Compensating aboriginal cultural losses: an alternative approach to assessing environmental damages

Realising the potential of cultural heritage to achieve climate change actions in the Netherlands

Climate change impacts on diverse cultural heritage is gaining scholarly and policy attention, yet little research has been conducted on how can diverse cultural heritage inform decisionmakers and policymakers in achieving climate change actions (i.e., climate change adaptation and mitigation). For this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with Dutch cultural heritage and environmental or climate change experts (n = 52) and participant observations across the Netherlands to explore the importance of cultural heritage benefits and their relation to climate change actions. We also explored the perceptions of cultural heritage management over time, including the influence of climate policy on heritage practice in the Netherlands. Our findings show that experts perceived a multiplicity of heritage benefits as important in supporting and informing present and future climate change actions. The most salient benefits were informational benefits where diverse cultural heritage is perceived as an important source of knowledge about past societal, economic and environmental developments and changes. Further, heritage management was perceived as constantly changing over time, reflecting the transformative nature of diverse heritage types. Experts agreed that climate policy has already influenced cultural heritage practice in the Netherlands. Lastly, the interrelationships between heritage benefits and management were identified and characterised. This study informs both cultural heritage and climate change research agendas and helps leverage diverse cultural heritage into climate change adaptation and mitigation policies.

Water is Medicine: Reimagining Water Security through Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Relationships to Treated and Traditional Water Sources in Yukon, Canada

There is growing acknowledgement that the material dimensions of water security alone are inadequate; we also need to engage with a broader set of hydrosocial relationships. Indeed, more holistic approaches are needed to explain Indigenous peoples’ relationships to water including the use of traditional water sources such as mountain creeks and springs. In this paper, we seek to reimagine water security through a case study of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in’s relationships to both treated and traditional water sources throughout the First Nation’s traditional territory in Yukon, Canada. Through community-based research including interviews with Elders and other community members, we examine the importance of traditional water sources for meeting important health requirements including physical, spiritual and cultural wellbeing. This intervention contributes to ongoing debates about what it means to secure safe and affordable water in three key ways: First, we argue that Indigenous water relations invite a shift towards more a holistic understanding of water security; second, we contend that settler colonial politics should be understood as a root cause of water insecurity; finally, we explore how Two-Eyed Seeing can be applied as an alternative to the ‘integration’ of Western scientific and Indigenous approaches to drinking water.

Values-Based Measures of Impacts to Indigenous Health

Values-based indicators of risks to Indigenous health have the potential to improve the accuracy and quality of a wide range of decisions affecting Native lands and cultures. Current health impact assessment approaches often omit important health priorities rooted in the history, social structures, and cultural context of Indigenous communities. Insights and methods from the decision sciences can be used to develop more culturally appropriate and context-relevant health indicators that can articulate and track changes to important dimensions of Indigenous health. Identifying and addressing priority cultural, social, economic, and environmental contributors to the health of Indigenous communities will help to generate better project alternatives and foster more responsive choices.

Invisible losses and the logics of resettlement compensation

The necessity of compensating people negatively affected by conservation and other development projects has been widely acknowledged. It is less widely acknowledged that because conventional compensation assessments focus on material resources and their economic equivalents, many important losses incurred by resettlers are invisible to project authorities. Through ethnographic observations and interviews, we documented losses identified by people facing resettlement from Mozambique's Limpopo National Park. We also examined resettlement planning documents to determine why decision makers' assessments of natural resource use and value neglect losses residents identified as critical. Identifying, preventing, and mitigating invisible losses in resettlement planning necessitates a better understanding of intangible benefits residents derive from resources, which are often as or more important than their readily apparent material properties. These benefits include but are not limited to decision-making authority linked to owning land versus having the use of fields; ancestral identity and social belonging linked to gravesites; the importance of tree roots that provide a powerful sense of security because they suppress hunger in periods of scarcity; and the importance of people's location within social networks and hierarchies as they determine the benefits versus risks that will be incurred through resettlement.

Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management

The demand for better representation of cultural considerations in environmental management is increasingly evident. As two cases in point, ecosystem service approaches increasingly include cultural services, and resource planners recognize indigenous constituents and the cultural knowledge they hold as key to good environmental management. Accordingly, collaborations between anthropologists, planners, decision makers and biodiversity experts about the subject of culture are increasingly common-but also commonly fraught. Those whose expertise is culture often engage in such collaborations because they worry a practitioner from 'elsewhere' will employ a 'measure of culture' that is poorly or naively conceived. Those from an economic or biophysical training must grapple with the intangible properties of culture as they intersect with economic, biological or other material measures. This paper seeks to assist those who engage in collaborations to characterize cultural benefits or impacts relevant to decision-making in three ways; by: (i) considering the likely mindset of would-be collaborators; (ii) providing examples of tested approaches that might enable innovation; and (iii) characterizing the kinds of obstacles that are in principle solvable through methodological alternatives. We accomplish these tasks in part by examining three cases wherein culture was a critical variable in environmental decision making: risk management in New Zealand associated with Māori concerns about genetically modified organisms; cultural services to assist marine planning in coastal British Columbia; and a decision-making process involving a local First Nation about water flows in a regulated river in western Canada. We examine how 'culture' came to be manifest in each case, drawing from ethnographic and cultural-models interviews and using subjective metrics (recommended by theories of judgment and decision making) to express cultural concerns. We conclude that the characterization of cultural benefits and impacts is least amenable to methodological solution when prevailing cultural worldviews contain elements fundamentally at odds with efforts to quantify benefits/impacts, but that even in such cases some improvements are achievable if decision-makers are flexible regarding processes for consultation with community members and how quantification is structured.

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.