Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION People and Nature Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1002/pan3.10653
Giulia Mattalia, Alex McAlvay, Irene Teixidor‐Toneu, Jessica Lukawiecki, Faisal Moola, Zemede Asfaw, Rodrigo Cámara‐Leret, Sandra Díaz, F. M. Franco, Benjamin S. Halpern, C. O’Hara, Delphine Renard, Yadav Uprety, Jeffrey Wall, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Victoria Reyes‐García
{"title":"Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review","authors":"Giulia Mattalia, Alex McAlvay, Irene Teixidor‐Toneu, Jessica Lukawiecki, Faisal Moola, Zemede Asfaw, Rodrigo Cámara‐Leret, Sandra Díaz, F. M. Franco, Benjamin S. Halpern, C. O’Hara, Delphine Renard, Yadav Uprety, Jeffrey Wall, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Victoria Reyes‐García","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nThe cultural keystone species (CKS) concept (i.e. ‘species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people’ as defined by Garibaldi and Turner in 2004) has been proposed as part of a common framing for the multiple entangled relationships between species and the socioecological systems in which they exist. However, the blurred and prolific definitions of CKS hamper its univocal application. This work examines the current use of the term CKS to reconcile a definition and explore its practical applications for biocultural stewardship.\n\nWe ran a search for the words ‘cultural’ AND ‘keystone’ AND ‘species’. Our search was limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English between 1994 and 2022 (inclusive) and was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted and analysed bibliometric information as well as information on (i) the CKS components, (ii) humans' support for CKS and (iii) the definitions of CKS.\n\nFrom the 313 selected documents, the CKS concept appears to be increasingly accepted, as evidenced by a growing corpus of literature. However, the absence of a systematic and precise way of documenting CKS precludes global cross‐cultural comparisons.\n\nThe geographical distribution of authors using the concept is biased. We found that 47% of all the CKS reported and 38% of the works identified in our review were located in North America.\n\nBeyond ‘supporting identity’, several other of nature's contributions to people are associated with the CKS definitions. However, the contributions of the sociocultural group to the survival and conservation of the CKS (i.e. stewardship) are made explicit only in one‐third of the documents reviewed.\n\nTo advance biocultural stewardship as a conservation paradigm, we suggest (a) defining CKS as an indissoluble combination of a non‐human species and one or more sociocultural groups; (b) acknowledging that species and sociocultural group relations should be classified in a continuum, according to gradients of relationship intensity; and (c) explicitly acknowledging the reciprocal relationships between sociocultural groups and species.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10653","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The cultural keystone species (CKS) concept (i.e. ‘species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people’ as defined by Garibaldi and Turner in 2004) has been proposed as part of a common framing for the multiple entangled relationships between species and the socioecological systems in which they exist. However, the blurred and prolific definitions of CKS hamper its univocal application. This work examines the current use of the term CKS to reconcile a definition and explore its practical applications for biocultural stewardship. We ran a search for the words ‘cultural’ AND ‘keystone’ AND ‘species’. Our search was limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English between 1994 and 2022 (inclusive) and was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted and analysed bibliometric information as well as information on (i) the CKS components, (ii) humans' support for CKS and (iii) the definitions of CKS. From the 313 selected documents, the CKS concept appears to be increasingly accepted, as evidenced by a growing corpus of literature. However, the absence of a systematic and precise way of documenting CKS precludes global cross‐cultural comparisons. The geographical distribution of authors using the concept is biased. We found that 47% of all the CKS reported and 38% of the works identified in our review were located in North America. Beyond ‘supporting identity’, several other of nature's contributions to people are associated with the CKS definitions. However, the contributions of the sociocultural group to the survival and conservation of the CKS (i.e. stewardship) are made explicit only in one‐third of the documents reviewed. To advance biocultural stewardship as a conservation paradigm, we suggest (a) defining CKS as an indissoluble combination of a non‐human species and one or more sociocultural groups; (b) acknowledging that species and sociocultural group relations should be classified in a continuum, according to gradients of relationship intensity; and (c) explicitly acknowledging the reciprocal relationships between sociocultural groups and species. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为生物文化管理工具的文化基石物种。全球综述
文化基石物种(CKS)的概念(即加里波第和特纳在 2004 年定义的 "对一个民族的文化认同具有重要影响的物种")已被提出,作为物种与它们所在的社会生态系统之间多重纠缠关系的共同框架的一部分。然而,"中观系统 "的定义模糊且繁多,妨碍了它的统一应用。我们对'文化'、'基石'和'物种'这三个词进行了搜索。我们使用谷歌学术、PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 对 1994 年至 2022 年(含 2022 年)之间发表的同行评审过的英文文章进行了搜索。我们提取并分析了文献计量学信息以及以下方面的信息:(i) CKS 的组成部分;(ii) 人类对 CKS 的支持;(iii) CKS 的定义。然而,由于缺乏系统而精确的 CKS 文献方法,因此无法进行全球跨文化比较。除了 "支持身份 "之外,大自然对人类的其他一些贡献也与中美洲文化中心的定义有关。然而,社会文化群体对中科英才生存和保护的贡献(即管理)仅在三分之一的审查文件中得到明确阐述。为了将生物文化管理作为一种保护范式加以推进,我们建议:(a)将中科斯定义为非人类物种与一个或多个社会文化群体的不可分割的组合;(b)承认物种与社会文化群体的关系应根据关系强度的梯度划分为一个连续体;以及(c)明确承认社会文化群体与物种之间的互惠关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
From cash to conservation: Which wildlife species appear on banknotes? Slugs Count: Assessing citizen scientist engagement and development, and the accuracy of their identifications The frequent five: Insights from interviews with urban wildlife professionals in Germany Gugwilx'ya'ansk and goats: Indigenous perspectives on governance, stewardship and relationality in mountain goat (mati) hunting in Gitga'at territory Using gross ecosystem product to harmonize biodiversity conservation and economic development in Southwestern China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1