Incorporating Local Expertise into Environmental Research and Management

This article is for researchers, government staff, land planners, and natural resource managers. In this paper, we will outline why incorporating local expertise works to scale down national or regional research to make it more useful for local communities. We will also provide examples of how a community’s knowledge about their local ecosystem, referred to as local ecological knowledge (LEK), can fill data gaps and contribute to improved land and wildlife management.

The Value of Recognizing Multiple Ways of Knowing

Just as biodiversity increases the resilience of an ecosystem, including diverse perspectives and ways of knowing in decision-making can result in a more comprehensive understanding of an issue.^1,2 The environmental challenges facing communities in the Southeast United States are complex and include interactions between many social and ecological systems. To deal with the complexity of current threats facing human and natural communities, traditional scientists and managers should strive to incorporate multiple types of knowledge into their work. There are many types of knowledge within a community related to ecology and natural resource management.³ Local ecological knowledge (LEK) refers to the site-specific knowledge of a group of people that includes expertise about plants and animals, or about how plants, animals, and people interact with their environment, which may be a mix of scientific and practical knowledge and can contain a belief component.^3,4 For natural resources managers, LEK may be based on both traditional scientific understanding in combination with lived experiences and observations. Additional forms of LEK may be based more on experiential ecological knowledge, such as LEK derived from natural resource use and wildlife harvest. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is a form of LEK that includes knowledge, practices, and beliefs passed down through many generations by cultural transmission and usually has historical and cultural dimensions^,.⁵ The term TEK is often used when referring to knowledge of indigenous communities. Raymond et al. (2010) differentiates LEK from TEK based on the fact that LEK “has been derived from more recent human-environment interactions rather than being embedded in deeper cultural practices.” Including LEK and TEK in the co-production of knowledge can help to secure buy-in from stakeholders, increasing the likelihood of successful project implementation. This is one of the reasons why more inclusive decision-making and collaboration among researchers, stakeholders, and local governments are increasingly required by funding agencies.

From the United Nations to local municipalities, incorporating local ecological knowledge with traditional Western science is occurring at all decision-making scales. UNESCO describes the integration of scientific, indigenous, and local knowledge as complementary “by virtue of their differences in temporal and spatial scale, qualitative vs quantitative nature, or holistic vs specialized character” and has an entire program, the Local and Indigenous Knowledge System (LINKS) program, dedicated to promoting inclusion of LEK into global climate science and policy.⁶ The White House Office of Science and Technical Policy and Council on Environmental Quality produced a memorandum and guidance document recognizing the “understanding that multiple ways of knowing or lines of evidence can make for better-informed decision making” and assisting federal agencies with “pursuing and promoting Indigenous Knowledge in Federal scientific and policy decisions.”⁷ As a result, most federal environmental agencies, like the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US National Park Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Forest Service, have ongoing projects incorporating LEK and TEK into research or management.

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Types of Community Knowledge that Can Inform Natural Resource Management (Adapted from a Table of Definitions of Knowledge within the Environmental Management Literature by Raymond et al. 2001 and from Figures from Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005).

Co-developing Locally Appropriate Management Strategies

Engaging local communities or stakeholders collaboratively throughout the research process, often called participatory or collaborative research, can provide multiple benefits to a project by contributing new and locally specific data and by facilitating mutual learning and commitment around a management issue.⁸ Participatory mapping is a common method used in collaborative research to collect local knowledge on ecological and social values which has proven valuable in natural resource planning around the globe. In Australia and India, LEK is used in marine spatial planning to engage stakeholders in determining appropriate locations for Marine Protected Areas.^9,10 In coastal Louisiana, LEK has been successfully used to co-develop coastal restoration modeling, where transdisciplinary teams collected qualitative local knowledge and transformed it into GIS maps that can be more easily incorporated with traditional decision support tools.^11,12 The project team in Louisiana included a wide range of expertise from physical and social scientists, remote sensing and data analysis experts, local community-engagement specialists, state resource managers, and local fishers, trappers, and hunters. ¹² In another effort to refine generic, large-scale, base datasets to meet the needs of local community planners better, the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe identified and mapped local risk factors to climate change based on their unique TEK. Researchers used these maps along with traditional models to inform local adaptation planning, which resulted in improved local adoption of new management practices.¹³ This form of targeted stakeholder engagement and co-development of restoration planning helps to facilitate communication between scientists, decision-makers, and local experts.

Filling Data Gaps

Incorporating LEK into projects can provide information on data-poor species, habitats, and systems. Using LEK may be especially helpful when information is needed on cryptic species, remote ecosystems, or areas not easily accessible to researchers. In South Carolina, researchers used LEK collected during field visits with nine local experts to uncover forty-four previously unmapped isolated wetlands.¹⁴ This interdisciplinary research project combined LEK with remote sensing data, utilizing local expertise to find wetlands that were undetectable using remote imagery, due to tree cover and mountainous terrain. Collaboration between remote sensing and wetland scientists with State Parks service staff, Department of Natural Resources staff, naturalists, and private landowners produced new data at a resolution that was beneficial to conservation planning.¹⁴ Community Science, another form of participatory research that involves local residents in data collection, has been successfully used to combine LEK and observational data collection in remote ecosystems.¹⁵ For example, the Lion Guardians program collects data from traditional Maasai warriors in Africa trained as community scientists, combining their LEK and tracking expertise with direct observations of lions.¹⁶ As a result of engaging with the LEK holders, the quality and quantity of lion population data included in the study improved. In the US, community-based forestry organizations have been involved in community science projects to train LEK holders to collect forest monitoring data and collaboratively produce forest assessments and technical reports.¹⁷ LEK may provide the most insights when engaging with local experts who have a deep connection to the system being considered, for example, collecting observations from groups that harvest species for food or their livelihood.¹⁸ LEK can provide insights based on an intimate and unique understanding of the system collected throughout many years of observations. In India, LEK provided fine-scale spatial information for at least thirty-five threatened marine species.¹⁰ LEK is also highly relevant for forest biodiversity conservation, especially concerning its importance in protected sacred natural sites and for its application in managed forests around the globe.¹⁹ The unique knowledge possessed by local experts can provide novel insights into system processes and connections, and information on cryptic species and habitat locations. In addition, when LEK is intentionally and respectfully incorporated into decision-making, it can empower those groups providing it by giving them more of a voice in the process.²⁰

Tips for Incorporating Local Expertise into Your Next Project²¹

1. Determine the type of information, data, and observations you need to collect and if there are local groups of stakeholders that possess unique knowledge to fill the information gap.³ It is useful to map out stakeholder groups and conduct a preliminary background investigation to better understand who has access and expertise on your topics of interest.²² A stakeholder analysis will also help provide context and describe relationships between groups, making it a useful exercise, even when you know the specific local expert group you plan to work with.
2. Consider collaboration with a social scientist or engagement professional. While collecting and integrating local expertise and LEK into projects can be beneficial, a transdisciplinary team would likely be the most effective approach. Meeting facilitation tools, such as deliberative discussion or participatory mapping, and stakeholder engagement strategies, require skills professionals have developed over many years and are grounded in behavioral sciences, communication, and adult learning principles.
3. Decide if a knowledge co-production approach is appropriate. Suppose the group of local experts you are interested in working with will also be impacted by the decisions resulting from the process. In that case, consider incorporating their knowledge as part of a co-production process. Knowledge co-production usually involves intentional engagement with experts, forming a shared understanding of the purpose of knowledge co-production, and empowering knowledge holders throughout the process.²⁰ It is essential to carefully consider how the knowledge you collect will be used and what benefit the local experts will receive for participating in the project. The back-and-forth sharing of knowledge between project partners to generate new understanding together is one aspect that makes co-production different from knowledge data collection.
4. Identify key individuals from the local community of experts. Define your target population of local experts and identify leaders within that community. Use the leaders within the community as a starting place. Community leaders act as gatekeepers of information, especially for communities that highly value privacy. Another approach is to use peer references to collect and validate the names of local experts that meet your criteria for participation. The experts you include will strongly influence your results; therefore, correctly identifying these key community members is a critical step in the process.²³ In addition, establishing meaningful relationships with them may lead to greater participation from the wider expert group. If you are an outsider to the community, it may be helpful to establish a guide. For example, if you are interested in incorporating knowledge from a small, remote community in which you are not a member, consider mentoring a student from that community who is interested in assisting with the project. You will benefit from the student’s insights into local cultural norms, community members may be more likely to engage with someone they recognize from their community, and the student can benefit from the learning experience.
5. Have a partner or funder review your information needs. Having your partners, funders, and advisory group review your information needs may uncover additional opportunities for collaboration. Since collecting LEK is time-consuming and takes place with groups that are often difficult to engage in traditional settings, it is worth ensuring that any additional information needs can be collected at once. You can get more bang for your buck and alleviate some of the burden placed on your expert group by not asking for as much of their time.
6. Determine the appropriate method for collecting local expertise and LEK.

Common Methods Used for Collecting LEK

Surveys

Surveys are a tool to collect data using an ordered list of questions to gather information from a target population systematically. Surveys are especially helpful for collecting quantitative data and typically require less time commitment from respondents compared to interviews or focus groups. Depending on the survey structure, questions can be formatted to collect numeric or categorical responses, leading to quantitative data, or open-ended responses which facilitate more qualitative data collection.²⁴

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews are commonly used to collect LEK. Semi-structured interviews allow you to ask predetermined, open-ended, and follow-up questions where and when they arise. Semi-structured interviews have a more conversational feel than structured ones, which do not allow the investigator to deviate from the predetermined list of questions.

Focus groups

Focus groups are another engagement tool that can be used to collect LEK from small groups, using a moderator to facilitate a discussion around predetermined questions or topics. One benefit of focus groups is that they do not require as much participant time as other methods. However, like other group engagement tools, the privacy of experts and their knowledge, along with the potential for conflict, should be considered before group engagement.²⁵

Workshops

Workshops and facilitated meetings are commonly used to collect local expertise and LEK. Workshops usually include a mix of presentations and engagement activities. For these types of engagement to be most successful, clear objectives for each meeting should be outlined, and skilled facilitation will likely be necessary to keep conversations and activities on the topic.

Participatory mapping

Participatory mapping is a great way to incorporate LEK into projects. Using a print or digital map as a tool, local experts draw on or point out specific geographic attributes while describing them.²⁶ Participatory mapping can also be used in scenario-based activities.

Field visits

Field visits may be another valuable tool for collecting LEK, allowing experts to directly point out species or ecological aspects of interest while describing them. In some cases, field visits also have the added benefit of allowing the project team to collect traditional data about site characteristics, such as GPS coordinates or species observations.¹⁴

Challenges of Using Local Expertise and Local Ecological Knowledge

There are challenges of collecting and incorporating local knowledge into natural resources management you should consider before the outset of a new project. Local knowledge is context specific and includes the world views of the experts providing the data. In addition, because LEK derives from observations and knowledge of a specific group at a particular point in time it can be difficult to reproduce or easily transfer. In some cases, the exact aspects of local knowledge that make it so useful can also make it too geographically specific to be applied in other areas. Research methodology that uses a systematic approach to identifying key experts within a community, including peer recommendations, and uses multiple independent observations to confirm a knowledge claim can be used to overcome some of these challenges.²³

While the cultural aspect of LEK is a strength of this information, in some circumstances, it can also make data collection, interpretation, and information sharing difficult. In addition, it is important to acknowledge and intentionally address potential power imbalances between researchers and people with local ecological knowledge, for example, knowledge produced from academic research is often prioritized compared to knowledge produced from indigenous and local ecological understanding.²⁷ Power imbalances can also occur when collaborative approaches involve government agencies that have management or regulatory power over resources and local ecological knowledge holders that rely on access to land or regulated natural resources (e.g. local medicinal plant harvesters and federal land managers, such as the United States Forest Service).¹⁷ It is essential to incorporate principles of equity and reciprocity into a process that is agreed upon by all participants, steps that may require additional time and resource commitments.^{20, 27} Another significant barrier to collecting LEK is that it often requires a transdisciplinary team which may also require additional resources.

Conclusion

While there are many different types of knowledge, local knowledge provides a unique understanding of social and environmental community dynamics that is especially valuable for adaptation planning and resource management. Managers can integrate local ecological knowledge and traditional scientific knowledge to provide a more complete picture of environmental issues. When local knowledge is co-developed with scientific knowledge, additional benefits can result, such as shared learning, more transparent and equitable decision-making, and better management application.¹² From providing new insights into data-poor ecosystems to making broad-scale climate adaptation strategies more locally appropriate, local expertise and LEK are already being included in projects throughout the Southeast, including South Carolina.

References Cited

1. Oliver, T. H., Isaac, N. J. B., August, T. A., Woodcock, B. A., Roy, D. B., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nature Communications, 6(1), 10122. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10122
2. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 557–581.
3. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777.
4. Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4, 85–104.
5. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262.
6. UNESCO. (2017). Local knowledge, global goals. UNESCO.
7. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, & Council on Environmental Quality. (2022, November 20). Memorandum for heads of federal departments and agencies: Implementation of guidance for federal departments and agencies on Indigenous knowledge.
8. Wedemeyer-Strombel, K. R., Peterson, M. J., Sanchez, R. N., Chavarría, S., Valle, M., Altamirano, E., Gadea, V., Sowards, S. K., Tweedie, C. E., & Liles, M. J. (2019). Engaging fishers’ ecological knowledge for endangered species conservation: Four advantages to emphasizing voice in participatory action research. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 30.
9. Noble, M. M., Harasti, D., Fulton, C. J., & Doran, B. (2020). Identifying spatial conservation priorities using traditional and local ecological knowledge of iconic marine species and ecosystem threats. Biological Conservation, 249, 108709.
10. Karnad, D. (2022). Incorporating local ecological knowledge aids participatory mapping for marine conservation and customary fishing management. Marine Policy, 135, 104841.
11. Hemmerling, S. A., DeMyers, C. A., & Carruthers, T. J. (2022). Building resilience through collaborative management of coastal protection and restoration planning in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, USA. Sustainability, 14(5), 2974.
12. Bethel, M. B., Brien, L. F., Esposito, M. M., Miller, C. T., Buras, H. S., Laska, S. B., Philippe, R., Peterson, K. J., & Parsons Richards, C. (2014). Sci-TEK: A GIS-based multidisciplinary method for incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into Louisiana’s coastal restoration decision-making processes. Journal of Coastal Research, 30(5), 1081–1099.
13. Bethel, M. B., Braud, D. H., Lambeth, T., Dardar, D. S., & Ferguson-Bohnee, P. (2022). Mapping risk factors to climate change impacts using traditional ecological knowledge to support adaptation planning with a Native American tribe in Louisiana. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113801.
14. Pitt, A. L., Baldwin, R. F., Lipscomb, D. J., Brown, B. L., Hawley, J. E., Allard-Keese, C. M., & Leonard, P. B. (2012). The missing wetlands: Using local ecological knowledge to find cryptic ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 51–63.
15. Tengö, M., Austin, B. J., Danielsen, F., & Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (2021). Creating synergies between citizen science and Indigenous and local knowledge. BioScience, 71(5), 503–518.
16. Dolrenry, S., Hazzah, L., & Frank, L. G. (2016). Conservation and monitoring of a persecuted African lion population by Maasai warriors. Conservation Biology, 30, 467–475.
17. Ballard, H. L., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2008). Integration of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: A study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2).
18. Peloquin, C., & Berkes, F. (2009). Local knowledge, subsistence harvests, and social–ecological complexity in James Bay. Human Ecology, 37, 533–545.
19. Joa, B., Winkel, G., & Primmer, E. (2018). The unknown known—A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy, 79, 520–530.
20. Zurba, M., Petriello, M. A., Madge, C., McCarney, P., Bishop, B., McBeth, S., Denniston, M., Bodwitch, H., & Bailey, M. (2022). Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: Global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut. Sustainability Science, 17(2), 449–467.
21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011, February). Traditional ecological knowledge for application by service scientists.
22. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2015). Introduction to stakeholder participation. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs.
23. Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 31, 463–489.
24. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2015). Introduction to survey design and delivery. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs.
25. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2015). Introduction to conducting focus groups. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs.
26. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2015). Stakeholder engagement strategies for participatory mapping. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs.
27. Yua, E., Raymond-Yakoubian, J., Daniel, R. A., & Behe, C. (2022). A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 27(1), 34.