indicators
Questions for scoring
Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem protection
(1) Landscape/seascape diversity
Is the landscape/seascape composed of diverse natural ecosystems
(terrestrial and aquatic) and land uses?
(2) Ecosystem protection
Are there areas in the landscape or seascape where ecosystems are
protected under formal or informal forms of protection?
(3) Ecological interactions between Are ecological interactions between different components of the
different components of the
landscape or seascape considered while managing natural resources?
landscape/seascape
(4) Recovery and regeneration of the Does the landscape or seascape have the ability to recover and regenerate
landscape/seascape
after extreme environmental shocks?
Biodiversity
(5) Diversity of local food system
Does the community consume a diversity of locally produced food?
(6) Maintenance and use of local
Are different local crops, varieties, and animal breeds conserved and
crop varieties and animal breeds
used in the community?
(7) Sustainable management of
common resources
Knowledge and innovation
(8) Innovation in agriculture and
conservation practices
Are common resources managed sustainably?
Does the community develop, improve, and adopt new agricultural,
fisheries, forestry, and conservation practices and/or revitalize traditional
ones to adapt to changing conditions, including climate change?
(9) Traditional knowledge related to Are local knowledge and cultural traditions related to biodiversity
biodiversity
transmitted from elders and parents to young people in the community?
(10) Documentation of biodiversity- Is agricultural biodiversity and associated knowledge documented and
associated knowledge
exchanged?
(11) Women’s knowledge
Are women’s knowledge, experiences, and skills recognized and
respected at household, community, and landscape levels?
Governance and social equity
(12) Rights in relation to land/
Does the community have customary and/or formally recognized rights
water and other natural resource
over land, (seasonal) pastures, water, and natural resources?
management
(13) Community-based landscape/
Is there a multistakeholder landscape/seascape platform or institution
seascape governance
able to effectively plan and manage landscape resources?
(14) Social capital in the form of
Is there connection, coordination, and cooperation within and between
cooperation across the landscape/
communities for the management of natural resources?
seascape
(15) Social equity, including gender Is access to opportunities and resources fair and equitable for all
equity
community members, including women, at household, community, and
landscape level?
Livelihoods and well-being
(16) Socioeconomic infrastructure
Is the socioeconomic infrastructure adequate for the needs of the
community?
(17) Human health and
What is the general health situation of local people also considering the
environmental conditions
prevailing environmental conditions?
(18) Income diversity
Are households in the community involved in a variety of sustainable,
income-generating activities?
(19) Biodiversity-based livelihoods
Does the community develop innovative use of the local biodiversity for
its livelihoods?
(20) Socioecological mobility
Are households and communities able to move around between different
production activities and locations as necessary?
Source: UNU-IAS et al. (2014).
68
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
threats, and solutions. Finally, results are summarized to stimulate discussions on strengths and
weaknesses in the SEPLS in order to develop potential action plans to improve SEPLS resilience.
Facilitators and communities share results with key national stakeholders and policy makers so
they can incorporate local landscape strategies into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans and other development plans. The follow-up stage of the resilience assessment focuses
on facilitating regular use of the indicators by community members as a means of monitoring
SEPLS resilience to enable adaptive management.
Twenty countries participating in a large Satoyama program called COMDEKS (Community
Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative) implemented by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have used the indicators to conduct community-driven, participatory landscape planning; building on this exercise, communities have
implemented their own projects to achieve the improvements in the landscape they wish to see.
Bioversity International and partners have compared indicators field-tested in Kenya, Bolivia,
and Nepal to identify the main drivers of change and resilience regarding the use and conservation of agricultural biodiversity in the context of climate change adaptation. The indicators
proved helpful in reaching a common understanding of threats and solutions, and defining
resilience-strengthening strategies. These examples from the field show that the indicators fill
a gap in knowledge and that such tools at the local level are needed to enable communities to
detect and monitor their social-ecological resilience. The indicators also help identify priority issues and actions for sustaining SEPLS that benefit livelihoods and well-being and create
a common language between “traditional,” “governmental,” and “scientific” communities that
addresses the complexity of human-environment interactions.
Melanesian Well-Being Indicators: A Biocultural Approach
Jamie Tanguay
The Melanesian Well-Being Indicators were developed in Vanuatu and designed for relevance
across Melanesia, with outcomes focused on national-level assessments of human well-being.
The people of Melanesia continue to depend on a traditional model of economic development
that is self-contained and ensures equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity within a
society. The “traditional economy,” as it has come to be called in Vanuatu, is governed by shared
cultural values and rules that dictate control over available resources (Regenvanu 2010). Unlike
the economy valued in monetary terms, there are imposed limits to growth and wealth and
defined roles for resource management. There remains, however, the challenge of measurement.
Policies developed with regard only to increasing per capita GDP can have negative, and potentially disastrous, impacts on other factors contributing to life quality. The Melanesian Well-Being
Indicators aim to assess and integrate consideration of this traditional economy with external
indicators, enabling the island countries of Melanesia to develop in accordance with the shared
values and expressed needs of their populations.
Context of the Project
The UN classifies the world’s most impoverished countries as Least Developed Countries
(LDCs). LDCs share low gross national income (GNI), weak human assets, and a high degree
of economic vulnerability. Vanuatu is listed as an LDC with low GNI, a relatively small and
undereducated labor force, and a high level of vulnerability to natural disasters (UN CDP 2017).
Generally, LDCs face extreme poverty, ongoing and widespread conflict, extensive political corruption, and lack of political and social stability. However, this description generally does not
apply to Oceania, where most LDCs are considered politically stable democracies that lack civil
strife and have strong subsistence economies.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
69
In 2006, the UK-based New Economics Foundation published The Happy Planet Index: An
Index of Human Well-Being and Environmental Impact, in which countries were ranked in relation to three indicators of well-being: life satisfaction, life expectancy, and ecological footprint
(Marks et al. 2006). The report declared Vanuatu to be the “happiest country in the world.” This
finding was in contrast with the country’s LDC status and brought forth awareness in the region
of the desire to develop new indicators that take into account the income-neutral factors contributing to Melanesian well-being.
Three distinct dimensions of well-being were uncovered following social research undertaken by the Vanuatu National Statistics Office and the Vanuatu National Cultural Council
involving focus groups and key informants. These dimensions include: (1) access to land and
natural resources, (2) the skills to be productive with those resources, and (3) community vitality. Indicators were developed and piloted in Vanuatu in 2011 and 2012, and the Malvatumauri
National Council of Chiefs launched the analysis report in 2012 (MNCC 2012).
Biocultural Indicators of Land and Natural Resource Access
The self-reliance of the Melanesian family unit is maintained only when access to, and power
and control over, the land and its resources rests in the hands of clan or tribal leaders. Registration of land to individuals would lead to taxation and potentially shift people’s priorities for
the development of their customary land from providing for the collective unit to providing the
individual with money. Melanesian societies treat land not as a personal commodity but as a
public good. No one “owns” land in Melanesia; rather, families and individuals within the family
unit are custodians of the land (Regenvanu 2008; Simo 2010). A variety of highly evolved and
complex traditional land tenure systems exist in the region, which makes the survey and registration of customary land potentially harmful to traditionally sustainable collective livelihoods.
The alternative biocultural indicators developed for land and natural resources do not focus on
size or ownership but rather on accessibility and usage rights.
The biocultural indicators complement existing indicators collected through instruments
such as the Agriculture Census and Household Income and Expenditure Survey, which seek to
measure the economic productivity of land in terms of both income generation and, to a lesser
degree, subsistence contributions. These alternatives, when presented alongside the more prevalent land-as-a-commodity indicators, provide decision makers with a better understanding
of land and natural resource access. Specifically, they ascertain the proportion of Melanesians
who enjoy free access to customary lands, how said access contributes to their livelihoods, and
their assessment of the size of accessible land with respect to meeting basic needs. The Vanuatu
well-being study—using an international standard for subjective well-being measurement as
practiced by the Gallup World Poll, which asks participants to imagine their life quality relative
to positioning on a 10-rung ladder (i.e., the Cantil Scale)—showed that those with access to
customary lands are, on average, happier than those without (MNCC 2012).
Biocultural Indicators of Traditional Knowledge and Production Skills
Access to customary lands and natural resources provides the people of Melanesia with a means
for life’s basic necessities and connects them with their past and future. Decision makers must,
then, also consider traditional knowledge transfer and the productive skills that are passed from
one generation to the next as the ways in which resource access translates into tangible gains to
life quality.
Melanesia is extraordinarily rich in its cultural diversity, with more than one thousand distinct Indigenous languages (Landweer and Unseth 2012). These Indigenous languages act as
the major vessel of information and skills transfer from one generation to the next. A good
measure of traditional knowledge in Melanesia must therefore consider the transfer and use
70
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
of Indigenous languages, through indicators such as proportion of people whose first language
was Indigenous and proportion reporting strong comprehension of and ability to speak the language (MNCC 2012). Cultural diversity brings with it diversity in how Melanesian societies use
their natural resources. A particular food source considered a staple in one part of the region
might be considered a supplementary food item in another. Traditional knowledge also varies
with different skills of interest for different regions.
Composite indicators of traditional production skills reveal the proportion of the population
that possesses some, all, or none of the elements chosen to comprise the indicators. In the Vanuatu study, for example, the five basic production skills included skills for making walls and roofing for housing, for food production and preparation, and for production of basic medicines.
Furthermore, it was determined that all members of a household would benefit from just one
member possessing each skill. Two-thirds of all households in Vanuatu were found to possess
all five basic production skills (MNCC 2012). Providing decision makers with the proportion of
the population that possesses the ways in which they can be productive with natural resources
helps contextualize resource access in a meaningful way.
Biocultural Indicators of Community Vitality
Often in Melanesia, a village joins together for almost everything—from preparing land for
planting, to repairing an old thatch roof, to nursing the sick and honoring the dead. The community is bound by, and depends on, cultural rules of reciprocity and respect. Indeed, even if
an individual or family unit were capable of doing everything for themselves, they would not be
inclined to turn down an offer of assistance out of respect, nor would they find it acceptable to
be of no assistance to others in the community. A dimension of community vitality was included
in the Melanesian Well-Being Indicators to capture the supportive role of the greater kinship
networks and better reflect development as a collective achievement.
A strong community in Melanesia is one that works together to support its members. Community meetings are a common aspect in Melanesian society, bringing members together to
discuss issues of common concern on a regular basis or for issues of urgency, when necessary.
A sparsely attended meeting can be a sign of fragmentation or disunity within the community
or a sign of weak leadership. For this reason, frequency of meetings and attendance levels are
important indicators of community cooperation and respect for leadership (MNCC 2012).
A strong community in Melanesia is also one with able leaders who command respect and
support from all community members. The symbiotic relationship between leaders and their
communities is important, given that the majority of the region’s population lives in rural villages governed by traditional leaders who represent the most effective means of information and
service dissemination. It is important in Vanuatu that traditional leaders are good communicators, peacekeepers, resource managers, and vessels of culture and customary practices.
Finally, a strong community in Melanesia is one in which strong interpersonal networks
thrive. Individuals with a strong social network have others they can rely on in times of need
and neighbors they can trust. Strong families and kinship networks, built over generations, are
also important considerations when determining the strength of social capital. Families—the
single most important social alliance in Melanesia—are the building blocks of a strong community in the region.
Biocultural Indicators Add Value to the Information Used in Decision Making
The Melanesian Well-Being Indicators add value to the information used by decision makers
when developing and assessing the human impacts of national policies. The value of these indicators can be realized only when they are officially recognized for their relevance to well-being
in Melanesia and integrated alongside those indicators developed and adopted internationally.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
71
This integration has already taken place in Vanuatu, where the pilot report helped in creating
a national development framework, which will inform national policy over the next 15 years.
Additionally, some of the well-being indicators have been adopted as National Minimum Development Indicators by the Secretariat for the Pacific Community.
The purpose of these “alternatives” is not to establish a secondary set of measures but rather
to incorporate Melanesian values—explicitly linked with their environments—into the indicators already in use by Melanesian decision makers. The Melanesian Well-Being Indicators
will assist in building vision and a notion of greater interdependence in the region. Biocultural
well-being indicators will also provide constructive feedback on the effectiveness of existing
policies and programs, as well as useful input into program design and implementation. Thus,
biocultural indicators, as evaluative tools, could be used not only to check whether programs
are consistent with Melanesian well-being but also to foster a coherent relationship between
professed values on the one hand and actual policies, programs, and projects on the other. If
this process is done successfully, true Melanesian values will penetrate the region’s economic,
political, social, environmental, cultural, and technological development and bring a natural
coherence to the region’s policies.
In conclusion, the Melanesian Well-Being Indicators, once integrated in the region, promise
to revive a broader understanding of an economy as a community managing its resources with a
view to its productivity. The improved set of indicators will also more accurately present the welfare status of the people in the South Pacific. Access indicators for customary lands, forest and
marine resources, and traditional wealth items, combined with indicators of traditional production skills and supportive social networks, form a uniquely Melanesian measure of self-reliance.
The Cultural Basis of Well-Being in Peruvian Amazon Communities
Alaka Wali, Diana Alvira, and Ashwin Ravikumar
This indicator set was developed in the Peruvian Amazon for application at the community
level, with outcomes focused on well-being. An interdisciplinary team from the Field Museum
in Chicago developed these indicators through an iterative action research process from 2001 to
the present. The indicators are currently being used by the Field Museum team as part of ongoing quality-of-life plan development and implementation with communities in the Peruvian
Amazon.
This case study describes incorporating a “biocultural perspective” into conservation efforts
with Amazonian communities in Peru. Our data derives from rapid inventories (expert surveys
of the geology and biodiversity of intact forests, paired with social assessments that identify natural resource use, social organization, cultural strengths, and the aspirations of local residents).
The Field Museum Action Science team has conducted a total of 28 inventories since 1999,
with 14 conducted in Peru’s Department of Loreto, one of the most megadiverse regions of the
world. The sites selected for inventories are determined through examining satellite images,
conducting overflights, and organizing discussions with local conservation partners. The selection of communities for the social assessment relies on examining available demographic data,
determining feasibility of access, and consulting with Indigenous organizations. Communities
are comprised of Indigenous and long-term traditional forest dwellers, ranging in size from
approximately 50 to 1,000 people (see Field Museum 2016a for long-term community-based
work and 2016b for Rapid Inventory or RI reports; below we cite specific reports where the data
can be accessed by report number). Additionally, we report here on data from longer-term efforts
in the Peruvian Amazon involving 38 communities in the buffer zones of (1) the Cordillera Azul
National Park, (2) the Ampiyacu-Apayacu Regional Conservation Area, and (3) the Sierra del
Divisor National Park. In these landscapes, we collaborated with local NGOs and community
72
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
residents to create quality-of-life plans that act as road maps for prioritizing actions to meet the
needs and expectations of the population. The larger goal is to link the plans to local and regional
stakeholders (Field Museum 2016a). The indicators we have developed with communities in the
Peruvian Amazon are context-dependent, and the specific assets that emerged from this work
describe the conditions of Amazonian communities. At the same time, the process that produced
these indicators can be applied anywhere. For example, we have applied it in urban Chicago and
the surrounding rural areas. The methodology for producing these indicators was developed by
Field Museum social scientists working with Peruvian conservation professionals and social scientists and was field-tested with the participation of Indigenous organizations.
The assessment of cultural practices and worldviews (called “social and cultural assets”) is the
principal technique used to determine the degree of retention of cultural practices and beliefs
that define the distinct Amazonian lifestyle (Wali 2016). Once the assessment, or “asset mapping” (Mapeo de Usos y Fortalezas, or MUF, in Spanish), is complete, it provides a rich data set
from which indicators can be developed to measure well-being. The MUF is adapted from urban
planning (Kretzmann and McKnight 1993; Wali et al. 2003). It is a combination of diagnostic instruments such as resource sketch mapping and participatory rapid appraisal using focus
groups, household surveys, photo elicitation, and community meetings. By combining these
systematically, we can provide a more comprehensive place-based assessment that integrates
the identification of ecological knowledge, forms of social organization, and local institutional
capacities (del Campo and Wali 2007; Wali 2016). Additionally, we use an interactive exercise—
el hombre/la mujer del buen vivir—that allows people to rate their perceptions (on a scale of
1 to 5) of quality of life in five domains (natural resources, cultural practices, social relationships,
governance or political processes, and household economics) and spurs discussion regarding
the relationship between the environment and well-being (Wali et al. 2008). On this scale, a
score of 1 represents the worst-case scenario (e.g., complete depletion of natural resources, total
loss of Indigenous languages and cultural practices, paralyzing conflict within the community,
authoritarian and nontransparent governance, and inability to meet basic needs), while a 5 represents the best-case scenario (e.g., abundant natural resources, strongly maintained Indigenous
languages and cultural practices, harmonious social relations within the community, effective
and legitimate local governance, and basic needs are amply met). Methods such as the creation
of community crests, natural and cultural resource use maps, and the rating of perceptions of
quality of life are useful for developing biocultural indicators in each of the five domains.
Our participatory research showed that Amazonian communities have mechanisms in place
to regulate and protect resources linked to the extractive and subsistence economy. Participants
mapped salt licks, lakes, and sites of mythical importance, as well as places where timber, fibers,
medicinal plants, and fruits were harvested or cultivated. They provided a detailed analysis of
the spatial patterns of biodiversity distribution. Participants also documented more deeply
rooted systems of natural resource control embedded in mythological beliefs. For example, the
Shawi, who live in the Cordillera Escalera (RI 26), believe in the power of a’shins (mothers),
spirits that protect aspects of the natural world (Gow 1991). During the Ere-Campuya inventory
and Tapiche Blanco inventories (RIs 25, 27), participants noted that some lakes are protected by
madres (mothers) in the form of large snakes (boas or anacondas, likely Eunectes sp.) that discourage fisher people from visiting those lakes frequently. In each of these cases, shared beliefs
encourage people to avoid overharvesting.
Traditional forms of social support such as communal work parties and other kinship-based
systems of reciprocity also function to increase group productivity and well-being while protecting against overexploitation of the animals and plants in the forest. These cultural practices
have been found in virtually all communities participating in the Peruvian inventories (RIs
11–12, 16–18, 20, 22–28).
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
73
Finally, these communities do not exist in isolation from other communities, broader Peruvian and global society, markets, and governance systems. Relationships that communities have
with external actors also constitute key assets that they can leverage to improve their well-being,
and these are documented and evaluated by communities and their allies.
In sum, our efforts in all these landscapes have demonstrated that both perceived and actual
well-being status is relatively high. Only 9 of a total of 77 communities ranked their perception
of quality of life at below a 3 during the el hombre/la mujer del buen vivir exercise. Generally,
communities closer to healthier forest ecosystems rank their quality of life at a higher level
(Figure 1). Perception correlates closely with actual well-being level measured in the integrated
way of the MUF. While the indicators of well-being that emerge from the asset mapping process
we have developed in the Peruvian Amazon fall into five domains (natural, social, cultural, economic, and political), any number of specific indicators can emerge in each of these domains.
More important than the number of indicators identified in each domain is the interrelationship
between these different dimensions of well-being. For example, forest resource stewardship is
linked to cultural knowledge and to social relations that promote collective management.
The MUF-based measurement of well-being conflicts with the national characterization
of these communities as living in extreme poverty (see Figure 1). Often in national developFigure 1: Map of quality-of-life rankings on a scale of 1 to 5 averaged across communities
in each protected area, overlaid on national map of poverty zones in Loreto, Peru.
Source: Field Museum Conservation program. Poverty percentages at the district level from National Institute
of Statistics, Government of Peru.
74
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
ment discourses, “modernization” is equated as “progress” over forest-dwelling forms (Gasché
Susess et al. 2010). Amazonian communities are constantly reminded of their “backward” status
according to indicators such as per capita income, education level, and quality of infrastructure. Afforded the opportunity, they resist this characterization and retain values and practices
that undergird their attachment to their homelands. As Peruvian anthropologist Alberto Chirif
stated, “These indicators do not measure the quality of fresh foods Indigenous Peoples eat, the
good air they breathe, the fresh water they drink from the streams, the happiness of the children
playing in the rivers, or the control they feel over their own lives” (2007: 2–4).
Once people have used the indicators to reflect on their level of well-being, they set actionable priorities to improve their quality of life. In almost all cases, communities prioritize sustainable natural resource management alongside the maintenance of traditional practices in
order to improve their well-being.
Integrating Knowledge Systems to Innovate Community-Driven Approaches:
Reestablishing Sustainable Relationships to Biocultural Land/Seascapes
through Nā Kilo ‘Āina, Hawai‘i
Kanoe Morishige, Pelika Andrade, and Pua‘ala Pascua
This case study from Hawai‘i encompasses the community level and can be applied crossculturally, with outcomes focused on social, cultural, and ecological health. The indicator set
stems from a Native Hawaiian worldview and integrates Western scientific methods to characterize biocultural resilience in communities throughout Hawai‘i. The tools and techniques
presented in this approach, including seasonal and ecological indicators, are applicable in placebased and Indigenous communities across the globe.
In 2009, a small group of Native Hawaiian scholars at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo developed the Nā Kilo ‘Āina (NKA) program (Nā Kilo ‘Āina 2014) and subsequent indicator set
as a method to observe, internalize, and characterize biocultural systems. Understanding the
essential role of Indigenous perspectives in conservation (Gadgil et al. 1993), the founding
members—Native Hawaiians with strong cultural backgrounds and formal training in ecology—placed high value on integrating Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge through
the NKA program. Since the first community partnership in Ka‘ūpūlehu, Hawai‘i Island, in
2009, NKA has expanded to communities across Hawai‘i (including Kailapa, Hawai‘i Island,
and Hā‘ena, Kaua‘i) and beyond to Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands. At present, the NKA program is formally housed under a nonprofit organization, Nā Maka o Papahānaumokuākea.
NKA captures community-level indicators to support community-driven management. Customarily, local-level resource management in Hawai‘i supported thriving social and ecological
communities (Ayers and Kittinger 2014; Friedlander et al. 2013; Tanaka 2008; Vaughan and
Vitousek 2013; Vaughan et al. 2016). The term ‘āina momona (literally: fat lands; figuratively:
abundant and thriving sources of sustenance that support reciprocal relationships between
people and place) is used to describe healthy and productive ecological, social, and cultural
communities. Achieving ‘āina momona is inherently a biocultural process involving local communities, scholars, and natural resource managers.
NKA engages participants in kilo (Native Hawaiian process of observation) by working
through a series of seasonal indicators and numerous ecological indicators based on monitoring
needs. Kilo is the act of observing but also refers to people who are adept observers and function
as repositories of traditional and ecological knowledge to support a balanced and productive
system (Maly and Pomroy-Maly 2003). The goal of NKA is to build the capacity of community
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
75
kilo to (1) continue traditional knowledge systems, (2) understand both social and ecological
communities, and (3) incorporate that knowledge in local resource management.
Huli ‘Ia: Seasonal Indicators
Huli ‘Ia is a facilitated process in which groups of participants characterize approximately 30
predefined indicators according to weekly or monthly observations (varying by project duration). The process has two main goals: (1) to identify dominant environmental patterns in the
atmosphere, lands, and oceans—specifically how these events coincide and what they indicate;
and (2) to build the capacity of the kilo to recognize and internalize these environmental observations. Example indicators include characterizing dominant weather patterns and indicating
the presence and size of juvenile fish. The process also incorporates more nuanced indicators
like scents of upland and coastal environments and reflections on physical and emotional wellness. Group observations are combed for dominant trends. At the conclusion, trends and linked
occurrences are described through ‘ōlelo no‘eau, Hawaiian proverbs that serve as vessels of
Hawaiian knowledge. For example, after several years of monthly observations, participants in
Ka‘ūpūlehu noted that the beginning of Ho‘oilo (wet season) is marked by the arrival of winter
swells and upland rainfall, which forecasts the arrival of a highly prized seasonal intertidal algae,
limu pāhe‘e (Porphyra spp.). The ‘ōlelo no‘eau composed to describe this relationship reads, “Ke
pi‘i nā nalu ‘ulupā pōhaku, pulu ka papa a ulu ka pāhe‘e. When the boulder-crashing waves
arrive, the shelf becomes wet and limu pāhe‘e grows.”
Ecological Indicators
NKA includes marine ecological assessments in the kilo process. Knowledge of population
health, life history, and reproductive life cycles are vital in the development of appropriate adaptive management tools (Poepoe et al. 2007). More importantly, sharing this knowledge may
inform harvesting practices to avoid overharvesting and promote the long-term health of biocultural resources. Ecological indicators, including fish abundance and diversity of algae, are
assessed with standard nearshore/intertidal monitoring techniques. Spawning potential is also
determined for select species such as hā‘uke‘uke (Colobocentrotus atratus) and ‘opihi (Cellana
spp.). These methods characterize intertidal communities and quantify population dynamics
over time. Integrating Huli ‘Ia and ecological monitoring methods characterizes times of peak
spawning through the ‘ōlelo no‘eau, “Hō‘ea mai o Lono i ka malu o ka lani, ho‘opuehu ‘ia ke koa
pa‘a pōhaku. At the arrival of Lono, god of fertility and peace, the rock-clinging invertebrates
are spawning.”
Results are presented back to communities by a method of their choosing. One deliverable
from NKA’s longest community partnership captures the integration of Huli ‘Ia and ecological
indicators at the scale of ahupua‘a (watershed unit, from ridge to reef), or traditional land division in a seasonal calendar for Ka‘ūpūlehu (see McMillen et al. 2016).
Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance Community Watershed Snapshot:
A Case Study of Local Measures for Ahupua‘a Health
Lihla Noori, Christian Giardina, Manuel Mejia, and John Parks
This case study encompasses the community level, with watershed health outcomes defined
through a cultural lens and directed toward human well-being. The indicator set was developed
for application to watersheds and communities of Hawai‘i, but we believe at least part of the set
may be relevant across other locations and cultures, particularly within the Pacific Islands and
other Small Island Developing States (Parks and Noori 2016).
76
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
Native Hawaiian tradition interprets Hawai‘i’s natural environment through a cultural lens
that recognizes the intimate physical, psychological, and spiritual relationship that Hawai‘i’s
people have with their natural surroundings. The archipelago’s natural wealth is not only valued
for the ecological services that are provided to the people; it is also considered spiritually and
genealogically connected to Hawaiians. Even today it is common to hear local residents speak of
their ancestral connections to specific endemic flora and fauna, openly recognizing and behaving in ways that acknowledge and honor these connections. In this regard, it is the strength and
the health of such biocultural connections between local families and their natural surroundings that are indicative of the health of the entire ecosystem, including humans.
The Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance (HCA) is a cooperative collaboration of 24 natural
resource conservation-related organizations representing state and federal agencies, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations with a mission to provide unified leadership and
action on conservation issues critical to Hawai‘i. HCA’s Effective Conservation Program (ECP)
was conceptualized in 2003 to facilitate conservation of Hawai‘i’s native ecosystems in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine realms. In 2012, HCA ECP compiled available government agency
geospatial data on their newly developed data-sharing platform with the intention to evaluate
the status of natural resource management efforts across the islands, from mauka to makai
(mountain to sea, aka “ridge to reef ”). Evaluation was proposed at the watershed scale using
metrics developed in consultation with interested communities and residents to elevate capacity
of their own local management efforts.
Initiated in 2013, the Community Watershed Snapshot is an assessment-type status report
on the health of watersheds, with twin goals of democratizing conservation and providing
needed data for decision makers and communities. The snapshot combines geospatial data
from government agencies with specific information gathered locally by volunteer communities and nongovernment partner organizations, including social-economic information and
local kūpuna (elder) knowledge. The goal is to generate relevant communication products on
the current status of watershed health in support of local management efforts. A participatory process involving local communities and expert peer reviewers served to identify a set of
high-priority biocultural indicators (Noori and Parks 2015). HCA consulted with local leaders
and stakeholders from eight selected communities2 across the main Hawaiian Islands regarding
their perceptions on how to measure the health of their own watershed through time. Out of
these consultations, 80 community representatives identified a shared set of mauka (terrestrial),
makai/wai (ocean/freshwater), and ka‘ike (social-economic) factors that were important to the
health of their ahupua‘a and were to be used to evaluate change in the current status of their
snapshot (Noori and Parks 2015).
As a result of the consultative and collaborative process, in 2014 a set of 14 watershed snapshot metrics was endorsed by HCA. Ten of these indicators are biophysically focused (related
to the quantity and quality of water, plant, and animal resources on land and in the ocean),
whereas four are social-culturally focused. The latter include indicators of health, community
involvement in natural resource management, and indicators of cultural well-being: number
of and degree of respect for kūpuna; number of families that obtain at least a portion of their
sustenance from natural resources harvested within the land/seascape that they reside within;
presence of traditional agriculture; and presence of traditional fishing practices (Noori and
Parks 2015). The indicators are viewed through a social-ecological context. For example, “target
food fish” rather than “keystone fish species,” and “availability of freshwater” (for human use)
rather than “volume/abundance of freshwater.” All 14 indicators are framed using language that
appeals to local communities and is considered “of highest importance” to them in terms of
their utility in measuring the health of the watershed and natural surroundings that they reside
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
77
within. In this regard, the indicators have not simply been “translated” for local use but rather
by design have been identified and selected by Hawaiian communities as being of highest value,
as validated through professional and scientific peer review and collaboration. In particular, the
social-cultural indicators (na‘ike) serve an important function in the context of assessing the
health and resilience of natural systems in the Hawaiian Islands, in part because of the indicators being grounded under a Native Hawaiian value system that is based on public recognition
of the social-ecological system, and focusing on the stewardship and sustainability of the system.
Under a standardized set of indicators, volunteer communities and partner groups throughout the main islands are measuring the health of their watersheds using selected metrics (Parks
and Noori 2015, 2016). Despite initial concerns from participating communities regarding standardization and comparison between watersheds, there is now growing local interest to apply
the standardized indicators to compare and contrast the status and trends of social-ecological
health between and across Hawaiian watersheds, particularly for the purpose of learning from
those watersheds that are performing better or have lessons to share (Parks and Noori 2016).
By design, the indicator set is focused on place-based application, which is of interest to placebased decision makers involved in local management and development planning.
During 2015 and 2016, three communities volunteered to implement selected watershed
snapshot metrics within their watersheds with the aim of using the information captured to
inform and advance their local natural resource management efforts (Parks and Noori 2015).
They engaged in the development, design, and production of communication tools to share
their snapshot results locally, including through community-friendly posters, infographics, fact
sheets, and slide presentations for national and international audiences. The three communities
analyzed and documented their shared experiences and lessons in conducting their snapshots in
order to begin engaging a long-term, community-based approach to assessing effective conservation of place, share lessons learned with other Hawaiian communities who also have an interest in initiating their own snapshot process, and integrate multiple knowledge systems and data
sources in reactivating an intergenerational collaborative stewardship model that had defined
how Hawai‘i resources were managed prior to the advent of Western management approaches
(Parks and Noori 2016).
Since the completion of the watershed snapshot communication products, the three volunteer communities have used their products to advance local management and engage elected
officials (Parks and Noori 2016). During 2016 and early 2017, they documented and shared the
results of their measures locally across multiple watersheds, and with federal, state, and nongovernment partners. Increasing demand from interested communities on how to participate in
the snapshot process has led to the production of a practical, community-friendly guidebook,
which helps readers to measure, document, and share their watershed snapshot indicators.
Coming Together and Looking Forward in the Marshall Islands
Mark Stege, Tina Stege, and Jennifer Newell
This case study encompasses the household and community levels and can be applied across
the Marshall Islands, with outcomes focused on the health of landscape and seascape and community well-being. The process was developed in the Marshall Islands for use there. The barrier
reefs that make up the Marshall Islands have been home for more than two millennia to a seafaring society and the site of intense challenges ranging from World War II battles, to decades
of nuclear experiments, and now climate change. As dynamic and living geological features, the
29 atolls and five reef islands of the Marshall Islands need conservation action and stewardship
to be resilient against the existential threat climate change poses to Marshallese culture and
78
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
livelihoods. In response to climate and nonclimate stressors including plantation development,
pollution, land clearing, increasing impact of commercial fisheries, and population growth, a
team of government, nongovernment, and academic organizations—all with a common interest
in the conservation, development, and management of the natural resources of the Marshall
Islands—have developed the Reimaanlok Framework.
Reimaanlok (which means “looking forward”) is an eight-step, community-driven process
that focuses on the health of land- and seascape and community well-being (see Table 3). It
is facilitated by the Coastal Management Advisory Council (CMAC), a national consortium
that incorporates members from government ministries, agencies, NGOs, and academia. The
Reimaanlok Framework is increasingly understood and practiced by CMAC members and has
become mainstreamed within national government legislation, governance, and financing systems, most importantly within the Republic of Marshall Islands Protected Area Network and
the Marshall Islands’ commitment to achieve the Micronesia Challenge (MC) goal to effectively
conserve no less than 30 percent of nearshore marine and 20 percent terrestrial areas in perpetuity. The aim is to “develop principles, processes, and guidelines for the design, establishment,
and management of conservation areas that are fully owned, led, and endorsed by local communities based on their needs, values, and cultural heritage” (CMAC 2012: ii). For community
leaders, Reimaanlok provides local cohesion amid a dizzying array of international development
goals, regional commitments, national policies, and action plans.
When the Reimaanlok process is initiated by an atoll community’s leadership (Step 1), a
scoping and budgeting exercise (Step 2) ensues, followed by site visits by CMAC facilitators to
build mutual awareness with the target atoll community on their community’s specific needs
for resource planning (Step 3) as well as the gathering and analysis of various parameters of
social-economic, physical, and biological indicators of community well-being and ecosystem
health (Step 4). During Steps 3 and 4, the CMAC consortium employs a mixture of tailor-made
Table 3: Summary of the Eight-Step Process for Community-Based Fisheries
and Resource Management Planning
Step
Description
1
Initiation
A need to develop a community-based resource management plan is
identified either at the local government level or at the national level.
2
Project scoping and setup
Establish a project work plan, a team of facilitators, and identification of
budget and resources.
3
Building commitment
An initial visit is made by the national team to carry out education
awareness about the benefits of conservation and resource management,
and to build trust with the community.
4
Collecting and managing
information
Further visits focus on collection and documentation of local knowledge
and use of resources, socioeconomic information, and baseline scientific
information.
5
Developing the
management plan
Several visits are made to the community to develop, draft, and revise a
detailed management plan.
6
Sign-off
Achieve commitment to the plan through sign-off of management plan.
7
Monitoring, evaluation,
and adaptive management
Monitor achievement of the objectives—both biological and
socioeconomic. Adapt the management plan accordingly.
8
Maintaining commitment
Ensure community has adequate support for ongoing management.
Source: CMAC (2012).
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
79
and standardized tools based on evolving atoll science and best practices, which are generally
contained within the Reimaanlok facilitator’s guide (CMAC 2012). For instance, community
knowledge and resource mapping is described under Appendix 8 of the guide, titled “Guidelines
for the Collection of Local and Traditional Knowledge and mo in the Marshall Islands.” This
community resource mapping effort can be further enhanced with information based on the
visual observations of the project team walking along a straight line across a specified cross-section of nearshore environment, as described in Appendices 9 (“Rapid Ecological Assessment,
Participatory Aquatic Resource Transect”) and 10 (“Baseline Rapid Assessment of the Natural Resources Methodology”). The guide also includes a comprehensive household survey
(Appendix 12, “Socio-economic Baseline Assessment and Monitoring Plan Worksheet”) heavily
modified from the SEM-Pasifika (Wongbusakarum et al. 2008) to monitor well-being indicators including those on natural resource use, knowledge, and perceptions relevant to fishers,
farmers, and handicraft trades, as well as overall climate change awareness and conservation
effectiveness. Climate change impacts and adaptation are further assessed through a qualitative
Vulnerability Assessment that relies on the knowledge of community members and subsequent
development of a Local Early Action Plan (Appendix 35, “VA-LEAP”). High-resolution GPS
surveys are used to determine island height and flood risk, complementing the VA-LEAP process (Appendices 13, “Developing Benchmarks Relative to Sea Level,” and 14, “Surveying Island
Height Procedures”). Quantitative surveys of natural resources are also conducted using standardized international protocols for marine and terrestrial resource assessments.
The information collected through Step 4 informs the development of a resource management plan (Step 5). Following on from the integrated, biocultural approach to data collection in
Step 4, activities in this step include the development of both process and impact indicators to
show, in the first case, the completion of processes/activities outlined in the resource management plan and, in the second case, the impact of management actions in a resource area. Impact
indicators may be biological or social-economic (Appendix 23, “Developing Good Indicators”).
While indicator development is driven by local concerns, the process is linked to national and
regional initiatives like the Micronesia Challenge Socioeconomic Working Group, which identified the human well-being domains and attributes of the Micronesia Challenge and prioritized
relevant indicators to measure the MC progress in achieving these attributes (Nevitt and Wongbusarakum 2013).
Steps 6 to 8 complete the process with sign-off on the management plan, monitoring and
adaptive management of the plan’s objectives (key to monitoring is the assessment of biological and social-economic indicators at regular intervals, as well as a review of the management
plan every five years), and finally maintaining commitment to the plan through ongoing education, awareness, and capacity-building initiatives within the community. The process thus looks
toward long-term dynamics and success.
Reimaanlok is recognized internationally as being at the forefront of contemporary coastal
zone management and climate adaptation, particularly among Small Island Developing States
where there is a paucity of scientific data and significant and increasing threats, and where
decision making about the use of natural resources occurs primarily at the local level (Baker
et al. 2011; Govan 2011; Grantham et al. 2011). Twenty-three atoll communities are currently
engaged in some stage of the Reimaanlok process. Depending on where they are in the process, communities using this approach are experiencing various measures of success as they
proceed in the step-by-step process of articulating threats and their needs and priorities, and
codifying these into a management plan with various short-, medium-, and long-term measures, including enhancing their ecosystem and social-economic resilience to climate impacts.
Six atoll communities are at Steps 6 or 7 of the process and thus have resource management
80
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
plans in place to support informed conservation and sustainable development measures. For
example, on Ailuk Atoll (Step 7) and Bikirin, Majuro Atoll (Step 6), these include windward
vegetation planting projects, or jannar in Marshallese, to protect inland food sources and homesteads. Namdrik Atoll’s (Step 6) engagement in the Reimaanlok process also informed planting
projects, the establishment of a marine protected area, and the reactivation of a pearl farm. The
Namdrik Atoll Local Resources Committee, a community organization constituted as part of
the Reimaanlok process, received global recognition for its outstanding efforts in sustainable
development at the Rio +20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012. The Reimaanlok process allows these municipalities/communities
to stay engaged in implementing and monitoring conservation and sustainable development
measures as a unifying endeavor for their community.
Biocultural Approaches to Sustainability Indicators in Solomon Islands
Joe McCarter
This case study reports on a biocultural approach to developing sustainability indicators in the
Western Province of Solomon Islands (McCarter et al. forthcoming). The goal of this work is
to support community-based resource management of land- and seascapes through the identification, assessment, and discussion of locally relevant sustainability indicators. The ongoing
project seeks to link to provincial, national, and international sustainability assessments and
to provide best practice lessons for using biocultural approaches in cross-cultural situations in
Solomon Islands and elsewhere. The resulting indicator set addresses the household and community levels, and its outcomes focus on local resource management of land- and seascapes. The
indicator set was developed for specific communities in Solomon Islands; however, indicator
categories and trends have the potential to inform monitoring and evaluation in other contexts.
The Western Province of Solomon Islands is a unique mosaic of large lagoon systems and
both high volcanic and small, coral-fringed islands. Nearly 80 percent of the population is rural,
coastal, and relies on fishing and farming for nutrition and income (UN Data 2016). A number
of pressures—from large-scale resource extraction to climatic variation—impact rural communities throughout the Western Province. While national legislation (e.g., the Protected Areas Act
2010) calls for environmental protection alongside appropriate “sustainable use,” there is limited
knowledge of how to measure and monitor such trends. This project works in four communities
that differ in their degrees of market integration and ecological transformation but are all part
of a community network maintained by the Solomon Islands Community Conservation Partnership (SICCP) and seek to strengthen or maintain systems for natural resource management.
The indicator set was developed to support sustainable community resource management
around a range of social and ecological factors of importance to the communities. It explicitly
sought to work across multiple domains and to make linkages between social and ecological
components (e.g., between the success of gardens, health of community members, and degree
of intactness of the terrestrial forest environment). We took a biocultural approach to indicator development, meaning we explicitly started with and built on place-based cultural perspectives—encompassing values, knowledge, and needs—and recognized the inextricable links
between ecological and social realms (Sterling et al. forthcoming). Such approaches have the
potential to strengthen the input of local voices in provincial, national, and regional forums,
guide respectful engagement by NGOs and external researchers, and facilitate the development
of multiple evidence-based approaches (cf. Tengö et al. 2014).
We began developing indicators by holding an initial set of workshops to explore community
perceptions of current state, past trends, and ideal future visions. The outputs of these work-
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
81
shops helped to define a set of domains that were important in each community. These domains
included both ecological (e.g., integrity of forest) and social (e.g., degree of cooperation and
unity) components, as well as linkages between them (e.g., maintaining vibrant vernacular language to communicate environmental information).
We used these domains to develop indicators, using an iterative process with communities. A
draft indicator set was compared with regional and international examples and sorted according
to theoretical frameworks (Folke et al. 2003). These various categorizing exercises underscored
some differences between externally derived frameworks and local interests and perceptions,
and in some instances the comparison helped to identify themes that might have been missed
in the visioning process. For example, knowledge of systems limits—including Indigenous and
Western scientific sources of information and practice—is critical to the ability to manage land
and seascapes but did not explicitly emerge from the community visioning exercises and was
added in (e.g., Foale 2006).
There are currently 68 indicators (62 quantitative and 6 qualitative) covering outcomes such
as garden and ocean productivity, local knowledge regarding resource management, and state
and trends of the environment, governance, and leadership. A subset of the indicators specifically addresses the feedbacks between humans and their environment; however, quantification
of those indicators has been difficult.
We then worked with communities to collect data and assess the current state of the indicators. Data collection occurred over a period of 18 months. Data collection methods were
designed and implemented in collaboration with community research assistants and comprised
a variety of ecological and social science methods including structured interviews (e.g., dietary
diversity, knowledge transmission), semistructured interviews (e.g., exploration of foodways
and resilience), community surveys (e.g., catch per unit effort), and ecological survey methods (e.g., forest plotting, timed shellfish counts). Partner organizations or individuals provided
expertise as needed. Data collection at all stages centered around training and capacity building,
with the aim that community research assistants will be able to continue to collect data over the
medium term. Indicator data overlapped but were not standardized across sites.
Data from the indicators were supported by other activities designed to stimulate discussion
of landscape change over time. For example, participants in mapping “studios” compared large
format aerial photos dating from the 1940s and 1960s against current high-resolution satellite imagery. Participants were also able to use the images to plan future change and explore
tradeoffs (e.g., between agricultural expansion and village area).
Data were generally analyzed as they were collected, and reviewed with communities for
comment and immediate discussion, sometimes in the context of targeted advice from expert
advisers. For example, dietary diversity data were collected in November 2015 and May 2016,
analyzed, and then discussed in communities with an expert team from the Ministry of Health
and a local NGO (the Kastom Gaden Association). All data will be formed into two major products for use in communities: large-scale maps showing spatial and temporal aspects of landscape change and use, and indicator portfolios, or collections of stories and information from
the various domains of data that have been collected. These products have been produced with
a focus on durability and utility for planning and will feed directly into resource management
planning at each site by partner organizations. Data analysis and production will be an iterative
process; based on analyses and discussions with communities, there may be a call for further
parsing or information collection.
The biocultural approach to indicator development outlined here may allow for the collection
of social and ecological information for use by community decision makers but, importantly,
also follows a process that allows for discussions within communities of current state and future
82
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
planning. The outputs of this process can also offer place-based perspectives to policy makers
in Solomon Islands, by highlighting components of resilience in the communities that are not
commonly accounted for in national metrics. The importance and utility of the indicators over
time will depend on their being effectively integrated into community and NGO programs, and
on continued support to discuss and monitor into the future.
Indicator Sets and Frameworks
Many of the indicator sets described above were framed using existing conceptual frameworks
(e.g., DPSIR, SES) that indicate how to convert data from indicators into decisions. However,
decisions on the relevance of information and the selection of indicators and their relative
importance can unintentionally introduce bias before any evaluation is undertaken. Thus, even
when included through participatory processes, Indigenous indicators can be overwhelmed
by the sheer scale of representation of other ways of knowing. The following framework foregrounds and quantifies different stakeholder worldviews to allow for comparison.
Mauri Model Decision Making Framework
Tē Kipa Kepa Morgan
Designed to be transparent, inclusive, and holistic, this framework identifies its ontological
basis and provides an alternative Indigenous conceptual measure of sustainability. It is a unique
approach to indicator set development that includes processes designed to ensure repeatability and objectivity in the evaluation being undertaken. The Mauri Model is intended for
use at the community level and the process can be applied in any community, with outcomes
focused on sustainability. Decision making frameworks based on systems thinking can facilitate enhanced understandings of sustainability and potentially enlighten societies to behave
differently. In community settings, these frameworks must be contextually relevant and based
on epistemological concepts that are more strongly aligned with sustainability (Morgan 2006a)
than contemporary neoliberal capitalism (Di Tella and MacCulloch 2008). The epistemologies
of Indigenous Peoples are commonly based on principles of interconnectedness, relevance over
long periods of time, intergenerational equity, and uniqueness to place (Durie 2005). In the
case of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Indigenous Māori have developed strategies to retain their
values, beliefs, identity, and ways of being within a colonized societal context. For example, New
Zealand law has been impacted by Māori claims relating to environmental degradation and
retention of cultural values, knowledge, and language, often in terms of impacts on mauri, the
life-supporting capacity of the ecosystem and its future potential (Morgan 2008). The Resource
Management Act of 1991 aims to promote sustainable development, taking into account the
environmental, social, cultural, and economic well-being of society. While the groundbreaking
law incorporated numerous Indigenous concepts, it stopped short of actually including mauri.
A holistic and inclusive way to understand the world other than in monetary terms exists (Morgan 2008). Raymond Firth (1929) observed that mauri appeared to be the economic currency
of traditional Māori society. Mauri is the binding force between the physical and everything else
that makes life possible. It is the life-supporting capacity within a thing or collection of things
such as an ecosystem. The concept can be likened to gravity, as while it may not be observable
directly, it explains observable phenomena, being the force that when sufficiently diminished or
denigrated defines the loss of potential to support life, or the difference between life and death.
The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework was co-created with the Combined Tangata
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
83
Whenua Forum and Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāi Tahu tribal entities (Morgan 2008), by inter-weaving
Indigenous and scientific understandings of sustainability, specifically the Indigenous conceptualization of the mauri force and systems thinking (Morgan 2006a). As an expert-weighted
decision matrix, the Mauri Model is holistic, simple to use, objective, and produces repeatable results. The Mauri Model is unique, as it provides a culturally neutral template within
which Indigenous values are explicitly empowered alongside scientific data. Applications of the
Mauri Model include many facets of impact assessment, encompassing treatment technologies,
project sustainability, climate change adaptation, disaster response, and comparative studies.
The Mauri Model combines a stakeholder worldview analysis with an indicator measurement
process (Mauri Meter) to determine the absolute sustainability of the scenario being assessed,
using mauri as the base metric. The concept of mauri is used to represent the potential of phenomena possessing physical and/or metaphysical characteristics. The capability to measure both
physical quantities and metaphysical qualities allows for a wide, inclusive range of sustainability
indicators that better reflect the physically, culturally, psychologically, and spiritually defined
reality of Indigenous Peoples.
The Mauri Model has four constituent dimensions: mauri of the ecosystem, mauri of the
Indigenous People, mauri of the community, and mauri of the base economic unit, the family or household. Adoption of these four dimensions facilitates more consistent comparison
of impacts and effects across projects due to the ability to use the same metric to measure all
indicators in a dimension and the constant groupings. Ecosystem indicators range from fertility of the land to water quality; cultural/
Indigenous indicators range from the use Figure 2: Absolute indicator measurement using the
Mauri Meter (after Morgan 2006b).
of traditional knowledge to heritage pro0
tection measures; community indicators
Unchanged
range from access to community centers to
Mauri Whakakau
life expectancy; and economic indicators
range from employment availability to the
+1
-1
price of energy.
Enhancing
Diminishing
Mauri Piki
The Mauri Meter defines the Likert
Mauri Heke
scale used for measurement as five integers pivoting about zero (see Figure 2).
Scores ranging from −2 to +2 depict possible states of mauri (negligible impact = 0,
+2
-2
partial impact = 1, and full impact = 2). A
Fully Restored
Totally Denigrated
positive result reflects an impact that is susMauri Tū, Mauri Ora
Mauri Moe, Mauri Noho
tainable. The Likert scale ensures objective
assessment (see Figure 3) of indicators, as
Figure 3: Decision tree eliminates partial scores
ensuring minimum bias (Morgan et. al. 2012).
once the tolerance for a negligible indicator
impact is defined (0 result), any other outImpact on Mauri
come is either sustainable (positive) or not
(negative), and once the upper thresholds
are defined for full impact (−2 and +2), the
Enhancing
Reducing
No Impact
absolute determination of sustainability is
+
0
possible for each indicator. The combined
result (arithmetic average) for a dimension
reflects the overall trend occurring for that
particular dimension. The combination of
Partial
Full
Full
Partial
+1
+2
-2
-1
processes is shown in Figure 4. Dimension
84
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
Figure 4: Mauri Model Decision Making Framework (after Morgan 2008).
Informs
Indicator
Selection
Ontology of
Four Mauri
Dimensions
Indicator
Scores and
Dimensions
Mauri
Model
Quantification
of Worldview
Trends for
Dimensions
Mauri
Meter
Threshold
Definition for
Indicators
results can be depicted graphically as historic and future mauri trends when plotted against time
on the horizontal axis (see Figure 5).
The Mauri Model also allows the quantification of different stakeholder worldviews, determining the relative priorities of the four mauri dimensions as percentage weightings using a
pair-wise comparison technique (Saaty 1980). Accurate representation of adversarial perspectives of a situation without the need to alter actual mauri dimension results is an indication that
the analysis will have credibility with the stakeholders that are impacted. The quantified priorities can reveal the inherent bias of stakeholders and also reflect the dimensions most strongly
influencing a stakeholder’s understanding of a situation. The Mauri Model has now been in
use for more than a decade, taught as an engineering postgraduate elective at the University of
Auckland for seven years and then digitized as a Web tool in 2012, and is the basis for assessments that quantify the impacts of New Zealand’s worst environmental disaster, the oil spill
from the 2011 grounding of the MV Rena (Fa‘aui and Morgan 2014). Independent research
determined the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework to be an exemplar sustainability
indicator set when benchmarked against the Bellagio STAMP principles for sustainability, and
concluded that the Mauri Model is relevant regardless of community (Challenger 2013).
The Mauri Model allows Indigenous Peoples to contribute understanding based on their own
knowledge so that they can be effectively included in resource management decision making
processes, with particular relevance to New Zealand law. The transferability of the Mauri Model
identifies it as a potential pathway to more sustainable decisions and actions. Thus, through
integrating systems techniques and the Indigenous concept of mauri, the Mauri Model creates
a new approach to cross-cultural communication and action. As the Mauri Model is applied
more broadly, some elements could be clarified to enhance its transferability in terms of impact
on decision making. These include community issues related to governance and land rights,
the feedbacks between mauri dimensions, the ability of the framework to capture short- and
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
85
Figure 5: 100-year pre-Rena dimension trends for state of mauri (y-axis) plotted against distorted time
intervals (x-axis) (Morgan et. al. 2015). The overall retrospective trend for mauri is presented as the
equally weighted combination of the four dimensions.
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
-0.4
1911
1918
1932
1953
1975
1977
1991
2000
2002
2004 Sep-11
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
Ecosystem mauri (Environmental)
Community mauri (Social)
Whanau mauri (Economic)
Overall Mauri
Hapu mauri (Cultural)
longer-term dynamics, and how quantified stakeholder worldviews can be weighted and translated into decisions.
Discussion
We present seven case studies and one framework to explore development of locally relevant
and culturally grounded indicator sets assessing coupled social-ecological systems. Across case
studies, we observe several common features that could help shape effective resilience indicator
development and implementation (Table 4). We find that while the process of developing indicators varied among the case studies, all of them used an approach to developing indicators that
can potentially be transferable to other places and/or cultural contexts, particularly within the
geographic regions where they were developed.
Other commonalities include a reliance on multiple knowledge systems and mixed measurement systems (qualitative and quantitative), reflecting the importance of diverse sources
of information. The case studies use a myriad of approaches for data collection, ranging from
interviews to ecological survey methods. They include indicators that fall within four domains:
social/cultural, economic, political/governance, and environmental. All of the approaches
include indicators categorized as social/cultural, and well-being indicators that provide a more
complex view of well-being than traditional metrics like GDP. A few case studies (Solomon
Islands, SEPLS, NKA) also identified composite indicators that specifically measure feedbacks
between different domains of the system; going forward, we see development of indicators that
measure feedbacks as an important area for investment.
All case studies include indicators intended to support community decision making while
providing information to policy makers or others in different contexts. Indicators were mostly
collected and analyzed at the community and/or household level, though Melanesian WellBeing Indicators were planned, implemented, and analyzed at the national level. The case studies emphasize that insights provided by locally grounded approaches can be valuable to those
MWI
Peru
NKA
HCA
Reimaanlok
Framework
Solomon
Islands
Mauri
Model
20
V
V
~30
14
V
68
V
Targets of indicator
measurement
Domains
measured by
indicators
Geographic
scale
Primary
objective
General Characteristics
Human well-being
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
Ecosystem well-being
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
Social-ecological approach
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sustainability
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
International
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
National
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
Community
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Household
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Environmental
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Economic
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
Social/cultural
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Political/governance
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
Interactions between domains
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trend
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Pressures
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
Processes
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
Governance systems
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
Resource systems
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Resource units
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
Eleanor Sterling et al.
Number of indicators
SEPLS
䡲
Cases
86
Table 4: Characteristics of seven case studies and one framework: Socioecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS);
Melanesian Well-being Indicators (MWI); Peru; Nā Kilo 'Āina, Hawai'i (NKA); Hawai'i Conservation Alliance (HCA); Reimaanlok Framework,
Marshall Islands; Solomon Islands; and the Mauri Model Decision-Making Framework, New Zealand (1 = applicable, 0 = not applicable; V = variable).
Cases
SEPLS
MWI
Peru
NKA
HCA
Reimaanlok
Framework
Solomon
Islands
Mauri
Model
Policy makers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Academics/NGOs
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
Local stakeholders
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Influencing the public
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
Enhancing knowledge
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
Policy making
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Local decision making
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Assessment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Monitoring
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Standardization
of methods
for indicator
development
Standardization of indicator
benchmarks for use across
cultural settings
Methodological Characteristics
No standardization—indicators meant for use
in only one setting, not comparative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes, standardization cross-cultural (e.g.,
criteria are meaningful in Peru and comparable
in Vanuatu)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes, standardization culturally specific—
indicators standard but calibration culturally
specific
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No standardization
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes, standardization cross-cultural
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes, standardization culturally specific
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
Indicator purpose
Results to
be used by
Indicator Use
䡲
87
(continued)
88
Table 4: continued
䡲
Frequency
of measurement
Time
investment
Types
of data
collected
Collection
methods for
social data
SEPLS
MWI
Peru
NKA
HCA
Reimaanlok
Framework
Solomon
Islands
Mauri
Model
Annually
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only one snapshot to date
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
Other (including planned)
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
High investment (years)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Medium investment (months)
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
Low investment (day(s) or week)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Perceptions only
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direct measurement only
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mix of perceptions and direct measurement
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Focus groups
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Household or individual surveys
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
Other
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
Eleanor Sterling et al.
Cases
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
89
outside the community such as external researchers, policy makers, or NGOs. For instance,
the indicators can help elucidate how communities contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystems’ ability to respond to stresses and change. In contributing to the
development of a common language between local and external communities, the biocultural
approach can enrich understanding of human-environment interactions. Policy makers can use
the results as a decision support tool to identify benefits and consequences of actions, priorities,
and sequences, and to develop strategies at the local and national level that are more consistent
with local culture and values.
While there is variation across case studies in the total number of indicators, all case studies
rely on disaggregated information versus a single index number. Disaggregated information
requires a larger investment in interpretation or sharing information, whereas aggregated information (e.g., the social-ecological vulnerability index for coral reef-associated communities;
see Cinner et al. 2013) can be quickly shared. However, disaggregated information may provide
clearer insights into the factors moving a system in one direction or another. A single number
can indicate what is happening but not why it is happening and may also mask different perspectives and viewpoints.
Scoring systems differ widely between case studies (though several cases score individual
indicators on a five-point scale: SEPLS, Peru, Mauri Model). All indicator sets identify culturally
relevant criteria to benchmark or standardize indicator scores, but some are more specific than
others in setting these criteria. It is important to distinguish the process of developing indicators from the process of setting criteria used to determine where a community wants to be in
relation to the indicator. Different communities might set different benchmarks and thresholds
depending on their needs. Thus, standardization of indicators and related criteria for assessing the state of those indicators can inform action and policy and help communities to track
changes through time, but the indicator and criteria do not have to be exactly the same across
communities. Standardization can also help international agencies to identify where external
input and resources can be useful to a community and facilitate allocation of resources across
potential investments. Standardization of some form can allow for comparison across sites, giving communities access to potentially valuable information on how other communities react to
similar situations. For example, the HCA case study describes how several communities have
developed and shared communication products, such as posters and presentations, to facilitate
exchange of lessons learned.
The majority of indicators were developed for communities to track what they believe is
important, and are therefore tailored to a particular region and culture. Thus, the development
of indicators and criteria for use at broader temporal or spatial scales than the community they
stem from leads to a double-edged challenge. On one side, the indicator sets need to be specifi c
enough to reflect the cultural and ecological contexts (and their links) of a given community; on
the other side, lessons learned should be generalizable enough to allow for comparison across
communities to trigger appropriate decision making in other contexts (such as national and
international arenas). We note that this challenge can be negotiated in a number of ways, for
instance, by developing an overarching conceptual framework and complementary indicator
measurement processes within which individual communities can choose specific indicators
and set locally relevant criteria (such as is done by the Mauri Model), by having general indicators whose criteria and specifics can be tailored to local settings (like SEPLS, though some
challenges remain with comparable thresholds across sites), or by identifying some indicators
within a set that are explicitly oriented toward comparison while having others that are locally
tailored (Solomon Islands, Melanesian Well-Being Indicators, and Peru). Indicators developed
for specific local contexts cannot be expected to serve as stable elements at other levels (Tsing
90
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
2012), yet it is feasible to nest locally tailored indicators within targets that are comparable
across geographies and to share cross-context lessons and not precise indicator measurements.
Combining locally tailored metrics and broadly accepted standardized domains like wealth,
health, and well-being (Donatuto et al. 2014) may provide scaffolding between locally tailored
indicators and national or international metrics.
While all case studies illustrate the value and importance of using a biocultural approach
to indicator development, there are many challenges, including those related to ensuring representation of diverse perspectives within heterogeneous communities when developing the
indicators and/or ranking them; identifying ways to synthesize across results from the various
indicators; potential costs, especially in terms of time commitments, which are often extensive
with such an approach; and the feasibility of monitoring multiple indicators and how often they
can or should be monitored to be meaningful. The acknowledgment of the potential for bias in
models and frameworks is important, as is attention to design of tools to ensure the highest level
of transparency about representation of values.
A particular challenge remains in how to operationalize regular assessment and to translate
data into action. While many of the indicator sets we review are intended to influence local
decision making, it is not clear how successful they have been in bringing about change. Future
studies could focus on assessing whether or not taking a biocultural approach directly influences local policy and/or human behavior in ways judged as improving sustainability.
Frameworks that depict relationships and processes within systems can help move toward
action via informing decision support tools. The Mauri Model weighs dimension outcomes
within a matrix, allowing locally defined indicators to be meaningful and useable in real-world
decisions. The Mauri Meter quantifies Indigenous values in a holistic and relatively simple way,
thus making the indicators more useful than separate considerations that may be difficult to
act upon. Janet Stephenson and Henrik Moller (2009) suggest that recognizing that science and
Indigenous knowledge are founded in very different belief systems may open the way to resolving some of the tensions between them. While translation between worldviews and contexts is
fraught (West 2005) and care must be taken with the integrity and robustness of the approaches
developed, many of the case studies above demonstrate that bringing disparate types of knowledge into conversation has led to effective coproduction of new ways of knowing. Despite remaining challenges, current biocultural work has advanced efforts to represent a range of worldviews
and values in measurements that facilitate understanding and management of complex systems.
䡲
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under
grant nos. EF-1427091 and 1444184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the NSF. We received support from SNAPP (Science for Nature and People Partnership), a
collaboration of the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National
Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; Lynette
and Richard Jaffe; the Jaffe Family Foundation; and The Tiffany & Co. Foundation. We thank
Noelani Puniwai, Kainana Francisco, and Kekuhi Kanahele for their input; the Peruvian Amazon Indigenous and local communities and NGO and local government professionals and practitioners for their support and participation; Debby Moskovits, Corine Vriesendorp, and Paula
Tallman at the Field Museum for their support; and anonymous reviewers and the editors for
their thorough comments and constructive support.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
䡲
91
AUTHORS
Eleanor Sterling, Georgina Cullman, Erin Betley, Chris Filardi, Nadav Gazit, and Amanda
Sigouin work at the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural
History. E-mail: sterling@amnh.org
Tē Kipa Kepa Morgan created the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework; various indicator sets have been developed using the framework by the author and others locally and
internationally.
Diana Alvira, Ashwin Ravikumar, and Alaka Wali are part of an interdisciplinary team at the
Field Museum that has worked to develop and implement the indicators described in their case
study.
Pelika Andrade, Kanoe Morishige, and Pua‘ala Pascua are Native Hawaiian scientists and
community members from the University of Hawai‘i system who have helped to develop the
NKA program and indicators.
Nadia Bergamini and Pablo Eyzaguirre are active collaborators in the development of the
indicator set through the Satoyama Initiative and Bioversity International, and they have been
testing the indicators through community focus group discussions in nine countries covering
five different ecosystems.
Kate Burrows is a student at Yale University.
Sophie Caillon and Joachim Claudet work for the National Center for Scientific Research.
Rachel Dacks and Tamara Ticktin work at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Stacy Jupiter works for the Wildlife Conservation Society.
Kealohanuiopuna Kinney works at the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, United States Forest
Service.
Joe McCarter works for the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). The work in the
Western Province of Solomon Islands is coordinated by the AMNH alongside its partners the
Solomon Islands Community Conservation Partnership (SICCP), the Wildlife Conservation
Society, and Ecological Solutions Solomon Islands.
Manuel Mejia, Christian Giardina, Lihla Noori, and John Parks led HCA’s review, refinement, approval, and adoption of the finalized indicator set for application to watersheds and
communities of Hawai‘i. Noori led the HCA, which designed and supported the process. Parks
and Noori convened and facilitated community focus groups at eight priority sites across the
Hawaiian Islands to identify an indicator set through a community-based, participatory process. Giardina and Mejia use the indicator sets in their research and management daily.
Jamie Tanguay is the Coordinator for the Melanesian Well-Being Indicator initiative, hired by
the government of Vanuatu under contract with the Vanuatu National Statistics Office since
2010. He facilitated a regional meeting and subsequent national focus group discussions on the
contributing factors to Melanesian well-being and assisted in the development of the indicators
based on output from social research.
Mark Stege (Marshall Islands Conservation Society and Coastal Management Advisory Council) has been directly involved in the development of indicators at site, national, and regional
levels. Tina Stege (MarTina Corporation) and Jennifer Newell (Australian Museum) have
worked with the CMAC to further inform indicator development by linking to other regional
and international fora.
92
䡲
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
NOTES
1. The authors comprise a collaborative network of community members, resource managers, other
practitioners, government officials, and researchers from across the world working in the fields of
sustainability, conservation, and anthropology. They are actively involved in a range of biocultural
projects and initiatives, including indicator development. The article stems from a series of working groups aiming to identify, analyze, and compare frameworks and initiatives focused on offering place-based, culturally appropriate solutions to monitoring and evaluating for sustainability and
well-being.
2. The eight participating communities (and home island) were (in order of consultation) Maunalua
(O‘ahu), Honolua/Napili (Maui), Hā‘ena (Kaua‘i), Hanalei (Kaua‘i), Kawela/Kakahai‘a (Moloka‘i),
Ka‘ūpūlehu/Kīholo (Hawai‘i), Hau‘ula/Punalu‘u (O‘ahu), and Kīpahulu/Mū‘olea (Maui).
䡲
REFERENCES
Adger, W. Neil. 2000. “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?” Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347–364.
Ayers, Adam L., and John Kittinger. 2014. “Emergence of Co-management Governance for Hawai‘i
Coral Reef Fisheries.” Global Environmental Change 28: 251–262.
Baker, Nicole, Maria Beger, Caleb McClennen, Albon Ishoda, and Florence Edwards. 2011. “Reimaanlok: A National Framework for Conservation Area Planning in the Marshall Islands.” Journal of
Marine Biology. doi:10.1155/2011/273034.
Béné, Christophe, Andrew Newsham, and Mark Davies. 2013. “Making the Most of Resilience.” IDS In
Focus Policy Briefings 32. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IF32.pdf.
Challenger, Ian. 2013. A Process for Developing Sustainability Indicator Sets. Report No. 2224. Prepared
for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Nelson, NZ: Cawthorn Institute. 54 p.
Chirif, Alberto. 2007. Sistematización del Procesode Ejecución de los Proyectos de Reunificación, Revaloración Cultural y Continuidad del Puebl Secoya. Lima, Peru: IBIS.
Cinner, Joshua E., Cindy Huchery, Emily S. Darling, Austin T. Humphries, Nicholas A. J. Graham,
Christina C. Hicks, Nadine Marshall, and Tim R. McClanahan. 2013. “Evaluating Social and Ecological Vulnerability of Coral Reef Fisheries to Climate Change.” PLoS ONE 8. doi:10.1371/journal
.pone.0074321.
CMAC (Coastal Management Advisory Council). 2012. Reimaanlok: An Approach for Community-Based
Management—a Facilitator’s Guide to Implementing the Reimaanlok Conservation Process. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant College Program.
Cochran, Patricia A. L., Catherine A. Marshall, Carmen Garcia-Downing, Elizabeth Kendall, Doris
Cook, Laurie McCubbin, and Reva Mariah S. Gover. 2008. “Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Implications for Participatory Research and Community.” American Journal of Public Health 98 (1): 22–27.
Colding, Johan, Thomas Elmqvist, and Per Olsson. 2003. “Living with Disturbance: Building Resilience
in Social-Ecological Systems.” In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, ed. Fikret Berkes, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke, 163–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
del Campo, Hillary, and Alaka Wali. 2007. “Applying Asset Mapping to Protected Area Planning and
Management in the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru.” Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:
25–36.
Di Tella, Rafael, and Robert MacCulloch. 2008. “Gross National Happiness as an Answer to the Easterlin
Paradox?” Journal of Development Economics 86 (1): 22–42.
Donatuto, Jamie, Eric E. Grossman, John Konovsky, Sarah Grossman, and Larry W. Campbell. 2014.
“Indigenous Community Health and Climate Change: Integrating Biophysical and Social Science
Indicators.” Coastal Management 42 (4): 355–373.
Durie, Mason. 2005. Ngā Tai Matatu: Tides of Māori Endurance. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
93
Ens, Emilie. 2012. “Conducting Two-Way Ecological Research.” In People on Country: Vital Landscapes,
Indigenous Futures, ed. Jon C. Altman and Sean Kerins, 45–64. Sydney: Federation Press.
Fa‘aui, Tumanako Ngawhika, and Te Kipa Kepa Brian Morgan. 2014. “Restoring the Mauri to the
Pre-MV Rena State.” MAI Journal 3 (1): 3–17.
Fazey, Ioan, Nathalie Pettorelli, Jasper Kenter, Daniel Wagatora, and Daniel Schuett. 2011. “Maladaptive
Trajectories of Change in Makira, Solomon Islands.” Global Environmental Change 21 (4): 1275–1289.
Field Museum. 2016a. “Conservation for Well Being.” http://conservationforwellbeing.fieldmuseum.org
(accessed 30 August 2016).
Field Museum. 2016b. “Rapid Biological Inventories.” http://fm2.fieldmuseum.org/rbi (accessed 30
August 2016).
Firth, Raymond. 1929. Primitive Economics of the New Zealand Maori. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
Foale, Simon. 2006. “Is Coral Reef Conservation Possible without Science Education in Melanesia? Is
Science Education Possible without Development?” in Proceedings, 10th International Coral Reef
Symposium, ed. Nicholas Polunin, Okinawa: Japanese Coral Reef Society.
Folke, Carl, Johan Colding, and Fikret Berkes. 2003. “Synthesis: Building Resilience and Adaptive
Capacity in Social-Ecological Systems.” In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience
for Complexity and Change, ed. Fikret Berkes, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke, 352–387. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Friedlander, Alan, Janna Shackeroff, and John Kittinger. 2013. “Customary Marine Resource Knowledge
and Use in Contemporary Hawai‘i.” Pacific Science 67 (3): 441–460.
Gadgil, Madhav, Fikret Berkes, and Carl Folke. 1993. “Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ambio 22 (2–3): 151–156.
Gasché Susess, Jorge, Napoleón Vela Mendoza, Erma Bablionia Cáceres, Julio César Vel Mendoza, and
Wil de Jong. 2010. Sociedad Bosquesina: Tomo Ii. Iquitos, Peru: Instituto de Investigaciones de la
Amazonia Peruana.
Govan, Hugh. 2011. Good Coastal Management Practices in the Pacific: Experiences from the Field. Apia,
Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. https://www.sprep.org/attach
ments/Publications/GoodCoastMgtPacific.pdf.
Gow, Peter. 1991. Of Mixed Blood: Kinship and History in Peruvian Amazon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Grantham, Hedley S., Elizabeth McLeod, Anne-Marie Brooks, Stacy D. Jupiter, J. Hardcastle, Anthony J.
Richardson, Elvira S. Poloczanska, et al. 2011. “Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Marine Ecosystems of Tropical Oceania in Response to Climate Change.” Pacific Conservation Biology 17 (3):
241–258.
Gu, Hongyan, and Suneetha M. Subramanian. 2012. Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: Relevance
to the Green Economy Agenda. Yokohama, Japan: United Nations University Institute of Advanced
Studies.
Gunderson, Lance H., and Crawford S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kretzmann, John, and John McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path toward
Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.
Landweer, M. Lynn, and Peter Unseth. 2012. “An Introduction to Language Use in Melanesia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 214: 1–3.
Lebel, Louis, John Anderies, Bruce Campbell, Carl Folke, Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Terry Hughes, and
James Wilson. 2006. “Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional SocialEcological Systems.” Ecology and Society 11 (1): 19.
Maly, Kepa, and Onaona Pomroy-Maly. 2003. Ka Hana Lawai ‘Aa Me Na Ko ‘Ao Na Kai ‘Ewalu: A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. HiPae74 (080103). Prepared
for the Nature Conservancy. Hilo, Hawai‘i: Kumu Pono Associates.
Marks, Nic, Saamah Abdallah, Andrew Simms, and Sam Thompson. 2006. The Happy Planet Index: An
Index of Human Well-Being and Environmental Impact. London: New Economics Foundation.
McCarter, Joe, Eleanor J. Sterling, Stacy D. Jupiter, Georgina Cullman, Simon Albert, Marlene Basi,
Erin Betley, et al. Forthcoming. “Biocultural Approaches to Indicator Development in the Solomon
Islands.” Ecology and Society.
94
䡲
Eleanor Sterling et al.
McMillen, Heather, Tamara Ticktin, and Hannah Kihalani Springer. 2016. “The Future Is Behind Us:
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resilience over Time on Hawai‘i Island.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (2): 579–592.
Mijatović, Dunja, Frederik van Oudenhoven, Pablo Eyzaguirre, and Toby Hodgkin. 2013. “The Role of
Agricultural Biodiversity in Strengthening Resilience to Climate Change: Towards an Analytical
Framework.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (2): 95–107.
MNCC (Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs). 2012. Alternative Indicators of Well-being for Melanesia: Vanuatu Pilot Study Report. Port Vila, Vanuatu: MNCC.
Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian. 2006a. “An Indigenous Perspective on Water Recycling.” Desalination 187
(1): 127–136.
Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian. 2006b. “Lifting the Lid on LID in Aotearoa NZ.” Paper presented at the
NZWWA Stormwater Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, 4–5 May.
Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian. 2008. “The Value of a Hapū Perspective to Municipal Water Management
Practice: Mauri and Its Potential Contribution to Sustainability Decision Making in Aotearoa New
Zealand.” PhD diss., University of Auckland.
Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian, Tumanako Ngawhika Fa‘aui, and Piatirihi Bennett. 2015. “Decision Support Systems: Just about Money or More Than That?” Paper presented at the 36th IAHR World
Congress, The Hague, the Netherlands, 28 June to 3 July.
Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian, Daniel N. Sardelic, and Amaria F. Waretini. 2012. “The Three Gorges Project: How Sustainable?” Journal of Hydrology 460–461: 1–12.
Nā Kilo ‘Āina. 2014. “Nā Kilo ‘Āina: Portal for Observers of Hawai‘i Sustenance.” http://www.nakiloaina
.com.
Nevitt, Brooke, and Supin Wongbusarakum. 2013. Indicators for Monitoring Social Impacts of Micronesia
Challenge: An Addendum to Sem-Pasifika Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Pohnpei: Micronesia Conservation Trust.
Noori, Lihla, and John Parks. 2015. Community Watershed Snapshot Design Workshop Report. Honolulu:
Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance.
Olsson, Per, Carl Folke, and Thomas Hahn. 2004. “Social-Ecological Transformation for Ecosystem
Management: The Development of Adaptive Co-Management of a Wetland Landscape in Southern
Sweden.” Ecology and Society 9 (4). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.”
Science 325 (5939): 419–422.
Parks, John, and Lihla Noori. 2015. Effective Conservation Program Community Engagement Results.
Honolulu: Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance.
Parks, John, and Lihla Noori. 2016. Lessons Learned from the Community Watershed Snapshot Project.
Honolulu: Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance.
Poepoe, Kelson, Paul Bartram, and Alan Friedlander. 2007. “The Use of Traditional Hawaiian Knowledge in the Contemporary Management of Marine Resources.” In Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management, ed. Nigel Haggan, Barbara Neis, and Ian G. Baird, 117–141. Paris:
UNESCO.
Preuss, Karissa, and Madeline Dixon. 2012. “‘Looking After Country Two-Ways’: Insights into Indigenous Community-Based Conservation from the Southern Tanami.” Ecological Management and
Restoration 13 (1): 2–15.
Regenvanu, Ralph. 2008. “Issues with Land Reform in Vanuatu.” Journal of South Pacific Law 12 (1):
63–67.
Regenvanu, Ralph. 2010. “The Traditional Economy as Source of Resilience in Vanuatu.” In In Defence of
Melanesian Customary Land, ed. Tim Anderson and Gary Lee, 30–33. Sydney: AidWatch.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simo, Joel. 2010. “Land and the Traditional Economy: ‘Your Money, My Life’ Hu I Kakae Long Basket
Blong Laef?” In In Defence of Melanesian Customary Land, ed. Tim Anderson and Gary Lee, 40–44.
Sydney: AidWatch.
Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems
䡲
95
Sparks, Tim H., Stuart H. M. Butchart, Andrew Balmford, Leon Bennun, Damon Stanwell-Smith, Matt
Walpole, Nicholas R. Bates, Bastian Bomhard, Graeme M. Buchanan, and Anna M. Chenery. 2011.
“Linked Indicator Sets for Addressing Biodiversity Loss.” Oryx 45 (3): 411–419.
Stephenson, Janet, and Henrik Moller. 2009. “Cross-Cultural Environmental Research and Management:
Challenges and Progress.” Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39 (4): 139–149.
Sterling, Eleanor J., Christopher E. Filardi, Anne Toomey, Amanda Sigouin, Erin Betley, Nadav Gazit,
Jennifer Newell, et al. Forthcoming. “Biocultural Approaches to Well-Being and Sustainability
Indicators across Scales.” Nature Ecology and Evolution.
Tanaka, W. 2008. “Ho‘ohana Aku, Ho‘ola Aku: First Steps to Averting the Tragedy of the Commons in
Hawai‘i’s Nearshore Fisheries.” Asia-Pacific Law Policy Journal 10 (1): 235–291.
Tengö, Maria, Eduardo S. Brondizio, Thomas Elmqvist, Pernilla Malmer, and Marja Spierenburg. 2014.
“Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach.” Ambio 43 (5): 579–591.
Thaman, Randolph R., M. Meleisea, and J. Makasiale. 2002. “Agricultural Diversity and Traditional
Knowledge as Insurance against Natural Disasters.” Pacific Health Dialog 9 (1): 76–85.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2012. “On Nonscalability: The Living World Is Not Amenable to PrecisionNested Scales.” Common Knowledge 18 (3): 505–524.
UN CDP (United Nations Committee for Development Policy). 2017. “List of Least Developed Countries.” Updated June 2017. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/
sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf.
UN (United Nations) Data. 2016. “Solomon Islands Country Profile.” http://data.un.org/CountryProfile
.aspx?crName=solomon%20islands (accessed 1 September 2016).
UNU-IAS (United Nations University Institute for the Advances Study of Sustainability), Bioversity
International, IGES (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies), and UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme). 2014. Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes. UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, UNDP-COMDEKS, and the
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
van Oudenhoven, Frederik J. W., Dunja Mijatović, and Pablo B. Eyzaguirre. 2011. “Social-Ecological
Indicators of Resilience in Agrarian and Natural Landscapes.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 22 (2): 154–173. doi:doi:10.1108/14777831111113356.
Vaughan, Mehana Blaich, Barton Thompson, and Adam L. Ayers. 2016. “Pāwehe Ke Kai a ‘O Hā ‘Ena:
Creating State Law Based on Customary Indigenous Norms of Coastal Management.” Society and
Natural Resources 30 (1): 31–46.
Vaughan, Mehana Blaich, and Peter M. Vitousek. 2013. “Mahele: Sustaining Communities through
Small-Scale Inshore Fishery Catch and Sharing Networks.” Pacific Science 67 (3): 329–344.
Wali, Alaka. 2016. “Contextualizing the Collection: Environmental Conservation and Quality of Life in
the Buffer Zone of the Cordillera Azul National Park.” In The Shipibo-Conibo: Culture and Collections
in Context, ed. Alaka Wali and Claire Odland, 21–34. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
Wali, Alaka, Gillian Darlow, Carol Fialkowski, Madeleine Tudor, Hilary Del Campo, and Douglas Stotz.
2003. “New Methodologies for Interdisciplinary Research and Action in an Urban Ecosystem in
Chicago.” Conservation Ecology 7 (3): 2.
Wali, Alaka, Mario Pariona, Teófilo Torres, Dora Ramírez, and Anselmo Sandoval. 2008. “Comunidades
Humanas Visitadas: Fortalezas Sociales Y Uso De Recursos/Human Communities Visited: Social
Assets and Use of Resources.” In Ecuador, Perú: Cuyabeno-Güeppí. Rapid Biological Inventories
Report 20, ed. William S. Alverson, Corine Vriesendorp, Álvaro Del Campo, Debra K. Moskovits,
Douglas F. Stotz, Miryan García Donayre, and Luis Borbor, 111–121, 234–245. Chicago: Field
Museum of Natural History.
West, Paige. 2005. “Translation, Value, and Space: Theorizing an Ethnographic and Engaged Environmental Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 107 (4): 632–642.
Wongbusarakum, Supin, Robert S. Pomeroy, and Christen Eileen Loper. 2008. Sem-Pasifika: Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Apia: Secretariat of
the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
Free related PDFsRelated papers
Tenure and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific
Fish and Fisheries, 2011
Free PDF
Ritual +Sustainability Science: A Portal into the Science of Aloha.pdf
Sustainability, 2018
Free PDF
Perceptions of the value of traditional ecological knowledge to formal school curricula: opportunities and challenges from Malekula Island, Vanuatu
Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2011
Free PDF
Community-based project assessment using the indicators of resilience in SEPLS: Lessons from the GEF-Satoyama Project
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 2020
Free PDF
The roles of local, national and international designations in conserving biocultural diversity on a landscape scale
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2011
Free PDF
Climate justice and cultural sustainability: The case of Etëtung (Vanuatu Women's Water Music)
Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 2019
Free PDF
State of Environment and Conservation in the Pacific Islands: 2020 Regional Report
State of Environment and Conservation in the Pacific Islands: 2020 Regional Report, 2021
Free PDF
Utilising nature-based solutions to increase resilience in Pacific Ocean Cities
Ecosystem Services, 2019
Free PDF
Protocols and Partnerships for Engaging Pacific Island Communities in the Collection and Use of Traditional Climate Knowledge
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Free PDF
Changing Concepts and Values in Natural Heritage Conservation: A View through IUCN and UNESCO Policies
Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions., 2019
Free PDF
Processual Perspectives on Traditional Environmental Knowledge Continuity, Erosion, Transformation, Innovation
In: Roy Ellen, Stephen J. Lycett and Sarah E. Johns, eds. 2013. Understanding Cultural Transmission in Anthropology: A Critical Synthesis. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Free PDF
Related topics
Community ResilienceResilienceBiocultural DiversitySustainability IndicatorsEnvironmental SustainabilityIndigenous PeoplesMultidisciplinaryBiocultural theoryHappiness and Well BeingWell BeingBiocultural conservationSociety and EnvironmentEnvironment and SocietyLocal CommunityEnvironmental Management and Sus...
- Find new research papers in:
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Health Sciences
- Ecology
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science