Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

Drew, J. A., and A. P. Henne 2006. Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: integrating
academic disciplines for better conservation practice. Ecology and Society 11(2): 34. [online] URL: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

Synthesis
Conservation Biology and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Integrating
Academic Disciplines for Better Conservation Practice

Joshua A. Drew 1 and Adam P. Henne 2

ABSTRACT. Conservation biology and environmental anthropology are disciplines that are both concerned
with the identification and preservation of diversity, in one case biological and in the other cultural. Both
conservation biology and the study of traditional ecoloigcal knowledge function at the nexus of the social
and natural worlds, yet historically there have been major impediments to integrating the two. Here we
identify linguistic, cultural, and epistemological barriers between the two disciplines. We argue that the
two disciplines are uniquely positioned to inform each other and to provide critical insights and new
perspectives on the way these sciences are practiced. We conclude by synthesizing common themes found
in conservation success stories, and by making several suggestions on integration. These include cross-
disciplinary publication, expanding memberships in professional societies and conducting multidisciplinary
research based on similar interests in ecological process, taxonomy, or geography. Finally, we argue that
extinction threats, be they biological or cultural/linguistic are imminent, and that by bringing these
disciplines together we may be able to forge synergistic conservation programs capable of protecting the
vivid splendor of life on Earth.

Key Words: anthropology; conservation; critical analysis; multidisciplinary research.

INTRODUCTION the relationship between indigenous or traditional

societies and their natural environment are often
Conservation biology has often been called a crisis faced with the erosion of linguistic or other cultural
discipline (Pullin 2002, Wilson 2002). Its focus on practices (Berlin 1992, Sutherland 2003). The study
rapidly altering ecosystems, biological extinctions, of human culture’s dynamic interactions with local
and the ultimate loss of biodiversity defines a environments predisposes anthropologists in this
discipline that lacks the luxury of time (Chapin III subdiscipline toward an understanding of natural
et al. 2000). Species are going extinct before they resource use. The terminology in this context is
have the chance to be recognized, while fewer and hotly contested (see Agrawal 1995 or Ellen and
fewer places on Earth represent fully functioning Harris 2000 for genealogical and analytical
ecosystems (May 1994, McCann 2001). discussions of these terms). Current research
frequently addresses environmental transformations,
Although the discipline is relatively new, arising in development projects, and cultural continuity and
earnest in the late 1970s, the urgent nature of the change (Berlin 1992, Stearman and Redford 1994,
threats, coupled with the larger societal increase in Warren et al. 1995, Nazarea 1998, Silvano and
environmental awareness, has caused the practice Begossi 2002). We have chosen to use “traditional
to grow at an exceptional rate. There are now ecological knowledge” (TEK) in part because this
multiple journals dedicated towards conservation, is the predominant usage among conservationists,
and the Society of Conservation Biology has over and in part to avoid confusion with specifically
5000 members. indigenous concerns around religious practices or
intellectual property rights.
Anthropologists too deal with rapidly changing
systems. Whereas conservation biologists deal with Throughout much of the 1980s and early 1990s,
biological extinctions, anthropologists who study conservation biology focused on “fortress” methods

1
Boston University Marine Program, 2Anthropology Department - University of Georgia
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

of conservation (Dugan and Davis 1993, De Vires REASONS FOR THE DISCONNECT
1995, reviewed in Sloan 2002). Humans were seen
as the ultimate cause of environmental degradation; To understand how we can bring conservation
therefore, by sequestering large tracts of land and biology and the anthropology of traditional
removing human populations, “natural” areas could ecological knowledge (TEK) together, we first need
be “saved.” to understand some of the reasons the two
disciplines have not worked closely in the past, in
Although there is still a lively debate in the particular, for three major reasons: difficulties in
literature, most researchers now recognize that the communication, cultural differences, and different
social context and social impacts of conservation epistemological origins. By more closely
are critical factors (Vieitas et al. 1999, Schwartzman examining these causative agents, it is our hope that
et al. 2000, Johannes 2002). Programs that garner we can reconcile these disparate disciplines.
support of the affected peoples tend to survive,
whereas those that adopt a cavalier attitude toward
local peoples face significant challenges toward Communication difficulties
maintaining long-term sustainability (Bowen-Jones
and Entwistle 2002). Most researchers find themselves under tremendous
time constraints; too often staying abreast of the
The anthropology of traditional ecological current literature falls to the wayside under the
knowledge (TEK) also takes place in a changing constant pressure from faculty meetings, tenure
landscape. Because their research focuses on the evaluations, report deadlines, and teaching
nexus of human and natural interactions, these responsibilities (Campbell 2005). Because of these
anthropologists must deal with ways in which rapid time constraints, few researchers find the time to
and irreversible changes in the natural environment read through literature within their discipline, let
can cause complex, nonlinear, changes in human alone those journals that lie outside their academic
societies (Ernst 1999, Diamond 2004). Conservation purview. Therefore, many conservation biologists
biology is in a position to add substantive do not have the time to read potentially relevant
information to such research because of an existing social science research, provided they would even
methodological, operational, and philosophical know where such data lie, and vice versa. These
framework to address the biological aspects of these factors leave cross-disciplinary publication as one
multifaceted problems (see Calamia 1996, Ross and of the few avenues by which a researcher might be
Pickering 2002 for examples). Furthermore, exposed to other academic disciplines.
conservation biologists are blessed with relatively
good access to funding resources and political As language serves to bind a community together,
influence through states and international NGOs. it also serves to exclude those not part of that
This is an aspect of collaboration that no social community. Publication in peer-reviewed media is
scientist can afford to overlook. the currency of scientific discourse, and when that
publication is based on specific lexicon, we can
However, because conservation biologists are often experience a discursive failure. When one publishes
ill equipped to understand the complexities of in a journal there is an assumption of a shared
human cultural interactions with the natural specific body of knowledge, which often is based
environment, anthropologists of TEK are in a on, or at least expressed in, very discipline-specific
position to offer advice. We suggest that the two language. These languages can consist of obscure
disciplines, conservation biology and anthropology, words,. e.,g., hirsute, discipline specific words not
are uniquely positioned to strengthen each other’s appearing in the larger language, e.g., euryhaline or,
work, and that the two form a potentially valuable perhaps most confounding, words that have
union. Why then, do we not see more formalized different meanings within the discipline than in the
collaborative efforts between them? general language, e.g., parsimonious. Because
many scientists publish using a ritual cadence and
form, it is difficult for one not trained in that
language to understand the nuances of the research,
or to participate within those journals.
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

Cultural differences scientists from the two fields can be described

according to linguist Kenneth Pike’s categories of
Cultural differences in publication and career emic vs. etic knowledge (Headland et al. 1990). An
advancement also serve to continue the disconnect etic perspective seeks to understand a phenomenon
between conservation biology and most subfields from an outsider’s position, privileging those data
of anthropology. In general, anthropologists drawn from empirical observation, operationalized
seeking tenure at academic institutions are definitions, and replicable situations. A researcher
encouraged to publish their findings in books and working toward an emic understanding, on the other
peer-reviewed journals (P. West, personal hand, seeks to understand the phenomenon from the
communication). perspective of the participants, according to their
own unique and culture-bound definitions
For a biologist in a similar situation, it is suggested (Headland et al. 1990).
that research be published primarily in peer-
reviewed journals. Because many fields in biology Whereas few research plans could be described as
are rapidly changing, most biologists put a premium entirely one or the other, the disciplines under
on new research findings, thus few would think to discussion show a distinction in their positioning on
look in a book for the most current information the issue. The process of eliciting emic
because of the editing and turn-around time required understanding of natural environments, and
for its publication. translating these understandings into a language
comprehensible to an outside audience, is the
Moreover, within academic communities there is an mission that puts the “ethno” into an
awareness of varying levels of prestige ascribed to anthropologist’s ethnographic study. Conservation
journals, which is difficult to estimate outside one’s biologists, on the other hand, are steeped in the
academic field (Campbell 2005). Therefore, to doctrines and practices of positivism, and often deal
ensure the maximum return on their publications, with more quantitative and discrete forms of etic
most young researchers tend to publish in venues data.
that will best advance their careers. Thus, we have
established a system that actively and methodically These epistemological differences lead to distinct
serves to discourage young researchers from methodologies, as part of each disciplines particular
publishing outside of their academic field. history. An anthropologist studying TEK, like any
cultural anthropologist, is heir to that disciplines’
tradition of subjective, qualitative learning and
Different epistemological origins reflexive self-criticism. Anthropology’s classical
methods, such as participant observation and
Although they may have similar goals, conservation immersive ethnography, have gradually expanded
biology and the anthropology of traditional to include deconstructions of culture, gender,
ecological knowledge (TEK) developed from nature, and other textual discourses. As postcolonial
drastically different disciplinary histories and peoples began to assert their roles in describing and
depend on widely variant philosophical bodies of defining culture, anthropology was forced to adopt
knowledge. As a subfield of anthropology, the study a self-analytical perspective. This reflexive pose
of TEK also draws on economic botany, linguistics, includes an awareness of the role the scientist plays
and archaeology (Clement 1998, Ellen and Harris in contributing to culture change, and accountability
2000 and Zent, personal communication). for the results of anthropological definitions of
Conservation biology has its roots in forestry, culture.
ecology, and game management (Meffe and Carroll
1997). Thus, whereas both sciences deal with These subjective research practices run counter to
rapidly changing systems, and focus on the the traditions within the physical and life sciences
interactions between humans and nature, they of empirical testing of null hypothesis with multiple
address these issues with different epistemological controls. As such, conservation biology publications
lenses. rarely acknowledge the potential social impact of
science, especially on indigenous or marginalized
The diverse data types used by anthropologists and peoples. Because of their desire to remain objective
biologists stem from different approaches toward from the study, many biologists feel uncomfortable
discovery. The distinct approaches favored by participating in larger, more reflexive critiques of
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

their disciplines impacts both direct, i.e., the study Intellectual parochialism serves to keep potential
site, but also indirect effects on local people's collaborators apart, and any attempts by
economies (See West 2006). Fortunately self- anthropologists to breach that should be
criticism is starting to make an entrée into the commended.
conservation biology landscape (Robertson and
Hull 2001, Song and M'Gonigle 2001). Although To best bridge the divide, anthropologists working
this is a heartening trend, conservation biology still with TEK should seek to be more involved in groups
has much to learn as it develops into a more such as the Ecological Society of America (ESA)
inclusive, and ultimately a more robust, discipline or the Society of Conservation Biology (SCB). The
(Mascia et al. 2003). latter organization has made significant steps
toward the kind of collaborative work we describe
with the founding of the Social Science Working
BRINGING IT TOGETHER Group in 2003 http://www.conbio.org/workinggroups/
SSWG/. By participating in these societies,
Both anthropology and conservation biology as including attending annual meetings, anthropologists
disciplines need to engage each other intellectually, can build a strong network of potential
to identify common research interests, and to pursue collaborators, become informed of the latest
them in an equitable, multidisciplinary fashion. techniques being developed and participate in the
These common research interests could be process debates within the larger conservation biology
driven, e.g., researchers interested in the impacts of community.
invasive species on natural resource use, taxa
driven, e.g., collaborators interested in the plant In a similar fashion publishing within the
family Solanaceae, or they could be geographically conservation biology journals provides an effective
driven, e.g., people interested in working in means to disseminate not only one’s specific
Antongil Bay in Madagascar. Regardless of which findings, but also the kinds of work being done on
kind of interest is shared, identifying that interest is traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as a whole.
the first step toward forging a productive Both the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)
collaboration. How then to identify common and the Ecological Society of America (ESA)
research interests? Below, we have identified some publish peer-reviewed journals, e.g., Conservation
actions that researchers in one discipline can take Biology and Ecological Applications, member
to foster multidiscipline collaborations. newsletters and applied journals geared toward
nonacademic practitioners, e.g., Conservation in
Practice and Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.
Anthropology integrated with conservation These publications provide additional opportunities
biology for anthropologists to raise awareness of the kinds
of work they do, as well as representing excellent
Conservation biology, as a discipline, is now forums for a unique perspective on on-going
beginning to recognize that the culture and cultural conservation dialogues.
diversity are among the most critical factors in the
ultimate success of a conservation regime
(Huntington 2000, Pollnac et al. 2001, Hickey and Conservation biology integrated with
Johannes 2002, Johannes 2002, Kramer et al. 2002). anthropology
However, most conservation biologists received
their academic training through biology departments, Despite gains made over the past decade and a half,
and few are well equipped to collect or analyze conservation biologists still need to improve their
qualitative data on human societies despite those recognition and integration of the human element
data being an understudied component of successful into conservation programs. A change in perception
management (Pierce Colfer et al. 1999, Huntington is needed, from a mindset that sees humans only as
2000). Conservationists increasingly realize the the cause of environmental degradation, toward one
need for critical analyses of human-mediated that recognizes human society’s role in the
environmental impact (Curran et al. 2002); scholars production of what we consider “natural” (Jackson
bringing new perspectives from traditional 2001). When conservation biologists come to see
ecological knowledge are therefore likely to find a that cultural diversity is inexorably linked to
willing audience in conservation biologists. biological diversity (Atran et al. 2002), and that
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

support of one can offer benefit toward the other Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound
(Kirsch 2001, Drew 2005), then the role of the social 1995, Braun 2002), dry forests of Madagascar
sciences will become apparent. (Loudon et al. 2006) and high Artic environments
(Huntington 2000).
Conservation biology is a meta-term, encompassing
a variety of different practices, ranging from These studies deal with a wide variety of
genetics to geochemical analysis (Meffe and Carroll conservation scenarios; however, several overarching
1997, Robertson and Hull 2001, Drew 2005). themes make them applicable to a broader audience.
Because of the diversity of topics subsumed by the First, many of the conservation problems are
title it can be difficult to understand what exactly is exacerbated by poor communication regarding the
meant by the term. This debate about how to define conservation status of a protected area. By contrast,
conservation biology is not limited to those outside highlighting the endemic nature of species or rarity
the discipline. As one would expect for such a young of ecosystems can lead to increased feelings of pride
field, conservation biologists are still trying to and tenure over the success of an area on the part of
understand who they are and what role they have to local communities (Loudon et al. 2006). Helping to
play in the larger scientific hierarchy. develop local constituencies for conservation is a
project well-suited to anthropologists who work
This ambiguity about what it means to be a with traditional ecological knowledge (Mascia et al.
conservation biologist offers a false appearance of 2003, Agrawal 2005). Second, these studies all
exclusion. Most conservation biologists would emphasize the importance of engaging local
agree that if one is actively seeking to understand communities at a variety of stages in the
the impacts of humans on natural systems, no matter conservation process. Although stressing “local
how broadly defined, and the role those impacts play involvement” has become commonplace in
in the maintenance of biodiversity, then one is doing conservation literature, actual examples of
the work of conservation biology regardless of the engagement are relatively rare. These projects have
disciplinary tools used to conduct the research benefited from the involvement of a variety of
(Robertson and Hull 2001). Despite this, the community stakeholders in the policy-making
majority of active conservation biologists have been process, particularly through the use of
trained as biologists, and the kinds of articles they representative governing councils (Braun 2002,
published reflect that. In order to be more inclusive, Harris 2003). In both circumstances, anthropologists
conservation biologists should seek to make their in their liminal role as “culture brokers” can
findings more broadly applicable (Robertson and facilitate the smooth interaction of stakeholders
Hull 2001). This could include publishing results in from diverse backgrounds.
anthropology journals, participating in anthropological
societies, and seeking to work in a multistakeholder, A closely related theme in these success stories is
multidisciplinary collaborative fashion (Dight and the use of empirical science to demonstrate
Scherl 1997, Kremen et al. 1998, Wilkie and Godoy conservation success. In the case of the South
2001, Mascia et al. 2003). African mussels, when conservation scientists set
up harvesting intensity plots, including adequate
controls, local people had clear evidence that current
PUTTING IT TO WORK levels of exploitation were unsustainable (Harris
2003). There is a sometimes a sense that science is
Despite the challenges we have outlined previously, used as a tool to disenfranchise local people,
we believe that working in a multidisciplinary particularly when it comes to resource exploitation.
context can make it possible to achieve conservation By making conservation science more transparent,
success. There is a small but growing body of collaborations between social and biological
literature presenting case studies in which natural scientists can help offset this perspective.
and social scientists have joined together and
supplemented each other’s knowledge bases to An additional benefit of community involvement
produce synthetic and innovative conservation with experiments and/or natural resource
successes. Furthermore, it is encouraging to note management is the educational and employment
that these successes can be found in systems as opportunities they afford local peoples. In many
diverse as South African coastal regions (Harris Fijian communities, for example, working with
2003) coastal Canadian forests (Scientific Panel for conservation NGOs is considered a profitable and
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

prestigious job (Drew, personal observation) and in fully realized due to several factors. Fundamentally,
many cases assisting with research can lead to the two disciples suffer from past historical ghosts,
broadened educational horizons. Distributing these their differences run deep, and those differences in
and other material benefits of conservation research, data kinds, analyses, and philosophical approaches
however, can lead to an infinite variety of social toward research reflect the different academic
complications (West 2006). The participation of origins. Furthermore, current systems of tenure
anthropologists, with their holistic perspective on evaluation and job promotion continue these
local systems of value and power, can help impediments toward cross-publication.
conservation projects achieve more equitable
distribution of benefits. To rectify this disconnect, practitioners in both
disciplines need to seek innovative collaborations
Finally, these success stories all have been based on based on areas of similar research interest.
extensive meetings with local people, often at the Anthropological work on TEK will find an
village level. These meetings provide an appreciative audience in conservation biology
opportunity for a free-flowing exchange of ideas, meetings and journals, whereas conservation
information, and equalizing power dynamics biologists need to continue to recognize the
between researchers and local peoples. In Papua interactions between humans, culture, and nature
New Guinea, for example, community involvement and more clearly define what it means to be a
and perceived legitimacy of a marine reserve was conservation biologist.
shown to be the single largest factor in that reserve’s
success (Cinner et al. 2005a,b). By forming multidisciplinary projects, researchers
can produce “Value Added Conservation” projects,
Moving to a more generalized scale, then, we see representing the greater intellectual depth and
one final overarching theme that unifies successful breadth gained by including researchers from a
examples of collaborative conservation. In each variety of fields into larger research plans. The value
case, significant time was spent developing of these collaborations has been recognized by a
meaningful relationships with local people; time to variety of funding agencies that are seeking projects
explain the conservation situation and its local with a broader impact on society (Campbell 2005).
pertinence, time to learn about local concerns and
their bearing on conservation. This is a timeframe The world’s problems are too complex, and the
uniquely suited to the traditional methods of threats are too immanent to work alone. Only by
anthropological fieldwork, with its emphasis on joining together will we be able to truly understand
cultural immersion over long periods. the interactions between people, culture, and nature.
Although anthropologists and conservation biologists
The argument for long-term research and investing often work on similar problems, they have too often
time with local communities may seem to run failed to address these problems in a synthetic
counter to the “crisis discipline” mentality of fashion. Unfortunately, the disappearance of
conservation. Based on the material that we have diversity be it biological, cultural, or linguistic,
discussed here, however, here we argue that the represents a dulling of the world within which we
crisis discipline lacks discipline. Although we do live. If we decide that this diversity is worth saving,
not want to downplay the immanency of extinction then it is imperative that we record it and analyze
threats, we do suggest that a meaningful investment what is causing it to disappear. By integrating
of time at the outset of a conservation program will conservation biology knowledge with results from
lead to much larger benefits down the line, in terms anthropological studies of the knowledge preserved
of clarity, equity, and successful conservation by local or indigenous communities, we can develop
outcomes. more rigorous tools for both of these tasks.

SUMMARY Responses to this article can be read online at:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/responses/
In this paper we have attempted to show that
conservation biology and the anthropology of
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) form an
auspicious union, yet that this union has not been
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

fishponds. High Plains Applied Anthropologist 16

:144-164.
Acknowledgments:
Campbell, L. 2005. Overcoming obstacles to
This paper originated as a class assignment for interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology
Paige West’s Political Ecology class offered at 19:574-577.
Columbia University/Barnard College. This
manuscript was improved by the thoughtful Chapin III, F. S., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R.
comments provided by J. Shaffer and the attendees L. Naylor, P. M. Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U.
of the 2003 Society for Ethnobiology and 2003 Hooper, L. S., O. E. SalaI, S. E. Hobbie, M. C.
Society for Conservation Biology annual meetings. Mack, and S. Díaz. 2000. Consequences of
Comments from three anonymous reviewers greatly changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234-242.
helped in improving the quality and scope of this
paper. We are also extremely thankful for financial Cinner, J. E., M. J. Marnane, and T. R.
support of the Resilience Alliance (publisher of McClanahan. 2005a. Conservation and community
Ecology and Society). benefits from traditional coral reef management at
Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conservation
Biology 19:1714-1723.

Cinner, J. E., M. J. Marnane, T. R. McClanahan,

LITERATURE CITED and G. R. Almany. 2005b. Periodic closures as
adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific.
Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Ecology and Society 11 [online] URL:
indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art31/
and Change 26:413-439. .
Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: technologies Clement, D. 1998. The historical foundations of
of government and the making of subjects. Duke ethnobiology (1860-1899). Journal of Ethnobiolo-
University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. gy 18:161-187.
Atran, S., D. Medin, N. Ross, E. Lynch, V. Curran, S., A. Kumar, W. Lutz, and M. Williams.
Vapnarsky, E. Ucan Ek’, J. Coley, C. Timura, 2002. Interactions between coastal and marine
and M. Baran. 2002. Folkecology, cultural ecosystems and human population systems:
epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons. perspectives on how consumption mediates this
Current Anthropology 43:421-450. interaction. Ambio 31:264-268.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: De Vires, M. F. 1995. Large herbivores and the
principles of categorization of plants and animals design of large-scale nature reserves in Western
in traditional societies. Princeton University Press, Europe. Conservation Biology 9:25-33.
Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Diamond, J. 2004. Collapse: How societies choose
Bowen-Jones, E., and A. Entwistle. 2002. to fail or succeed. Viking Adult, New York, New
Identifying appropriate flagship species: the York, USA.
importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx
36:189-195. Dight, I. J., and L. M. Scherl. 1997. The
International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI): global
Braun, B. 2002. The intemperate rainforest: nature, priorities for the conservation and management of
culture, and power on Canada's west coast. coral reefs and the need for partnerships. Coral
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Reefs 17:139-147.
Minnesota, USA.
Drew, J. A. 2005. The Use of traditional ecological
Calamia, M. A. 1996. Traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conservation
knowledge and geographic information systems in Biology 19:1286-1293
the use and management of Hawaii's coral reefs and
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

Dugan, J. E., and G. E. Davis. 1993. Applications impacts in Madagascar. Conservation Biology 12:549-563.
of marine refugia to coastal fisheries management.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Loudon, J. E., M. L. Sauther, K. D. Fish, M.
Sciences 50:2029-2042. Hunter-Ishikawa, and Y. J. Ibrahim. 2006. One
reserve, three primates: applying a holistic approach
Ellen, R., and H. Harris. 2000. Introduction. Pages to understand the interconnections among ring-
1-34 in R. Ellen, P. Parkes, and A. Bicker, editors. tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), Verreaux's sifaka
Indigenous environmental knowledge and its (Propithecus verreauxi), and humans (Homo
transformations. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, sapiens) at Beza Mahafaly special reserve,
The Netherlands. Madagascar. Ecological and Environmental
Anthropology 2. Available online at: http://www.u
Ernst, T. M. 1999. Land, stories and resources: ga.edu/eea/02_2006/article05_02_2006.htm.
discourse and entification in Onabasulu modernity.
American Anthropologist 101:88-97. Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C.
Forbes, L. Horowitz, M. A. McKean, and N. J.
Harris, J. 2003. Mind over mussels: rethinking Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences.
Mapalane Reserve. Pages 174-181. World resources Conservation Biology 17:649-650.
2002-2004: decisions for the Earth: balance, voice,
and power. World Resources Institute, Washington, May, R. M. 1994. Conceptual aspects of the
D.C., USA. quantification of the extent of biological diversity.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
Headland, T. N., K. L. Pike, and M. Harris. 1990. London B 345:13-20.
Emics and etics: the insider/outsider debate. Sage,
Newbury Park, California, USA. McCann, K. S. 2001. The diversity–stability
debate. Nature 405:228-233.
Hickey, F. R., and R. E. Johannes. 2002. Recent
evolution of village-based marine resource Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1997. What is
management in Vanuatu. SPC Traditional Marine conservation biology? Pages 3-27 in G. K. Meffe,
Resource Management and Knowledge Information and C. R. Carroll, editors. Principles of
Bulletin 14:8-21. conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts,
USA.
Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional
ecological knowledge in science: methods and Nazarea, V. D. 1998. Cultural memory and
applications. Ecological Applications 10:1270-1274. biodiversity. University of Arizona, Tuscon,
Arizona, USA.
Jackson, J. B. C. 2001. What was natural in the
coastal oceans? Proceedings of the Natural Pierce Colfer, C. J., R. L. Wadley, and P.
Academy of Sciences 98:5411-5418. Venkateswarlu. 1999. Understanding local
people's use of time: a pre-condition for good co-
Johannes, R. E. 2002. The renaissance of management. Environmental Conservation 26:41-52.
community-based marine resource management in
Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Pollnac, R. B., B. R. Crawford, and M. L. G.
33:317-340. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors that influence
the success of community-based marine protected
Kirsch, S. 2001. Lost worlds: environmental areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and
disaster, "culture loss" and the law. Current Coastal Management 44:683-710.
Anthropology 42:167-179.
Pullin, A. S. 2002. Conservation biology.
Kramer, R. A., S. M. H. Simanjuntak, and C. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Liese. 2002. Migration and fishing in Indonesian
coastal villages. Ambio 31:367-372. Robertson, D. P., and B. Hull. 2001. Beyond
biology: toward a more public ecology for
Kremen, C., I. Raymond, and K. Lance. 1998. An conservation. Conservation Biology 15:970-979.
interdisciplinary tool for monitoring conservation
 Ecology and Society 11(2): 34
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/

Ross, A., and K. Pickering. 2002. The politics of price elasticities of bushmeat demand in lowland
reintegrating Australian Aboriginal and American Amerindian societies. Conservation Biology 15:761-769.
Indian indigenous knowledge into resource
management: the dynamics of resource appropriation Wilson, E. O. 2002. The Future of life. Knopff, New
and cultural revival. Human Ecology 30:187-214. York, New York, USA.

Schwartzman, S., D. Nepstad, and A. Moreir.

2000. Arguing tropical forest conservation: people
versus parks. Conservation Biology 14:1370-1374.

Silvano, R. A. M., and A. Begossi. 2002.

Ethnoichthyology and fish conservation in the
Piracicaba River (Brazil). Journal of Ethnobiology
22:285-306.

Sloan, N. A. 2002. History and application of the

wilderness concept in marine conservation.
Conservation Biology 16:294-305.

Song, S. J., and R. M. M'Gonigle. 2001. Science,

power and system dynamics: the political economy
of conservation biology. Conservation Biology
15:980-989.

Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices

in Clayoquot Sound. 1995. Report 5: sustainable
ecosystem management in Clayoquot Sound:
planning and practices. Clayoquot Sound Scientific
Panel, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Stearman, A. M., and K. H. Redford. 1994. Game

management and cultural survival: the Yuquí
ethnodevelopment project in lowland Bolivia. Oryx
28:1-6.

Sutherland, W. J. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and

global distribution of languages and species. Nature
423:276-279.

Vieitas, C. F., G. G. Lopez, and M. A. Marcovaldi.

1999. Local community involvement in conservation:
the use of mini-guides in a program for sea turtles
in Brazil. Oryx 33:127-131.

Warren, P. M., D. Brokensha, and L. J.

Slikkerveer. 1995. Indigenous knowledge systems:
the cultural dimensions of development. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London, UK.

West, P. 2006. Conservation is our government now.

Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina,
USA.

Wilkie, D. S., and R. A. Godoy. 2001. Income and