Fikret Berkes’s research while affiliated with Natural Resources Canada and other places

case studies dealing with state community-private industry interactions in Kerala's coastal social ecological sytems

The UN Sendai Framework recognized the need for making our communities safer and more resilient to disasters by shifting policy goals from “managing disasters” to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and building resilience. For DRR and building community resilience to disaster shocks, this study posits that social learning, a process of mutual development and sharing knowledge through iterative reflections on experience, is key to changing the conventional linear logic‐based, reactive framework into one based on learning‐by‐doing (adaptive management). Toward this end, a three‐round Policy Delphi process was pursued with a combination of 18 international DRR and SES (social–ecological systems) resilience scholars, practitioners, and public officials. Weak policy frameworks; operational, cultural and educational/training silos; and domination of technical knowledge were identified as major challenges in knowledge and learning transmission. Balancing technical knowledge with social science, and working toward transdisciplinary approaches and transformative practices should, therefore, be nurtured.

Leopold’s land health concept provides a holistic view of the relationship between human health and ecosystem health. Significantly, a similar view is found in the traditional wisdom of Indigenous peoples, as exemplified by the concept of “healthy country, healthy people”. A contemporary formulation of land health is provided by social-ecological resilience, which refers to integrated complex adaptive systems that include social (human) and ecological (biophysical) subsystems in a two-way feedback relationship. Resilience is dynamic and provides the tools for dealing with change and disasters proactively. Building resilience and using social/institutional learning for adaptive governance are relevant to One Health, as are Indigenous concepts for the maintenance of healthy relationships between humans and the ecosystem. One Health Impact Statement The One Health approach centers on the interdependence between the health of humans, animals, and the ecosystem. However, relevant ecosystem concepts have not been developed sufficiently for a comprehensive One Health approach, as pointed out in the editorial by Zinsstag and Crump. The basic idea behind One Health not only goes back many decades in Western science but also to the environmental perception and wisdom of traditional societies. The consideration of these connections is relevant for the development of a solid theoretical basis for One Health.

Fishers’ Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) has multidimensional contributions to improve fisheries and aquatic ecosystems science, ranging from algae to whales and including management, conservation, ecology, and impact assessment. The challenges are to sustain this knowledge, recognize its value, and to include ILK holders in resource management and decision-making.

Arctic small-scale fisheries are essential for the livelihoods, cultures, nutrition, economy, and food security of Indigenous communities. Their sustainable management in the rapidly changing Arctic is thus a key priority. Fisheries management in complex systems such as the Arctic would benefit from integrative approaches that explicitly seek to build resilience. Yet, resilience is rarely articulated as an explicit goal of Arctic fisheries management. Here, we first describe how marine and anadromous fisheries management throughout the North has used the notion of resilience through a literature review of 72 peer-reviewed articles. Second, we make a conceptual contribution in the form of steps to implement adaptive co-management that aim to foster resilience. Building on resilience-based insights from the literature review and foundational research on adaptive co-management and resilience, the steps we propose are to initiate and carry out (1) dialogue through a discussion forum, (2) place-based social-ecological participatory research, (3) resilience-building management actions, (4) collaborative monitoring, and (5) joint process evaluation. Additionally, we propose action items associated with the steps to put adaptive co-management into practice. Third, we assess two case studies, Cambridge Bay and Pangnirtung Arctic Char commercial fisheries, to explore how the five steps can help reinforce resilience through adaptive co-management. Overall, we propose novel guidelines for implementing adaptive co-management that actively seeks to build resilience within fishery social-ecological systems in times of rapid, uncertain, and complex environmental change.

Commons (or common-pool resources) are inherently dynamic. Factors that appear to contribute to the evolution of a stable commons regime at one time and place may undergo change that results in the collapse of the commons at another. The factors involved can be very diverse. Economic, social, environmental and political conditions and various drivers may lead to commonisation, a process through which a resource is converted into a joint-use regime under commons institutions and collective action. Conversely, they may lead to decommonisation, a process through which a commons loses these essential characteristics. Evolution through commonisation may be manifested as adaptation or fine-tuning over time. They may instead result in the replacement of one kind of property rights regime by another, as in the enclosure movement in English history that resulted in the conversion of sheep grazing commons into privatized agricultural land. These processes of change can be viewed from an evolutionary perspective using the concepts of commonisation and decommonisation, and theorized as a two-way process over time, with implications for the sustainability of joint resources from local to global.

Purpose The plethora of contributions to social learning has resulted in a wide range of interpretations, meanings and applications of social learning, both within and across disciplines. However, advancing the concept and using social learning methods and tools in areas like disaster-shocks requires interdisciplinary consolidation of understandings. In this context, the primary focus of this paper is on the contributions of social learning to disaster risk reduction (DRR). Design/methodology/approach By applying a three-round policy Delphi process involving 18 purposefully selected scholars and expert-practitioners, the authors collected data on the meanings of social learning for two groups of professionals, DRR and social-ecological resilience. The survey instruments included questions relating to the identification of the core elements of social learning and the prospects for enhancing social-ecological resilience. Findings The results revealed strong agreement that (1) the core elements of social learning indicate a collective, iterative and collaborative process that involves sharing/networking, changes in attitudes and knowledge and inclusivity; (2) social learning from disasters is unique; and (3) linkages between disciplines can be built by promoting interdisciplinarity, networks and knowledge platforms; collaboration and coordination at all levels; and teaching and practicing trust and respect. Social learning is useful in preparing for and responding to specific disaster events through communication; sharing experience, ideas and resources; creating synergies for collective action and promoting resilience. Research limitations/implications The policy Delphi process involved a limited number of participants to control the quality of the data. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind to identify the core elements of social learning, specifically, in the disaster-shock context. It also makes significant contributions to the interdisciplinary integration issues. Practical implications The practical implications of this study are related to pre-disaster planning and mitigation through the application of social learning on disaster-shocks. Social implications The social implications of this study are related to valuing social learning for the improvement of disaster planning, management, and policy formulation and implementation in reducing disaster risks. Originality/value The study provides a consensus view on the core elements of social learning and its role in DRR and resilience building. Relevant to all stages of DRR, social learning is best characterized as a collective, iterative and collaborative process. It can be promoted by enhancing networking and interdisciplinarity.

Despite decades of progress in disaster risk reduction, efforts to enhance risk awareness and influence behavioral change still seem to be falling short. When we reflect on the experience and envision the future of disaster risk reduction programs, we find promise in approaches that implicitly treat knowledge as not just something transmitted but as a relationship fostered with multiple publics. In this mode, the public is not simply a passive recipient of expert knowledge but a co-producer of risk knowledge. We argue that disaster risk reduction requires a reorientation based on a foundation built on three areas of research: (1) Indigenous and local knowledge, (2) social learning, and (3) narrative ways of knowing. We employ key ideas from these three areas of research to formulate an integrative framework for the co-production of risk knowledge. Such an integrative framework can provide a powerful and useful vehicle for generating new practices around disaster risk reduction.

Monitoring methods based on Indigenous knowledge have the potential to contribute to our understanding of large watersheds. Research in large, complex, and dynamic ecosystems suggests a participatory approach to monitoring—that builds on the diverse knowledges, practices, and beliefs of local people—can yield more meaningful outcomes than a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Here we share the results of 12 community-based, participatory monitoring projects led by Indigenous governments and organizations in the Mackenzie River Basin (2015–2018). Specifically, we present and compare the indicators and monitoring methods developed by each of these community-based cases to demonstrate the specificity of place, culture, and context. A scalar analysis of these results suggests that the combination of core (common) indicators used across the basin, coupled with others that are meaningful at local level, create a methodological bricolage—a mix of tools, methods, and rules-in-use that are fit together. Our findings, along with those of sister projects in two other major watersheds (Amazon, Mekong), confront assumptions that Indigenous-led community-based monitoring efforts are too local to offer insights about large-scale systems. In summary, a networked approach to community-based monitoring that can simultaneously engage with local- and watershed-level questions of social and ecological change can address gaps in knowledge. Such an approach can create both practices and outcomes that are useful to local peoples as well as to those engaged in basin-wide governance.