Ron Vave, Alan M. Friedlander, John N. Kittinger, Tamara Ticktin
{"title":"Cultural ecosystem services and the conservation challenges for an Indigenous people's aquatic protected area practice","authors":"Ron Vave, Alan M. Friedlander, John N. Kittinger, Tamara Ticktin","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Globally, protected areas associated with sacred sites and cemeteries are an emerging area of research. However, they are biased toward terrestrial systems. In Fiji, funerary protected areas (FPAs) in freshwater and marine systems are culturally protected by Indigenous Fijians following the burial of a loved one on clan land. First documented in the 1800s, FPAs in Fiji have not been researched despite more than 30 years of conservation efforts and countrywide comanagement of natural resources. We sought to bridge this knowledge gap by elucidating 8 socioecological attributes of Indigenous FPAs through stratified, purposive, semistructured interviews of 201 key informants across Fiji's 189 districts. Seventy-three districts actively implemented FPAs; another 34 were not being implemented because of low FPA awareness, FPA exclusion from comanagement plans, and conflicts in chief selection. Thirty-three percent of districts established FPAs for chiefs only, and 20% established FPAs for any clan member, resulting in the establishment of numerous FPAs annually. From the 1960s to 2019, 188 FPAs were established. Forty-four percent of FPAs were protected for 100 nights, and 47% protected all resources and associated ecosystems in the FPA. Only 25% of districts harvested edible fish and invertebrates; another 22% harvested edible fish only. For some chiefs’ funeral rites, only turtles were harvested, which are protected by law, thereby requiring government exemption for traditional use. The FPA harvest provisions varied from engaging whole communities to engaging specific clans, such as traditional fishers or those who performed the burial. Our results showed that practices associated with FPAs in Fiji are diverse, organically evolving, and more socially nuanced and complex than the fisheries and food provisioning focus they are known for. Erosion of Indigenous knowledge and practices associated with FPAs and FPA exclusion from conservation planning will negatively affect social and ecological resilience, resulting in vulnerable communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14403","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14403","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
Globally, protected areas associated with sacred sites and cemeteries are an emerging area of research. However, they are biased toward terrestrial systems. In Fiji, funerary protected areas (FPAs) in freshwater and marine systems are culturally protected by Indigenous Fijians following the burial of a loved one on clan land. First documented in the 1800s, FPAs in Fiji have not been researched despite more than 30 years of conservation efforts and countrywide comanagement of natural resources. We sought to bridge this knowledge gap by elucidating 8 socioecological attributes of Indigenous FPAs through stratified, purposive, semistructured interviews of 201 key informants across Fiji's 189 districts. Seventy-three districts actively implemented FPAs; another 34 were not being implemented because of low FPA awareness, FPA exclusion from comanagement plans, and conflicts in chief selection. Thirty-three percent of districts established FPAs for chiefs only, and 20% established FPAs for any clan member, resulting in the establishment of numerous FPAs annually. From the 1960s to 2019, 188 FPAs were established. Forty-four percent of FPAs were protected for 100 nights, and 47% protected all resources and associated ecosystems in the FPA. Only 25% of districts harvested edible fish and invertebrates; another 22% harvested edible fish only. For some chiefs’ funeral rites, only turtles were harvested, which are protected by law, thereby requiring government exemption for traditional use. The FPA harvest provisions varied from engaging whole communities to engaging specific clans, such as traditional fishers or those who performed the burial. Our results showed that practices associated with FPAs in Fiji are diverse, organically evolving, and more socially nuanced and complex than the fisheries and food provisioning focus they are known for. Erosion of Indigenous knowledge and practices associated with FPAs and FPA exclusion from conservation planning will negatively affect social and ecological resilience, resulting in vulnerable communities.
期刊介绍:
Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.