Article The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration Jules Pretty a Bill Adams b Fikret Berkes c Simone Ferreira de Athayde d Nigel Dudley e Eugene Hunn f g Kay Milton h David Rapport e Paul Robbins i Eleanor Sterling j Sue Stolton k Anna Tsing l Erin Vintinner k and Sarah Pilgrim m# a b University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK c University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada d University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA e Equilibrium, UK f University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA g Terralingua, UK h i EcoHealth Consulting, UK j University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA k l University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA m # Corresponding author. E-mail: Copyright: Pretty et al. 2009. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited. INTRODUCTION Human societies have interacted with nature for thousands 2002; Heckenberger et al by long histories of regimes and rules to protect or preserve natural places, and often manifests in the form of sacred sites, Abstract There is an emerging recognition that the diversity of life comprises both biological and cultural diversity. In the past, however, it has been common to make divisions between nature and culture, arising partly out of a desire to control environmental sub-disciplines that have emerged. In this article, we present ideas from a number of these sub-disciplines. We investigate four bridges linking both types of diversity (beliefs and worldviews, livelihoods and practices, knowledge a novel and integrative path forwards. We recommend that future policy responses should target both biological and cultural diversity in a combined approach to conservation. The degree to which biological diversity is linked to cultural are under threat. While conserving nature alongside human cultures presents unique challenges, we suggest that any hope for saving biological diversity is predicated on a concomitant effort to appreciate and protect cultural diversity. Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, cultural diversity, culture, nature, policy, sub-disciplines DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.58642 Conservation and Society 7(2): 100-112, 2009
Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 101 national parks, nature reserves and community conserved areas. Community conserved areas constitute the oldest form of protected area, and include sites such as sacred groves and community managed commons (Stevens 1997; Kothari 2006; Schaaf & Lee 2006; Turner & Berkes 2006). Today, there is an emerging recognition that the diversity of life comprises both living forms (biological diversity) and human beliefs, values, worldviews and cosmologies (cultures) (Posey 1999; Berkes et al division commonly made between nature and culture is not universal, and in many societies has been borne from our need to manage and control nature. Previously, connections between biological and cultural diversity have often been considered separately from one et al 2006). In this article, we take an integrative approach, combining ideas from many different sub-disciplines. We investigate four bridges linking biological and cultural diversity, seek to determine and by no means are all cultural ideas and practices good for nature. However, this article focuses on cultural arrangements (largely of resource-dependent communities) that do have positive synergies with nature, and how these synergies can be actively fostered for the future. WHY DO CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MATTER? Importance of Biological Diversity levels of genes, species and ecosystems (CBD 1992). Much has been written on the importance of biological diversity in terms of its intrinsic value, its anthropocentric uses (in terms of goods and services provided), its role in markets, and its political origins and uses (Takacs 1996; Constanza et al 1997; Gunderson & Holling 2002; MEA 2005). Ecosystem health their function in the face of disturbance. This resilience is an essential precondition to sustainable livelihoods, the Millennium Development Goals (MEA 2005; Rapport 2006). Biological diversity is the key to ecosystem health, as it serves as an absorptive barrier, providing protection from environmental shocks and stresses (Stolton et al 2008). Importance of Cultural Diversity rapidly, emerging as well as dying out in both industrialised biological diversity underpins the resilience of natural systems, cultural diversity has the capacity to increase & Holling 2002; Harmon 2002). Cultural diversity is the diversity of human cultures, where a culture can be the system of shared symbols behaviours beliefs value s norms artefacts and institutions that the members of a society use to cope with their world and with one another and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning (Brey 2007). However, a culture holds more than just a utilitarian function as cultural change as a form of co evolution between cultural information and the social and natural environment This identity by representing relationships with the surrounding environment. Thus a culture is neither static nor tenable, but rather represents elements that lead to the distinctiveness of a group or society. The maintenance of cultural diversity into the future, and the knowledge, innovations and outlooks it contains, increases the Gunderson & Holling 2002; Harmon 2002). Different cultures interact with nature in different ways and forge different relationships with their local environments (Milton 1998; Berkes 2008). We now consider these interactions and how they bridge the modernist separation of nature and culture. Table 1 concerned with the intersection of nature and culture Agricultural sustainability Environmental law Anthropology of nature Environmental sociology, Ethnobiology Biocultural diversity Ethnobotany Cognitive anthropology Enthnoecology Commons studies Ethnolinguistics Cultural anthropology Ethnoscience Cultural geography Historical ecology Cultural (landscape) ecology Human ecology Deep ecology Human geography Descriptive historical particularism Indigenous knowledge Development studies Intercultural education Ecofeminism Landscape ecology Ecological anthropology Ecological design Political ecology Ecological economics Resilience sciences (ecological and cultural) Ecosystem health Science and technology studies Environmental anthropology Social-ecological systems Environmental education Sustainability science Environmental ethics Symbolic ecology Environmental history Systems ecology
102 / Pretty et al. The Emergence of New Sub-Disciplines A wide variety of environmental sub-disciplines have emerged to address the interconnections between biological and of environmental conservation, such as environmental or ecological anthropology, environmental politics, ecological economics and environmental history (Kates et al 2001; Clark & Dickson 2003; Rapport 2006; Dove & Carpenter 2008). particularly between the natural and social sciences, and so give rise to many combinations of theories, assumptions, methods and applications (Mascia et al 2003; Berkes 2004; Mascia 2006). By being non-integrative and autonomous, these sub-disciplines may lead to a lack of coordination between of national and international policies drawn up to protect 1 cultural and biological capital. This article seeks to go beyond 2006). This is to formulate ideas on the relationship between biological and cultural systems in the hope of achieving a sustainable future where both ecological and social systems in which biological and cultural systems intersect and then how global policy could use this as the basis for a combined approach to diversity conservation, thus reducing the gap between science and policy in practice (Kates et al 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003). CONVERGENCE OF BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY beliefs, norms, livelihoods, knowledge and languages (Milton 1998; Posey 1999; Turner & Berkes 2006; Berkes 2008). The natural environment provides a setting for cultural processes, activities and belief systems to develop, and subsequently, landscapes form a diverse cultural archive of human endeavours (Adams 1996; Milton 1999; Schaaf & Lee 2006; Berkes 2008). whereby a shift in one system often leads to a change in the other The links between cultural and biological diversity are areas of biodiversity are also important for cultural diversity, represented by the density of ethnic groups 2 and linguistic (Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2003; Sutherland 2003). Early observations of this geographical association were made Chapin (1992), in particular, pioneered this area by mapping forest cover and indigenous homelands in Central America (1992). Groups like Terralingua and WWF took his ideas forward by conducting projects that attempted to map these physical associations on a global scale and identify diversity hotspots. Here we assess four bridges linking nature with culture; beliefs and worldviews, livelihoods and practices, knowledge bases and languages, and norms and institutions. Humans Place in Nature: Beliefs, Meanings and Worldviews Human communities have many different ways to interpret the world around them (Geertz 1973; Milton 1998; Posey 1999; Pretty 2007a). These meanings and interpretations are most diverse in their relationships to the natural world, with the most conspicuous links seen in indigenous and non-industrialised communities (Pilgrim et al of these communities interact with biological diversity on a daily basis, but their ever-evolving values, knowledge and perceptions strongly centre on nature (Berkes 2008). It has been suggested that the ongoing difference in the cultural cosmologies of nature, between preor non-industrialised and industrialised communities, stems from a difference in need and purpose (Milton 1998; Berkes 2001). The former are more likely to view themselves as interdependent components of nature, whereas the latter tend to view themselves as separate from and even dominant over nature (Berkes, 2008). Clearly, different human societies are positioned. A range of authors Milton (1998) suggests that human communities can be divided according to the strength of their feeling of oneness with nature. Those that feel a weak sense of connection perceive humans as separate from nature. However, those feeling a strong sense recognise no distinction between nature and culture, instead they comprise one continuous system and the relationship is so intrinsic that it goes unspoken (Milton word conveys a deeper interaction between all ecosystem components (biotic and abiotic) based on the perception that they all have life and spirit (Berkes 2008). inner essence (Milton, 1998). Some authors today believe that modernist views have gone beyond viewing nature and culture as separate entities and instead view them as opposing entities whose interaction generally leads to one or the other being damaged in some way (Milton, 1998). Wilson, on the other hand, conjectures that all humans have an innate connection with nature based on our common histories as hunters-gatherers why the connection is more conspicuous today in communities that retain a direct dependence upon nature, although many people in industrialised countries still acknowledge a spiritual
Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 103 or affective relationship with nature and the outdoors (Milton 1999). This idea is supported by recent evidence showing that health (Pretty 2004, 2007a; Pretty et al 2005, 2006, 2007a). humans need some sense and pattern in their lives, and nature provides the backdrop against which this can occur. It sets human often considered sacred, as demonstrated by sacred groves in of land and water (Milton 1999; Schaaf & Lee 2006; Smith et al 2007). Many protected areas (national parks or reserves) are, or contain, sacred natural sites (Dudley et al 2006). They are often selected as protected areas precisely because local communities have set them aside for spiritual reasons and as a result created a refuge for a diversity of species (Mascia 2006). Long established protected areas that are widely visited and admired can acquire quasi-spiritual values (Eg., related to a sense of beauty or wildness) (Adams 1996; Milton 1999; Berkes in the growing interest in bioregionalism and even suggestions of anti-globalisation (Adams 1996; Pretty 2007a). Attitudes within faiths are another manifestation of different interpretations of our relationship with nature. The three large monotheistic faiths arising from the Middle East (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have in the past taught that humans have dominion over nature, whereas faiths such as Hinduism and Buddhism stress the inter-relationships between humans and the rest of nature. A reinterpretation of the meaning of many faith groups (Dudley et al 2006). Managing Nature: Livelihoods, Practices and Resource Management Systems Many scholars perceive landscapes to be a product of the connection between people and a place; they are spaces which people feel they have a relationship with, and of which they hold memories and build history (Adams 1996; Pretty 2007a). Human populations have shaped these physically through the direct selection of plants and animals and the reworking of whole habitats and ecosystems (Sauer 1925; Pretty 2007b). Such landscapes have been described as anthropogenic or cultural, and their composition, be it of introduced species, Hence Adams describes nature as a cultural archive a record of human endeavour and husbandry (Milton 1999). The widespread role of cultural activities in shaping nature has led to non-human or near-pristine nature being viewed as ethnographic knowledge, however, has demonstrated that many habitats previously thought to be pristine result from resource dependent livelihood practices. Consequently, most landscapes today are considered to be anthropogenic having been shaped directly or indirectly by human activities. The only possible oceans, although global climate change is now bringing this assertion into question. Human dominance is acknowledged in the naming of this geological era as the anthropocene (Pretty et al 2007a). This has led, among other things, to sharp debates about the use of the term wilderness to refer to undeveloped Although preand non-industrialised human cultures may Berkes 2008). Many have learnt, however, to utilise and alter the landscape with some level of conscious or unconscious restraint, ensuring natural resource security for their communities in the future (Stevens 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004; Kothari 2006). Such self-limiting practices have been central to the survival of resource-dependent societies scientists and policy-makers are learning a great deal from these diverse cultural practices and now acknowledge the role that local practices can play in biodiversity conservation, particularly in little known ecosystems and where stateimposed management schemes have failed (Posey 1984, 1985; CBD 1992; Veitayaki 1997). communities and their established practices play a central role is often termed community-based conservation. Sites managed under these conditions are termed Community Conserved Areas or Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs). The latter are now considered a form of protected area recognised and Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) (Western and Wright 1994; Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004; Kothari 2006; Turner & Berkes 2006; Smith et al 2007; Pilgrim et al 2008). That is not to say that all activities and practices developed locally lead to biodiverse outcomes, or that poor management does not occur, but the worldviews of many preand non-industrialised societies have contributed to the development of practices and skills that sustainably manage et al 2006; Turner & Berkes 2006). Thus, the loss of one (e.g. local knowledge and practices) could result in a concomitant loss of the other (e.g. ecological integrity), and although Knowledge About Nature: Knowledge Bases and Languages If diverse cultural practices and worldviews are central to the management of biological diversity, this supports the need to consider the dynamic knowledge bases upon which these practices 2002). Knowledge of nature is accumulated within a society and transferred through cultural modes of transmission, such as stories, narratives and observations, as people travel through the landscape (Pilgrim et al 2007, 2008; Pretty 2007a). It, therefore, comprises of a non-static compilation of observations and understandings
contained within social memory that constantly evolve to try and make sense of the way the world behaves, and which societies can use to guide their actions towards the natural world. Berkes that is central to linking nature with culture. The importance of local ecological knowledge to resource management has been well described in recent years and has been a key theme of cultural ecology for decades (Berkes et al 2000; Gadgil et al 2000; Gilchrist et al 2005; Pilgrim et al 2007, 2008; Berkes 2008). Cultural understanding of the environment can not only give rise to sustainable management practices, but also to in-depth knowledge about species requirements, ecosystem dynamics, sustainable harvesting levels and ecological interactions (Pilgrim et al 2007, 2008). If sustained through stories, ceremonies and discourses, this culturally ingrained capital can enable people to live within the constraints of their environment in the long-term, without the need for catastrophic learning in the event of major resource depletion (Turner & Berkes, 2006). It can therefore be viewed as a form of cultural insurance (Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2003). Languages encode collective knowledge bases in a way that is often non-translatable, but links its speakers to their Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2003). However, diverse languages and knowledge bases are threatened today by the dual erosion of Culture as Institutions: Norms and Regulations Local knowledge bases give rise to socially embedded norms and institutions (Feit 1988; Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Rudd et al 2003; Smith et al collective action are intimately linked to the land on which they are based, and subsequently, are enormously diverse (Stevens 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004; Ostrom 2005; Kothari 2006). They comprise informal institutional frameworks that are legitimated from within communities and may include locationareas, and appropriate behaviours for the use and management of natural resources (Stevens 1997; Pretty 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004; Cinner et al 2005; Ostrom 2005; Kothari 2006; Smith et al ., 2007). Often known as land tenure systems, these frameworks regulate the use of private and common property in many parts of the world (Turner & Berkes 2006). Where land tenure systems are robust, they can maintain the productivity and diversity of social and ecological systems without the need for formal legal enforcement sanctions (Smith et al 2007). Community compliance is derived from shared values and internally derived community sanctions, perceived to be a common property (Cinner et al 2005). In these communities, compliance is believed to be in the best interests of society as a whole or the best guarantee for sustaining individual and family interests in the long-term (Dietz et al 2003). Formalised payment mechanisms have been suggested as tools to reinforce these norms and reward traditional societies for the diversity of environmental goods and services their reduced forest loss by the use of payments for environmental services (PES) to landowners and communities (Pagiola & Platais 2002; Pagiola et al 2005; Zbinden & Lee 2005). Human cultures attribute meaning to natural systems and processes in various ways, including livelihoods, cosmologies, worldviews and spiritual beliefs (Berkes 2008). These cultural understandings fundamentally govern both individual and collective actions which, in turn, shape the nature and composition of landscapes (Milton 1999; Smith et al 2007). However, this evolving web of interconnections means that cultural and biological diversity are frequently eroded by the same drivers and threats. COMMON THREATS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES There have been unparalleled losses in biological and cultural 2001; Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2003; MEA 2005; Rapport 2006; Pretty et al 2007b; Pilgrim et al 2008), arising from a number of common drivers (Table 2). Threats include the culturally inappropriate modernisation of services such as healthcare and education. This can lead to language erosion, decrease in cultural knowledge transfer and a shift in local knowledge elders and family members (Pilgrim et al 2007). Privatisation away from traditional resource management, often at the cost of biodiversity. This also leads to the erosion of place-based cultures as they are physically separated from the lands that their beliefs and worldviews are centred upon. Stories, narratives, ceremonies and rituals all lose their meaning when placed out The globalisation of traditional food systems is causing a decline in biodiversity, as monocultures are favoured over farm and wild diversity. This, in turn, leads to the loss of ecological knowledge departure from cultural resource use and management practices, the loss of land-based livelihoods and the local knowledge they are based upon (Chambers & Conway 1992; DFID 1999; Ellis 1999; Pilgrim et al 2008). Such shifts may result from aspirations for consumer lifestyles or, indeed, new commercial resource uses being introduced into an area (WWF 2007). (including deforestation and unsustainable agricultural production) are also rapid drivers of biodiversity loss and the erosion of local land-based cultures, particularly when coupled with anthropogenic, economic, or political stressors (Rapport & Whitford 1999). A lack of transboundary cooperation and geopolitical instability threaten global diversity, as do weak 104 / Pretty et al.
Table 2 Common drivers or threats and outcomes for biological and cultural diversity Driver or threat Outcomes for biological diversity Outcomes for cultural diversity use (e.g. timber, biofuels, energy) Loss of habitat and species (e.g. tropical forest) of natural resources Loss of biodiversity due to shift towards unsustainable management practices Departure from traditional resource use and management strategies In-migration of new economic actors (e.g. settlers, ranchers) Accelerated loss of habitat or species erosion of cultural identity Pollution of water courses (e.g. mercury from dams) Degradation of wetland and freshwater habitats Loss of livelihoods, erosion of cultural identity Aspirations for consumer lifestyles worldwide economic incentives replace subsistence incentives Loss of traditional management strategies and local knowledge; loss of biological basis for culture and economy Continuing globalisation of food systems Loss of on and between farm habitats and species due to monocultures, resulting in loss of agrobiodiversity, more isolated protected areas Loss of traditional diets and knowledge of famine foods Urbanisation and rural-urban migration Habitat destruction leading to loss of green spaces and species, ecological footprint effects remote from urban areas Erosion of rural cultures; loss of land on which stories and culture centre upon, contributing to loss of identity and understanding Modernisation of healthcare Reduced pressure on wild species, but departure from traditional medicine may lead to these species being devalued and lost Shift away from traditional resources, loss of ecological knowledge and practices that have long been central to culture and identity Spread of formal education dominant belief systems Departure from traditional management techniques and knowledge, natural resources becoming devalued; links to other processes (e.g. migration) Changes in mechanisms of knowledge transmission, devaluation of traditional knowledge, inter-generational Language erosion and loss Loss of knowledge and traditional management strategies previously passed on verbally between generations Reduced communication with elder generations leading to loss of knowledge of cultural heritage, local resources and management techniques Formalisation and privatisation of land rights Loss of biodiversity supported by traditional management systems, reduced communal cohesion and common sense of ownership, leading to lack of local support for conservation Loss of land that stories and culture centre upon, loss of identity and understanding, changes in social organisation State territorialisation and nation building dependent upon local management regimes Cultural hybridisation including the loss of knowledge, beliefs and practices where individual territories are no group of people networks, including roads Loss of biodiversity and habitats where construction occurs, heightened levels of pollution Cultural erosion due to increased access to and interaction with other cultural groups leading to hybridisation or assimilation into the more dominant culture Assimilation Decline of biodiversity and habitats dependent upon cultural knowledge, community values and the traditional management systems derived from them Departure from traditional practices and knowledge, leading to the loss of land-based management systems, cultural values and worldviews institutions and a lack of resources (Feit 1988; Smith et al 2007). The combined impacts of these drivers have caused Kangas et al 2003). Many of these drivers evolve from capitalist economies that stress on non-stop economic growth, which results in shifts in consumption patterns, the globalisation of markets, and the commercialisation of resources (Berkes 2001; Samson 2003; Pretty 2007a). These emergent threats are reinforced by pressures of assimilation and urbanisation, and are by no they lead to rapid and unanticipated periods of socioeconomic change. Combined, these threats are paving the way to the homogenization of cultures and landscapes, as demonstrated by the assessments of the state of global and sub-global Rapport 2006; Pretty et al 2007). The combined loss of biodiversity and local ecological knowledge has long-term implications as we lose the uses and future potentials of species, for instance in curing diseases or feeding populations (Gadgil et al 1993; Pfeiffer 2002; Shreshta & Dhillion 2003; Hamwey 2004; Le Quy 2004; Mhame 2004; Ruiz Muller 2004; Zhang 2004; MEA 2005). At the same time, we are losing adaptive management systems embedded in preand non-industrialised cultures that may offer insights Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 105
for global biodiversity protection in the future (Feit 1988; Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Rudd et al 2003; Smith et al 2007). Beyond impacts on landscapes and cultural diversity, these drivers of change can also have destructive health outcomes. The degradation of ecosystems is related to loss of food security, the spread of human pathogens and the emergence and resurgence of infectious disease and psychological ills (Rapport et al 1998; Rapport & Lee 2003; Rapport & Mergler 2004). More with nature has been shown to improve physical and mental health (Pretty 2004, 2007a; Pretty et al 2005, 2006, 2007a). RESPONSES: POLICIES AND PROJECTS The role of and need for effective policies in biodiversity protection has long been understood, but the importance of cultural protection policies as they relate to the environment inherently linked, future policy responses should effectively target both in a new integrative conservation approach. The need for an integrated approach to the conservation of biological and cultural diversity has been acknowledged in Millennium Development Goals (MEA 2005). That is not to say that cultures should be maintained in a steady state, but that cultures should be permitted to evolve as necessary without forced assimilation (direct or indirect) into the dominant culture. Thus cultures may indeed adapt and evolve (for instance, adopting modern practices and emergent economies while maintaining traditional values), but they remain distinct entities. Policy responses to this paradigm, however, have been slow to emerge and put into practice. Responses to date include local revitalisation projects such as outpost and hunter-support programs (Bersamin & Simpson 2005), culturally-appropriate education schemes (Takano 2004; Pember 2007), ecotourism projects (Bathurst Inlet Lodge 2008; Elu Inlet Lodge 2008; Inari Event 2008) and language revitalisation initiatives (HirataEdds et al 2003). Other efforts include the revival of culturally appropriate healthcare systems (Mohatt & Rasmus 2004), the protection and careful commercialisation of traditional food et al 2004). Most resurgence efforts to date, however, have been small-scale and limited in both capacity and funding (Pilgrim et al 2009) Larger-scale movements that have contributed to the dual protection of biological and cultural diversity include the towards education for planetary citizenship (Seyfang 2006). The land rights of indigenous and other rural people are being recognised in some locations, for instance in the designation 2001). Investment into community-based conservation and the dissemination of power to grass-root institutions has increased, strengthening the mechanisms that favour longterm social and ecological sustainability (Colchester 2000). Entrepreneurship-based conservation development projects, remain fragmented, localised and small-scale. Perhaps the most promising is the emergence of international policies which favour the joint protection of biological and cultural diversity (CBD 1992). International recognition of the links between biodiversity and cultural diversity Global Environment Outlook This describes biodiversity as encompassing human cultural diversity which can be affected by the same drivers as biodiversity and which has impacts on the diversity of genes other species and ecosystems diversity primarily, perceiving cultural diversity as a secondary objective or a stepping stone to protecting biodiversity. A great deal still needs to be accomplished in the international arena to strengthen this movement and to ensure that truly integrative fundamentally, a paradigm shift is needed to transform the way people think about global diversity, whereby biological and cultural diversity are thought of as one. This is emerging in the literature, but has yet to emerge in protection policies, for instance states could implement Biocultural Protection Plans or designate Sites of Biological and Cultural Importance. One important development has been a dramatic reshaping of the way in which protected areas are conceived (Phillips 2003; Kothari 2006). There is increasing recognition of the importance of Community Conserved Areas. These are places managed by local communities in ways that support high levels status (Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004). There is also growing agreement that cultural landscapes are worthy of protection of humans and nature over time has produced a particular set of natural and cultural conditions (Phillips 2002, 2003). Emerging partnerships between faith groups and conservation organisations present another powerful opportunity. towards the joint protection of nature and culture. However, to conserve global diversity effectively, policy efforts need to be driven both locally and internationally, and be large-scale, multi-level and inclusive. For instance, policies emphasising political empowerment, self-governance and territorial control at the grass-roots level have the potential to provide a solid platform from which communities can play a central role in biodiversity conservation, and at the same time retain their own cultural distinctiveness and connectedness to the land (Stevens 1997; Colchester 2000; Schwartzman et al 2000; Peres and Zimmerman 2001; Heckenberger 2004; Athayde et al 2007). 106 / Pretty et al.
is linked to the diversity of its cultures is only beginning to be understood, and there is a great deal about this connection yet to receding (Maffi 2001; Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2003). In mutual threats and effective policies targeting these issues, endangered species, threatened habitats, dying languages and vast knowledge bases are being lost at rates that are nature alongside human cultures presents unique challenges (Dove et al 2005; Robbins et al 2006), any hope of saving biological diversity, or even recreating lost environments through restoration ecology, is predicated on a concomitant Acknowledgements This article emerged from the 2008 International Conference on Sustaining Cultural and Biological Diversity in a Rapidly Changing World: Lessons for Global Policy organised by the American the conference, and this article was co-written following the helpful comments from the participants at the conference. Notes the maintenance of cultures in a steady state, but instead these terms are or new markets) at its own pace, and retain traditional elements of its 2. In this paper, the authors have purposely not used the term indigenous societies that are rich in culture but fail to fall under Jose R. Martinez Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their diversity stretches beyond the diversity of indigenous groups to include all social groupings. REFERENCES Adams, W.M. 1996. Future nature : A vision for conservation London: Earthscan. Agrawal, A and C.C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27: 629-649. power: Displacement and the dynamics of artistic knowledge amongst the Kaiabi in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Mobility and migration in indigenous Amazonia : Contemporary ethnoecological perspectives Bale, W. 1994. Footprints of the forest Ka apor ethnobotany Columbia University Press. Bathurst inlet lodge. 2008. Welcome to bathurst inlet lodge. http: //www. Berkes, F. 2001. Religious traditions and biodiversity. Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity 5: 109-120. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3): 621-630. Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology 2 nd Edition Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1251-1262. Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 2002. Back to the future: Ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: Panarchy : Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (eds. Gunderson L.H. and C.S. Holling). Pp.121-146. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bersamin, A. and A. Simpson. 2005. Reindeer meat is a healthy food. UAF Accessed on February, 2008. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari and G. Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous and local communities and protected areas towards equity and enhanced conservation : Guidance on policy and practice for co managed protected areas and community conserved areas Gland: Best Practice Brey, P. 2007. Theorizing the cultural quality of new media. Techn 11(1). http: //scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v11n1/pdf/v11n1.pdf. Accessed on February, 2008. The Great New Wilderness Debate Athens: University of Georgia Press. February, 2009. Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21 st century. Institute of development studies discussion paper 296 London: Institute of Development Studies. in Central America. Research and Exploration 8(2): Map supplement. Cinner, J.E., M.J. Marnane and T.R. McClanahan. 2005. Conservation and Conservation Biology 19: 1714-1723. research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(14): 8059-8061. Colchester, M. 2000. Self-determination or environmental determinism for indigenous peoples in tropical forest conservation. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1365-1367. K. Limburg, et al and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Denevan, W.M. 2001. Cultivated Landscapes of Native Amazonia and the Andes DFID. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development. Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302: 1907-1912. Dove, M. and C. Carpenter. 2008. Environmental anthropology : A historical reader Boston: Blackwell. Dove, M.R., P.E. Sajise, and A.A. Doolittle (eds.). 2005. Conserving nature in Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 107
culture : Case studies from Southeast Asia Press. Beyond belief : Linking faiths and protected areas to support biodiversity conservation WWF and Alliance of Religions and Conservation. Switzerland and Manchester: Gland. Ellis, F. 1999. Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: Evidence and policy implications. Overseas development institute natural resource perspectives 40. London: Overseas Development Institute. In: Nature and society : Anthropological perspectives (eds. Palsson, G. Elu Inlet Lodge. 2008. Welcome to Elu Inlet Lodge. http: //www.elulodge. com/. Accessed on August, 2008. Ember, C.R. and M. Ember. 2006. Cultural anthropology Prentice Hall. Feit, H.A. 1988. Self-management and state-management: Forms of knowing and managing northern wildlife. In: Traditional knowledge and renewable resource management in northern regions (eds. Gadgil, M., F. Berkes and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151-156. Gadgil, M., P.R. Seshagiri Rao, G. Utkarsh, P. Pramod, A. Chhatre and Ecological Applications 10: 1307-1317. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory and F. Merkel. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory knowledge. Ecology and Society ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/. Accessed on February, 2008. Goodin, R.E. 1992. Green political theory Cambridge: Polity Press. Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling (eds.). 2002. Panarchy : Understanding transformations in human and natural systems Washington, DC: Island Press. Hamwey, R. 2004. Traditional knowledge and the environment: Statement Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions (eds. Twarog, S. and P. Kapoor). Pp. 345-346. Harmon, D. 2002. In light of our differences Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Heckenberger, M.J. 2004. Archeology as indigenous advocacy in Amazonia. Practicing Anthropology 26: 34-38. Heckenberger, M.J., J.C. Russell, J.R. Toney and M.J. Schmidt. 2007. The legacy of cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: Implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 197-208. Hirata-Edds, T., M. Linn, L. Peter and A. Yamamoto. 2003. Language training in Oklahoma & Florida. Cultural Survival Quarterly 27.4 (Winter). Inari Event. 2008. Winter activities in Inari. http: //www.saariselka.fi/ inarievent/winteractivities.html. Accessed on August, 2008. Indigenous Affairs 3/01: 42-51. Kates, R.W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy, et al 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292(5517): 641-642. Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson (eds.). 1993. The biophilia hypothesis Washington, DC: Island Press. Kothari, A. 2006. Community conserved areas. In: Managing protected areas : A global guide (eds. Lockwood, M., G.L. Worboys and A. Kothari). Pp. 549-573. London: Earthscan. Le Quy, A. 2004. The use and commercialization of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in Vietnam: The case of crop and medicinal plants. In: Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions (eds. Twarog, S. UNESCO Journal on the Environment and Natural Resources Research 34(4): 12-21. On biocultural diversity Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 599-617. th Global markets for country foods since the 18 th century. Arctic 49(2): 107-119. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 13(2). Mascia, M., J.P. Brosius, T.A. Dobson, B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, sciences. Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650. Common ground common future : How ecoagriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity MEA. 2005. Current state and trends Vol. 1 : Ecosystems and well being Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. London: Island Press. Mhame, P.P. 2004. The role of traditional knowledge in the national economy: Traditional medicine in Tanzania. In: Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions cultures. In: Spirit of the environment : Religion value and environmental concern (eds. Cooper, D.E. and J.A. Palmer). Pp. 86-99. London and Environmental Values 8: 437-449. Mohatt, G.V. and S.M. Rasmus. 2004. My way to myself: Preserving the healing power of voice in a community-based participatory research project on Alaska native pathways towards sobriety. Proceedings of the 14 th Inuit Studies Conference, Calgary, August 2004. direct link to world food stability. In: Natures Services (ed. Daily G.C.). Pp. 133-150. Washington, DC: Island Press. P. Lefebvre, et al parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20: 65-73. diversity. Center for World Indigenous Studies: Occasional Paper no. 21. Development betrayed London: Routledge. Protecting the arctic : Indigenous peoples and cultural survival Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pagiola, S., A. Arcenus and G. Platais. 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? World Development 33(2): 237-253. Pagiola, S. and G. Platais, G. 2002. Payments for environmental services. environmental strategy notes. http: //earthday.worldwildlife.org/ fellowships/fuller/Pagiola-2.pdf. Accessed on February, 2008. Pember, M.A. 2007. A mandate for native history: The Montana Indian 108 / Pretty et al.
schools, but colleges and universities are not yet on board. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. http: //www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164421874. html. Accessed on February, 2008. Peres, C. and B. Zimmerman. 2001. Perils in parks or parks in peril? Reconciling conservation in Amazonian reserves with and without use. Conservation Biology 15(3): 793-797. Pfeiffer, J. 2002. Gendered interpretations in eastern Indonesia: Ethnoecology in the transition zone. In: Communities in Southeast Asia : Challenges and responses Phillips, A. 2002. Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas : Protected landscapes and seascapes Cambridge and Cardiff: Phillips, A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. The George Wright Forum 20(2): 8-32. Pilgrim, S., L. Cullen, D.J. Smith and J. Pretty. 2008. Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries. Environmental Science and Technology 42(4): 1004-1009. Pilgrim, S., D.J. Smith and J. Pretty. 2007. A cross-regional assessment of the factors affecting ecoliteracy: Implications for policy and practice. Ecological Applications 17(6): 1742-1751. Pilgrim, S., C. Samson and J. Pretty. 2009. Rebuilding lost connections: How revitalisation projects contribute to cultural continuity and improve the environment. Interdisciplinary Centre for Environment and Society Posey, D.A. 1984. Indigenous ecological knowledge and development of the Amazon. In: The Dilemma of Amazonian Development (ed. Moran E.). Pp. 225-257. Colorado: Westview Press. Posey, D.A. 1985. Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the Kayap Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 3: 139-158. Posey, D.A. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and spiritual value s of biodiversity Pretty, J. 2002. Agri culture : Reconnecting people land and nature London: Earthscan. Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302: 1912-1915. Pretty J. 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International 5(2): 68-78. Pretty J. 2007a. The earth only endures : On reconnecting with nature and our place in it London: Earthscan. Pretty J. 2007b. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363(1491): 447-66. Pretty, J., A. Ball, T. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer, et al (eds.). 2007b. Sage Handbook on Environment and Society London: Sage. activities in green places. The Biologist 53(3): 143-8. psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning Management 50(2): 211-231. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15(5): 319-337. Rapport, D.J. 2006. Sustainability science: An ecohealth perspective. Sustainability Science 2: 77-84. Rapport, D.J., R. Costanza and A. McMichael. 1998. Assessing ecosystem health: Challenges at the interface of social, natural, and health sciences. Trends Ecology and Evolution 13(10): 397-402. Rapport, D.J. and V. Lee. 2003. Ecosystem approaches to human health: Environmental Health 3(2): 26-39. health. EcoHealth 1(2): 4-7. Rapport, D.J. and W.G. Whitford. 1999. How ecosystems respond to stress? Common properties of arid and aquatic systems. Bioscience 49(3): 193-203. Redford, K.H. 1992. The empty forest. Bioscience 42: 412-422. Robbins, P. 1998. Authority and environment: Institutional landscapes in Rajasthan, India. Annals Association of American Geographers 88(3): 410-435. Robbins, P., K. McSweeny, T. Waite and J. Rice. 2006. Even conservation rules are made to be broken: Implications for biodiversity. Environmental Management 37(2): 162-169. Rudd, M.A., M.H. Tupper, H. Folmer and G.C. van Kooten. 2003. Policy analysis for tropical marine reserves: Challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries 4: 65-85. Ruiz Muller, M. 2004. Regulating bioprospecting and protecting indigenous overall impacts in the region. In: Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions Samson, C. 2003. A way of life that does not exist Canada: ISER. diets and lifestyles for the Innu of Labrador. Food Policy 31(6): 528-553. Sauer, C.O. 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2(2): 19-53. Seyfang, G. 2006. Sustainable consumption. CSERGE working paper edm_2006_12.pdf. Accessed on February, 2008. Schaaf, T. and C. Lee (eds.). 2006. Conserving cultural and biological diversity: The role of sacred natural sites and cultural landscapes. Proceedings of conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1351-1357. Shrestha, P.M. and S.S. Dhillion. 2003. Medicinal plant diversity and use in Journal of Ethnopharmacology 86: 81-96. Sharing a world of difference : The Earths linguistic cultural and biological diversity Smith, D.J., S. Pilgrim and L. Cullen. 2007. Coral reefs and people. In: Sage Handbook on Environment and Society (eds. Pretty, J., A. Ball, T. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer, et al .) Pp. 500-516. London: Sage Publications. Smith, E.A. 2001. On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. In: On biocultural diversity Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Stevens, S. (ed.). 1997. Conservation through cultural survival : Indigenous peoples and protected areas Washington, DC: Island Press. Natural security : Protected areas and hazard mitigation Gland: WWF International. languages and species. Nature 423: 276-279. Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press. http: //www.latrobe.edu.au/oent/OE_conference_ 2004/papers/takano. pdf. Accessed on February, 2009. Toledo, V.M. 2001. Biodiversity and indigenous peoples. Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity 3: 451-463. Human Ecology 34: 495-513. Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 109
by the secretariat of the permanent forum on indigenous issues. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http: //www.un.org/esa/ on February, 2009. option com_content&view article&id 150&Itemid 460&lang en. Accessed on July, 2008. Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO 4) Veitayaki, J. 1997. Traditional marine resource management practices used Ocean and Coastal Management 37: 123-136. Western, D. and R.M. Wright (eds.). 1994. Natural connections Washington, DC: Island Press. concepts and contemporary development be integrated? In: The traditional knowledge and management of coastal systems in Asia and the (eds. Ruddle, K. and R. Johannes). Pp. 79-100. Jakarta WWF. 2007. Rainforest for biodiesel? WWF Germany. http: //www.wwf.de/ on January, 2009. Yupari, A., L. Jaramillo, R.K. Lojenga, S. Briceo and R. Snchez. 2004. sharing and traditional knowledge. In: Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions Zent, S. 2001. Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela: Demonstration of a quantitative method for the empirical study of TEK change. In: On biocultural diversity : Linking language knowledge and the environment DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Zbinden, S. and D.R. Lee. 2005. Paying for environmental services. World Development 33(2): 255-272. Zhang, X. 2004. Traditional medicine: Its importance and protection. In: Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge : Systems national experiences and international dimensions (eds. Twarog, S. and Annex A Agricultural sustainability The development of technologies that are effective for farmers, which result in improvement and food productivity and do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services (Pretty 2002, 2007b). Anthropology of nature The study of the nature-society interface or of the relationships of nature and culture (Descola & Palsson 1996; Franklin 2002). Biocultural diversity Analyses the relationship between language, culture and the environment as distinct, but closely and necessarily related to the manifestations of the diversity of life on earth (Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2005). Cognitive anthropology Investigates how people learn things and what learning mechanisms are embedded in a culture. It studies cultural knowledge, knowledge which is embedded in words, stories, and in artefacts, and which is learned Commons studies Focuses on the social and institutional bases of common property systems and the role of common property regimes in contributing to productive ecological dynamics and sustainable use in a variety of settings (Ostrom 1990, 2005) Cultural anthropology The investigation of the beliefs, knowledge, practices, modes of social organisation and forms of Cultural geography The study of cultural products and norms and their variation in spaces and places. A branch of cultural anthropology and cultural geography that studies culture as the primary adaptive mechanism used by human societies to deal with, understand, give meaning to, and generally cope with their conditions (Brush 1993). Deep ecology A branch of ecological philosophy (or ecosophy) that considers a holistic relationship between humans and Descriptive historical particularism Emphasizes the uniqueness of each culture as demonstrated in its knowledge of plants, animals, astronomy and weather (Brush 1993). Development studies A multidisciplinary social science branch that studies issues related to social and economic development. (Kothari 2005). Ecofeminism A philosophy and movement that joins feminist and ecological thinking to assert that the patriarchal structures that produce the domination and oppression of women are the same forces that lead to domination of the environment (Sturgeon 1997). Ecological anthropology culture mediates these interactions (Ellen 1982; Salzmann and Attwood 1996; Kottak 1999). Ecological design (Van der Ryn & Cowan 2007). Ecological economics sense (Costanza 1992). Ecosystem health A systematic approach to the preventive, diagnostic and prognostic aspects of ecosystem management and to the understanding of relationships between ecosystem health and human health (Rapport et al 1999). 110 / Pretty et al.
Environmental anthropology Applied, cross-cultural study of relations between people and their environment over time and space (Townsend 2000; Dove & Carpenter 2008). Environmental education The organised teaching of the functioning of natural environments, and how human behaviour and attitudes can be oriented to contribute to environmental sustainability (Marsden 1997). Environmental ethics A branch of environmental philosophy that considers the ethical relationship between human beings and the natural environment (Light and Rolston III 2003). Environmental history A branch of history that focuses on changes in the biological and physical environment, connections between material change and changes in ideological representations of the environment and the development of Environmental law The study and establishment of statutes, regulations, and common-law principles covering air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, the wilderness and endangered wildlife, at a variety of regional, national and international levels (Stookes 2005). Environmental sociology Study of the interactions between the environment and social organisation, and behaviour (Dunlap and Catton 1979, 1994; Gramling & Freudenburg 1996). Ethnobiology Study of culturally-based biological and environmental knowledge and cultural perception of the natural world (Pieroni et al 2005). Ethnobotany Study of the relationship and interactions between plants and people (Cotton 1996). Ethnoecology Study of the way different groups of people in different locations understand their environment, and their Ethnolinguistics A branch of linguistic anthropology that studies relationships between language and culture, and the way different ethnic groups perceive the world. Ethnoscience knowledge and the sciences of nature (Sanga & Ortelli 2004). Historical ecology Traces the ongoing dialectical relations between human acts and acts of nature, manifested in landscape. (Crumley 1994, Bale 1998). Human ecology Multidisciplinary study of the relationship between humans and their environment (Steiner 2002). Human geography Focuses on the study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with the built environment, with reference to the causes and consequences of the spatial distribution of human activity. Indigenous knowledge know-how skills, practices and beliefs that enable the community to achieve stable livelihoods in their environment. Intercultural education Educational activity that focuses on the nature of culture, intercultural communication and alternative worldviews. Landscape ecology landscapes, the origins of these elements, and their impacts on organisms and processes (Turner et al 2001). Branch of geography that studies the ways in which societal processes, shape, alter and transform the physical Political ecology Study of how political, economic and social relations and factors affect ecological processes and human uses of the environment, and how ecologies can shape political and economic possibilities (Bates & Lees 1996; Robbins 2004). Resilience science (cultural) The adaptive capacity of a culture or cultural group to adjust to new conditions without losing structure or function (Gunderson & Holling 2002). Resilience science (ecological) The adaptive capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes (Walker et al 2004). Science and technology studies and how these in turn affect society, politics and culture. Social-ecological systems (SES) Study of the diverse relationships between an ecological system and one or more intricately linked social systems (Berkes et al 2003; Anderies et al 2004). Sustainability science Integrated, place-based study that seeks to understand the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society and to encourage those interactions along more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al ., 2001; Clark & Dickson 2003). Symbolic ecology Study which uses the nature-culture prism to make sense of and interpret cosmologies of the natural of social life, and the precepts and effects of these belief systems (Biersack 1999; Descola & Palsson 1996). Systems ecology An approach to the study of ecology of organisms that focuses on interactions between biological and ecological systems (Kitching 1983). Intersections of biodiversity and culture / 111
Annex B Persuasion and policies 1. How can governments and societies be persuaded that maintaining and improving both cultural and biological diversity can be in their interest? of new approaches by grass-root communities and their sharing them with others? 3. What are the best ways to deal with a change in traditions, such as, when cultures and cultural traditions evolve and adapt? Barriers to rights 4. What are the barriers to governments adopting and strengthening human rights declarations and land rights policies for all their own people? Revitalisation projects 5. What are the most effective recovery or revitalisation projects that can protect the cultures and values of both indigenous people and post-industrialised societies? streams (without commodifying nature)? Participation and power 7. How can indigenous people and minority groups best be empowered while maintaining their own cultural values? How should conservation efforts respond to the fact that the cultural values of nature vary from place to place and also over time? 8. How can the promotion of increased participation by cultural minorities and a wider range of partners (Eg. responsible industry, faith groups, social action groups and youth) be achieved in different political decisionmaking instances and processes? Changing aspirations 9. How can new aspirations be created for livelihoods and ways of life in all societies so as to change the consumption patterns that threaten nature and cultures worldwide? Young people and nature disconnections 10. How can younger generations be attracted back into contact with their local environment so as to prevent AUTHOR INSTITUTION MAP FOR THIS ISSUE Please note that not all the institutions may get mapped due to non-availability of requisite information in Google Map. For AIM of other issues, please check Archives/Back Issues page on the journals website. Map will be added once issue gets online*********** 112 / Pretty et al.