SPECIAL ISSUE

CSIRO PUBLISHING

Pacific Conservation Biology, 2021, 27, 309–319

Foreword
https://doi.org/10.1071/PCv27n4_FO

Towards resilience in the Anthropocene: transforming

conservation biology through Indigenous perspectives

M. Price A,E, K. B. Winter A,B,C and A. Jackson D

A
Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa,
1910 East-West Road, Sherman Laboratory Room 101, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
B
Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 46-007 Lilipuna Road,
Kāne‘ohe, HI 96744, USA.
C
Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance, 1601 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96848-1601, USA.
D
Ngāti Whātua, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu o Whangaroa, Ngāti Wai, Te Koronga, School of Physical
Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, National Centre of Research
Excellence Coastal People: Southern Skies, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
E
Corresponding author. Email: pricemel@hawaii.edu

Introduction begun this Special Issue deliberately situating ourselves within

Indigenous worldviews to open a dialogue and to share exam-
‘‘I ola ‘oe, i ola mākou nei’’ (Hooulumahiehie 1905)
ples in the context of conservation biology. An approach centred
‘‘Through your life, we have life’’ (translation by
on worldview resonates with many (not necessarily all) Indige-
authors).
nous Peoples worldwide. For example, topics and authors of
The goddess, Hi‘iaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele, youngest sister of Pele – this Special Issue are drawn from multiple regions including
a well-known deity in Kānaka ‘Ōiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) Aotearoa, Australia, Burma, Oceania broadly, and Hawai‘i and
culture, uttered these words to her beloved forest before she left Tahiti specifically. Each Indigenous nation brings their own
on an epic journey across the archipelago. The expression nuance to expressions of those worldviews.
acknowledges and honours the existential relationship that For the purposes of this Special Issue, we turn specifically to
Kānaka ‘Ōiwi have with forests, which is reflected in the system focus on Indigenous perspectives of the natural world and how
of Indigenous resource management developed there (e.g. these worldviews shape Indigenous People’s understandings,
Winter et al. 2018a; Winter et al. 2020b). These words are also relationships, and guardianship (spiritual and physical) of the
uttered by some Kānaka ‘Ōiwi to trees during the outplanting natural world. For many Indigenous peoples, the natural world is
process for contemporary biocultural restoration projects viewed as an ancestor with humans being junior in the descent
throughout Hawai‘i. Not only are forests being restored, but line. There is a careful curation of these relationships and
through such utterances, the relationship between people and kinship ties, often intergenerationally. Furthermore, it is impor-
forests, and the deep value of forests by communities, is being tant to acknowledge that entering into an Indigenous space can,
re-established in the process. Such a deep care of people for at times, mean entering into a space where intergenerational
biodiversity and habitats is the hope of conservation projects trauma – stemming from the historical injustices and institu-
around the world, yet too few have have achieved this rela- tional racism associated with colonisation – is ever present. As
tionship between communities and the world around them. It we journey into this space, we do so leading with empathy and
appears that conventional approaches to conservation have compassion, as well as support for those endeavouring to
much to learn from Indigenous perspectives. decolonise the field of conservation.
Our description of this Kānaka ‘Ōiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) Indigenous Peoples are not alone in feeling some level of
oral narrative is framed within an Indigenous worldview that connection between themselves and the biodiversity they aim to
does not perceive dividing lines between humanity and nature protect. Conservation biologists and other practitioners in the
(Gon et al. 2021). From these oral narratives stem a rich tapestry field of conservation may also experience a relationship with the
of Indigenous language and customs including spiritual and species and ecosystems they care for, and recognise the inter-
material practices, which collectively embody a worldview that connectedness of humans and nature, despite lacking an ances-
shapes the relationships between the unseen and the seen world tral connection with a particular Place. Even with this
(Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2021; Paul et al. 2021). This commonality of values, Indigenous peoples and conservation
underlying and all-encompassing connectivity (Smith 1999) is biologists have sometimes found themselves on opposite sides
the vantage point of this Special Issue, ‘Transforming Conser- of natural resource conflicts. Often at the core of these conflicts
vation Biology Through Indigenous Perspectives’. We have are sacred values, or protected values, those that a person finds

Journal compilation Ó CSIRO 2021 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND www.publish.csiro.au/journals/pcb

310 Pacific Conservation Biology M. Price et al.

emotionally distressing to trade off against other values due to national parks should consider the impact of the park on
moral or ethical reasons (Baron and Spranca 1997). Avoiding, indigenous peoples [sic] and their culturesy’, alongside other
ignoring, or minimising these underlying values systems hinders concerns. In common with Indigenous communities, practi-
our progress toward achieving shared goals (Hanselmann and tioners of conservation biology place more weight on ‘long-
Tanner 2008), at a time when collaborative management is range viability of whole systems and species’. For all intents and
critical to solving complex and daunting challenges (Harmon purposes, we define a conservation biologist as a practitioner of
et al. 2021). The editors and authors of this special issue the discipline of conservation biology as described by Soulé
represent both Indigenous and non-Indigenous professionals in (1985). However, we acknowledge ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and
the field of conservation biology working within Indigenous ‘conservation biologist’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive
contexts. We offer this special issue as an effort to build bridges, categories, and at best there is blurriness in the definitions and
increase understanding, expand worldviews, identify pathways delineations between each of these cultural identities and social
for collaborative management of our natural resources, and constructs – both of which continue to evolve over time in
towards more effective conservation efforts. response to changes in the social-ecological systems in which
they are embedded.
Working definitions for this Special Issue
There are several terms and phrases that are utilised within this A call to action: the need to transform conservation biology
Special Issue – in particular, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and ‘con- through Indigenous Perspectives
servation biologists’. While attempts to homogenise sociocul- The most pressing issue in conservation biology is the global
tural groupings on a global scale is fraught, and is not our wave of extinctions and habitat loss that threaten ecosystem
intention, we have provided working definitions to appropri- functions at both local and regional scales (Barnosky et al.
ately juxtapose and contextualise those terms. We recognise that 2011). The recognised heroes of, as well as the leading thinkers
these concepts are socially constructed and the meanings of and actors within conservation biology, have thus far been
terms can vary depending upon worldview, use, user, listener, dominated by those borne out of a neoclassical worldview; yet,
and context, for example. after more than four decades of efforts, we have not been able to
stem the tide of extinction and habitat loss. We recognise the
Indigenous Peoples need for course correction and put forth this Special Issue as a
Putting discussions of race aside, indigeneity can – as shared by call to action to transform Conservation Biology through
Indigenous philosophers, such as Dr Manulani Aluli Meyer Indigenous Perspectives.
(2008, 2013) – be viewed as a function of longevity in and The need is a critical one. From our perspective, the domi-
relationship to Place, along with its associated biodiversity. In nant thinking and practice of conservation biology has been
this sense, some Places, particularly those that have several, if afflicted by a scarcity mindset that permeates conservation
not tens, of millennia of human history and countless diasporas decisions and has become embedded within conservation pol-
of Peoples across them, can have many layers of indigeneity. In icy. This has resulted in suboptimal outcomes, including a lack
the context of this Special Issue, however, we look to the United of significant progress toward recovery goals for threatened and
Nations definition of Indigenous Peoples that drew upon a more endangered species, but more broadly, continuing declines in
technical definition offered by Martı́nez Cobo (1982), but ulti- ecological health and human well-being. We then contrast this
mately stated that ‘no formal universal definition of the term is worldview with a resilience mindset, exemplified by the world-
necessary, given that a single definition will inevitably be either views of many Indigenous peoples, in which integrated social-
over- or under-inclusive, making sense in some societies but not ecological systems sustain vibrant and diverse components. We
in others’ (United Nations 2009). However, for all intents and describe the outcomes that are associated with applying a
purposes, we apply the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in this Special scarcity mindset to conservation biology, and contrast these
Issue of Pacific Conservation Biology, which is in the context of with outcomes that are aligned with a resilience mindset.
the Pacific region, to populations of people who had ancestral
relationships to Place that were already several centuries if not The problem: a scarcity mindset in conservation biology
several millennia old at the point of contact with Euro-American ‘Scarcity mindset’ is a mental state where attention is hyper-
colonisers. focused on a limited resource, at the expense of giving attention
elsewhere (Shah et al. 2012). It is a mindset that plagues the field
Conservation biology and conservation biologist of conservation biology, which emerged in the latter half of the
Conservation biology was defined by Michael Soulé (1985), one 1900’s from a concern that one in five species was likely to be
of the ‘founding fathers’ of the field, as the field of scientific extinct by the year 2000 (Douglas 1978), but has subsequently
study that ‘addresses the biology of species, communities, and lacked funding and other resources to achieve recovery of the
ecosystems that are perturbed, either directly or indirectly, by majority of listed species (Leonard 2008; Negrón-Ortiz 2014).
human activities or other agents’. In his foundational paper, In the preceding century, American writers such as Aldo
‘What is Conservation Biology?’ (Soulé 1985), he noted that Leopold, John Muir and Rachel Carson raised alarms regarding
conservation biology was ‘often a crisis discipline’, and, declining wildlife populations and ecosystem degradation,
importantly, recognised ‘the dependence of the biological sci- inspiring a protectionist mentality that led to international policy
ences on social science disciplines’. Further, he noted that development in regions that were either directly or indirectly
‘Todayyany recommendations about the location and size of under American influence. This approach resulted in myriad
Foreword Pacific Conservation Biology 311

terrestrial and marine protected areas, and a global proliferation and putting further demands on the limited resources available
of government agencies and private or non-profit organisations for conservation. As humanity experiences loss and uncertainty
dedicated to saving endangered species. Thus, the origins of this associated with a rapidly changing world, there is a growing
field and the subsequent policies and funding structures have recognition of solastalgia, as people mourn the environmental
resulted in the promulgation of a scarcity mindset in conserva- changes occurring in the places in which they live (Albrecht
tion biology, in which our attention is fixated on species in crisis et al. 2007). While difficult, these emotions tell us when
and the limited resources available to save them. something has meaning, and help us, together with our cognitive
Benefits of a scarcity mindset include a potential increase in functions, to make sense of our role and relationship with the
creative use of limited resources and increased efficiency over world around us (Masterson et al. 2017; Norgaard and Reed
time (Fernbach et al. 2015; Mehta and Zhu 2016; Hamilton et al. 2017). Under a social-ecological systems approach, we recog-
2019), but scarcity may also lead to chronic feelings of inade- nise that the well-being of humans, more-than-humans, and
quacy, uncertainty, and a lack of control (De Witte et al. 2016). nature are intertwined (Gon et al. 2021; Paul et al. 2021; Sato
With a chronic lack of resources, people are more likely to see all et al. 2021). Humans prioritise the conservation of species to
transactions as involving trade-offs, and thus they may miss which we feel connected (Echeverri et al. 2017), but we often
potential win-win solutions (He et al. 2020). A scarcity mindset lack an understanding of the complex relationships that result in
constrains thinking by encouraging decisions that achieve short- thriving social-ecological systems (Sato et al. 2021). Thus, as
term gains (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013), rather than long- loss is experienced at the personal, regional, and global scales,
term resilience. This is embodied in conservation biology by we must seek resilience at all of these scales, across social and
policies and goals focused on avoiding immediate extinction of ecological systems, to thrive in the Anthropocene.
critically endangered species, rather than expansive thinking
that would lead to long-term investments, such as the mainte- Multi-scale resilience: the key to achieving recovery and
nance of evolutionary potential, ecosystem function and biodi- abundance
versity (Price et al. 2021). Resilience in social-ecological systems, or the ability to return to
Following a century in which alarms were raised regarding an earlier functional state following disruption, is treated in this
the sixth mass extinction, global climate change, and sea level paper as a product of memory, connectivity, and diversity. In
rise, scarcity mindset has potentially constrained the thinking of conservation biology, when released from a scarcity mindset,
many in the field of conservation biology to the point where they we can think about building multi-scale resiliency into indivi-
have lost the ability to imagine a future in which endangered duals, families, communities, populations and ecosystems
species have fully recovered to appropriate levels of abundance. through integrating these three components of resilience. We
Implicit in our behaviour, policies and funding structures is a view memory as contributing to resilience by providing a source
belief that resources will always be scarce, species will always of material from a past state to which one desires to return.
be endangered, and recovery is an unlikely event. Likewise, we view diversity as facilitating a return to an oper-
Further, under a scarcity mindset, efforts to maximise gains ational state following disturbance, as the loss of one or several
for endangered species have ignored or devalued the sociocul- system components is not fatal to system-level function. Finally,
tural costs associated with conventional conservation strategies we view connectivity as that which facilitates the replenishment
(Wilshusen et al. 2002; Goldsmith et al. 2018). This has been or supplementation of components into the system following
particularly apparent in the development of protected areas, an disturbance.
approach sometimes termed ‘fortress conservation’, in which
minimising human interactions with particular landscapes is Oral traditions and the role of memory
deemed necessary for conservation purposes. In the past decade, Resilient ecosystems contain ‘ecological memory’, which is in-
a number of critiques of a protectionist approach to conservation part provided by seed banks or regenerative material of living
have emerged (see Dudley et al. 2018 for review), not the least of organisms (e.g. totipotency in plants), allowing biological
which is the social impact of exclusionary practices, and the communities to reassemble following disturbance, as species
existential threat they have posed to Indigenous cultures. A adapted to flooding or wildfires emerge from these survivors
focus on single-objective solutions for biodiversity conservation (Johnstone et al. 2016), or islands of communities that remain
has separated humans from nature in a process that results in after a disturbance that re-seed the surrounding areas (e.g.
biocultural hysteresis and a loss of meaning and identity (Lyver kı̄puka). However, when ecosystems lose memory, as seed
et al. 2019b). This narrow focus has compounded the intergen- banks or other vestiges of biodiversity are depleted, these sys-
erational trauma that exists in Indigenous communities and tems are more likely to undergo regime shifts following dis-
potentially excludes innovative solutions for the broader turbance, rather than returning to a previous functional state
social-ecological system. By framing decision making in terms (Folke et al. 2004).
of trade-offs, in which there are winners and losers, we may miss Similarly, for social-ecological systems to recover following
opportunities to partner across systems and achieve synergistic major disruptions, ancestral memory of interconnected relation-
solutions (Stillman et al. 2018). ships and regeneration maintained through written or oral
Under the current trajectory, the conditions which produced a traditions are critical (Aitken et al. 2021). There is a careful
scarcity mindset in the field of conservation biology are unlikely balance required as well to ensure that those oral traditions are
to improve. Increased rates of invasive species introductions and not left ‘only’ to memory, as often is the case; sometimes those
the movement of disease, together with land conversion and knowledge holders, due to the wider impacts of colonisation, die
other stressors, are intensifying pressures on endangered species before that knowledge or memory can be passed on. Restoration
312 Pacific Conservation Biology M. Price et al.

ecologists speak of ‘reference systems’ or ‘reference states’ that Conservation biologists often feel a connection with the
provide a memory of a past state, or the state one wants to species and ecosystems they manage, but some come from a
achieve, when implementing restoration actions for degraded worldview founded on a social construct that has created
ecosystems (Gann et al. 2019). We note that, in the field of dividing lines between humanity and nature. These arbitrary
conservation biology, many people alive today have never divisions are reinforced by words such as ‘nature’, ‘wildlife’ and
personally experienced a state of abundance in the species they ‘wilderness’, which are words and concepts that do not exist in
are responsible for managing, leaving them to work without an many Indigenous languages. As a result, some conservation
appropriate reference state. Further, given limited funding biologists may lack a worldview that would frame this feeling of
cycles and the structure of many government and non-profit connection in terms of relationship. Multiple contexts for
jobs, people may often move among geographic locations, and maintaining relationships with the environment, however, are
lack a long-term relationship with the Place they are responsible embedded within Indigenous worldviews (e.g. Lyver et al.
for managing. Thus, while we recognise that memory is critical 2019a; Gon et al. 2021; Sato et al. 2021; Winter et al. 2021).
to resilience in both ecological and social systems, the practi- In this worldview, conservation actions, simply put, are the
tioners of conservation biology often lack the memory necessary practices to maintain and cultivate relationships in multiple
to achieve recovery and abundance. Indigenous peoples, with layers throughout the social-ecological system, rather than
ancestral connections to Place, may have repositories of memo- existing apart from everyday life (Ban et al. 2019). These
ries that can provide critical reference state information for relationships with the natural world may increase the feelings
restoration and conservation planning (e.g. Aitken et al. 2021; of loss and sadness associated with the Anthropocene, but can
Bennet-Jones et al. 2021; Luat-Hu% ‘eu et al. 2021). also provide a framework for resilience and recovery by provid-
We propose that recovery goals in conservation biology will ing meaning and purpose. In this framework, we not only are
only be achieved by re-imagining a future in which native caring for nature – the natural world is also caring for us
species are not only present, but fully recovered to appropriate (Comberti et al. 2015).
states of abundance. The ancestral memory carried by Indige- Connectivity in Māori perspectives is often described as
nous Peoples is born out of living in a Place for countless whakapapa, which is genealogical layering where all living
generations, which facilitates access to memories of abundance. things share a common descent to the primordial beings or
Such memories recall the abundance in landscapes and sea- through the concept of whanaungatanga (kinship). Jackson,
scapes as seen in the ancestral past, and the knowledge that Mita and Hakopa (2017) highlight ‘the interconnections between
human populations can build and maintain such abundance. whakapapa, whanaungatanga and kinship’ (p. 6) which are
These ancestral memories can be projected forward in time as a described in Ko Aotearoa tēnei: A report into claims concerning
roadmap for the future, one that guides restoration efforts New Zealand law and policy affecting Māori culture and
(Harmon et al. 2021). An example of this is the Hawaiian identity. The ‘defining principle is whanaungatanga, or kinship.
proverb, ‘I ka wā ma mua ka wā ma hope (Pukui 1983)’, which In te ao Māori, all of the myriad elements of creation – the living
can be translated as, ‘The ancestral past is our future’. This and the dead, the animate and inanimate – are seen as alive and
greatly expanded view of time – reflected as far into the future as inter-related. All are infused with mauri (that is, a living essence
it is in the past – is necessary to overcome a focus on short-term or spirit) and all are related through whakapapa. Thus, the sea is
gains induced by the scarcity mindset and imagine a future in not an impersonal thing but the ancestor-god Tangaroa, and from
which today’s endangered species achieve recovery. him all fish and reptiles are descendedyEvery species, every
place, every type of rock and stone, every person (living or dead),
The importance of connectivity every god, and every other element of creation is united through
Connectivity within and among ecosystems allows for the this web of common descent, which has its origins in the
movement of biotic and abiotic components into and out of primordial parents Ranginui (the sky) and Papa-tu% ā-nuku (the
systems to restore function following disturbance (Van Looy earth)’ (Waitangi Tribunal 2011, p. 23).
et al. 2019). This movement is important to maximise genetic
diversity and avoid inbreeding, to replenish nutrients or seed-
banks that may have been lost to the disturbing agent, and to Diversity
allow dispersal of components out of the system as well In a stable state preceding disturbance, heterogeneity supports
(Bossuyt and Honnay 2008). The exchange of materials into and functional diversity by allowing multiple variations of the same
out of the system allows for the restoration of relationships theme to coexist within the system (e.g. niche partitioning). This
among microbial, plant, algal and animal communities form of diversity increases the likelihood that at least a few
(Tambosi et al. 2014). species from a given niche will reassemble with complementary
Similarly, increased connectivity and network resilience in species and resume functionality following disturbance (Keppel
social components of a social-ecological system allow for the et al. 2012). Diversity increases the resilience of networks, as the
reconstruction of human relationships, as well as culture and disappearance of a single component is not fatal to the system
governance structures, following disturbance (Winter et al. (Folke et al. 2004). Diversity in species with key functional roles
2018b; Winter et al. 2020b). Further, framing resilience in terms in communities (e.g. pollination) are particularly crucial to
of the social-ecological system helps us to see that culture, maximising recovery likelihood and avoiding a cascade of
governance and ecology are not independent systems, but secondary extinctions (Folke et al. 2010; Fantinato et al. 2019).
instead exist in relationship as interwoven subsystems Critical to achieving transformation in the field of conserva-
(Berkes 2011). tion biology is the integration of diverse knowledge systems into
Foreword Pacific Conservation Biology 313

governance, conservation planning and education (e.g. Aitken Litton, Smrity Ramavarapu, Leslie Hutchins, Evelyn Wight,
et al. 2021; Belcher et al. 2021; Palmer et al. 2021; Reihana et al. Michelle Clark, Susan Cordell, Kainana Francisco, Heather
2021; Winter et al. 2021). Collaborations among multiple McMillen, Pua‘ala Pascua and Darcy Yogi’s contribution
stakeholders in a social-ecological system often means that ‘Increasing conservation capacity by embracing ritual: kuahu
there is diversity in roles, knowledge systems, and expertise. as a portal to the sacred’ opens with a, ‘Pule Ho‘oulu (prayer for
Drawing on ecological theory, we suggest that the variety of inspiration)’, as a dual ritual to their paper and to their work
perspectives from diverse individuals in collaborating organisa- (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2021). The specific ‘chant
tions and communities may function similar to diversity in initiates the process of kuahu, an altar of Native Hawaiian
biological communities, increasing creativity in problem- spiritual practice within Hālau ‘Ōhi’a, a ritual-based steward-
solving and allowing people to specialise on particular tasks, ship program in Hawai‘i led by kumu (master teacher, a primary
or achieve synergy and innovation, leading to resilience. holder and source of knowledge for the community) Kekuhi
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani. They ‘describe how kuahu practice
can serve as a coparticipant, catalyst, and portal to sacred
The contributions of this Special Issue conservation, allowing learners to engage and grow more
In this Special Issue we aimed to build bridges among knowl- personal relationships with the environment, our communities,
edge systems and approaches to conservation biology. The and ourselves’.
Special Issue editors included two Indigenous guest editors, Andrew Paul, Robin Roth and Saw Sha Bwe Moo’s paper
with extensive experience working to support and integrate ‘Relational ontology and more-than-human agency in Indige-
Indigenous communities living and working in colonised nous Karen conservation practice’ centred in the, ‘Karen terri-
countries and institutions, and one non-Indigenous editor with tory of Kawthoolei, on the border between Thailand and Burma,
experience working to bridge communities and integrate mul- or Myanmar’, describes the, ‘relations with more-than-human
tiple knowledge systems. We would like to acknowledge that beings, including spirits, constitute environmental governance
working within Indigenous knowledge systems, within non- in Karen communities (Paul et al. 2021). These findings compel
Indigenous knowledge systems, and at the interface or across the externally situated conservation biologists to take relational
bridge(s), is challenging. These papers offer a dialogue and ontologies seriously, allowing local interlocutors’ lived experi-
examples for others to view where there may be synergies within ence, knowledge, and theory to challenge culturally bound
the experiences of others. concepts such as resources, management, and conservation’.
Key themes that emerged from the Special Issue included They posit that, ‘in order to transform conservation biology
spirituality, Indigenous sovereignty, applications of Indigenous through Indigenous perspectives, it is essential to pay attention
conservation, Indigenous understandings of conservation man- to the relational world in which many Indigenous Peoples live.
agement and the management of non-native species, and a Doing so helps support a conservation practice attentive to the
consideration by non-Indigenous scholars regarding how to be interdependence of all life in ways that uphold Indigenous
for a Place when one is not Indigenous to that Place. Peoples’ rights of self-determination, cultural identity, and
Samuel M. ‘Ohukani‘ ōhi‘a, III Gon, Kāwika B. Winter and social relations with their ancestral lands’. This leads into the
Michael Demotta’s paper offers important positioning in this next group of papers which focus on Indigenous sovereignty.
Special Issue with their paper ‘‘KUA–LAKO–MO’O: a meth- Indigenous sovereignty is a relevant emergent theme of this
odology for exploring Indigenous conceptualisations of nature Special Issue and three papers focus on different aspects of
and conservation in Hawai‘i’’ (Gon et al. 2021). Their paper sovereignty. Tamatoa Bambridge, Paul D’Arcy and Alexander
describes the term biocultural conservation, ‘that wields the Mawyer’s paper ‘Oceanian Sovereignty: rethinking conserva-
relationships between a culture and the natural world to tion in a sea of islands’ borrows Tongan philosopher Epeli
strengthen conservation efforts’, and highlights the relevance Hau‘ofa’s title from a 1994 essay ‘Our sea of islands’
of Indigenous understandings of relationships to the natural (Bambridge et al. 2021). The authors ask us to reimagine the
world to deities, and how oral histories form an important ocean and islands within an Oceanian Sovereignty. The authors
repository for the ancestral memory of Indigenous Peoples that coin the phrase ‘tidal thinking’ which, ‘refers to Indigenous and
can transform conservation. local peoples’ fluid responses to current challenges around
Similarly, Aimee Y. Sato, Tamara Ticktin, Lehua Alapai, conservation and sustainable management of island and ocean
Erica I. von Allmen, Wilds P. I. Brawner, Yvonne Y. Carter, futures and the linked wellbeing of human and non-human
Keoki A. Carter, Roberta K. Keakealani, Arthur C. Medeiros entities within them’.
and Rakan A. Zahawi in their paper, ‘Biocultural restoration of Kawika Winter, Mehana Blaich Vaughan, Natalie Kura-
Hawaiian tropical dry forests’, identified four categories of shima, Christian Giardina, Kalani Quiocho, Kevin Chang, Malia
biocultural measures of success, and demonstrated that, ‘a Akutagawa, Kamanamaikalani Beamer and Fikret Berkes’ entry
biocultural approach to restoration can provide purpose and entitled ‘Empowering Indigenous agency through community-
meaning to a person’s relationship to Place’ (Sato et al. 2021). driven collaborative management to achieve effective conser-
Their work sets the scene for two additional papers which vation: Hawai‘i as an example’ explores the role of Indigenous
focus specifically on spirituality; arguably one of the most agency in conservation (Winter et al. 2021). Their work pro-
challenging yet important aspects in Indigenous conservation vides numerous examples and strategies for partnership and
management when brought into conversation alongside non- power sharing from Indigenous perspectives.
Indigenous viewpoints and ways of being. Kekuhi Kealiikana- From an Aotearoa Māori context, Symon Palmer, Ocean
kaoleohaililani, Aimee Sato, Christian Giardina, Creighton Mercier and Alan King-Hunt focus on a Māori understanding of
314 Pacific Conservation Biology M. Price et al.

sovereignty through rangatiratanga in their paper ‘Towards Hawai‘i’, authors Ku% pa’a K. Luat-Hu% ‘eu, Kawika B. Winter,
rangatiratanga in pest management? Māori perspectives and Mehana Blaich Vaughan, Nicolai Barca and Melissa R. Price
frameworks on novel biotechnologies in conservation’ (Palmer explore how the relationship between Indigenous people and
et al. 2021). They question whether a social license to operate is pigs evolved over time from one of animal husbandry to a
in alignment with a Māori approach. Findings from their paper hunter-prey relationship as a result of dramatic changes in the
highlight that, ‘rangatiratanga and tikanga are underlying social-ecological system in the past 250 years (Luat-Hu% ‘eu et al.
considerations for Māori in relation to novel biotechnologies’. 2021). Indigenous cultures are living cultures, responding to
The prior papers set the scene for the emergence of a variety external and internal changes. Thus, emerging practices in
of species-specific applications that are examples of conserva- recent centuries are no less Indigenous than those that existed
tion management led through Indigenous perspectives. In their prior to contact with external cultures. Further, an understanding
paper entitled, ‘Translocation of black foot pāua (Haliotis iris) of the historical and present-day relationships with nonnative
in a customary fishery management area: transformation from species can enable critical conversations toward meeting social
top-down management to kaitiakitanga (local guardianship) of a and ecological goals.
cultural keystone’, authors L. Bennett-Jones, G. Gnanalingam, The incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into decision
B. Flack, N. Scott, D. Pritchard, H. Moller, and C. Hepburn making and education is critical to transforming conservation
demonstrate how multiple knowledge sources can be integrated biology through Indigenous perspectives. Three of the papers in
to inform translocation of a culturally-important mollusk this special issue address this need. In the first, ‘Contemporary
(Bennett-Jones et al. 2021). Indigenous knowledge was impor- Rāhui: placing Indigenous, conservation, and sustainability
tant not only in designing the translocation, but also in inter- sciences in community-led conservation’, authors Pauline
preting the outcomes of this effort and informing conservation Fabre, Tamatoa Bambridge, Joachim Claudet, Eleanor Sterling
planning for improved decision making. and Alexander Mawyer examine revival of Indigenous practices
Kaleonani K. C. Hurley, Maia Sosa Kapur, Margaret Siple, in two communities in Tahiti regarding aquatic resource man-
Keli‘iahonui Kotubetey, A. Hi‘ilei Kawelo and Robert J. Too- agement (Fabre et al. 2021). Importantly, their results show that
nen’s paper ‘A codeveloped management tool to determine local conceptions, perceptions, and expectations differ in mean-
harvest limits of introduced mud crabs, Scylla serrata ingful ways, and must be considered prior to and during
(Forskål, 1775), within a Native Hawaiian fishpond’ modelled conservation planning and implementation.
how to sustainably manage this nonnative species (Hurley et al. To enable the integration of Indigenous knowledge into
2021). They utilised, ‘Indigenous harvest practices and the decision making, the Ecological State Assessment Tool
mark–recapture studyy[to codevelop]ya versatile crab popu- (ESAT) was, ‘developed to assess quantitative scientific data
lation model that can be tailored to changing management using Māori ecological indicators’ (Belcher et al. 2021). In their
objectives’, such as native biodiversity, food security and paper, ‘Ecological State Assessment Tool (ESAT): a cross-
harvest, or invasive species removal. cultural natural resource management tool from Aotearoa,
Although a number of culturally important nonnative spe- New Zealand’, authors Sara M. Belcher, O. Ripeka Mercier,
cies, such as the mud crab, have been introduced in the past Jeffery P. Foley and Julie Deslippe demonstrate the application
300 years following an increase in global travel and species of this tool by examining conservation outcomes for a short-
introductions, a number of non-native species in the Pacific were tailed bat colony (Mystacina tuberculata), Pekapeka O Puketı̄tı̄-
carried among islands in voyaging canoes for millennia and thus Piopio under different management practices. In line with the
have longstanding relationships with Indigenous People. For intentions of this Special Issue, this study demonstrated the
example, kiore (Rattus exulans, Pacific rat), was introduced to central importance of social aspects, alongside ecological
Aotearoa by Māori as a food source. In their article, ‘Managing aspects, in determining conservation outcomes.
for cultural harvest of a valued introduced species, the Pacific rat The paper by authors Jodanne G. Aitken, Marcus-
(Rattus exulans) in Aotearoa New Zealand’, authors Priscilla Rongowhitiao Shadbolt, James Doherty, Melanie Mark-
M. Wehi, Deborah J. Wilson, Clive Stone, Hayley Ricardo, Shadbolt, Mariella Marzano and James Ataria is entitled
Chris Jones, Richard Jakob-Hoff and Phil O’B. Lyver studied a ‘Empowering the Indigenous voice in a graphical representation
population of kiore maintained for cultural use, to determine of Aotearoa’s biocultural heritage (flora and fauna)’ (Aitken
population health for management purposes (Wehi et al. 2021). et al. 2021). Their paper explores how to access ancestral
As most populations of kiore in Aotearoa are managed today for memory through graphic art, specifically the coupled decline
extirpation due to impacts on native species, this population is of biodiversity and linguistic diversity, and the associated
critical to maintain longstanding cultural practices and relation- decline of language and cultural knowledge. Of particular
ships, and research such as this can inform management prac- interest is the Indigenous elders’ led development of a resource
tices that balance management of native and non-native species which depicts the current localised Māori language terms of the
that are all of importance to Indigenous people. flora or fauna that have also been accurately drawn.
Similarly, the pua‘a (Polynesian pig, Sus scrofa), was ‘Indigenisation of conservation education in New Zealand’,
brought to the Hawaiian Islands by Polynesian voyagers, and by authors Kiri Reihana, Priscilla Wehi, Nichola Harcourt, Pam
relationships between Indigenous people and this animal reach Booth, Joanne Murray and Mina Pomare-Pieta explores the
back millennia. In the paper, ‘Understanding the co- development of a bilingual Māori environmental gaming appli-
evolutionary relationships between Indigenous cultures and cation with youth from Māori centric schools in Aotearoa. They
non-native species can inform more effective approaches to found that ‘utilising Māori engagement mediums and mentors
conservation: the example of pigs (pua‘a; Sus scrofa) in that resonate with youth are key to encouraging more Māori
Foreword Pacific Conservation Biology 315

youth into conservation science. Therefore, empowering youth well-recognised as impacting the mental health of scientists
to draw from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing can (Cunsolo and Ellis 2018; Conroy 2019). Impacts can be even
create a step-change in science participation and leadership’ greater for Indigenous peoples who identify a genealogical or
(Reihana et al. 2021). otherwise familial relation to biodiversity and Place.
The final paper offers a unique addition to this Special Issue The success of biodiversity conservation on Indigenous-
with a focus on non-Indigenous understandings of how to managed lands demonstrates that biodiversity conservation
approach conservation of a Place as a non-Indigenous person. and human well-being goals can simultaneously be achieved
As previously stated, transformation of conservation manage- (Frank and Schaeffler 2019; Hartel et al. 2020). Historically, due
ment through Indigenous Perspectives does not preclude non- to the existential importance of biodiversity to Indigenous
Indigenous peoples nor non-native species. A team of early- cultures, various methods of protections were placed on biodi-
career Fellows with the Society for conservation biology were versity and habitats via sociocultural institutions within Indige-
invited to consider what it means to be for a Place, when one is nous societies (Berkes 2018; Winter et al. 2020a). Today,
not Indigenous to that Place. Authors Stephanie Borrelle, Jona- Indigenous peoples are responsible for more than 25% of the
than Koch, Kurt Ingeman, Bonnie McGill, Max Lambert, Joan Earth’s land (Garnett et al. 2018), and a notable portion of
Dudney, Charlotte Chang, Amy Teffer and Grace Wu, in their coastal and open-ocean waters (e.g. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
paper ‘What does it mean to be for a Place?’, assert, ‘that a non- 2021). Of those that are Indigenous-managed Places, not only is
Indigenous conservationist who is for a Place advocates for biodiversity of native species maintained (e.g, Uchida and
inclusive stewardship with Indigenous Peoples and other mar- Kamura 2020; Winter et al. 2020b), they may actually be more
ginalised communities to conserve species and ecosystems and species rich than government-designated protected areas
the connections that bind communities to their landscapes’ (Schuster et al. 2019). This suggests that not only Indigenous
(Borrelle et al. 2021). perspectives, but Indigenous Resource Management philoso-
phies, strategies and practices, along with Indigenous-led gov-
Conclusions ernance, are likely crucial to maximising joint outcomes and
Conservation biology currently suffers from a scarcity mindset, achieving recovery of endangered species, alongside other
in which we struggle to simply prevent extinction of species, and social-ecological system goals (Artelle et al. 2019; von der
have lost the ability to imagine recovery of endangered species Porten et al. 2019).
to appropriate levels of abundance. Indigenous worldviews, The path that the field of conservation biology has taken in the
practices and knowledge offer the potential to transform con- four decades since its inception into the modern world has not
servation biology as a field, and reimagine reference states of matched the scale of the global crises we are facing, and
abundance to which we can aspire. However, conflicts in con- biodiversity continues to decline at both regional and global
servation biology may arise from opposing worldviews that scales. To achieve abundance and resilience, it is time to shift
either place humans as a part of or separate from nature, dif- our thinking and reframe our vision around memory, connectivity
ferential weighting of values among stakeholders including in and diversity, integrating multiple knowledge systems and social
particular of spirituality, power differentials associated with and ecological values. We have but to look to the Indigenous
governance and sovereignty, institutional racism that structur- peoples in the Places we are working to understand practices
ally imbeds the superiority of one worldview over another, and/ associated with increasing resilience, and maintaining health and
or intergenerational trauma related to colonisation. Rather than function in the social-ecological systems of their Places.
reactive and protective measures to prevent biodiversity loss in
the Anthropocene, our vision of the future must be as expansive Epilogue
and interconnected as the challenges we face. Counter- In this Special Issue we explored areas of potential conflict and
intuitively, in an era high in uncertainty, we must regain the commonality, as well as the transformative potential in applying
ability to remember the past, and plan for a resilient future. This Indigenous perspectives to the field of conservation biology.
agenda must include the recovery of Indigenous knowledge, We paid particular attention to the appropriate inclusion of
practice and cultural identity which sits in a wider milieu of Indigenous knowledge, perspectives and approaches in con-
intergenerational well-being not only of those Places and servation scholarship. We recognise that while academia has
endangered species, but also of people. made some positive gains in relation to Indigenous development
For Indigenous people living in a colonised state, continuing in its broadest sense (e.g. language recovery, culture, research,
losses in biodiversity and habitats that contribute to a cultural impacts of colonisation, health and well-being), the issues of
landscape may compound historical grief and intergenerational misappropriation of Indigenous language, culture and world-
trauma associated with past losses of language, cultural identity views, the lack of representation of Indigenous peoples and
and religious practices (Kingston 2015). The Industrial Era voices, and the marginalisation of Indigenous peoples through
launched complex regime shifts that altered ecosystem function the systems and structures of the majority, still exist. Through-
and collapsed social-cultural institutions, resulting in a global out the course of undertaking this Special Issue, important
economy built on a model of perpetual growth that demands ethical questions continually emerged, such as:
expansion and further consumption (Diaz et al. 2019). As
biodiversity forms the basis for biocultural diversity, extinctions  What is the appropriate positioning of Indigenous and non-
not only impact ecosystem function, but may also result in losses Indigenous scholars in research?
of components of cultural identity (Winter and McClatchey  What are the appropriate roles of non-Indigenous scholars
2008; Winter et al. 2018b). Ecological grief is now within Indigenous spaces?
316 Pacific Conservation Biology M. Price et al.

 How do we navigate entangled conversations on inter- Thus, the editors of this Special Issue advocate for the
generational trauma, anti-racism, white fragility and other submission of both perspectives and research manuscripts on
related topics? decolonisation and related topics to peer-reviewed journals, to
 Is it appropriate for Indigenous scholars to openly express facilitate civil discourse on these topics in a manner that
opinions about how other Indigenous nations choose to supports Indigenous scholarship and career advancement of
engage with researchers? Indigenous scholars.
While the intentions of this Special Issue were to take a
The emergence of these questions made it clear that this
significant step towards decolonising the field of conservation
Special Issue exists in the context of an evolving conscientisa-
biology for the betterment of Indigenous Peoples, recovery of
tion and decolonisation process that is currently ongoing in biodiversity and for the advancement of emerging scholars, it is
academia. clear that some people experienced emotional duress in the
All of the papers in this Special Issue included Indigenous process. For some, one of the perspective pieces within this
authorship (authors Indigenous to the Place in which the research Special Issue re-opened the wounds of intergenerational trauma;
was conducted), with the exception of one paper (Borrelle et al. for others, the ensuing dialogue on social media led to a slander-
2021), of which all authors were non-Indigenous to the Place ing of their professional reputations. For the role that this Special
(Hawai‘i) that led to their perspectives piece. The authors of Issue played in that reality, for those that have been adversely
Borrelle et al. 2021, as early-career postdoctoral fellows with the affected, we (the co-editors of this Special Issue) apologise.
Society for Conservation Biology, were invited to submit non- To the Indigenous communities named in the Borrelle et al.
Indigenous views, via a perspective paper, on how those not from (2021) paper, we note that Borrelle et al. had the support and
a Place might work for a Place. Following publication of that consent of the Indigenous people whom they worked with as
article, there were concerns raised regarding the lack of Indige- they developed and published the manuscript. We respect the
nous authorship, as well as potential plagiarism of an Indigenous autonomy of Indigenous communities to self-determine who
scholar’s tweets. These concerns were handled via a formal they work with, and, therefore, who may speak with, about and
process through the journal, following the Committee on Publi- for them. We apologise for any encroachment into your self-
cation Ethics guidelines (COPE 2021), with leadership from determination that may have occurred from other people’s
experienced Indigenous scholars who have expertise regarding speaking on your behalf through the subsequent processes that
appropriate engagement with Indigenous communities. Subse- occurred on social media regarding this paper. It is not up to
quently, the authors of Borrelle et al. (2021) prepared a Corrigen- others, either Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to determine who
dum, now published, that included references to other influences works in your communities.
on their thinking, including three of these tweets. To the complainant, while the formal review process found
As co-Editors, we acknowledge that tweets may be cited in that plagiarism did not occur, we apologise that you have
published manuscripts in cases where concepts or content are experienced harm and continue to experience harm, through
not published elsewhere in peer-reviewed literature, and thus the wider context of this paper and the deliberation process.
represent leading-edge thoughts in a field. That said, we do not While our views differ on plagiarism, our views do not differ in
feel that it is appropriate to cite tweets in cases where content is common goals of Indigenous self-determination.
part of common discourse and extensively published upon in To the non-Indigenous authors of the Borrelle et al. (2021)
peer-reviewed literature. In such cases, peer-reviewed litera- paper, including those who removed their names from the
ture provides the appropriate citations. In this case, there are corrigenda, we apologise for the harm you have experienced
extensive peer-reviewed papers by Indigenous scholars on the and are continuing to experience through this process. Non-
topic of how non-Indigenous researchers should engage in Indigenous voices are an important part of the conversation in
Indigenous spaces, which have been published over the past this Special Issue; and we value the perspectives of all people on
few decades. Any tweets containing similar concepts can be these topics.
assumed to derive from these sources, as knowledge is shared Conflict and discomfort are commonplace during decoloni-
through formal and informal networks, such as coursework, sation processes, part of the reality of working with communities
workshops, conferences and public discourse. Importantly, that have experienced intergenerational trauma caused by
even when included as citations in peer-reviewed literature, authoritative structures of colonisation (e.g. educational institu-
sources such as ‘personal communication’, social media posts tions, governments). Furthermore, many Indigenous people
(e.g. tweets), and other non-catalogued forms of information have emigrated away from their ancestral lands to escape
(i.e. grey literature) are not tracked under current citation index violence, or have been forced to move away from their ancestral
metrics. As such, citing social media posts in place of peer- territories against their will (e.g. slavery), ultimately becoming
reviewed literature by Indigenous scholars could actually ethnic or cultural minorities in other lands. These peoples
perpetuate inequities, because doing so would detract from collectively represent historically marginalised groups, who
their tenure dossiers and other forms of academic metrics have all experienced intergenerational trauma via various forms
for career advancement, which, irrespective of criticism of institutionalised racism. Acknowledging the shared experi-
(MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2018), still lean heavily on ence of intergenerational trauma between Indigenous Peoples
citation indices to document academic impact. Furthermore, and non-Indigenous minorities is necessary for healing at both
social media posts may be deleted at any time, and are individual and community scales. We must do so if we are to
therefore not a permanent form of documentation in the public achieve success as we work together toward common goals,
sphere that are available for others to read and build upon. such as biodiversity conservation. It is our hope that through the
Foreword Pacific Conservation Biology 317

work we do as Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, we Teffer, A. K., and Wu, G. C. (2021). What does it mean to be for a Place?
can address issues of social- and environmental justice so that Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 354–361. doi:10.1071/PC20015
future generations do not continue to experience these patterns Bossuyt, B., and Honnay, O. (2008). Can the seed bank be used for ecological
of intergenerational trauma. restoration? An overview of seed bank characteristics in European com-
Institutional racism is real, rampant and repugnant. We are munities. Vegetation Science 19(6), 875–884. doi:10.3170/2008-8-18462
Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wyllie de Echeverria, V., and Patterson, T.
thankful for global efforts to improve systems, root out the causes
(2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultiva-
of institutional racism and do better moving forward. Special tion and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems.
Issues such as this one on Transforming Conservation Biology Global Environmental Change 34, 247–62. doi:10.1016/J.GLOENV
Through Indigenous Perspectives, led by a team of which the CHA.2015.07.007
majority are Indigenous scholars, containing 17 papers in which Committee On Publication Ethics (2021). Guidelines. Available at https://
all but one included Indigenous authorship, and with a goal of publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines. [Accessed 1 August 2021].
ensuring fair review of Indigenous scholarship and ideas, are part Conroy, G. (2019). Ecological grief grips scientists. Nature 573, 318–319.
of these efforts to increase visibility of Indigenous scholarship, doi:10.1038/D41586-019-02656-8
while challenging those in historically racist fields, such as Cunsolo, A., and Ellis, N. R. (2018). Ecological grief as a mental health
conservation biology, to wrestle with how we can do better. We response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change 8(4),
275–281. doi:10.1038/S41558-018-0092-2
wish to express our deep appreciation to the authors and reviewers
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J., and De Cuyper, N. (2016). Review of 30 years of
for their service toward achieving this future. longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health
and well-being: is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist 51,
References 18–31. doi:10.1111/AP.12176
Aitken, J., Shadbolt, M., Doherty, J., Mark-Shadbolt, M., Marzano, M., and Diaz, S., Settele, J., Brondizio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A.,
Ataria, J. (2021). Exploring the Indigenous voice in a graphical repre- Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A.,
sentation of Aotearoa’s biocultural heritage (flora and fauna). Pacific Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J. G., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F.,
Conservation Biology 27, 481–492. doi:10.1071/PC20027 Miloslavich, P., Molnar, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A.,
Albrecht, G., Sartore, G. M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Chowdhury, R. R., Shin, Y. J., Visseren-
Kelly, B., Stain, H., Torma, A., and Pollard, G. (2007). Solastalgia: the Hamakers, I., Willis, K. J., and Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-
distress caused by environmental change. Australasian Psychiatry 15, driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative
S95–S98. doi:10.1080/10398560701701288 change. Science 366, 1327. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.AAX3100
Artelle, K. A., Zurba, M., Bhattacharyya, J., Chan, D. E., Brown, K., Housty, J., Douglas, J. (1978). Biologists urge US endowment for conservation. Nature
and Moola, F. (2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A 275, 82–83. doi:10.1038/275082A0
nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conser- Dudley, N., Jonas, H., Nelson, F., Parrish, J., Pyhala, A., Stolton, S., and
vation 240, UNSP108284. doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2019.108284 Watson, J. E. M. (2018). The essential role of other effective area-based
Bambridge, T., D’arcy, P., and Mawyer, A. (2021). Oceanian Sovereignty: conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets.
rethinking conservation in a sea of islands. Pacific Conservation Biology Global Ecology and Conservation 15, e00424. doi:10.1016/J.GECCO.
27, 345–353. doi:10.1071/PC20026 2018.E00424
Ban, N. C., Wilson, E., and Neasloss, D. (2019). Historical and contempo- Echeverri, A., Callahan, M. M., Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., and Zhao, J.
rary Indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific. (2017). Explicit not implicit preferences predict conservation intentions
Conservation Biology 34, 5–14. doi:10.1111/COBI.13432 for endangered species and biomes. PLoS ONE 12(1), e0170973.
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogon, G. O. U., Swartz, B., doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0170973
Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Fabre, P., Bambridge, T., Claudet, J., Sterling, E., and Mawyer, A. (2021).
Mersey, B., and Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction Contemporary Rāhui: placing Indigenous, conservation, and sustain-
already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57. doi:10.1038/NATURE09678 ability sciences in community-led conservation. Pacific Conservation
Baron, J., and Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behav- Biology 27, 451–463. doi:10.1071/PC20087
ior and Human Decision Processes 70, 1–16. doi:10.1006/OBHD.1997. Fantinato, E., Del Vecchio, S., Gaetan, C., and Buffa, G. (2019). The
2690 resilience of pollination interactions: importance of temporal phases.
Belcher, S. M., Ripeka Mercier, O., Foley, J. P., and Deslippe, J. (2021). Plant Ecology 12(1), 157–162. doi:10.1093/JPE/RTY005
Ecological State Assessment Tool (ESAT): a cross-cultural natural Fernbach, P. M., Kan, C., and Lynch, J. G. (2015). Squeezed: coping with
resource management tool from Aotearoa, New Zealand. Pacific Con- constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Consumer Research 41,
servation Biology 27, 464–480. doi:10.1071/PC20089 1204–1227. doi:10.1086/679118
Bennett-Jones, L., Gnanalingam, G., Flack, B., Scott, N., Pritchard, D., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson,
Moller, H., and Hepbum, C. (2021). Translocation of black foot pāua L., and Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity
(Haliotis iris) in a customary fishery management area: transformation in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution,
from top-down management to kaitiakitanga (local guardianship) of and Systematics 35, 557–581. doi:10.1146/ANNUREV.ECOLSYS.35.
a cultural keystone. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 402–417. 021103.105711
doi:10.1071/PC20058 Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and
Berkes, F. (2011). Restoring unity: The Concept of Marine Social- Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adapt-
Ecological Systems. In ‘World Fisheries: A Social-Ecological Analysis’. ability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4), 20.
(Eds R. E. Ommer, R. I. Perry, K. Cochrane, P. Cury.) Chapter 2, Frank, A. S. K., and Schaeffler, L. (2019). Identifying key knowledge gaps to
pp. 9–28. (Wiley: New York.) better protect biodiversity and simultaneously secure livelihoods in a
Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred Ecology, Fourth Edition. (Routledge, New York, priority conservation area. Sustainability 11(20), 1–22. doi:10.3390/
YK and Abingdon, Oxon) SU11205695
Borrelle, S. B., Koch, J. B., McDonough MacKenzie, C., Ingeman, K. E., Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson,
McGill, B. M., Lambert, M. R., Belasen, A. M., Dudney, J., Chang, C. H., J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F.,
318 Pacific Conservation Biology M. Price et al.

Echeverrı́a, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., and Dixon, K. W. Kingston, L. (2015). The destruction of identity: Cultural genocide and
(2019). International principles and standards for the practice of Indigenous peoples. Journal of Human Rights 14(1), 63–83.
ecological restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology 27(S1), doi:10.1080/14754835.2014.886951
S1–S46. doi:10.1111/REC.13035 Leonard, D. L., Jr. (2008). Recovery expenditures for birds listed under the
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, US Endangered Species Act: The disparity between mainland and
Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Hawaiian taxa. Biological Conservation 141, 2054–2061. doi:10.1016/
Brondizio, E. S., French Collier, N., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., J.BIOCON.2008.06.001
Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., and Luat-Hu% ‘eu, K., Winter, K. B., Blaich Vaughan, M., Barca, N., and Price,
Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of M. R. (2021). Understanding the co-evolutionary relationships between
Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability 1(7), Indigenous cultures and non-native species can inform more effective
369–374. doi:10.1038/S41893-018-0100-6 approaches to conservation: the example of pigs (pua‘a; Sus scrofa)
Goldsmith, K., Roux, C., and Ma, J. (2018). When seeking the best brings out in Hawai‘i. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 442–450. doi:10.1071/
the worst in consumers: Understanding the relationship between a PC20086
maximizing mindset and immoral behavior. Consumer Psychology Lyver, P. O., Ruru, J., Scott, N., Tylianakis, J. M., Arnold, J., Malinen, S. K.,
28(2), 293–309. doi:10.1002/JCPY.1017 Bataille, C. Y., Herse, M. R., Jones, C. J., Gormley, A. M., Peltzer, D. A.,
Gon, S. M. ‘O., III, Winter, K. B., and Demotta, M. (2021). KUA-LAKO- Taura, Y., Timoti, P., Stone, C., Wilcox, M., and Moller, H. (2019a).
MO’O: a methodology for exploring Indigenous conceptualisations of Building biocultural approaches into Aotearoa – New Zealand’s conser-
nature and conservation in Hawai‘i. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, vation future. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49(3),
320–326. doi:10.1071/PC20020 394–411. doi:10.1080/03036758.2018.1539405
Griskevicius, V., and Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: how Lyver, P. O., Timoti, P., Davis, T., and Tylianakis, J. M. (2019b). Biocultural
evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology hysteresis inhibits adaptation to environmental change. Trends in Ecol-
23, 372–386. doi:10.1016/J.JCPS.2013.03.003 ogy and Evolution 34(9), 771–780. doi:10.1016/J.TREE.2019.04.002
Hamilton, R. W., Mittal, C., Shah, A., Thompson, D. V., and Griskevicius, MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of
V. (2019). How financial constraints influence consumer behavior: science: Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information
an integrative framework. Consumer Psychology 29, 285–305. Science and Technology 69(3), 474–482.
doi:10.1002/JCPY.1074 Martı́nez Cobo, J. (1982). Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against
Hanselmann, M., and Tanner, C. (2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision Indigenous Populations. Final Report Submitted to the United Nations.
making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/
Decision Making 3(1), 51–63. publications/martinez-cobo-study.html
Harmon, K. C., Winter, K. B., Kurashima, N., Fletcher, C. H., Kane, H. H., Masterson, V. A., Stedman, R. C., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl,
and Price, M. R. (2021). Indigenous practices expand waterbird habitat D., and Svedin, U. (2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-
under rising seas. Anthropocene 34, 100293. doi:10.1016/J.ANCENE. ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and
2021.100293 Society 22(1), 49. doi:10.5751/ES-08872-220149
Hartel, T., Scheele, B., Rozylowicz, L., Horcea-Milcu, A., and Cogalni- Mehta, R., and Zhu, M. (2016). Creating when you have less: the impact of
ceanu, D. (2020). The social context for conservation: Amphibians in resource scarcity on product use creativity. Consumer Research 42,
human shaped landscapes with high nature values. Nature Conservation 767–782. doi:10.1093/JCR/UCV051
53UNSP125762. doi:10.1016/J.JNC.2019.125762 Meyer, M. A. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and
He, T., Derfler-Rozin, R., and Pitesa, M. (2020). Financial vulnerability and the triangulation of meaning. Handbook of critical and Indigenous
the reproduction of disadvantage in economic exchanges. Applied methodologies, pp. 217–232. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage)
Psychology 105, 80–96. doi:10.1037/APL0000427 Meyer, M. A. (2013). Holographic epistemology: Native common sense.
Hurley, K. K. C., Sosa Kapur, M., Siple, M., Kotubetey, K., Kawelo, A. H., China Media Research 9(2), 94–101.
and Toonen, R. J. (2021). A codeveloped management tool to determine Negrón-Ortiz, V. (2014). Pattern of expenditures for plant conservation
harvest limits of introduced mud crabs, Scylla serrata (Forskål, 1775), under the Endangered Species Act. Biological Conservation 171, 36–43.
within a Native Hawaiian fishpond. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.01.018
418–431. doi:10.1071/PC20023 Norgaard, K. M., and Reed, R. (2017). Emotional impacts of environmental
Jackson, A.-M., Mita, N., and Hakopa, H. (2017). Hui-te-ana-nui: Under- decline: What can Native cosmologies teach sociology about emotions
standing kaitiakitanga in our marine environment. (National Science and environmental justice? Theory and Society 46, 463–495.
Challenge Sustainable Seas: Wellington.) doi:10.1007/S11186-017-9302-6
Johnstone, J. F., Allen, C. D., Franklin, J. F., Frelich, L. E., Harvey, B. J., Office of Hawaiian Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
Higuera, P. E., Mack, M. C., Meentemeyer, R. K., Metz, M. R., Perry, tion, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Hawai‘i. (2021). Mai
G. L. W., Schoennagel, T., and Turner, M. G. (2016). Changing Ka Pō Mai: A Native Hawaiian Guidance Document for Papahānaumo-
disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Frontiers kuākea Marine National Monument. Honolulu, HI: Office of Hawaiian
in Ecology and the Environment 14(7), 369–378. doi:10.1002/FEE.1311 Affairs.
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., Sato, A. Y., Giardina, C. P., Litton, C. M., Palmer, S., Mercier, O. R., and King-Hunt, A. (2021). Towards rangatir-
Ramavarapu, S., Hutchins, L., Wight, E. H., Clark, M., Cordell, S., atanga in pest management? Māori perspectives and frameworks on
Francisco, K. S., McMillen, H., Pascua, P., and Yogi, D. (2021). novel biotechnologies in conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 27,
Increasing conservation capacity by embracing ritual: kuahu as a portal 391–401. doi:10.1071/PC20014
to the sacred. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 327–336. doi:10.1071/ Paul, A., Rother, R., and Bwe Moo, S. S. (2021). Relational ontology and
PC20010 more-than-human agency in Indigenous Karen conservation practice.
Keppel, G., Van Niel, K. P., Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Yates, C. J., Byrne, M., Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 376–390. doi:10.1071/PC20016
Mucina, L., Schut, A. G. T., Hopper, S. D., and Franklin, S. E. (2012). Price, M. R., Forsman, Z. H., Knapp, I., Toonen, R. J., and Hadfield, M. G.
Refugia: Identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity (2021). Evolutionary genomics of endangered Hawaiian tree snails
under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21, 393–404. (Achatinellinae: Achatinellidae) for conservation of adaptive capacity.
doi:10.1111/J.1466-8238.2011.00686.X PeerJ 9, e10993. doi:10.7717/PEERJ.10993
Foreword Pacific Conservation Biology 319

Pukui, M. K. (1983). ‘Olelo No’eau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings Wehi, P. M., Wilson, D. J., Stone, C., Ricardo, H., Jones, C., Jakob-Hoff, R.,
(Vol. 71). Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu USA. and Lyver, P. O‘B. (2021). Managing for cultural harvest of a valued
Reihana, K. R., Wehi, P. M., Harcourt, N., Booth, P., Murray, J. M., and introduced species, the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) in Aotearoa New
Pomare-Pieta, M. (2021). Indigenisation of conservation education in Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 432–441. doi:10.1071/
New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 493–504. doi:10.1071/ PC20094
PC20060 Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., and West, P. C. (2002).
Sato, A. Y., Ticktin, T., Alapai, L., von Allmen, E. I., Brawner, W. P. I., Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent ‘‘Protection Para-
Carter, Y. Y., Carter, K. A., Keakealani, R. K., Medeiros, A. C., and digm’’ in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural
Zahawi, R. A. (2021). Biocultural restoration of Hawaiian tropical dry Resources 15, 17–40. doi:10.1080/089419202317174002
forests. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 362–375. doi:10.1071/ Winter, K. B., and McClatchey, W. (2008). Quantifying Evolution of
PC20084 Cultural Interactions with Plants: Implications for Managing Diversity
Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J., and Arcese, P. (2019). for Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Functional Ecosystems and
Vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Communities 2, 1–10.
Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environmental Science Winter, K. B., Beamer, K., Blaich Vaughan, M., Friedlander, A. M., Kido,
and Policy 101, 1–6. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.07.002 M., Whitehead, A. N., Akutagawa, M. K. H., Kurashima, N., Lucas,
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., and Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences M. P., and Nyberg, B. (2018a). The Moku System: Managing biocultural
of having too little. Science 338, 682–685. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE. resources for abundance within social-ecological regions in Hawai‘i.
1222426 Sustainability 10(10), 3554. doi:10.3390/SU10103554
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous Winter, K. B., Lincoln, N. K., and Berkes, F. (2018b). The Social-Ecological
peoples. (University of Otago Press: Dunedin.) Keystone Concept: A metaphor for understanding the structure and
Soulé, M. (1985). What is Conservation Biology? BioScience 35(11), function of a biocultural system. Sustainability 10(9), 3294. doi:10.3390/
727–734. doi:10.2307/1310054 SU10093294
Stillman, P. E., Fujita, K., Sheldon, O., and Trope, Y. (2018). From ‘‘me’’ to Winter, K. B., Alegado, R., Bowen, B., Bremer, L., Coffman, M., Cypher,
‘‘we’’: The role of construal level in promoting maximized joint out- M., Deenik, J., Donahue, M., Falinski, K., Frank, K., Franklin, E.,
comes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 147, Hewitt, A., Hintzen, K., Kaluhiwa, R., Kawelo, A. H., Kekuewa, K.,
16–25. doi:10.1016/J.OBHDP.2018.05.004 Kotubetey, K., Kukea-Shultz, K., Kurashima, N., Lee, T., Leong, J.,
Tambosi, L. R., Martensen, A. C., Ribeiro, M. C., and Metzger, J. P. (2014). Lincoln, N., Madin, E., McManus, M., Neilson, B., Nelson, C., Okano,
A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on R., Olegario, A., Oleson, K., Pascua, P., Price, M. R., Reppun, F., Rii, Y.,
habitat amount and landscape connectivity. Restoration Ecology Rivera, M. A., Rodgers, K., Sabine, C., Smith, C., Thomas, B., Ticktin,
22(2), 169–177. doi:10.1111/REC.12049 T., and Toonen, R. J. (2020a). Resolving pathways towards sustainable
Uchida, K., and Kamura, K. (2020). Traditional ecological knowledge futures: A research framework for the He‘eia National Estuarine
maintains useful plant diversity in semi-natural grasslands in the Research Reserve. Ecology and Society 25(4), 15. doi:10.5751/ES-
Kiso region, Japan. Environmental Management 65(4), 478–489. 11895-250415
doi:10.1007/S00267-020-01255-Y Winter, K. B., Lincoln, N., Berkes, F., Kawelo, A. H., Kotubetey, K., Kukea-
United Nations (2009). State of the world’s Indigenous peoples. (United Shultz, K., Alegado, R., Kurashima, N., Frank, K., Pascua, P., Rii, Y.,
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York.) Reppun, F., Knapp, I., McClatchey, W., Ticktin, T., Smith, C., Franklin,
Van Looy, K., Tonkin, J. D., Floury, M., Leigh, C., Soininen, J., Larsen, S., E., Oleson, K., Price, M. R., McManus, M., Donahue, M., Rodgers, K.,
Heino, J., Poff, N. L., Delong, M., Jähnig, S. C., Datry, T., Bonada, N., Bowen, B., Nelson, C., Neilson, B., Thomas, B., Leong, J., Madin, E.,
Rosebery, J., Jamoneau, A., Ormerod, S. J., Collier, K. J., and Wolter, C. Rivera, M. A., Falinski, K., Bremer, L., Deenik, J., Gon, S., III, Okano,
(2019). The three Rs of river ecosystem resilience: Resources, recruit- R., Olegario, A., and Toonen, R. J. (2020b). Ecomimicry in Indigenous
ment, and refugia. River Research and Applications 35(2), 107–120. resource management: Optimizing ecosystem services to achieve
doi:10.1002/RRA.3396 resource abundance in Hawai‘i. Ecology and Society 25(2), 26.
Von der Porten, S., Ota, Y., Cisneros-Montemayor, A., and Pictou, S. (2019). doi:10.5751/ES-11539-250226
The role of Indigenous resurgence in marine conservation. Coastal Winter, K. B., Blaich Vaughan, M., Kurashima, N., Giardina, C., Quiocho,
Management 47(6), 527–547. doi:10.1080/08920753.2019.1669099 K., Chang, K., Akutagawa, M., Beamer, K., and Berkes, F. (2021).
Waitangi Tribunal. (2011). Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Empowering Indigenous agency through community-driven collabora-
Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture tive management to achieve effective conservation: Hawai‘i as an
and Identity. (WAI 262) (Vol. Te Taumata Tuatahi Volume 1). Welling- example. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 337–344. doi:10.1071/
ton: Legislation Direct. PC20009

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/pcb