Kokroko 1

Traditional Ecological Knowledge & Ecological Resilience Theory:

A Comparative Study of Ontological, Epistemological, and Ethical

Issues

By Kenneth Joseph Kokroko

6 October 2012

“Traditional Ecological Knowledge [is] a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes et al., 2000, p. 1252).

“Resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist” (Holling, 2009, p. 41).

Introduction

With the goal of conducting a comparative study between the

theoretical foundations of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

and those of a conventionally Western knowledge system, several

considerations have guided my selection of Ecological Resilience

Kokroko 2

Theory (ERT) as a field for comparison. I believe that in order

to generate a meaningful and relevant research study, based on

literary review, it is important that the field with which

Traditional Ecological Knowledge will be compared should display

both qualities of similarity and difference in terms of the core

components of TEK. The ability to analyze a range of agreement

and discord between TEK and ERT as knowledge systems, based on

the ontological, epistemological, and ethical characteristics

which underlie their “real world” application, will serve as a

foundation upon which the analyses and discussions given in

subsequent essays will be built. To begin, however, a relevant

understanding of TEK and ERT as knowledge systems must be

informed by insightful consideration and comparison of several

core tenets of these sciences.

The similarities and differences between Traditional

Ecological Knowledge and Ecological Resilience Theory,

highlighted and evaluated in this essay, are drawn from a series

of statements which have been accepted as generally defining and

characteristic components of TEK (Trosper & Parrotta, 2012, table

1.1). As each statement may express ontological, epistemological,

Kokroko 3

ethical, economical, and political qualities, or an admixture of

several such traits, this essay will refer to many of these

statements as points of comparison. In their work exploring the

growing relevance of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge, from

which the previously mentioned statements arise, Trosper and

Parrotta (2012) have already and eloquently described, in some

detail, the relationships between TEK and a variety of what might

be termed “formal” ecological sciences (pp. 9-17). This essay

will elaborate upon that previous and important work by focusing

on and describing in detail the ontological, epistemological, and

ethical relationships of ERT to certain of the aforementioned

statements defining TEK.

Before summarizing, the similarities and differences between

core components of TEK and ERT as knowledge systems, it is

necessary to highlight three specific comparisons of interest

which will be included in herein and will guide subsequent

essays. First, from the ontological perspective, the notion that

change and emergence are to be expected at multiple scales is

both striking and intriguing as it is an assertion strongly

emphasized in TEK and ERT literature. Second is the

Kokroko 4

epistemological statement that training should focus on

development of the capacity to learn and recognize new

situations. As this idea is essential to the design and

implementation of management systems malleable enough to absorb

the aforementioned change, this similarity is indeed notable.

Finally, from the ethical framework underlying the recognition of

change and emergence at differing scales and the considerable

emphasis on adaptive learning as components of both TEK and ERT,

the idea that humility should be used in the application of

current knowledge is certainly deserving of additional

exploration. It should be noted that I have classified each of

these three statements as areas of accordance between TEK and

ERT. Their expressions as essential components of each science

will serve as a means for developing a nuanced understanding of

these knowledge systems as they compare to one another and are

applied in the field.

What follows is a descriptive outline of the remainder of

the paper and will provide citations to the references which have

guided my research. Beginning with an analysis of ontological

issues in TEK and how, or if, they are addressed in ERT, I will

Kokroko 5

first discuss the notion that humans are part of the ecological

system and that there is no human/nature division. The scholarly

work of Berkes et al. (2002), Folke (2006), and Trosper (2003)

will be drawn upon to support my assertions. Following

accordingly, a discussion of the differing positions TEK and ERT

take on the idea that nonhumans have consciousness will be

anchored by a review of the work Nadasdy (2007), and Pierotti

(2011) have produced on the subject. Rounding out the section,

the concept that change and emergence should be expected at

multiple scales will be described as an influential area of

agreement between the two fields. The analysis will incorporate

the writings of Colding, Folke and Elmqvist (2003), C.S. Holling

(2009), and Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (2003). In the proceeding

section, epistemological comparisons between TEK and ERT will be

made beginning appropriately with a discussion concerning doubts

about the generality of knowledge; C.S. Holling (2009), Vayda and

McCay (1975), and others will provide insight. C.S. Holling

(2009), Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (2003), will again be referred

to as the assertion that the history of a place is important is

examined. The section will conclude with a review of the

Kokroko 6

similarities between the two fields as they relate to the

suggestion that training should focus on the development of the

capacity to learn and recognize new situations. The ERT

perspective will be represented by C.S. Holling (2009) and Folke

(2006). The final comparative section of the essay will address

ethical relationships between ERT and TEK and will begin with an

examination of the notion that stewardship of the land is

paramount; Trosper (2003) and others will guide the discussion.

Following that, Folke et al. (2002 will contribute to my analysis

of the suggestion that humility should be used in the application

of current knowledge. The section will conclude with analysis of

an assertion not validated by ERT but expounded in TEK literature

as the idea that reciprocity governs human-prey relationships

will be examined; Nadasdy (2007) and will offer insight.

Ontological Comparisons

This section will describe and analyze positions of

similarity and difference the sciences of TEK and ERT take in

terms of their approaches toward the ontological matters

underlying each field. As ontology refers to the fundamental

Kokroko 7

characteristics of being and includes topics such as the place of

humans in nature, the connectedness of things, and how humans

categorize and assign value to such things, ontological issues

may be thought of as crucial to the development of a given

knowledge system.

In terms of the assertion that humans are part of the

ecological system and that no human/nature division exists, both

TEK and ERT hold positions of agreement. In fact, one example of

the strong accord between the two sciences comes from the

collaborative work of scholars who hold interdisciplinary

interests in each field. As Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (2002) state

in commenting on the ontology of ERT, “a human-in-ecosystem model

is an important first step, as models are the means by which

humans translate perceptions into information, knowledge, and

institutions” (p. 59). This comment has significant implications

for the ontological foundations of ERT as a Western science, and

its relationship to TEK, as the authors further assert that,

“such models will exhibit similarities to many of those

constructed by non-Western societies” (p. 59). Following this

Kokroko 8

logic, Folke (2006) maintains that the division of “social and

ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary” (p. 261-2).

Representing the TEK perspective, Trosper (2003) adds that

in his studies of resilience in the pre-contact Pacific

Northwest, “humans are assumed to be part of the ecosystem and a

potential source of variability” (n.p.). This last point is of

note as ERT developed in response to the mainstream exclusion of

humans as actors in the dynamics of ecosystems and limited their

influence in discussions regarding the ability of ecosystems to

provide services and natural resources (Folke, 2006, p. 262).

Thus, the literature suggests that the ontological assertion that

humans are indeed part of nature was, to some degree,

appropriated from TEK and accepted by Ecological Resilience

Theory as the science sought to explain phenomena within a given

system yet could not do so by following the assumption that human

impacts are external. The importance of establishing accordance

between TEK and ERT on this ontological issue cannot be

overstated as it has ramifications for their bilateral

application in ecosystem management policy and planning.

Kokroko 9

One ontological issue on which TEK and ERT take differing

positions is the statement that nonhumans have consciousness. In

conducting research on the fundamental characteristics of ERT, I

found no mention of a stance on this matter and so reason, in

line with the legal concept inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, that ERT

gives no credence to the statement. In his work detailing the

ontological assumptions concerning animal consciousness and

human/prey reciprocity held by indigenous hunters in subarctic

Canada, Nadasdy (2007) affirms my suspicions: “Very few Euro-

American scholars are willing to accept the proposition that

animals might qualify as conscious actors capable of engaging in

social relations with humans” (p. 29). Pierotti (2011) further

highlights the tendency of Western sciences to discredit the idea

of nonhuman cognition or consciousness in his discussion of the

rise of sociobiology in the mid-1970s and its “fundamental

assumption that animals functioned as genetically programmed

machines, whose sole purpose was to simply struggle for

reproductive advantage in natural selection” (p. 120).

The literature from the TEK perspective, however, is rich

with discussions regarding the consciousness of nonhumans and

Kokroko 10

includes exploration of the sentience of objects considered

inanimate by most Western definitions (see Stoffle and Arnold,

2003). Pierotti (2011) elaborates on the importance of the

concept of nonhuman consciousness, as well as cultural tradition,

by asserting that for many holders of Traditional Ecological

Knowledge, “it is assumed that animals have the ability of

cognition,” and that such knowledge guides their abilities to

locate food sources or effectively hunt (p. 89). Nadasdy (2007)

sums up the TEK perspective by contending that nonhumans

“participate as real-world creatures, endowed with powers of

feeling and autonomous action, whose characteristic behaviors,

temperaments and sensibilities one gets to know in the very

course of one’s everyday practical dealings with them” (p. 32).

As will be discussed in depth later, but is relevant at this

point, the ways the consciousness of nonhumans is perceived by

holders of TEK has influence on ecosystem management practices at

the local level, and as Pierotti (2011) claims, has potential to

generate new ways of problem solving at a global scale (p. 90).

In my research on the ontology of Ecological Resilience

Theory, no theme arose more often or in greater accordance with

Kokroko 11

the fundamental components of TEK than did the concept that

change and emergence should be expected to arise at multiple

scales. A key change that ERT addresses as fundamental in the

cycles of proper ecosystem function is disturbance. To this end,

Colding et al. (2003) maintain that “disturbance is key for

ecosystem renewal and thereby ecosystem resilience. Disturbances

are a natural part of the development of many ecosystems and

their renewal capacity depends on disturbance” (p. 28). I have

surmised that ERT’s willingness to embrace, and in fact,

contextually promote disturbance at a variety of scales in

ecosystem management, contrasts significantly with many

management practices that characterize conventional ecological

perspectives. This is evidenced by Berekes (2012) who states that

“our conventional conservation blueprint excludes disturbance,

and aims for unperturbed, stable systems in a state of

equilibrium,” and continues, “such an approach largely fails” (p.

205).

Much like ERT disagrees with the conventional and

equilibrium-centered focus of ecological management as is

practiced under the conventional understanding of ecology,

Kokroko 12

holders of TEK recognize the value of disturbance and its

capacity to shift equilibriums and thus continue the evolution of

natural systems. Berekes (2012) again offers insight by

describing some indigenous management systems as practicing

small-scale perturbations which are underlain by obligations of

reciprocity and socially enforced ethics which are in turn

express through cultural ritual (p. 205). Though at times,

disturbance is ushered in by the holders of TEK in order to

effectively manage their lands, natural and unexpected

disturbances can often present real threats to the livelihoods of

people who otherwise welcome their presence. This can be seen in

the case of the salmon peoples of the Pacific Northwest who

historically depended heavily on the fish for sustenance and

cultural wellbeing. As Trosper (2002) notes, in the event of a

dramatic disturbance, such as the failure of a salmon run,

reciprocity, contingent proprietorship, and the roles of chiefs

all represented social constructs developed in part to mitigate

the effects of ecosystem disturbances (p. 304). According to

Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (2002), the concept of resilience could

also be applied to societies as processes developed which allowed

Kokroko 13

individuals, households, and larger groups to effectively respond

to disturbances and survive (p. 60).

Epistemological Comparisons

As might be assumed when comparing Traditional Ecological

Knowledge with a Western science or knowledge system such as

Ecological Resilience Theory, many competing epistemological

issues are sure to arise. I have found this perception to be in

some ways mistaken. This section will describe and analyze

positions of accord and disaccord between the sciences of TEK and

ERT in terms of their approaches toward the epistemological

matters characterizing the two knowledge systems. These

considerations are of importance in a comparative study such as

this as epistemology describes the characteristics of acquiring

and applying knowledge, the ways of learning, and the definitions

of truth.

Appropriately, the notion that doubts exist about the

generality of knowledge as a core component of TEK will first be

discussed. Because ERT is derived from the science of ecology, it

can be said that its epistemological structure is one of

Kokroko 14

generality as ecology is practiced as a science rooted in

empiricism and the scientific method and can therefore be

understood and applied universally. The very development of ERT

as a knowledge system, however, challenges this notion as it is

founded on the rejection of the conventional and ecologically

universal idea of equilibrium-centered systems, and that “flowing

from this would be not the presumption of sufficient knowledge,

but the recognition of our ignorance” (Holling, 2009, p.47).

According to the theoretical founder of ERT, C. S. Holling

(2009), ecological management based on resilience should keep

options for understanding open and emphasize heterogeneity while

maintaining the need to view events in a regional rather than

specific context (p. 46-7). This last point about regional versus

local seems to be at odds with TEK’s focus on place, but can be

explained by the assertion in ERT that in the absence of

resilience, entire landscapes can be affected as “an ecosystem

may not be capable of absorbing [a] disturbance and might

consequently shift into another less desirable stability domain,”

and thus causing regional impacts (Colding et al., 2003, p. 29).

Trosper (2003) adds to the discussion of the generality of

Kokroko 15

knowledge by maintaining that though fish biology and the

evolutionary effects of management practices would have been

common knowledge in the pre-contact Pacific Northwest, the social

structure which granted titleholders authority assumed that such

leaders privately held secret and special knowledge as well as

spiritual power (n.p.).

In the literature from TEK and ERT it seems that both fields

agree on the epistemological aspect of the idea that the history

of a place matters. Though much more evident in the study of

Social-Ecological Systems than in ERT, notions from the latter

that resilience absorbs and buffers change, or in extreme

circumstances allows for reorganization and the emergence of a

new system, certainly take history into account. By realizing the

value in the TEK perspective that people have attachments to

their lands and that people are part of nature, Davidson-Hunt and

Berkes (2002) describe social history as relevant in that it

offers explanations for why landscapes appear the ways they do.

They elaborate on this point and establish accordance between ERT

and TEK, by proclaiming that the former developed as ecologists’

attention to history challenged the paradigm of climax and

Kokroko 16

singular stable state equilibrium by revealing cyclical and

multiple-state equilibria across landscapes (p. 59). Again,

examples from the Pacific Northwest have relevance as the

succession processes that established the authority of a new

titleholder in a given house required that the prospective leader

demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the founding and history of

the house as a requisite for inheritance. This process of title

and authority conveyance can be thought of as more than a social

formality for it had tangible implications for ecosystem

management as titleholders implemented policy and practice as

part of their duties to supply resources for their houses and

other titleholders. (Trosper, 2003, n.p.).

The final epistemological issue, and another area of

agreement between TEK and ERT, deals with how knowledge is

acquired in each system. Like TEK, literature form ERT seems to

indicate that training should focus on the development of

capacity to learn and recognize new situations. The relevance of

this epistemological assertion is that as change and emergence

are fundamental aspects of the ontology of each science, the two

have contoured their very means of knowledge acquisition to

Kokroko 17

respect and incorporate that notion. Folke (2006) stresses this

as he describes training in ERT as one approach that highlights

interdisciplinary collaboration in order to produce integrative

science that has bearing on the issues driving the development of

sustainable policy and planning in the face of change and

challenges (p. 260).

Ethical Comparisons

This section will address three issues concerning the

ethical foundations of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and how

Ecological Resilience Theory compares. The issues of interest

discussed herein deal with the responsibilities humans have to

their societies and environments and what factors drive their

behaviors as they relate to the management of ecosystems. The

ethical underpinnings of many core components of TEK account for

the emphasis of reciprocity and humility in the knowledge system.

Although ERT seems to be less concerned with defining its ethical

responsibilities, there are certainly aspects of its development

and worldview that address ethical issues.

Kokroko 18

It seems appropriate to transition from epistemological to

ethical issues by first discussing the use of humility in

applying current knowledge. Following Holling (2009), ERT has

developed as a science that seeks not to control ecological

systems in order to prevent change and disturbances, but instead

focuses on accepting the inevitability of change and

understanding its importance as a function of ecological cycles.

In this sense, those working from the ERT perspective recognize

and embrace their lack of control over a given system while

seeking to work within its framework to implement practices

capable of absorbing and accommodating the disturbances that do

arise (p. 46-7). This may not have overtly obvious ethical

intentions, but the shift in ERT from the generalization that

conventional ecological management practices work best and can be

applied broadly indicates a theoretical willingness to develop

management that allows a system to function on its own terms.

This perspective also incorporates the social sphere, and by

proxy ethical considerations, as Folke et al. (2002) suggest that

the motivations driving the management of an ecosystem have the

potential to build or destroy resilience (p. 438). Thus,

Kokroko 19

communities seeking management derived from resilience concepts

must balance their needs and ecosystem-related economic

considerations with their responsibilities to their lands and

notions of what should or should not be done. Trosper (2003)

offers further insight into the roles social processes and

ethical obligations play in the application of knowledge by

describing the human-in-ecosystem perspective as necessitating

that humans display proper behavior with regard to management

practices as this was a requirement of preserving and enhancing

the health of a given ecosystem (n. p.). The true humility in

management based on ERT is that it is inherently flexible and

seeks to respond to the needs of the system rather than forcing

the system to function within rigid and predetermined parameters.

As Folke et al. (2002) put it, such flexibility, or humility,

“attends to slowly changing, fundamental variables that create

memory, legacy, diversity, and the capacity to innovate in both

social and ecological components of the system” (p. 438).

The idea of using humility in the application of knowledge

segues nicely into an exploration of the assertion in TEK

literature that stewardship of the land is paramount. The

Kokroko 20

literature from ERT on this subject does not explicitly expound

this idea, yet it is clear that it underlies the science’s

theoretical foundation. Following Gunderson and Pritchard, Folke

et al. (2002) recognize the negative impacts of mismanagement and

call for stewardship by describing unrestrained resource use,

such as over fishing or planning that causes soil erosion, as

human derived forces that are capable of shifting ecosystem

states to less desirable ones that affect human livelihoods and

societies (p. 257). In light of this commentary, we see that

those in the field of ERT are seeking to manage ecosystems from a

position that considers what is best for the land and the

processes that shape it before the pocket book. This in turn, has

ethical implications as management and development built around

stewardship may have the potential to bring positive economic

development to communities who make livings from their lands.

These ideas are in agreement with the ethical responsibilities

guiding ecosystem management for some holders of TEK.

Despite the great deal of agreement between TEK and ERT on

several ethical issues, it seems as though one guiding belief,

that reciprocity governs human/prey relationships, is not such an

Kokroko 21

area of accord. Nadasdy (2007) sums up the TEK perspective

stating that hunting is viewed as, “a long-term term relationship

of reciprocal exchange between animals and the humans who hunt

them” (p. 25). Indeed, there are many more scholars who note the

influential role of ethical considerations on the practices of

hunting from the TEK perspective (see Berkes, 2012; Pierotti,

2011, and Trosper 2002). Nadasdy (2007) unveils the ethics that

accompany the human/prey relationship by describing hunters as

obligated to fulfill certain ritual duties to the animals they

kill or otherwise face retribution from the spirit of an offended

animal (p. 28). The lack of information on this subject from the

ERT literature is not surprising because even though it has been

shown that there are many similarities which ERT and TEK share,

it seems that a science very much rooted in Western modes of

thinking would certainly be troubled when pressed to consider or

accept “animals as intelligent beings with agency of their own

who might be active participants in their relationships with

humans” (Nadasdy, 2007, p. 30).

Conclusion

Kokroko 22

This essay has discussed and described many similarities,

and some differences, between the knowledge systems of Ecological

Resilience Theory and Traditional Ecological Knowledge. These

ontological, epistemological, and ethical comparisons have

provided insight into the worldviews of each science and will

guide understanding of their application in the real world.

Furthermore, describing the agreeing positions each field holds

regarding a variety of issues will also aid exploration of the

possible application of these knowledge systems in future

ecosystem management applications. Having established a framework

of understanding that addresses the basic characteristics and

assumptions of TEK and ERT, these tasks can now be wholeheartedly

undertaken as two essays succeed this paper and seek to offer

deeper analysis of these knowledge systems in action and will

evaluate their impacts in management of specific ecosystems.

References

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of

traditional ecological knowledge as

Kokroko 23

adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-

1262. www.esajournals.org

Colding, J., Folke, C., & Elmqvist, T. (2003). Social

institutions in ecosystem management and

biodiversity conservation. Tropical Ecology, 44(1), 25-42.

Print.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J., & Berkes, F. (2002). Nature and society

through the lens of resilience:

Toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In F. Berkes, J.

Colding, C. Folke (Eds.)

Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and

change. (pp.

53-82). Retrieved from www.library.arizona.edu

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for

social–ecological systems

analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.

Retrieved from

www.library.arizona.edu

Kokroko 24

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling,

C.S., & Walker, B. (2002).

Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive

capacity in a world of

transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437-440. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org

Holling, C.S., (2009). Resilience and stability of ecological

systems. In L.H. Gunderson, C.R.

Allen, & C.S. Holling (Eds.) Foundations of ecological resilience

(pp. 19-49). Retrieved from

www.library.arizona.edu

Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: The ontology of

hunting and human-animal sociality.

American Ethnologist, 34(10), 25-43. DOI:

10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25 Retrieved from

www.library.arizona.edu

Trosper, R.L. (2002). Northwest coast indigenous institutions

that supported resilience and

Kokroko 25

sustainability. Ecological Economics, 41, 329-244. Retrieved

from www.library.arizona.edu

Trosper, R.L. (2003). Resilience in pre-contact Pacific Northwest

social ecological systems.

Conservation Ecology, 7(3), n. pag. Retrieved from

www.consecol.org

Trosper, R.L., & Parrotta, J.A. (2012). The growing importance of

traditional forest-related

knowledge. In J.A. Parrotta, & R.L. Trosper (Eds.) Traditional

forest knowledge: Sustaining

communities, ecosystems, and biocultural diversity. (pp. 1-36). Retrieved

from

www.library.arizona.edu

Vayda, A.P., & McCay, B.J. (1975). New directions in ecology and

ecological anthropology.

Retrieved from www.annualreviews.org 1 Oct. 2012.

Kokroko 26