Community owned solutions: Identifying local best practices for socialecological sustainability

Abstract

Policies and actions that come from higher scale structures, such as international bodies and national governments, are not always compatible with the realities and perspectives of smaller scale units including indigenous communities. Yet, it is at this local social-ecological scale that mechanisms and solutions for dealing with unpredictability and change can be increasingly seen emerging from across the world. Although there is a large body of knowledge specifying the conditions necessary to promote local governance of natural resources, there is a parallel need to develop practical methods for operationalizing the evaluation of local social-ecological systems. In this paper, we report on a systemic, participatory, and visual approach for engaging local communities in an exploration of their own social-ecological system. Working with indigenous communities of the North Rupununi, Guyana, this involved using participatory video and photography within a system viability framework to enable local participants to analyze their own situation by defining indicators of successful strategies that were meaningful to them. Participatory multicriteria analysis was then used to arrive at a short list of best practice strategies. We present six best practices and show how they are intimately linked through the themes of indigenous knowledge, local governance and values, and partnerships and networks. We highlight how developing shared narratives of community owned solutions can help communities to plan governance and management of land and resource systems, while reinforcing sustainable practices by discussing and showcasing them within communities, and by engendering a sense of pride in local solutions.

Full text

Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, C. Tschirhart, E. Bignante, L. Haynes, R. Benjamin, G. Albert, R. Xavier, B. Robertson, O. Davis, D. Jafferally,
and G. De Ville. 2016. Community owned solutions: identifying local best practices for social-ecological sustainability. Ecology and
Society 21(2):42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08496-210242
Research, part of a Special Feature on Community-based Management of Environmental Challenges in Latin America and the
Caribbean
Community owned solutions: identifying local best practices for social-
ecological sustainability
Jayalaxshmi Mistry 1, Andrea Berardi 2, Céline Tschirhart 1, Elisa Bignante 3, Lakeram Haynes 4, Ryan Benjamin 4, Grace Albert 4,
Rebecca Xavier 4, Bernie Robertson 4, Odacy Davis 5, Deirdre Jafferally 5 and Géraud de Ville 2
ABSTRACT. Policies and actions that come from higher scale structures, such as international bodies and national governments, are
not always compatible with the realities and perspectives of smaller scale units including indigenous communities. Yet, it is at this local
social-ecological scale that mechanisms and solutions for dealing with unpredictability and change can be increasingly seen emerging
from across the world. Although there is a large body of knowledge specifying the conditions necessary to promote local governance
of natural resources, there is a parallel need to develop practical methods for operationalizing the evaluation of local social-ecological
systems. In this paper, we report on a systemic, participatory, and visual approach for engaging local communities in an exploration
of their own social-ecological system. Working with indigenous communities of the North Rupununi, Guyana, this involved using
participatory video and photography within a system viability framework to enable local participants to analyze their own situation
by defining indicators of successful strategies that were meaningful to them. Participatory multicriteria analysis was then used to arrive
at a short list of best practice strategies. We present six best practices and show how they are intimately linked through the themes of
indigenous knowledge, local governance and values, and partnerships and networks. We highlight how developing shared narratives
of community owned solutions can help communities to plan governance and management of land and resource systems, while
reinforcing sustainable practices by discussing and showcasing them within communities, and by engendering a sense of pride in local
solutions.
Key Words: best practices; community owned solutions; environmental governance; Guiana Shield; Guyana; indigenous; participatory;
system viability; visual
INTRODUCTION
Historically, governance strategies for natural resource
management were dominated by centralized government
institutions, transnational nongovernmental organizations, and
industry (Cox et al. 2010, Ostrom and Cox 2010), where top-down
solutions, usually under the control of professional experts, were
deemed necessary to avoid local people overusing their resources
(Dryzek 2005). However, since the 1980s, there has been growing
recognition of accelerated and unrivalled ecological decline (e.g.,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Rockström et al. 2009),
while at the same time, mounting evidence supporting the
potential of local communities in playing a leading role in
developing governance strategies for the sustainable management
of natural resources (Ostrom 1999, Agrawal 2003, Berkes 2007,
Blom et al. 2010, UNDP 2012). As many examples from across
the world show, resource-based communities have the knowledge
and practices essential for maintaining and promoting social-
ecological sustainability (Berkes 2012). Indeed, evidence from
community-managed ecosystems across the tropics, such as
indigenous territories, show that deforestation rates inside
community-governed areas with strong legal recognition and
government protection are significantly lower than in areas
outside (Gaveau et al. 2009, Porter-Bolland et al. 2012, Carranza
et al. 2014, Stevens et al. 2014).
Nevertheless, community-based natural resource management
centered on customary governance arrangements is not a panacea
(Berkes 2007, Ostrom et al. 2007), and not all local actions
necessarily lead to sustainable management. Furthermore, in
many cases, conservation outcomes may result not because of
intentionality, but rather as a result of low demographics, limited
market pressures, or unsophisticated technologies that limit the
rate of exploitation. As communities become increasingly
connected and embedded in national and international networks
and systems, and the overarching social-ecological context
changes, it is important to evaluate the efficacy of natural resource
governance in local social-ecological systems to assess their
robustness in current and future situations (Folke et al. 2005).
There is a large body of knowledge specifying the conditions
necessary to promote the governance structures behind
sustainable management of common pool resources (e.g., Ostrom
1990, 1999, Agrawal 2003) and effective (adaptive)
comanagement (e.g., Armitage et al. 2009, Plummer 2009,
Plummer et al. 2012). Although many of these conditions are
context-specific, frameworks to capture some of the
commonalities have been developed, most notably Ostrom’s
social-ecological system framework and design principles
(Ostrom 2009, Cox et al. 2010, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014).
These design principles, for example, have been used to evaluate
and diagnose various local social-ecological systems, including
community-managed forests and fisheries (e.g., Poteete and
Ostrom 2004, Cox et al. 2010, Galappaththi and Berkes 2015).
Although a systems level analysis and understanding is essential
for addressing the complexity of human-environment
relationships, there is a parallel need to develop practical methods
for operationalizing the evaluation of local social-ecological
systems to help with planning governance and management of
land and resource systems. Furthermore, taking a participatory
approach for evaluating social-ecological systems that focuses on
the views and perspectives of the resource users, is not only
1Royal Holloway University of London, UK, 2The Open University, UK, 3University of Torino, Italy, 4North Rupununi District Development
Board, Guyana, 5Iwokrama International Centre, Guyana

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
socially just (Pain et al. 2012), but has the potential to make
natural resource management more democratic (Stringer et al.
2006). In this paper, we describe a systemic and participatory
visual approach for engaging local communities in an exploration
of their own social-ecological system. We use Hartmut Bossel’s
system viability framework (Bossel 2001) to support communities
in assessing the state of current practices, and specifically, we ask
the following: How do the indigenous communities view their
social-ecological system as currently configured? What are the
common threads linking practices identified by communities
themselves as robust? What is the role of community-led
assessment within an increasingly global environmental
management and governance context?
System viability and participatory visual methods
The system viability framework (Mistry et al. 2010) is a
simplification and adaptation of orientor theory developed by
Hartmul Bossel (1999, 2001, 2007) to assess the state or viability
of different systems including communities, regions, nations, and
policies. When we adapted Bossel’s orientor theory in our
investigations, we proposed that systems are social constructs
determined by people’s values and experiences, and that system
viability enables distinct stakeholder groups, such as
communities, to surface their values and agency by allowing them
to express what they perceive to be the strategies required for their
system of interest to survive in the long term (Berardi et al. 2015).
These strategies are the following (Berardi et al. 2014):
1. Existence: the ability to get the resources for basic survival
under normal environmental conditions that do not change
over time or that go through a recurring pattern of
predictable change, like the seasons of the year. To cope with
the normal environmental condition, communities focus on
key existence strategies, which may include creating shelter,
provisioning basic food requirements, or responding to
routine changes in the seasons;
2. Ideal performance: the ability to make the best use of limited
resources in the environment. In these circumstances,
communities develop strategies that can be characterized
through ideal performance, i.e., developing highly efficient
means of using scarce resources. These scarce resources can
be anything from dwindling fish stocks, to expensive
agricultural fertilizer, to limited time availability;
3. Flexibility: the ability to have a range of options or choices
in a highly varying environment both over time and space.
Here, communities develop flexibility strategies so that they
can make the most of resources when they do appear, while
having alternatives when certain resources disappear.
Planting a range of crop species, or developing a range of
livelihoods, are examples of how communities can cope with
variety in the environment;
4. Resistance: the ability to cope with temporary variability in
the environment that can sometimes be random and
unpredictable, but rarely permanent. Examples include
occasional floods or droughts. In these situations,
communities develop resistance strategies—approaches to
withstand these temporary changes. Accumulating certain
resources, such as food reserves or savings in bank accounts,
or falling back to traditional methods of survival, are
examples of coping strategies for variability in the
environment;
5. Adaptability: the ability to change practices to cope with
major and permanent change in the environment. In this
situation, the environment changes from what has been
experienced in the past, to create a totally different
environment, i.e., things do not change back to how they
used to be, or they continue changing. When permanent
change occurs, the best strategy a community can take is to
adapt, i.e., develop new, innovative ways of dealing with the
different conditions. Adopting new forms of communication
or transportation are examples of coping strategies for
major and permanent changes in the environment;
6. Coexistence: the ability to survive with other systems outside
the system or, in the case of a community, the ability to
survive with communities or organizations outside the
community. Communities are constantly challenged by, or
gain significant benefits from, outside organizations,
whether these are neighboring communities, government
institutions, or private/civil society organizations. In these
situations, coexistence strategies make the most of the
opportunities and protect the community against threats.
Tensions and trade-offs are inherent within the various system
viability strategies. For example, a community’s requirement to
secure resources for basic survival can often conflict with its ability
to share these resources with other communities. A community
may decide to make best use of limiting resources, such as human
capital, by investing in optimizing certain practices, which may
conflict with its ability to maintain a wide range of practices so
as to give maximum flexibility. In another case, a community may
resist change by investing in existing traditional practices that
could conflict with its ability to adapt to novelty within its
environment by investing in new practices. However, system
viability strategies are not always perceived to be mutually
exclusive. For example, adaptations to incorporate novel
information and communication technologies can sometimes
help to preserve, reinvigorate, and reinforce traditional cultural
practices that would have otherwise been lost as older generations
pass away. Fundamentally, system viability moves away from a
unidirectional normative judgement that suggests that one
strategy for survival is clearly wrong and another is clearly right,
e.g., from “undeveloped” to “developed” as implied in the term
“sustainable development.” Instead, it allows people to appreciate
that every system has its tensions, and often the challenge is to
find the appropriate balance between strategies, or preferably,
survival strategies that act synergistically.
The principle behind using a participatory approach to the
application of system viability was to allow local communities to
analyze their own situation by defining indicators of successful
system viability strategies that were meaningful to them,
collecting indicator data, and analyzing the emerging data
through learning by doing (Reed et al. 2005, 2008, Stringer et al.
2006, Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). The aim of using a visual
approach to communication within the participatory process was
twofold. First, the methods of participatory photography (PP;
Bignante 2010) and participatory video (PV; White 2003, Lunch

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
and Lunch 2006, Milne et al. 2012) enable participants to identify
systems of interest on their own terms using a communication
mode that is familiar to them (visual compared to textual), while
at the same time stimulate people’s interest in, and engagement
with, the research. Second, visual approaches take a marked
departure from the linear logic of the written form, enhancing
existing indigenous systemic and relational logic, thus allowing
more information to be perceived simultaneously, with the
positioning of information within the three-dimensional visual
space becoming as important as the inclusion of distinct items of
information (Mistry and Berardi 2012, Mistry et al. 2015a). The
visual representation of information is therefore a more systemic
approach to identifying and sharing indigenous indicators of
system viability because the complex imagery often
communicates the sophisticated message that “the whole [picture]
is greater than the sum of its individual parts.”
Study context and approach
We present findings from Project COBRA (http://www.
projectcobra.org), a three-year research project funded by the
European Commission 7th Framework program involving
research, civil society organization (CSO), and business partners
from Europe and South America working with indigenous
communities across the Guiana Shield region of South America.
The Guiana Shield covers an area of 2.5 million km² extending
from Colombia in the west to Brazil in the east, and as well as
containing an estimated 10%-15% of the world’s fresh water
reserves, it is also part of the world’s largest contiguous block of
tropical forest (Hammond 2005). With its vast wealth of natural
resources, the Guiana Shield is the focus of various extractive
industries and large infrastructural projects, such as mining,
logging, dams, and agricultural expansion, but has also been
targeted by major conservation funding schemes, most notably
under the climate change mitigation REDD+ scheme (Berardi et
al. 2013a). Within this context, many indigenous peoples who still
retain considerable knowledge and skills for sustainable
governance of the region continue to be largely excluded from
political, economic, social, and cultural life, and many
communities still do not have any land rights over the traditional
territories within which they make their livelihoods (Hall and
Patrinos 2005). The overall aim of Project COBRA therefore was
to “establish how community owned solutions for the
management of natural resources have the potential to act as
showcases for the world in determining the most effective and
efficient use of emerging funding streams in order to maximise
social justice and ecological sustainability.”
In this paper, we present research undertaken within Project
COBRA on supporting indigenous communities in assessing the
state of current practices in the North Rupununi region of
Guyana. The North Rupununi, located in the southern part of
Guyana (Fig. 1), comprises savannas, wetlands, and forest
ecosystems, which support a rich biodiversity of both terrestrial
and aquatic life, and provide a wealth of natural resources for the
indigenous Makushi and Wapishana communities that inhabit
the area (Wetlands Partnership 2006, 2008, Mistry et al. 2004). A
CSO, the North Rupununi District Development Board
(NRDDB) represents the interests of the 6000-8000 people who
live in the North Rupununi, whose main economic activities are
subsistence fishing and farming, although some communities
have taken the step to develop alternative livelihoods, such as
ecotourism, shop keeping, poultry rearing, and producing
traditional agricultural-based products at commercial scales.
Through a series of consultations with the NRDDB and its 16
constituent villages, Apoteri, Rupertee, and Fairview were chosen
for the research.
Fig. 1. Map showing the studied villages in the North
Rupununi, Guyana, within the context of the Guiana Shield
region.
Apoteri is a remote forest community that can only be reached
by a 30-min car ride followed by a 3-hour boat journey from the
Brazil-Georgetown road. Subsistence farming and fishing are the
main livelihood activities, although a few people were previously
employed in a nearby conservation concession managed by the
CSO Conservation International. Rupertee is a savanna
community situated beside the Brazil-Georgetown road, but also
in the Annai Village political and administrative unit, which is
well connected through an airstrip, an ecotourism center, and a
local training institute. Fairview is also close to the Brazil-
Georgetown road, but situated away from the regional hub, and
within a protected area, the Iwokrama Forest. Fairview has a
strong relationship with Iwokrama, for example supplying a
significant workforce to the organization’s field center. Although
these three communities share many social-ecological
characteristics, they also have clear distinctions that provided an
opportunity to explore whether there were any common system
viability strategies.
Our approach to working with the communities focused on a
flexible and participatory research design using a simple
participatory action learning cycle (plan, act, observe, evaluate);
we did not use these steps in a systematic way, but as a heuristic
to encourage continuous and collective assessment and reflection

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
on the research process and outcomes by participants and
ourselves. In addition, our engagement with the local
communities was through a team of five local indigenous
researchers (also authors on this paper) who could play a bridging
role in terms of access to participants, language issues, culturally
appropriate conduct of research, and potentially provide
continuity beyond the project period (Wheeler 2009, Kamuya et
al. 2013). Working through the many challenges (and successes)
of participatory work, reflected on in detail in Mistry et al.
(2015b), the indigenous researchers facilitated all the activities at
community level including initial consultations to gain free, prior
and informed consent, implementation of research methods, and
dissemination back to the communities and the NRDDB.
METHODS
The research process took place over two years in a staged but
iterative process shown in Figure 2. The local indigenous
researchers visited the villages to discuss, identify, film, and
photograph community viability strategies through a series of
community consultations engaging with a wide cross-section of
people including women, men, and youth. The activities used to
convey concepts such as system viability involved participatory
exercises and games with community members detailed in Berardi
et al. (2014). At the same time, viability strategies and associated
data were captured using PV and PP, and then edited into films
and photostories by the indigenous researchers. These films and
photostories were screened back to the communities, thereby
allowing people to provide feedback, comments, and reflection
to modify the films and photostory representations. This
normally went through at least three iterations so that a sense of
consensus within the community could be reached. Both young
people and elders, as well as males and females (with a slight
majority of women attending with their children, the average
numbers were 20-25 people per meeting), participated in these
meetings. The video and photographic materials (1 film and 5—
8 individual and collective photostories were produced in each
community) were then submitted to the project academic
researchers, and were analyzed through an iterative process of
coding individual segments/photos based on visual and audio
content into themes using the NVivo qualitative software. The
results were then presented to the indigenous researchers in the
form of spray diagrams; these show the connections between
related elements and can be thought of as a conceptual map of a
situation or issue (Open University 2002). Through in-depth
discussions, the representations of viability strategies and their
relationships were validated and refined where necessary, and then
presented back to the three villages in the form of revised spray
diagrams for final agreement and comments. A detailed analysis
of the visual representations in the PP and PV are provided in
Mistry et al. (2015a).
The viability strategies were then allocated indicators (How does
the community measure the state of this important element of
their viability?) and thresholds (What is the community’s level of
tolerance before it considers this element in a bad state?). This
was done using a qualitative scoring system of 1-3, where 1 =
inadequate, 2 = acceptable, and 3 = good, following other
indicator studies including Mistry et al. (2010), Béné et al. (2011),
and Davis et al. (2013). The data for this activity was triangulated
from information captured in the films and photostories,
experience and knowledge of the indigenous researchers, and
meetings organized in the communities to discuss and agree
indicator status and thresholds. This allowed us to see which
strategies communities themselves thought were working well and
those that were not.
Fig. 2. Main steps leading to the selection of six best practices
in the North Rupununi, Guyana.
However, to be able to assess the state of current practices in detail
and investigate what made them robust, within practical
considerations of time and logistics, we needed to identify a subset
of practices. In addition, the next phase of Project COBRA
involved sharing best practice strategies with other communities
around the Guiana Shield (Tschirhart et al. 2014, 2016), as well
as stakeholders at higher levels of decision making, so we needed
to be able to clearly communicate the best practices through PV
and PP. Therefore, a Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) was conducted
on the whole set of system viability strategies identified by the
communities. This method was chosen because it provided a
structured approach for comparing different options, i.e., the
viable strategies, and for selecting the most suitable ones according
to overall preferences, i.e., the criteria (Belton and Stewart 2002).
The options can be compared by being rated against a set of
criteria that represent different desirable objectives (Mendoza and
Prabhu 2005, Khadka and Vacik 2012). The options that manage
to fulfil the highest number of desirable objectives are thus very
likely to be selected (Recchia et al. 2011). The criteria for the MCA
were developed through a discussion with the indigenous
researchers and the communities, based on, for example, status
of the strategy, its relevance to the wider North Rupununi
communities, and whether it could be effectively communicated
through film and photostories.

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
One of the criteria agreed upon was whether a current community
strategy would be fit for the future. This was important because
in their films and photostories all the communities emphasized
the importance of maintaining their environment and culture for
future generations (Mistry et al. 2015a). A participatory
exploration of future scenarios was carried out with the
communities over a six-month period; there is no scope to describe
the process in detail here, but a full critical evaluation of the
process and outcomes is provided in Mistry et al. (2014). Another
important criterion was whether the strategy fulfilled the project’s
definition of a “community owned solution,” adapted from the
UNDP (2012): practices that are born, developed, and
successfully implemented in the community, by the community,
without major influence from external stakeholders, and that
contribute to social-ecological well-being in a fair and equitable
way (Berardi et al. 2014). We also agreed with the communities
that it was important to find people who were role models for
different strategies, that is, people who felt passionate about the
strategy and had the knowledge and skills to demonstrate how
the strategy worked. Having these “champions” was therefore also
included in the criteria list.
Each criteria of the MCA was allocated a weight (from 0 = no
importance at all, to 1 = very high importance), to reflect the
multiple objectives of the project. Indeed, it was agreed by the
project team and the communities that criteria representing
community perspectives and practicality, such as whether it
fulfilled the elements of a community owned solution, the level
of transferability of the strategy, and the presence of champions
who could represent and execute the strategy well, would be given
priority. A final score for each strategy was calculated by
multiplying the rates by their weights for each element, and then
summing them up. The MCA allowed the identification of a
subset of strategies, termed “best practices,” for further
investigation. Undertaking an in-depth study of these best
practices was important to understand critical underlying factors
for their success, and using PV and PP allowed a shared
understanding of the practices to emerge. During discussions with
the indigenous researchers about the MCA results, it became
apparent that a study of all the identified best practices would
not be possible in the timeframe of the project. Therefore, a
collective decision to focus on one practice per system viability
category was made based on discussions about time, budget, and
logistical constraints (e.g., geographical accessibility, transport
links), and the sensitivity of the information collected (e.g.,
researching traditional medicine would require another
community consultation process on intellectual property rights
beyond the scope of the project).
The indigenous researchers then started a six month PV/PP study
of these six best practices, facilitating an informal and fluid
process in the communities and with identified champions. The
work involved discussing, capturing, and editing material,
screening draft films and photostories, and then using feedback
to finalize the visual products (these can be viewed at the Project
COBRA web site). The video and photographic materials on the
best practices were submitted to the project academic researchers,
and were analyzed through an iterative process of coding
individual segments/photos based on visual and audio content
into themes using NVivo. These themes were verified through
informal interviews with the indigenous researchers and through
research diary entries of the project academic researchers who
visited the region during this phase of the project.
RESULTS
Participatory assessment using system viability
The three communities identified over a hundred different social-
ecological elements that they perceived contributed to their
viability strategies. These included natural resources (e.g., trees,
rivers, medicinal plants), objects (e.g., solar panels, generators,
radios), issues (e.g., keeping youth in the village), institutions (e.g.,
village councils, CSOs, local and national government), and
livelihood activities (e.g., farming, hunting, fishing). An example
of a spray diagram depicting a complete system viability analysis
developed for the village of Rupertee is shown in Figure 3. As can
be seen, indicators were often organized in nested hierarchies, with
higher level categories, such as “the presence of forests”
incorporating lower level indicators such as the availability of a
particular medicinal plant. In addition, the indicators resulting
from our participatory visual approach were highly qualitative,
contextual, and covered a wide range of issues. For example,
“timber” was identified as a crucial element for the viability of all
three communities. The status of timber resources was directly
linked to the way the communities managed the timber resources.
As a consequence, the proposed measurable indicator of “timber”
was “people knowing how (equipment), what (species), why
(purposes), when (growth) and how much to extract.” The
threshold was when the “majority of people have traditional
knowledge and modern equipment to extract timber.” So, to
maintain a healthy environment in order to sustain the regular and
predictable production of the basic resources for survival, and to
maintain traditionally sustainable resource extraction practices in
the community, the communities make sure they not only practice
timber extraction according to intimate traditional ecological
knowledge, but also make sure this knowledge is passed on to
younger generations through participation in forest-based
activities. This not only reflects the highly context-specific nature
of how people perceive and experience their environment, but also
shows that even though the communities are heavily reliant on
natural resources, their indicators rarely relate directly to just the
state of the resource (e.g., extent of forest, numbers of trees).
The identification of strategies under each system viability
category between the three communities is analysed and discussed
in Berardi et al. (2013b) and Mistry et al. (2015a). We found that
there were similarities between the communities in terms of
existence strategies (all three communities felt that access to land
and waterways was a fundamental prerequisite for their continued
existence), ideal performance (all three communities had practices
that promoted the efficient use of titled land), flexibility strategies
(all three communities aspired to the development of more options
for food and health security), resistance strategies (all three
communities had practices that kept traditions alive and protected
the environment), adaptability strategies (all three communities
used nonindigenous technologies in ways that significantly
improved their well-being), and coexistence strategies (all three
communities sought effective partnerships at regional, national,
and international levels).
At the same time, each community showed specificities in regard
to its unique social-ecological context. In Apoteri (see http://

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Fig. 3. Example of an indicator spray diagram.
projectcobra.org/community/apotericommunity), their existence
and flexibility strategies were characterized by a strong focus on
traditional and innovative farming techniques, while their
resistance and ideal performance strategies focused on solutions
to maintain a healthy age structure and prevent youth from
migrating. Apoteri also recognized self-help as a key component
of their ideal performance strategy. These specific strategies
reflected a community weakly connected to the outside world,
relying more on its own internal strengths and resources, and
facing the challenge of keeping younger generations in the village.
The Fairview viability strategies (see http://projectcobra.org/
community/fairview), on the other hand, were oriented toward
following the rule of law and management plans for their village,
partly to comply with the rules that regulate the surrounding
protected forest while making the most of their particular
situation. For example, their existence strategy emphasized access
to education, their resistance and ideal performance strategies
focused on enforcing the rule of law and community management
plans for sustainable resource use, the flexibility strategy
highlighted the creation of job opportunities, while their
coexistence strategy pointed out their working partnership with
Iwokrama. Rupertee is situated in a context that highly exposes
it to the outside world, and this is reflected in many of their
viability indicators that were aimed at engagement with, and
protection from, external impacts (see http://projectcobra.org/
community/rupertee), emphasizing the creation of employment
opportunities as one of their main existence strategies, while their
resistance strategy focused on their programs to preserve
traditional culture. The use of communication technologies were
highlighted as one of their most important adaptability strategies,
while district level planning and partnerships with other
communities and organizations were identified as key ideal
performance and coexistence strategies, respectively.
Identification of best practices
A summary of the MCA analysis is shown in Table 1, with the
short listed best practices agreed with the communities to be
investigated in more detail shown with an asterisk. These were
traditional fishing (existence), transmission of culture to youth
(resistance), traditional farming practices (flexibility), community
radio (adaptability), self-help (ideal performance), and successful
partnerships through a local CSO (coexistence). Table 2 outlines
the key aspects of each best practice, and the challenges it attempts
to address, identified through the analysis of each best practice
film and photostory, and verified through work with the
communities and champions, and field notes. Note that these
essential characteristics for the emergence of a successful survival
strategy may not have been directly articulated verbally by
community members. However, in many cases, these components
were repeatedly manifested visually within the videos and
photostories (for example, clips of different aged people doing
tasks together showing knowledge transfer, as well as community
cohesion), thus allowing us to identify these as significant.
Crucially, this is a fundamental advantage over the written word,
in that one is able to identify tangible significance within the media
that would otherwise not have been detectable with written forms
of communication.
Our analysis of these best practice videos and photostories,
combined with triangulation through community interviews and
research diaries, found that there were some cross-cutting themes
that united the particular cultural, historical, and environmental
context of each best practice. All were imbued with indigenous

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Table 1. Summary of the Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) analysis, with the short-listed best practices agreed with the communities to
be investigated in more detail shown with a dagger (†). Column headings and weightings: A = Does the strategy have a satisfactory
status? (1); B = Was the indicator well thought through? (0.6); C = How many other communities are using this strategy? (0.5); D =
Does the strategy contribute to make the best case scenarios happen? (1); E = Is the strategy community owned? (1); F = Is the strategy
easy to capture through video and photos? (1); G = Are there people who can represent and execute the strategy well? (1); H = How
transferable is the strategy? (1).
Orientor
Strategy A B C D E F G H Total
score
Existence
Traditional and modern timber extraction 1 1 1 0.6 1 1 0.8 1 0.93
Traditional fishing†1 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.8 1 0.88
Secure access to land rights 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 1 0.6 0.74
Resistance
Practices for transmitting traditional culture to youth†1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.94
Community rules for the use of natural resources 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.60
Activities to encourage youth to stay in the village 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 1 0.6 1 1 0.77
Flexibility
Maintaining a local health practitioner in the community 1 1 0.6 0.5 1 1 1 0.7 0.85
Maintaining a variety of farming techniques†0.8 1 1 0.4 1 1 1 0.8 0.87
Adaptability
Community and/or individual systems to adapt new mediums
of transport (e.g., renting system of boats and engines, so that
it benefits the whole community but is maintained in a good
state also)
1 1 1 0.9 1 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.89
Modern communication tools adapted for optimal community
and/or individual use and benefit e.g., community radio†1 1 1 1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.89
Ideal Performance
Self-help at household and community levels†1 1 0.3 0.7 0 1 1 1 0.87
Effective planning and applications of community natural
resource plans
1 1 1 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.84
Leadership (transparency, democracy, communication) 1 1 1 0.9 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.88
Coexistence
Partnerships between communities 0.8 1 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.8 1 0.5 0.76
Partnerships with NGOs†0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.5 0.8 1 0.6 0.79
knowledge. In some cases, indigenous knowledge played a direct
role in establishing long-term communal understanding of
people’s environment and the transmission of pertinent
experience through fishing (existence) and farming (flexibility),
or participation in traditional dances and ceremonies (resistance).
However, we also saw that indigenous knowledge is not static and
is responding to social-ecological changes. For example, in the
adaptability best practice of the community radio, Radio
Paiwomak, a new form of communication was adopted by the
communities that on the surface could potentially undermine
indigenous knowledge and its transmission by facilitating the
widespread communication of nonindigenous ideas and
practices. Indeed, the national government at the time of this
research insisted on the radio transmitting political messages from
the state-controlled national radio station. Nevertheless, since its
inception, the radio station has had many programs in the
traditional language, and the fact that the radio was identified as
community owned by the communities themselves, reflects its role
in enabling the communities to use the radio to reinforce
indigenous knowledge and stimulate traditional oral modes of
communication (Fig. 4). There are, for example, traditional
storytelling programs for children, radio programs broadcast in
the indigenous language of Makushi, and programs facilitating
the exchange of traditional knowledge to face new challenges
Fig. 4. An extract of the adaptability best practice photostory
showing the different radio programs aired on the community
radio station.

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Table 2. Short description of each best practice studied and associated challenges.
Best practice
Key aspects of the best practice participatory video (PV) and participatory
photography (PP) stories
Challenges this best practice addresses
Traditional fishing practices (Existence)
Know the different fishes’ habitats, behavior, and optimal season or time of
the day to target appropriately and be time efficient; Use a variety of fishing
techniques and equipment according to the fish species targeted: bow and
arrow for surface water fish, rod for midlevel fish, line and hook for deep or
shallow water; Fishing with gill nets and seine is presented as a bad practice
because the fishing process is not selective; Know how to build or where to
get traditional fishing equipment (e.g., bow and arrow) and how to use it;
Appreciate the quantity of fish needed and for what purpose; Make children/
family/friends observe and, even better, participate in fishing trips and in the
preparation and cooking of fish meals to raise awareness from a very young
age about the close link between natural resources and human survival.
To maintain a healthy environment to sustain the regular and predictable
production of the basic resources for survival: food, water, shelter, medicine.
With an increasingly unpredictable climate, and higher threats from extractive
activities by local to international players, key resources are put under
pressure jeopardizing the existence of the North Rupununi communities.
Another challenge is to maintain, from one generation to the next, sustainable
resource management. This is difficult because young people are leaving
communities to pursue education or job opportunities, or simply as external
equipment and/or external demand start being prioritized as a way of saving
time or generating an income for engaging with consumer society, rather than
maintaining ecologically sustainable self-sufficiency.
Transmission of culture to youth (Resistance)
At community level: Invest your own time to inspire and lead cultural
projects and activities if you are passionate and proud about your culture
and knowledge; Encourage the elderly to share traditional knowledge with
everyone, especially young people; Be inclusive of nontraditional forms of
knowledge and communication, such as the radio and Internet, as a way of
keeping young people interested and stimulated; Show and explain the
purpose of carrying out certain traditional tasks, e.g., making useful
everyday objects like baskets, and/or earning an income by selling them;
Organize events and performances that bring the community together, old
and young, to tell stories and perform traditional culture; Be aware of the
diversity of cultures in the community, be inclusive; Record traditions and
culture, for example, through visual methods, to save it for future generations
and disseminate it as widely as possible; Create platforms for exchange and
passing on of knowledge, through a culture group or campfire nights,
performances, etc.
At family level: Speak in the traditional language to young children; Make
young children participate in traditional tasks from a very young age; Take
time for one-to-one sessions with children at home to pass on some
knowledge through storytelling, for example.
Within an increasingly globalized world, and within societies in which
indigenous groups have for a long time been suppressed and marginalized, it
can become increasingly challenging for indigenous communities to keep their
cultural identity alive; “because of the absence of old people, because of
exposure to other culture and traveling, because of lack of respect and
interest in traditional skills, because of a decrease in sharing knowledge in the
community and not only in the family, because of fear of the power of people
with illegal traditional knowledge [it being misappropriated]” (Indigenous
researcher). This presents two main challenges: first, it can affect community
identity and togetherness, therefore weakening them as a community in the
face of a variable environment; and second, it can affect the sustainability of
their local social-ecological system.
Traditional farming practices (Flexibility)
Have good knowledge of the environment so that opening a farm does not
negatively affect an ecosystem on which the communities are dependant;
Choose a good place to start a farm in light of quality of the soil and local
topography; Select good cassava sticks and good crops, adapted to the
different types of soils; Share knowledge by communicating and exchanging
good practices, by making children and members of the community help and
participate in family farming tasks; Have two farms, of different sizes, that
are kept for different purposes and that reduce vulnerability to diseases,
destruction by animals, floods, etc.; Have a range of diverse crops (cassava
and noncassava); Know how to care for these crops; Know the potential
products that can be made out of the different crops; Know how to prepare
the different by-products; Make the most of farm products through family
consumption and selling excess.
Food security within a highly diverse environment; climate, diseases and pests,
income, food supply, and job opportunities can vary significantly from one
month to the next, or one year to the next. This variety can significantly
challenge the food security of North Rupununi communities. Moreover, an
income to enable communities to buy food when farm products are not
sufficient is not always guaranteed, depending on job opportunities in the
area.
Community radio (Adaptability)
Consult the community to see if members are willing to have a radio, for
what purposes, and where it would be based; Ensure that community
members can interact with the community radio, for example, through HF
radios, telephones, or even Internet; Ensure that the majority of the
communities have the infrastructure to listen to, or are in range of, the radio;
Identify at least one motivated person from the community to champion and
run the radio, even as a volunteer to begin with if necessary; Choose a name
to which community can relate to make it their own; Develop programs with
the community’s participation; Identify an institution or a group of people
responsible for monitoring the radio’s status; If initial support is needed (for
training, for initial equipment, or some external expertise), identify optimal
partnerships to help launch the project; Make sure it follows the national
legislations, such as license of operation; Make sure the ambitions fit the
infrastructure, such as power supply; Think of ways to sustain it at the local
level, without too much external input in the long term; Make sure all
members of communities, young, old, women, and men are represented in
the programs.
Access to new media is constantly increasing in indigenous communities
around the world: HF radios, mobile phones, television, computers, and
Internet are becoming increasingly part of everyday lives. New
communication tools both create the challenge (introducing new ideas and
changing people’s expectations) and have the potential to provide the solution
(by keeping people informed on how to deal with change). Access to national
and international news could override valuing local news, could increase the
gap between younger and older generations, could threaten local lifestyles by
presenting “better” lifestyles, and could even create inequalities in
communities if access to media is not guaranteed for everyone. On the other
hand, new media enables communities to understand the other systems with
which they coexist, to have a wider understanding beyond the local, and
communicate between themselves and to external organizations at the same
speed as the speed of communication in other areas. New media can therefore
be a powerful tool in light of changes in environmental governance happening
at higher scales, as well as external activities such as mining, logging, and
illegal fishing taking place in indigenous lands. The challenge is thus to keep
the balance between valuing and serving the local, while understanding and
being aware of the nonlocal.
(con'd)

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Self-help (Ideal Performance)
Have a leader: this is key. The leader must organize a self-help event very well
so that community members participate and projects get carried out
successfully. This involves getting the community together to organize the
event in a participatory way: 1. What task? This first step actually ensures
that the community supports the project and willingly participates; 2. When
should it be carried out? 3. How long should it take? 4. Who should
participate? 5. Who should do what according to capacity and skills? 6. What
resources are needed (how many people, what equipment ...)? 7. Is there a
need for extra funding or equipment and if yes where to find it? Ensure the
leader participates in the event to motivate community members and set the
example; Organize food and drinks for participants (“nobody can work with
an empty belly”); Who will prepare food and drink, what will be prepared
and for how many people? Encourage men, women and youth to all
participate because this brings the whole community together; Participation
(financial or in kind) is compulsory for all villagers; Give warnings and fines
for people who don’t participate; If people cannot participate, collect their
contribution before the event.
In remote areas of the world, public (and private) services are limited and
cannot be relied upon to carry out day-to-day community activities, such as
cleaning and maintaining communal spaces, or carrying out heavy tasks like
cutting down patches of forest to grow a farm. Therefore, to maintain a clean
environment in the community, recreation facilities like a football pitch, local
infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and to provide for family necessities
such as food, communities use self-help to get tasks done. And critically, self-
help, at the same time, maintains a sense of togetherness and community
spirit.
Successful partnerships through a local civil society organization (CSO; Coexistence)
In consultation with community leaders, select communities that are willing,
have some capacity, and have resources to actively participate; Build on
existing community strengths; Hold meetings in the communities to explain
the objectives, and organize activities in a participatory way, allocating
different tasks and responsibilities to members of the community; Follow up
the project at least every 3 months; organise meetings with all participants to
evaluate activities, respond to concerns and queries, and provide additional
support if necessary; Regularly communicate progress of activities to the
wider community; Develop community owned rules with the help of experts/
facilitators if necessary; Provide adequate training using local expertise;
Ensure continuity by providing support for training if needed and justified.
Support leadership to motivate community members to apply rules, follow
guidelines, and actively participate; Implement self-help to carry out
initiatives when funding or time is running out; Have determination and
continuity; Network for visibility by establishing contact with reputable
stakeholders; Monitor progress and impact of the project; Have transparency
in accountancy whereby a percentage of the benefits go to the village council
and the rest is returned to operations and improving infrastructure; Comply
with national rules.
More and more development and environmental projects are being carried
out in communities, with the support of external stakeholders. However, their
success and sustainability is far from guaranteed. Infrastructure is being built,
resource management projects are being developed, new forms of
environmental governance are being initiated, commercial projects are being
implemented, but all too often these projects do not succeed. This not only
affects the local communities, but also the funding and supporting
institutions that do not always get the expected return in terms of capacity
building and impact. A crucial determinant for the successful implementation
of a project for all parties involved, is the presence and effective functioning
of a local CSO.
(such as fighting diseases within traditional rotational farming
systems that avoid the use of artificial pesticides). At the same
time, Radio Paiwomak has the potential to support communities
in dealing with new, emerging challenges, such as the spread of
HIV, a disease historically never experienced by indigenous
communities. We also saw images in the photostory and film of
people coming together to listen to the radio (Fig. 5), supporting
communal interaction for indigenous knowledge production. In
the coexistence best practice, the ecotourism enterprise was
sustained by pooling traditional ecological knowledge for
developing community owned rules for managing local fish
resources and supporting local guides to appropriately guide
tourists and ensure successful fishing trips.
The best practices identified also demonstrate the critical
importance of prominent local leaders. The presence of at least
one singular individual, highly motivated, respected as a local
leader, with appropriate/innovative skills, and making a personal
commitment and self-sacrifice to the best practice and the process
of implementation was essential. The best practice champions
varied between young and old, women and men (Fig. 6).
However, they were all distinguished by community legitimacy
—they were guided by collective benefits rather than self-interests
—which gave the community confidence in their ability to make
a difference and motivated community members to participate
in the best practice. For example, the adaptability best practice of
Fig. 5. Uses of the community radio station depicted in the
adaptability best practice photostory.
Radio Paiwomak relies on the radio manager’s time and experience,
and he is not always paid for his work. Not many people would

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
work for the radio without getting paid, and in today’s context of
financial cuts, it is becoming even more difficult to compensate
the radio manager’s expenses such as transportation to and from
the radio’s headquarters. On the other hand, Radio Paiwomak
has been operational for 13 years in this extremely challenging
financial environment; clearly, there are mechanisms through
which the radio continues to be operational even if this involves
great sacrifices from one or more individuals.
Fig. 6. Champions of the resistance best practice.
Linked to strong leadership was a sense of collectiveness
underpinning many of the best practices. The ideal performance
best practice of self-help embodies notions of community
cohesion where norms, trust, communication, and connectedness
in groups is the foundation of the best practice (Fig. 7). However,
we also saw the importance of community cohesion within the
coexistence best practice, where communities voluntarily work
together to build infrastructure for the ecotourism venture, in the
resistance best practice where people came together to teach
young people about culture, and in the flexibility best practice
where adequate food security through farming can only be
achieved through a collective effort.
Most of the best practices are built upon an array of partnerships
and networks. Crucial to their success is the role of the local CSO,
the North Rupununi District Development Board (NRDDB), in
helping to develop and support local community initiatives (Fig.
8). At the same time, links with external agencies and institutions
have helped the local communities and the NRDDB to access
necessary technical and business skills, new sources of finance,
broaden market opportunities, and to gain political support,
while at the same time retaining local control over the
development agenda. The coexistence best practice is based on
building partnerships to effectively develop and run community-
based enterprises. In the adaptability best practice, the roles of
Iwokrama (national level CSO), UNESCO, the International
Development Research Centre (Canada), and Guyana
Broadcasting Corporation/National Communication Network
are highlighted in the creation and maintenance of Radio
Paiwomak. This indicates how successful initiatives often
participate in many different partnerships at once, thereby taking
advantage of different partner strengths and preventing
overreliance on any single partner. It also shows, in the cases of
Iwokrama and the National Communication Network, that long-
term and ongoing support structures, which are not always
exclusively financial, are required to strengthen and promote
community owned approaches.
Fig. 7. Explanation of self-help in the ideal performance best
practice photostory. Note that a “benab” is a conical palm
thatched building normally used for meetings and social events.
Fig. 8. The role of the North Rupununi District Development
Board (NRDDB) in the coexistence best practice photostory.
A key role of these partnerships and networks is capacity building.
Experience from the best practices show that some effective
capacity development has occurred, for example, through the
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture and
FAO in terms of agriculture (including aquaculture) and for
tourism management (e.g., catering, guiding) by the Hospitality
Association of Guyana coordinated through the NRDDB. Still,
the majority of this support is temporary. Networks and

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
associations have also been used to act as a platform for learning
and knowledge exchange. In the resistance best practice, for
example, we see young people in Yupukari using Internet
communication tools to exchange their local experiences and
practices with those abroad. Of course, it is important to point
out that partnerships involve trade-offs that often mean that
communities have to take on obligations that are not always
entirely beneficial to them. So, for example, partnerships that
provide the resources to maintain a community radio station and
programs on indigenous culture may also require the broadcasting
of programs in English, which promote the expert-led and
centralizing agenda of nonlocal institutions.
DISCUSSION
Our research shows that the relatively loose structure of system
viability encourages communities to go beyond the “here and
now” problems, which understandably can be the first response
when asked about their challenges, and engage with a wide
diversity of challenges they may be facing. This, we believe, goes
beyond present-day resilience thinking, which places greater
emphasis on understanding how a system persists in the face of
change, and its ability to change into more desirable states when
required (Folke 2006, Walker et al. 2010), compared to what might
maintain stability. For example, in a study of the history of an
indigenous Māori group in New Zealand, Rotarangi and
Stephenson (2014) show that the key resilience concepts of
adaptation and transformation were helpful in analyzing the
trajectory of change, but fell short of representing the
maintenance of a strong cultural identity and connectedness to
land. Our research addresses this issue, showing that different
strategies to challenges are not mutually exclusive, but that a
social-ecological system can simultaneously have both change
and stability responses (Berardi et al. 2013b, Mistry et al. 2015a).
Crucially, our system viability framework enabled the
identification of best practices that actually have synergistic
effects and are mutually reinforcing, i.e., they do not necessarily
focus on promoting one aspect of a community while
undermining other aspects. For example, self-help is practiced in
traditional fishing, traditional farming, as part of ecotourism,
and in cultural transmission.
Our participatory visual approach also highlights that the
boundaries between social and ecological elements of any linked
system are blurred, and there are continual interactions and
feedbacks in a dynamic manner. In particular, many of the
indicators in the system viability assessment have relational/
process characteristics rather than state characteristics. They
focus on what people know about the environment, how they
access resources, how often they use resources, rather than the
quantity of a resource or its health per se. Indigenous worldviews
are inherently and implicitly relational and process-oriented
(Mistry 2009), where the multifaceted aspects of the human and
nonhuman worlds exchange material, energy, and spirits, and the
past and future characterize the present (e.g., Berkes 1999, Rose
2005). This points to taking a relational approach to dealing with
complexity in social-ecological systems: what these systems are is
not just about how they appear or function, but also what they
do, how they develop, and how they are linked to other elements
of the social-ecological environment (Howitt 2001). The best
practice films and photostories have been screened at a number
of local, national, and international governance settings, and have
helped toward legitimizing the indigenous worldview, both for
indigenous people in feeling pride about themselves and for the
nonindigenous in acknowledging the need for alternative visions
for social-ecological system governance (Mistry et al. 2015c).
Despite the many positives of our approach, we are aware that
the system viability framework is another top-down attempt to
promote a big picture view of the situation, just as the
technocentric approach of using video and audio capturing and
editing technologies could be described as an imposition on
traditional forms of communication (see Mistry et al. 2009,
Mistry and Berardi 2012 for reflections on these issues). In
addition, some systems approaches have been criticized for their
inability to engage with issues of agency and power (e.g., Brown
and Westaway 2011, Fisher et al. 2013). We addressed these
concerns by ensuring that men, women, and young people of all
ages were part of our participatory processes, and that when
analyzing the visual materials we looked to see which individuals/
groups said what. For example, youths tended to focus on
adaptation strategies with a strong emphasis on new technologies,
elder women gave attention to traditional practices and culture,
whereas many men emphasized issues of security and rules
(Mistry et al. 2015a). Our objective within the participatory
processes was to engage the “researched” in order to transform
them into “researchers” of their own situation, while being explicit
about everyone’s positionality within the investigation, from the
individual community groups to our own (Mistry et al. 2015b).
This takes time; although the use of a participatory visual
approach allowed the collection of a highly qualitative and rich
dataset, engagement with the images, and associated discussions
with participants was not an easy task, and arriving at a clear
interpretation of meaning attributed to the recorded imagery took
several iterations of community consultations.
Interventions at community level could be weighed up against
survival strategies to identify trade-offs and/or synergies in
maintaining the system viability of a community. Our research
shows that like many other indigenous communities, there is a
great tension between resistance (how to keep traditional
knowledge and practices within a healthy natural environment)
and adaptability (how to incorporate nonindigenous technologies
and life-styles in day-to-day life). Young people in particular
vocalized these concerns, keenly feeling the lure of new ways of
life and wanting to be seen as modern, but wanting to maintain
skills and knowledge as part of their indigenous identity (Mistry
et al. 2015a). At the same time, the current dominance of market-
based interventions for managing natural resources could have
negative repercussions on community coherence and equity in
societies with a strong communal ethic (Plagányia et al. 2013). In
our case, we found that collective values and spirit was a cross-
cutting theme in all the best practices, and that women were a core
part of the self-help best practice being undertaken in the North
Rupununi, e.g., organizing food sharing. This suggests that not
only could market-based approaches with financial incentives
potentially disrupt overall community cohesion and associated
collaboration, norms of reciprocity, solidarity, and collective
action (Godoy et al. 2005), but negative effects on women could
be at the forefront of this impact (Westermann et al. 2005).
The six best practices identified by the communities and
documented using films and photostories are examples of shared

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Fig. 9. The six best practices from the North Rupununi, Guyana and their relevance at the national and international levels.
narratives that embrace a diversity of survival strategies. They are
examples of community owned solutions that national and
international policies should focus on to implement sustainable
development programs (Fig. 9). Traditional fisheries (existence),
for example, make a significant contribution to many indigenous
communities in terms of diet (and associated culture and belief
systems), maintaining food chains and biodiversity, and providing
income through ecotourism ventures, as outlined in the
coexistence best practice (Berkes 2003, Allan et al. 2005, Ingwall-
King 2014). Yet, in the North Rupununi, economically important
species such as the Lukanani (Cichla ocellaris) and Arapaima
(Arapaima gigas), as well as traditional food sources, including
the Paku (Colossoma bidens), are being targeted for markets in
Brazil via some commercial fishing being undertaken by local
communities (e.g., Ingwall King 2014), as well as illegal fishing
by outsiders. In light of the threat of overharvesting, particularly
through the use of seine nets, and to promote sustainable fishing
practices, a fisheries management plan was drawn up by the
communities of the North Rupununi and the NRDDB (Jafferally
and Haynes 2011). However, to date, except for the incorporation
of some components of this plan in the government inland
fisheries strategic plan, there has been little representation and
promotion of local fishing practices at the national level.
Traditional rotational farming (flexibility) not only provides the
foundation of people’s nutrition, but also their economies,
ecologies, and culture. We see this clearly in the best practice
where, as food is grown, harvested, processed, consumed, and
sold, people are making associations with the protection and
conservation of the environment, maintenance of local culture,
and income and livelihoods benefits. Promoting traditional
cassava growing and processing, can help maintain existence with
the everyday consumption of cassava and its products, and
resistance as cassava is linked to various cultural activities and
events. It has been shown that traditional farming practices
actually enhance both soil (biochar) and above ground (higher
biomass) carbon storage in the long term and over greater spatial
scales (Erni 2009). There is also growing evidence that shifting
cultivation has high productivity for the amount of energy and
other inputs that they utilize because of the multiple outputs, not
all of which are recognized or valued in external markets (Trosper
et al. 2012). Thus, traditional farming methods and associated
knowledge can make significant contributions to sustainable
forest conservation and management, particularly in relation to
climate change mitigation policies such as REDD+.

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
It is clear, however, that community owned solutions do not exist
in isolation, and that higher level social-ecological systems can
either have a supporting or undermining effect. The cross-cutting
best practice themes of indigenous knowledge, leadership, and
partnerships were also themes that emerged from a cross-scalar
analysis of environmental governance in the Guiana Shield
(Berardi et al. 2015). Although good leadership and solidarity
were identified as essential at the local level (Gruber 2010, 2011,
Gutiérrez et al. 2011, Kenward et al. 2011), especially during times
of variable pressures and resource scarcity, the extent to which
leaders had autonomy and support in decision making was
repeatedly questioned. This is in light of Guyana’s poor record
in governance, with the control of corruption, regulatory quality
in the formulation and implementation of policies, and
regulations permitting and promoting private sector development,
such as in the resource extraction industries, particularly
problematic (World Bank 2014). Poor governance also influences
the effectiveness of partnerships in collaborative initiatives such
as capacity-building activities that take significant effort and time,
and require sustained and stable cooperation and funding at
regional and national scales. Critically, indigenous knowledge
needs to be recognized as a valid form of information for decision
making at higher scales of governance, while being protected from
exploitation and misapplication through appropriate measures to
protect sensitive information (Taylor 2006). Legitimizing
indigenous knowledge could help to mitigate against the current
rapid transition toward a Western lifestyle of many indigenous
communities, to the potential detriment of conservation
initiatives. Once networked into global socioeconomic systems,
these communities find it difficult to go back to an isolated,
preglobalization lifestyle, and so the challenge is to find ways in
which communities can constructively adapt to globalization
without totally losing their indigenous cultures and lifestyles, and
degrading their natural environment.
A prerequisite to this end is land tenure and rights. Indigenous
communities are striving to secure access to territory to maintain
traditional land-use practices and the ability to exploit future
income-generating activities (Berardi et al. 2015). However, in the
case of Guyana, it is still a nonsignatory of the Convention on
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Convention ILO n°169), and
although the government is committed to increasing indigenous
land rights through the Amerindian Act of 2006, limited progress
has been achieved to date in granting customary territories
traditionally used to maintain livelihoods.
CONCLUSIONS
Our system viability and participatory visual approach suggests
that community-based natural resource management requires a
suite of strategies that the local communities who are part of the
social-ecological system have themselves identified and assessed.
In our case this included traditional ecological knowledge linked
to local cultural values, the transmission of this knowledge
throughout the community but especially to young people, strong
local CSOs and community leaders, a collective spirit with a
degree of personal sacrifice, support when needed from external
bodies/organizations, and adoption/use of new communication
technologies. However, system viability also allows the surfacing
of tensions between survival strategies championed by different
members of the community. This, we argue, is a healthy
manifestation of a thriving and resilient community, as long as
competing strategies are able to be maintained. What
distinguishes our approach from many interventions is that we
sought to identify and promote the solutions that community
members themselves were practising, without ongoing assistance
from external stakeholders. An exploration of their own social-
ecological system can help communities to plan governance and
management of land and resource systems, while reinforcing
sustainable practices by discussing and showcasing them within
communities, and by engendering a sense of pride in local
solutions. In light of growing evidence for legally recognized
indigenous territories maintaining biodiverse forest and land
cover (e.g., Carranza et al. 2014, Stevens et al. 2014), providing
more examples and details about community owned solutions
and best practices could contribute toward greater autonomy in
governance for indigenous communities. Further research needs
to monitor community owned solutions over time, corroborated
with empirical environmental information on land cover/quality
change, as well as find ways to increase the presence of community
owned solutions within the conservation, development, and
political agenda.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/8496
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank all the communities of the North Rupununi,
Guyana for their active and enthusiastic participation in this
research. We also thank all project partners for their contributions
to the research and the reviewers for their pertinent comments that
greatly helped to improve the paper. This research was funded by
the Environment Programme, Management of Natural Resources,
DG Research and Innovation, European Commission 7th
Framework.
LITERATURE CITED
Agrawal, A. 2003. Sustainable governance of common-pool
resources: context, methods, and politics. Annual Review of
Anthropology 32:243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
anthro.32.061002.093112
Allan, J. D., R. Abell, Z. Hogan, C. Revenga, B. W. Taylor, R. L.
Welcomme, and K. Winemiller. 2005. Overfishing of inland
waters. BioScience 55(12):1041-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568
(2005)055[1041:ooiw]2.0.co;2
Armitage, D. R., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R. I. Arthur, A. T.
Charles, I. J. Davidson-Hunt, A. P. Diduck, N. C. Doubleday, D.
S. Johnson, M. Marschke, P. McConney, E. W. Pinkerton, and E.
K. Wollenberg. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-
ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
7(2):95-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070089
Belton, V., and T. J. Stewart. 2002. Multiple criteria decision
analysis. An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
Béné, C., L. Evans, D. Mills, S. Ovie, A. Raji, A. Tafida, A. Kodio,
F. Sinaba, P. Morand, J. Lemoalle, and N. Andrew. 2011. Testing
resilience thinking in a poverty context: experience from the Niger

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
River basin. Global Environmental Change 21:1173-1184. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.002
Berardi, A., E. Bignante, J. Mistry, M. Simpson, C. Tschirhart,
C. Verwer, and G. de Ville. 2014. How to find and share
community owned solutions. A handbook. Project COBRA,
London, UK. [online] URL: http://projectcobra.org/how-to-
find-and-share-community-owned-solutions
Berardi, A., J. Mistry, C. Tschirhart, E. Bignante, O. Davis, L.
Haynes, R. Benjamin, G. Albert, R. Xavier, D. Jafferally, and G.
de Ville. 2015. Applying the system viability framework for cross-
scalar governance of nested social-ecological systems in the
Guiana Shield, South America. Ecology and Society 20(3):42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-07865-200342
Berardi, A., J. Mistry, C. Tschirhart, C. Verwer, R. Glastra, G. de
Ville, O. Davis, C. de Souza, L. Haynes, R. Benjamin, R. Xavier,
G. Albert, D. Jafferally, E. Bignante, and J. Abraham. 2013a.
Second report on the cross-scalar interactions and compatibilities
governing sustainable development and ecosystem service
management of the Guiana Shield: drivers of social and
environmental degradation, and policy responses. The Open
University, Milton Keynes, UK. [online] URL: http://
projectcobra.org/second-report-on-cross-scalar-actions-and-
compatibilities/
Berardi, A., C. Tschirhart, J. Mistry, E. Bignante, L. Haynes, G.
Albert, R. Benjamin, R. Xavier, and D. Jafferally. 2013b. From
resilience to viability: a case study of indigenous communities of
the North Rupununi, Guyana. EchoGéo 24. [online] URL: http://
echogeo.revues.org/13411
Berkes F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge
and resource management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Berkes, F. 2003. Alternatives to conventional management:
lessons from small-scale fisheries. Environments 31(1):5-20.
Berkes, F. 2007. Adaptive co-management and complexity:
exploring the many faces of co-management. Pages 19-37 in D.
Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday, editors. Adaptive co-
management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance.
University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.
Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge
and resource management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Bignante, E. 2010. The use of photo elicitation in field research:
exploring Maasai representations and use of natural resources.
EchoGéo 11. [online] URL: http://echogeo.revues.org/index11622.
html http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.11622
Blom, B., T. Sunderland, and D. Murdiyarso. 2010. Getting
REDD to work locally: lessons learned from integrated
conservation and development projects. Environmental Science &
Policy 13:164-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002
Bossel, H. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development - theory,
method, applications. A report to the Balaton Group.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada.
Bossel, H. 2001. Assessing viability and sustainability: a systems-
based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets.
Conservation Ecology 5(2):12. [online] URL: http://www.
consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art12/
Bossel, H. 2007. Systems and models: complexity, dynamics,
evolution, sustainability. Books on Demand, Norderstedt,
Germany.
Brown, K., and E. Westaway. 2011. Agency, capacity, and
resilience to environmental change: lessons from human
development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 36:321-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-environ-052610-092905
Carranza, T., A. Balmford, V. Kapos, and A. Manica. 2014.
Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly
vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Letters
7(3):216-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12049
Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor Tomás. 2010. A review of
design principles for community-based natural resource
management. Ecology and Society 15(4):38. [online] URL: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/
Davis, C., L. Williams, S. Lupberger, and F. Daviet. 2013.
Assessing forest governance. The governance of forests initiative
indicator framework. World Resources Institute, Washington D.
C., USA.
Dryzek, J. S. 2005. The politics of the Earth: environmental
discourses. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK.
Erni, C. 2009. Shifting the blame? Southeast Asia’s indigenous
peoples and shifting cultivation in the age of climate change. Paper
presented at the seminar on Adivasi/ST Communities in India:
Development and Change, Delhi, August 27-29, 2009, IWGIA.
[online] URL: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/smsn/ngo/243.
pdf
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., H. L. Ballard, and V. E. Sturtevant.
2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative
and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-
based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and
Society 13(2):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol13/iss2/art4/
Fisher, J. A., G. Patenaude, P. Meir, A. J. Nightingale, M. D. A.
Rounsevell, M. Williams, and I. H. Woodhouse. 2013.
Strengthening conceptual foundations: analysing frameworks for
ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Global
Environmental Change 23(5):1098-1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for
social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change
16:253-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive
governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 30:441-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Galappaththi, E. K., and F. Berkes. 2015. Drama of the commons
in small-scale shrimp aquaculture in northwestern Sri Lanka.

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
International Journal of the Commons 9:347-368. http://dx.doi.
org/10.18352/ijc.500
Gaveau, D. L. A., J. Epting, O. Lyne, M. Linkie, I. Kumara, M.
Kanninen, and N. Leader-Williams. 2009. Evaluating whether
protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. Journal
of Biogeography 36:2165-2175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x
Godoy, R., V. Reyes-García, E. Byron, W. R. Leonard, and V.
Vadez. 2005. The effect of market economies on the well-being
of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural
resources. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:121-138. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120412
Gruber, J. S. 2010. Key principles of community-based natural
resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified
effective approaches for managing the commons. Environmental
Management 45:52-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9235-
y
Gruber, J. S. 2011. Perspectives of effective and sustainable
community-based natural resource management: an application
of Q methodology to forest projects. Conservation and Society 9
(2):159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.83725
Gutiérrez, N. L., R. Hilborn, and O. Defeo. 2011. Leadership,
social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature
470:386-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09689
Hall, G., and H. A. Patrinos, editors. 2005. Indigenous peoples,
poverty and human development in Latin America. Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230377226
Hammond, D. S., editor. 2005. Tropical forests of the Guiana
Shield: ancient forests in a modern world. CABI, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851995366.0000
Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice,
sustainability and indigenous peoples. Psychology Press,
Routledge, London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203221020
Ingwall-King, L. 2014. The implications of spatial and temporal
scale on the supply, distribution and value of ecosystem services in
Guyana. Dissertation, Royal Holloway University of London,
UK.
Jafferally, D., and L. Haynes. 2011. Co-management plan for
fisheries in the North Rupununi Wetlands. Iwokrama International
Centre, Georgetown, Guyana.
Kamuya, D. M., S. J. Theobald, P. K. Munywoki, D. Koech, W.
P. Geissler, and S. C. Molyneux. 2013. Evolving friendships and
shifting ethical dilemmas: fieldworkers’ experiences in a short
term community based study in Kenya. Developing World
Bioethics 13(1):1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12009
Kenward, R. E., M. J. Whittingham, S. Arampatzis, B. D. Manos,
T. Hahne, A. Terry, R. Simoncini, J. Alcorn, O. Bastian, M.
Donlan, K. Elowe, F. Franzén, Z. Karacsonyi, M. Larsson, D.
Manou, I. Navodaru, O. Papadopoulou, J. Papathanasiou, A. von
Raggamby, R. J. A. Sharp, T. Söderqvist, Å. Soutukorva, L.
Vavrova, N. J. Aebischer, N. Leader-Williams, and C. Rutzt. 2011.
Identifying governance strategies that effectively support
ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 108(13):5308-5312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1007933108
Khadka, C., and H. Vacik. 2012. Use of multi-criteria analysis
(MCA) for supporting community forest management. iForest
5:60-71 http://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor0608-009
Lunch, N., and C. Lunch. 2006. Insights into participatory video.
InsightShare, Oxford, UK.
McGinnis, M. D., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system
framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology
and Society 19(2):30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol19/iss2/art30/ http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-06387-190230
Mendoza, G. A., and R. Prabhu. 2005. Combining participatory
modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest
management. Forest Ecology and Management 207(1-2):145-156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.024
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human
well-being: health synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
and World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. [online]
URL: http://www.who.int/entity/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.
pdf
Milne, E. J., C. Mitchell, and N. De Lange 2012. Handbook of
participatory video. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland, USA.
Mistry J. 2009. Indigenous knowledges. Pages 371-376 in R.
Kitchin and N. Thrift, editors. International encyclopedia of
human geography, Volume 5. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/b978-008044910-4.00101-2
Mistry, J., and A. Berardi. 2012. The challenges and opportunities
of participatory video in geographical research: exploring
collaboration with indigenous communities of the North
Rupununi, Guyana. Area 44:110-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1475-4762.2011.01064.x
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, E. Bignante, and C. Tschirhart. 2015b.
Between a rock and a hard place: ethical dilemmas of local
community facilitators doing participatory projects. Geoforum
61:27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.02.010
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, and M. Simpson. 2009. Critical reflections
on practice: the changing roles of three physical geographers
carrying out research in a developing country. Area 41(1):82-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00841.x
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, M. Simpson, O. Davis, and L. Haynes. 2010.
Using a systems viability approach to evaluate integrated
conservation and development projects: assessing the impact of
the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Process, Guyana.
Geographical Journal 176(3):241-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1475-4959.2010.00357.x
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, C. Tschirhart, E. Bignante, L. Haynes, R.
Benjamin, G. Albert, R. Xavier, D. Jafferally, and G. de Ville.
2015a. Indigenous identity and environmental governance in
Guyana, South America. Cultural Geographies 22(4):689-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474474014560998
Mistry, J., A. Berardi, C. Verwer, and G. de Ville. 2015c. Up-scaling
support for community owned solutions. A Project COBRA report
for policy makers. Project COBRA, London, UK. [online] URL:
http://projectcobra.org/up-scaling-support-for-community-owned-
solutions

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
Mistry, J., M. Simpson, A. Berardi, and Y. Sandy. 2004. Exploring
the links between natural resource use and biophysical status in
the waterways of the North Rupununi, Guyana. Journal of
Environmental Management 72:117-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2004.03.010
Mistry, J., C. Tschirhart, C. Verwer, R. Glastra, O. Davis, D.
Jafferally, L. Haynes, R. Benjamin, G. Albert, R. Xavier, I. Bovolo,
and A. Berardi. 2014. Our common future? Cross-scalar scenario
analysis for social-ecological sustainability of the Guiana Shield,
South America. Environmental Science & Policy 44:126-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.007
Open University 2002. Systems thinking and practice:
diagramming. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Ostrom, E. 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual
Review of Political Science 2:493-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.polisci.2.1.493
Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing
sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325
(5939):419-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-
tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis.
Environmental Conservation 37(4):451-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
s0376892910000834
Ostrom, E., M. A. Janssen, and J. M. Anderies. 2007. Going
beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15176-15178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104
Pain, R., M. Kesby, and K. Askins. 2012. The politics of social
justice in neoliberal times: a reply to Slater. Area 44(1):120-123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01073.x
Plagányia, É. E., I. van Putten, T. Hutton, R. A. Deng, D. Dennis,
S. Pascoe, T. Skewes, and R. A. Campbell. 2013. Integrating
indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in managing a
natural resource. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 110(9):3639-3644. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1217822110
Plummer, R. 2009. The adaptive co-management process: an
initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables.
Ecology and Society 14(2):24. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art24/
Plummer, R., B. Crona, D. R. Armitage, P. Olsson, M. Tengö,
and O. Yudina. 2012. Adaptive comanagement: a systematic
review and analysis. Ecology and Society 17(3):11. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/es-04952-170311
Porter-Bolland, L., E. A. Ellis, M. R. Guariguata, I. Ruiz-Mallén,
S. Negrete-Yankelevich, and V. Reyes-García. 2012. Community
managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their
conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and
Management 268:6-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034
Poteete, A. R., and E. Ostrom. 2004. Heterogeneity, group size
and collective action: the role of institutions in forest
management. Development and Change 35(3):435-461. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00360.x
Recchia, L., P. Boncinelli, E. Cini, M. Vieri, F. G. Pegna, and D.
Sarri. 2011. Multicriteria analysis and LCA techniques. Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-704-4
Reed, M. S., A. J. Dougill, and T. R. Baker. 2008. Participatory
indicator development: what can ecologists and local
communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications
18:1253-1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/07-0519.1
Reed, M., E. D. G. Fraser, S. Morse, and A. J. Dougill. 2005.
Integrating methods for developing sustainability indicators to
facilitate learning and action. Ecology and Society 10(1):r3.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/
resp3/
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin III,
E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. J.
Schellnhuber, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature 461(7263):472-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rose, D. 2005. An indigenous philosophical ecology: situating the
human. Australian Journal of Anthropology 16(3):294-305. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2005.tb00312.x
Rotarangi, S. J., and J. Stephenson. 2014. Resilience pivots:
stability and identity in a social-ecological-cultural system.
Ecology and Society 19(1):28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
es-06262-190128
Stevens, C., R. Winterbottom, K. Reytar, and J. Springer. 2014.
Securing rights, combating climate change. How strengthening
community forest rights mitigates climate change. World Resources
Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. [online] URL: http://www.wri.
org/securingrights
Stringer, L. C., A. J. Dougill, E. Fraser, K. Hubacek, C. Prell, and
M. S. Reed. 2006. Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive
management of social-ecological systems: a critical review.
Ecology and Society 11(2):39. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/
Taylor J. 2006. Indigenous peoples and indicators of well-being: an
Australian perspective on UNPFII Global Frameworks. Working
Paper No. 33/2006. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
[online] URL: http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/WP/2006WP33.
php
Trosper, R. L., J. A. Parrotta, M. Agnoletti, V. Bocharnikov, S.
A. Feary, M. Gabay, C. Gamborg, J. G. Latorre, E. Johann, A.
Laletin, L. H. Fui, A. Oteng-Yeboah, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, P. S.
Ramakrishnan, and Y. Yeo-Chang. 2012. The unique character
of traditional forest-related knowledge: threats and challenges
ahead. Pages 563-588 in J. A. Parrotta and R. L. Trosper, editors.
Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities,
ecosystems and biocultural diversity. Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2144-9_15
Tschirhart, C., J. Mistry, A. Berardi, E. Bignante, M. Simpson,
L. Haynes, R. Benjamin, G. Albert, R. Xavier, B. Robertson, O.
Davis, C. Verwer, G. De Ville, and D. Jafferally. 2016. Learning
from one another: evaluating the impact of horizontal knowledge

Ecology and Society 21(2): 42
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art42/
exchange for environmental management and governance.
Ecology and Society 21(2):41. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-08495-210241
Tschirhart, C., J. Mistry, M. Simpson, A. Berardi, C. Verwer, G.
de Ville, and E. Bignante. 2014. Report on best practice sharing,
implementation and evaluation. Royal Holloway and Bedford New
College, University of London, UK. [online] URL: http://
projectcobra.org/work-package-5-report
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2012. The
power of local action: learning from communities on the frontlines
of sustainable development. UNDP, New York, New York, USA.
Walker, B., L. Pearson, M. Harris, K. G. Maler, C. Z. Li, R. Biggs,
and T. Baynes. 2010. Incorporating resilience in the assessment
of inclusive wealth: an example from South East Australia.
Environmental and Resource Economics 45(2):183-202. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9311-7
Westermann, O., J. Ashby, and J. Pretty. 2005. Gender and social
capital: the importance of gender differences for the maturity and
effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World
Development 33(11):1783-1799. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2005.04.018
Wetlands Partnership. 2006. State of the North Rupununi report.
Wetlands Partnership, Georgetown, Guyana.
Wetlands Partnership. 2008. The North Rupununi adaptive
management process (NRAMP). Wetlands Partnership,
Georgetown, Guyana.
Wheeler, J. 2009. ‘The life that we don’t want’: using participatory
video in researching violence. IDS Bulletin 40(3):10-18. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2009.00033.x
White, S. A., editor. 2003. Participatory video: images that
transform and empower. Sage, London, UK.
World Bank. 2014. The worldwide governance indicators. World
Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. [online] URL: http://info.
worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home