A nature-based solutions assessment framework integrating indigenous biocultural and ecosystem services perspectives: An Australian example

IF 7 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Kamaljit K. Sangha , Ronju Ahammad , Jeremy Russell-Smith , Leigh-Ann Wolley , ASRAC Aboriginal Corporation , Mimal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation , Djabuguy Aboriginal Corporation
{"title":"A nature-based solutions assessment framework integrating indigenous biocultural and ecosystem services perspectives: An Australian example","authors":"Kamaljit K. Sangha ,&nbsp;Ronju Ahammad ,&nbsp;Jeremy Russell-Smith ,&nbsp;Leigh-Ann Wolley ,&nbsp;ASRAC Aboriginal Corporation ,&nbsp;Mimal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation ,&nbsp;Djabuguy Aboriginal Corporation","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Assessing ecosystem services (ES) indicators has become vital to measuring the condition of ecosystems and their benefits, and informing policy and businesses for appropriate conservation and investment decisions. However, the ES indicators depending on ecosystem type, and the tools and measures developed to date mostly consider ecological attributes with little relevance to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) contexts. Here, together with Australian Indigenous community participants, we assess and co-develop an integrated set of ecological and socio-cultural indicators, and associated assessment tools. We reviewed relevant global literature and conducted focus group meetings with three Indigenous groups, representing Traditional (Land) Owners, senior community members and rangers in northern Australia. Our literature review identified 30 ES indicators and associated assessment tools, addressing provisioning, regulating, biodiversity and cultural services, primarily across the forest, agriculture, wetland and grassland ecosystems. Largely, biodiversity and regulating services encompassed ecological indicators rather than provisioning and cultural services. Notably, the IPLC context was not captured within the reviewed literature on indicator frameworks. The results from focus group discussions with Indigenous participants addressed this gap, describing 16 appropriate indicators (and associated measurement tools) for assessing Indigenous people’s socio-cultural, ecological and economic experiences and aspirations. The proposed bottom-up, integrated biophysical and bio-cultural indicator framework empowers local communities and is useful for informing practitioners and emerging incentivising/Payment for ES schemes. Our conceptual framework is generic to adapt to any local context, and offers potential application in evolving Nature-based Solutions markets and for informing socio-economic, natural resource use management, and policy-related IPLC contexts in Australia and globally.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11459,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Indicators","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 113230"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25001591","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing ecosystem services (ES) indicators has become vital to measuring the condition of ecosystems and their benefits, and informing policy and businesses for appropriate conservation and investment decisions. However, the ES indicators depending on ecosystem type, and the tools and measures developed to date mostly consider ecological attributes with little relevance to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) contexts. Here, together with Australian Indigenous community participants, we assess and co-develop an integrated set of ecological and socio-cultural indicators, and associated assessment tools. We reviewed relevant global literature and conducted focus group meetings with three Indigenous groups, representing Traditional (Land) Owners, senior community members and rangers in northern Australia. Our literature review identified 30 ES indicators and associated assessment tools, addressing provisioning, regulating, biodiversity and cultural services, primarily across the forest, agriculture, wetland and grassland ecosystems. Largely, biodiversity and regulating services encompassed ecological indicators rather than provisioning and cultural services. Notably, the IPLC context was not captured within the reviewed literature on indicator frameworks. The results from focus group discussions with Indigenous participants addressed this gap, describing 16 appropriate indicators (and associated measurement tools) for assessing Indigenous people’s socio-cultural, ecological and economic experiences and aspirations. The proposed bottom-up, integrated biophysical and bio-cultural indicator framework empowers local communities and is useful for informing practitioners and emerging incentivising/Payment for ES schemes. Our conceptual framework is generic to adapt to any local context, and offers potential application in evolving Nature-based Solutions markets and for informing socio-economic, natural resource use management, and policy-related IPLC contexts in Australia and globally.
评估生态系统服务 (ES) 指标对于衡量生态系统状况及其效益、为政策和企业提供信息以做出适当的保护和投资决策至关重要。然而,生态系统服务指标取决于生态系统类型,而且迄今为止开发的工具和测量方法大多考虑生态属性,与土著人民和当地社区 (IPLC) 的情况几乎没有关联。在此,我们与澳大利亚土著社区参与者一起,评估并共同开发了一套综合生态和社会文化指标及相关评估工具。我们查阅了全球相关文献,并与澳大利亚北部代表传统(土地)所有者、资深社区成员和护林员的三个土著群体举行了焦点小组会议。我们的文献综述确定了 30 项环境服务指标和相关评估工具,主要涉及森林、农业、湿地和草原生态系统的供应、调节、生物多样性和文化服务。生物多样性和调节服务主要包括生态指标,而非供给和文化服务。值得注意的是,经审查的有关指标框架的文献中并未涉及 IPLC 的情况。与土著参与者进行的焦点小组讨论的结果弥补了这一空白,描述了 16 个适当的指标(及相关测量工具),用于评估土著人民的社会文化、生态和经济经验及愿望。建议的自下而上、综合生物物理和生物文化指标框架可增强当地社区的能力,并有助于为从业人员和新出现的激励/环境服务付费计划提供信息。我们的概念框架具有通用性,可适应任何当地环境,并有可能应用于不断发展的基于自然的解决方案市场,为澳大利亚和全球的社会经济、自然资源利用管理以及与 IPLC 相关的政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Indicators
Ecological Indicators 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1163
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: The ultimate aim of Ecological Indicators is to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. The journal provides a forum for the discussion of the applied scientific development and review of traditional indicator approaches as well as for theoretical, modelling and quantitative applications such as index development. Research into the following areas will be published. • All aspects of ecological and environmental indicators and indices. • New indicators, and new approaches and methods for indicator development, testing and use. • Development and modelling of indices, e.g. application of indicator suites across multiple scales and resources. • Analysis and research of resource, system- and scale-specific indicators. • Methods for integration of social and other valuation metrics for the production of scientifically rigorous and politically-relevant assessments using indicator-based monitoring and assessment programs. • How research indicators can be transformed into direct application for management purposes. • Broader assessment objectives and methods, e.g. biodiversity, biological integrity, and sustainability, through the use of indicators. • Resource-specific indicators such as landscape, agroecosystems, forests, wetlands, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信