Local Ecological Knowledge Key to Sustainable Ecosystems
Scientists and Locals Need to Work Together
While some scientists are taking this bottom up approach, too often, they disregard local ecological knowledge, resulting in ignorance that is counterproductive in facilitating sustainable ecosystems. This is especially true when their results supply ecosystem managers with guidelines.
Not all-local knowledge is correct just as not all local practices are sustainable. However, there are examples of common sense strategies incorporated from a bottom up management approach that make research and sustainable ecosystem management easier. Varying types of physical scientists have made it a priority to study the fusing of local ecological knowledge with conventional western science to better understand and manage ecosystems.
Examples of Common Sense Ecosystem Management
A collaborative university project studied seven community based forest organizations in the U.S. They found "all the projects had significant aspects of successful knowledge integration and, in many cases, power sharing between scientists and local communities."
In 13 of 24 projects, these seven groups carried out local residents were directly involved in planning, assessment and interpretation of results. In an ecological study of a forest in California, loggers are credited with being the first to discover the critical role fire-or the lack of- played in that area. They are quoted as saying "'Oh, my gosh, fire is the driver in this ecosystem, there is too much s__t on the ground, you have to help us figure out how we are going to reduce this vegetation.'"
Milton R. Freeman cites several examples of local Inuit knowledge trumping scientific findings. In one case scientists warned that caribou west of Hudson Bay were on the verge of extinction due to overhunting. Inuit hunters had difficulties with these findings. Upon recounting, based on Inuit techniques, they found the original estimates of the caribou population were short by about 100,000 animals.
Collaboratives Change Attitudes About Science
Many of the residents who had biases against conventional science before the collaborative projects found their views change at the end of the project. This is accredited to both the local's feeling a part of the project, rather than just being handed a completed recommendation telling them the best land management practices and to the idea that locals came to embrace science as "a part of its economic development work". This is opposed to locals traditionally seeing science and scientists as their enemy.
No Place for Bias in Sustainable Ecosystem Management
Local ecological knowledge is often scientifically debunked. Finding scientific "truths" to be false is a common occurrence as well. All knowledge is good knowledge, even if it turns out to be incorrect, as it eliminates another possibility. This is how science works. I've seen too many instances of a group of "experts" sitting around trying to find the best way to gather data or some other such dilemma of research, while I think, why don't they just ask the farmer who's plot sits next to the forest? Maybe it's because the farmer doesn't have Ph. D. behind his name. It's refreshing to see researchers taking local ecological knowledge seriously. Demonstrating bias, either for or against local knowledge leads to bad data and even worse consequences for managing a sustainable ecosystem.
References:
Integration of Local Ecological Knowledge and Conventional Science: a Study of Seven Community-Based Forestry Organizations in the USA : http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art37/
The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Milton R. Freeman http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/utility.htm
Published by Don A Shepard
Don writes for numerous online sources while conducting research for a Master's in Natural Resources/Environmental Management. He enjoys working on his urban homestead with his family, outdoor activities, mo... View profile
Is the Duel Between Science and Religion Finally Coming to an End?Two of the most fundamental methods people use for obtaining knowledge about life and the universe have been feuding for centuries, leaving an aftermath of various forms of soci...
How to save up to $5,000 a year by living the green life in ClevelandWith today's economy and environment, every move to tighten your belt and protect the planet speaks makes sense. Here are 30 ways Clevelanders can do it.- The Dangers of a Fear-Driven OrganizationHow fear-driven organizations create a danger in today's business world, and a self-made obstacle to success.
The War on Plastic Heats UpWe consumers have become unwittingly hooked on plastic. Plastic, especially plastic bags, is a big problem. We must now address this problem seriously. It isn't a simple one nor...
What to Do in Orlando, Florida, If You Want to Do What the Locals DoThere's more to Orlando, Florida, than Walt Disney World and Universal Studios. Discover the Orlando that the locals know.
- LSU Hosts Event on Sustainable Management of Deltaic Ecosystems
- A Sustainable Hospitality Industry
- South Atlantic Management Council Closes Bottom Fishing
- Negros Wildlife Month: Sum-ag School Wins Wildlife Quiz
- British Marxist Historians: History from the Bottom Up
- Guide to Community Colleges in New Hampshire
- Community Colleges in Wyoming
- Bias, either for or against local ecological knowledge, leads to bad ecosystem management decisions.
8 Comments
Post a CommentYou are absolutely right. There is no room for bias when it comes to managing ecosystems. It just makes sense to talk to farmers who have had experience with local ecology and you make an excellent point when you note that local knowledge is left untapped.
I've ran across papers arguing that local knowledge should not be taken seriously because it gets in the way of real science. We could say, flora, fauna, etc. but it's easier to just say ecosystem.
You think this would be common sense. And can't we just say, know the flora, fauna, water systems and geography of your area?
Agree Don. Science is a process and results are flawed when all aspects of a study are not integrated into that process. Local input on ecological conditions should be a no-brainer. The biases and barriers that have evolved over time between scientist and non-scientists is often due to a lack of open dialogue between the two.
Great work on this - something we need to think about and act on.
refreshing story..thanks
--yes, and more should be published about the local knowledge gathered from South American rainforest natives, including many of our current medicines. But even there, not enough is being gathered considering the rate of rainforest loss.
The only problem is that scientists do not usually concur on a solution, they all have their own theory and that takes research to prove it right or wrong. I agree though, we should work together, the days of hierarchy have only separated good ideas from great ones.