Biocultural Hysteresis Inhibits Adaptation to Environmental Change
Authors: P.O’B. Lyver, P. Timoti, T. Davis, J.M. Tylianakis
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2019)

As environmental conditions deteriorate, conservation policy frequently limits the engagement of IPLCs with their environments through resource use.Even if these restrictions are intended to be short-term measures, the period of reduced engagement by IPLCs with their environment can have irreversible consequences, such as loss of knowledge or the breakdown of power structures, which prevent culturally appropriate management from resuming or adapting to current conditions when restrictions are lifted.Indigenous knowledge and culturally appropriate management practices can bring significant environmental benefits, but these benefits are threatened when IPLCs are prevented from engaging with their environments, even temporarily. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) often use natural resources as both a reason and mechanism for environmental management, yet a number of environmental, social, and economic drivers disrupt this relationship. Here, we argue that these drivers can also trigger a set of feedback mechanisms that further diminish the efficacy of local management. We call this process biocultural hysteresis. These feedbacks, which include knowledge loss and a breakdown of social hierarchies, prevent IPLC from adapting their management to change. Biocultural hysteresis worsens as IPLC spend an increasing amount of time outside their social–ecological context. Therefore, we argue for adaptive policies and processes that favour protecting and enabling IPLC engagement with their environment. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) often use natural resources as both a reason and mechanism for environmental management, yet a number of environmental, social, and economic drivers disrupt this relationship. Here, we argue that these drivers can also trigger a set of feedback mechanisms that further diminish the efficacy of local management. We call this process biocultural hysteresis. These feedbacks, which include knowledge loss and a breakdown of social hierarchies, prevent IPLC from adapting their management to change. Biocultural hysteresis worsens as IPLC spend an increasing amount of time outside their social–ecological context. Therefore, we argue for adaptive policies and processes that favour protecting and enabling IPLC engagement with their environment. Global environmental transformations have degraded and homogenized both biological and human cultural diversity [1.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, 2005Google Scholar, 2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 3.Johnson C.N. et al.Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene.Science. 2017; 356: 270-275Crossref PubMed Scopus (428) Google Scholar]; in particular that of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) – 'which are, typically, ethnic groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently' [4.Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.https://www.ipbes.net/glossary/indigenous-peoples-local-communitiesDate: 2019Google Scholar]. Worse still, this cultural extinction process further threatens biodiversity, and limits the scope for its management. The traditional territories of IPLC are often characterized by high biological diversity [5.Garnett S.T. et al.A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 369Crossref Scopus (448) Google Scholar, 6.Sobrevila C. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural, but Often Forgotten Partners. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2008Google Scholar], and therefore indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems are heavily informed by interactions with nature. Such experiences are frequently associated with ecologically responsible behaviour [7.Johannes R.E. Did indigenous conservation ethics exist?.Trad. Mar. Res. Manage. Know. Info. Bull. 2002; 14: 3-6Google Scholar, 8.Berkes F. Sacred Ecology.3rd edn. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 9.Amel E. et al.Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation.Science. 2017; 356: 275-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (145) Google Scholar] and lead to positive environmental discovery and social outcomes [10.Ens E.J. et al.Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: review and insight from Australia.Biol. Conserv. 2015; 181: 133-149Crossref Scopus (145) Google Scholar, 11.Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollinations and Food Production. IPBES, 2016Google Scholar, 12.Roué M. Molnár Z. Indigenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe and Central Asia. Outcomes from the Europe and Central Asia Dialogue Workshop. UNESCO, 2016Google Scholar]. The benefits emerging from IPLC engaging with their environments, combined with threats to cultures and ecosystems, have underpinned calls for greater consideration of biocultural approaches in environmental management [2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 13.Maffi L. Woodley E. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 14.Rozzi R. et al.Ten principles for biocultural conservation at the southern tip of the Americas: the approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park.Ecol. Soc. 2006; 11: 43Crossref Scopus (90) Google Scholar]. Biocultural approaches focus on sustaining both the cultural and biophysical components of IPLC social–ecological systems [13.Maffi L. Woodley E. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Routledge, 2012Crossref Google Scholar, 15.Molnár Z. et al.Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system.J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015; 11: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar]. Yet, there are situations in which the effectiveness of biocultural approaches have been questioned [16.Smith E.A. Wishnie M. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000; 29: 493-524Crossref Scopus (296) Google Scholar], and where IPLC interactions with biodiversity have led to negative environmental outcomes [17.Perry G.L. et al.A high-precision chronology for the rapid extinction of New Zealand moa (Aves, Dinornithiformes).Quat. Sci. Rev. 2014; 105: 126-135Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. Therefore, understanding when and why biocultural approaches succeed or fail remains a critical goal for environmental management. A key consideration for understanding the success or failure of biocultural approaches to environmental management is the dynamic nature of ILK and culture [2.Gavin M.C. et al.Defining biocultural approaches to conservation.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 140-145Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (279) Google Scholar, 18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar]. IPLC rely heavily on use of their environments to gauge, interpret, and respond to internal and external feedbacks [19.Sandemose P. Local People and Protected Areas: The Ban of NTFP Collection for Commercial Use and Effects on Cash Incomes and Livelihoods of the Soligas in B.R. Hills, India. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 2009Google Scholar], transmit knowledge, and adapt it to new and changing social, technological, environmental, and political contexts [20.Berkes F. et al.Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management.Ecol. Appl. 2000; 10: 1251-1262Crossref Scopus (2374) Google Scholar, 21.Holling C.S. Gunderson L.H. Resilience and adaptive cycles.in: Gunderson L.H. Holling C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, 2002: 25-62Google Scholar]. Because diverse worldviews and knowledge sets contribute to adaptive resilience [22.Davidson-Hunt I.J. et al.Biocultural design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities.Sapiens. 2012; 5: 33-45Google Scholar], the effectiveness of biocultural approaches is degraded by any forces that undermine these knowledge generation and adaptation processes [18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar, 23.Brodt S.B. A systems perspective on the conservation and erosion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in central India.Hum. Ecol. 2001; 29: 99-120Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar]. Moreover, decoupling from the environment can become self-reinforcing (a feedback mechanism), because environmental degradation and/or resource scarcity typically precipitate other threats to ILK [18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar], such as conservation policies in some countries that remove humans from the landscape, and instead focus on the preservation of nature for its own sake [24.Terborgh J. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, 1999Google Scholar, 25.Lyver P.O'.B. Tylianakis J.M. Indigenous peoples: conservation paradox.Science. 2017; 357: 141-142Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar, 26.Parlee B.L. et al.Undermining subsistence: barren-ground caribou in a "tragedy of open access".Sci. Adv. 2018; 4e1701611Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. This paradigm conflicts with IPLC for whom resource use may be both the reason, and a mechanism for managing the environment [27.Moller H. et al.Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management.Ecol. Soc. 2004; 9: 2Crossref Google Scholar]. Here we examine a set of environmental, social, and economic drivers and feedback mechanisms that inhibit the protection, expression, and regeneration of culture and knowledge pertaining to management of the environment by IPLC. We coin the term 'biocultural hysteresis' (Figure 1) to describe the outcome of these drivers and mechanisms. In particular, we focus on reduced engagement of IPLC with their environment [28.Kai Z. et al.Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: extirpations drive declines in local ecological knowledge.PLoS One. 2014; 9e86598Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar] as a catalyst for feedback processes that further reduce engagement. In ecological systems, environmental pressures can cause critical transitions into alternative ecological states, whereupon feedbacks internal to the system can inhibit recovery once the pressure is alleviated [29.Hobbs R.J. Norton D.A. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology.Restor. Ecol. 1996; 4: 93-110Crossref Scopus (901) Google Scholar, 30.Bellwood D.R. et al.Sleeping functional group drives coral reef recovery.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: 2434-2439Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (329) Google Scholar]. This inhibition is termed 'hysteresis', which in general refers to the influence of the history of a system on its current state, and the pathway to recovery. Social–ecological systems can also have alternative stable states, and hysteresis in these systems prevents return to a previous state after a tipping point is crossed [31.Milkoreit M. et al.Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship – an interdisciplinary literature review.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13033005Crossref Scopus (90) Google Scholar]. In fact, thresholds and legacy effects of prior states are typical features of social–ecological systems [31.Milkoreit M. et al.Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship – an interdisciplinary literature review.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13033005Crossref Scopus (90) Google Scholar, 32.Liu J. et al.Complexity of coupled human and natural systems.Science. 2007; 317: 1513-1516Crossref PubMed Scopus (2292) Google Scholar], and are typically driven by feedbacks that accelerate change and/or prevent return to a prior state once a threshold is crossed [33.Walker B. Meyers J.A. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems a developing database.Ecol. Soc. 2014; 9: 3Crossref Google Scholar, 34.Scheffer M. et al.Early-warning signals for critical transitions.Nature. 2009; 461: 53-59Crossref PubMed Scopus (2605) Google Scholar]. Following this logic, we argue that a number of social and environmental drivers suppress the engagement of IPLC with their environment, and thereby generate feedbacks that cause biocultural hysteresis. Our primary aim is to demonstrate that these drivers trigger a set of mechanisms that force the entire social–ecological system onto a new trajectory, which typically results in a reduced or distorted expression of culture, and leads to negative environmental outcomes. Importantly, we illustrate that the severity of this change increases with the length of time for which engagement with the environment is reduced or prevented. Finally, we argue that adaptive engagement will be necessary to break the feedbacks that generate biocultural hysteresis, to recover cultural expression, and to allow ILK to adapt to novel social and environmental contexts. Cultural institutions and knowledge systems can take a variety of forms, which are often crafted to articulate the context and nature of the relationship that people have with the environment [35.Walsh F.J. et al.Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management.Ecol. Soc. 2013; 18: 18Crossref Scopus (61) Google Scholar, 36.Timoti P. et al.A representation of a Tuawhenua worldview guides environmental conservation.Ecol. Soc. 2017; 22: 20Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar]. A consistent feature is that cultural institutions and knowledge systems are reinforced and updated through continued use of, and engagement with, the local environment [15.Molnár Z. et al.Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system.J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015; 11: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar, 35.Walsh F.J. et al.Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management.Ecol. Soc. 2013; 18: 18Crossref Scopus (61) Google Scholar, 37.Carson M. Peterson G. Arctic Resilience Report. Arctic Council, Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm2016Google Scholar]. Despite the role of customs and practices in reinforcing human–environment linkages for IPLC, a number of social and environmental drivers can threaten relationships [18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar] and the depth of engagement with the environment [28.Kai Z. et al.Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: extirpations drive declines in local ecological knowledge.PLoS One. 2014; 9e86598Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar, 38.Tyrrell M. Nunavik perspectives on beluga whale management in the Canadian Arctic.Hum. Org. 2008; 67: 322-334Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar]. For example, conservation legislation can prevent or limit the use or harvest of culturally important species, and thereby remove a key pathway through which IPLC interact with their environment (Box 1).Box 1Loss of Knowledge and Cultural InstitutionsThe kererū (New Zealand pigeon; Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae; Figure I) is a large (550–850 g) fruit pigeon endemic to New Zealand and a culturally significant bird for many Māori tribes. Kererū were historically abundant and highly valued as a prized food for women, chiefs, and special occasions, and feathers for cloaks [36.Timoti P. et al.A representation of a Tuawhenua worldview guides environmental conservation.Ecol. Soc. 2017; 22: 20Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar]. Widespread declines in abundance and European protectionist policies [82.Miskelly C.M. Legal protection of New Zealand's indigenous terrestrial fauna – an historical review.Tuhinga. 2014; 25: 25-101Google Scholar] severely limit harvest of this species, which contributes to the loss and expression of traditional knowledge, and interferes with the function of customary institutions. Diminished connection with kererū impacts the resilience and recovery of traditional knowledge systems, and impedes recovery of the cultural context, and potentially the bird itself. Even if kererū populations recover out into the future, the long-term consequence of the current protectionist conservation system will be the loss of the rich cultural matrix linked with the bird and its management. The kererū (New Zealand pigeon; Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae; Figure I) is a large (550–850 g) fruit pigeon endemic to New Zealand and a culturally significant bird for many Māori tribes. Kererū were historically abundant and highly valued as a prized food for women, chiefs, and special occasions, and feathers for cloaks [36.Timoti P. et al.A representation of a Tuawhenua worldview guides environmental conservation.Ecol. Soc. 2017; 22: 20Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar]. Widespread declines in abundance and European protectionist policies [82.Miskelly C.M. Legal protection of New Zealand's indigenous terrestrial fauna – an historical review.Tuhinga. 2014; 25: 25-101Google Scholar] severely limit harvest of this species, which contributes to the loss and expression of traditional knowledge, and interferes with the function of customary institutions. Diminished connection with kererū impacts the resilience and recovery of traditional knowledge systems, and impedes recovery of the cultural context, and potentially the bird itself. Even if kererū populations recover out into the future, the long-term consequence of the current protectionist conservation system will be the loss of the rich cultural matrix linked with the bird and its management. Importantly, both the drivers themselves and the consequent reduction in engagement with the environment can trigger a set of mechanisms (see below) that create a feedback between the expression of ILK and environmental engagement (Box 2). Even if the original driver is alleviated (e.g., through amended legislation or management), the feedback mechanisms prevent knowledge and practice from returning to their former states (i.e., generate hysteresis) and further limit engagement with the environment (Figure 1). Without the appropriate cultural context for delivering traditional practices (e.g., observances associated with sentient beings), the practices themselves may even be sufficiently distorted as to prove ineffective in the management of biodiversity [39.Barsh R.L. Fire on the land: there's nothing primitive about farmers using fire to sustain biodiversity. In all regions of the world, there is evidence of deliberate periodic firing of grasslands and forests, in some cases for millennia.Altern. J. 1997; 23: 36Google Scholar, 40.Tyrrell M. Sentient beings and wildlife resources: Inuit, beluga whales, and management regimes in the Canadian Arctic.Hum. Ecol. 2007; 35: 575-586Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar]. Similarly, in the postcolonisation era, IPLC may have their structures and approaches replaced by those more congruent with the worldview of the colonial power (e.g., governance boards replacing local tribal institutions [41.Brondizio E.S. Le Tourneau F.-M. Environmental governance for all: involving local and indigenous populations is key to effective environmental governance.Science. 2016; 352: 1272-1273Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar], and quotas replacing harvest customs [42.Kendrick A. Canadian Inuit sustainable use and management of Arctic species.Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2013; 70: 414-428Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar]). Superficially, in these cases it may appear that management rights have been returned to, or shared with, IPLC. However, the modified state of cultural institutions and expression lacks many of the qualities (e.g., respect for local institutions, and long-term experiential knowledge) that make biocultural management strategies successful. Consequently, increased engagement of IPLC with their environments, but under a new state of cultural expression, can lead to perverse outcomes, such as overharvesting or harvesting at an inappropriate time simply to meet government-assigned quotas [38.Tyrrell M. Nunavik perspectives on beluga whale management in the Canadian Arctic.Hum. Org. 2008; 67: 322-334Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar].Box 2Hysteresis MechanismsFor the Bathurst barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus – Figure I) herd, whose range extends across the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada, census indicates that numbers have declined from 475 000 to <20 000 animals over the last 20 years [83.Festa-Bianchet M. et al.Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future.Can. J. Zool. 2011; 89: 419-434Crossref Google Scholar]. Despite this decline and the cultural significance of caribou to Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, and Denësołiné in the region, the issuing of government permits facilitating the expansion of mineral exploration and development (e.g., all-weather roads) across the caribou range continues [26.Parlee B.L. et al.Undermining subsistence: barren-ground caribou in a "tragedy of open access".Sci. Adv. 2018; 4e1701611Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. In contrast, management focus and investment has been on curbing subsistence use of the species. Even if these restrictions are intended to be temporary, they threaten: (i) relationships between communities and caribou; (ii) cultural identity and connection to place, without which migration to urban centres can accelerate; (iii) a highly significant food source for Inuit and Denë; (iv) pathways for knowledge maintenance and transfer; and ultimately, (v) the integrity of traditional knowledge and management systems for caribou. These outcomes further restrict the engagement of communities with the environment (thereby generating a feedback), and once peoples have left the region and knowledge is lost, recovery of the former social–ecological state becomes unlikely (i.e., biocultural hysteresis occurs). For the Bathurst barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus – Figure I) herd, whose range extends across the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada, census indicates that numbers have declined from 475 000 to <20 000 animals over the last 20 years [83.Festa-Bianchet M. et al.Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future.Can. J. Zool. 2011; 89: 419-434Crossref Google Scholar]. Despite this decline and the cultural significance of caribou to Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, and Denësołiné in the region, the issuing of government permits facilitating the expansion of mineral exploration and development (e.g., all-weather roads) across the caribou range continues [26.Parlee B.L. et al.Undermining subsistence: barren-ground caribou in a "tragedy of open access".Sci. Adv. 2018; 4e1701611Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. In contrast, management focus and investment has been on curbing subsistence use of the species. Even if these restrictions are intended to be temporary, they threaten: (i) relationships between communities and caribou; (ii) cultural identity and connection to place, without which migration to urban centres can accelerate; (iii) a highly significant food source for Inuit and Denë; (iv) pathways for knowledge maintenance and transfer; and ultimately, (v) the integrity of traditional knowledge and management systems for caribou. These outcomes further restrict the engagement of communities with the environment (thereby generating a feedback), and once peoples have left the region and knowledge is lost, recovery of the former social–ecological state becomes unlikely (i.e., biocultural hysteresis occurs). A direct consequence of this biocultural hysteresis is that even temporary measures that limit the engagement of IPLC with their environments can generate legacies of reduced cultural expression and reduced success of the biocultural management it underpins. As with hysteresis in any system, additional work is needed to overcome these feedbacks and return the system towards a state whereby culturally appropriate processes and mechanisms exist (Box 3 and Pathways to Adaptive Engagement).Box 3Influencing the Hysteresis Trajectory to a New StateDrivers and mechanisms of hysteresis continue to suppress the recovery trajectories of biocultural systems globally. Novel solutions can curtail mechanisms such as the loss of knowledge by supporting alternate adaptive pathways for the transmission of indigenous knowledge and practice. Examples from New Zealand include: (i) the lifting of a 50-year harvest prohibition to support the re-establishment of a sustainable customary harvest of grey-faced petrel (kuia, Pterodroma gouldi; Figure I) chicks from Moutohorā–Whale Island by the Māori tribal group, Ngāti Awa; (ii) protection of sites for biocultural outcomes, for example, Māori tribal group of Ngātiwai and New Zealand's Department of Conservation setting aside island reserves, Mauitaha and Araara Islands to facilitate the harvest of the introduced Pacific rat (kiore, Rattus exulans); (iii) utilisation of species that have died from unintentional causes, for example, Māori use of bone from beached whales to continue traditional whalebone carving, and use of feathers from native birds for the weaving of traditional cloaks. Reforms to New Zealand's conservation laws are needed however, to further remove or alleviate drivers and mechanisms of cultural hysteresis. Drivers and mechanisms of hysteresis continue to suppress the recovery trajectories of biocultural systems globally. Novel solutions can curtail mechanisms such as the loss of knowledge by supporting alternate adaptive pathways for the transmission of indigenous knowledge and practice. Examples from New Zealand include: (i) the lifting of a 50-year harvest prohibition to support the re-establishment of a sustainable customary harvest of grey-faced petrel (kuia, Pterodroma gouldi; Figure I) chicks from Moutohorā–Whale Island by the Māori tribal group, Ngāti Awa; (ii) protection of sites for biocultural outcomes, for example, Māori tribal group of Ngātiwai and New Zealand's Department of Conservation setting aside island reserves, Mauitaha and Araara Islands to facilitate the harvest of the introduced Pacific rat (kiore, Rattus exulans); (iii) utilisation of species that have died from unintentional causes, for example, Māori use of bone from beached whales to continue traditional whalebone carving, and use of feathers from native birds for the weaving of traditional cloaks. Reforms to New Zealand's conservation laws are needed however, to further remove or alleviate drivers and mechanisms of cultural hysteresis. A number of drivers decouple IPLC from their biocultural contexts and livelihoods, and in many cases these are the same drivers that degrade ILK acquisition, maintenance, and transmission. Tang and Gavin (2016) thoroughly reviewed the drivers of traditional knowledge loss, and highlighted nine underlying threats that contribute to a set of six direct threats [18.Tang R. Gavin M.C. A classification of threats to traditional ecological knowledge and conservation responses.Conserv. Soc. 2016; 14: 57-70Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar]. For example, government policies and resettlement programmes have usurped the local authority and governance institutions of many IPLC [41.Brondizio E.S. Le Tourneau F.-M. Environmental governance for all: involving local and indigenous populations is key to effective environmental governance.Science. 2016; 352: 1272-1273Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar, 43.Borrini-Feyerabend G. Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: rethinking the relationship.Parks. 2002; 12: 5-15Google Scholar, 44.Brechin S.R. Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-First Century. State University of New York Press, 2003Google Scholar]; prevented access by IPLC to their traditional territories and settlements; interfered with nomadic lifestyles; and prohibited or restricted the collection and harvest of flora and fauna [6.Sobrevila C. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural, but Often Forgotten Partners. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2008Google Scholar, 45.Tauli-Corpuz V. Rights of Indigenous Peoples.in: Report on the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations General Assembly. 2016Google Scholar]. These threats impede traditional lifestyles [41.Brondizio E.S. Le Tourneau F.-M. Environmental governance for all: involving local and indigenous populations is key to effective environmental governance.Science. 2016; 352: 1272-1273Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar], degrade biocultural systems, and can have unanticipated consequences for the natural systems. In the worst ca