Cultural ecosystem services and the conservation challenges for an Indigenous people's aquatic protected area practice

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Biology Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1111/cobi.14403
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,&nbsp;Alan M. Friedlander,&nbsp;John N. Kittinger,&nbsp;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.

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
文化生态系统服务和土著人民水生保护区实践面临的保护挑战
在全球范围内,与圣地和墓地相关的保护区是一个新兴的研究领域。然而,这些研究偏重于陆地系统。在斐济,淡水和海洋系统中的殡葬保护区(FPAs)是斐济土著居民在部族土地上安葬亲人后的文化保护区。斐济的殡葬保护区在 19 世纪首次被记录在案,尽管经过 30 多年的保护努力和全国范围的自然资源共同管理,但斐济的殡葬保护区仍未得到研究。我们试图通过对斐济 189 个地区的 201 名关键信息提供者进行分层、有目的、半结构式访谈,阐明土著 FPA 的 8 个社会生态属性,从而弥补这一知识空白。73 个地区积极实施了森林保护区;另外 34 个地区由于对森林保护区认识不足、森林保护区被排除在共同管理计划之外以及在酋长选择方面存在冲突而没有实施森林保护区。33%的地区只为酋长设立了家庭保护区,20%的地区为任何部族成员设立了家庭保护区,因此每年都会设立许多家庭保护区。从 20 世纪 60 年代到 2019 年,共设立了 188 个家庭保护区。44%的渔业保护区保护期为100晚,47%的渔业保护区保护渔业保护区内的所有资源和相关生态系统。只有 25% 的地区捕捞可食用鱼类和无脊椎动物;另有 22% 的地区仅捕捞可食用鱼类。在一些酋长的葬礼仪式上,只收获了海龟,而海龟是受法律保护的,因此需要政府豁免传统用途。《渔业保护法》的捕捞规定各不相同,有的涉及整个社区,有的涉及特定部族,如传统渔民或进行葬礼的人。我们的研究结果表明,斐济与渔业保护区相关的做法多种多样、有机演变,而且与渔业和粮食供应的重点相比,更具社会细微差别和复杂性。侵蚀与渔业保护区相关的土著知识和习俗以及将渔业保护区排除在保护规划之外,将对社会和生态复原力产生负面影响,导致社区变得脆弱。
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
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Drivers of mangrove area change and suppression in Brazil from 2000 to 2020. Conservation and coexistence at a crossroads. Fundamental principles of the effect of habitat fragmentation on species with different movement rates. Biodiversity conservation, consistency, and Mus musculus. Association between attitudes toward wildlife and patterns of risk of human-wildlife conflict near Giant Panda National Park.
×
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