Integrating indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in managing a natural resource

TLDR

Evaluating success of natural resource management requires measuring performance across biological, economic, social, and governance objectives, yet most fisheries research focuses on industrial sectors, undervaluing small‑scale and indigenous contributions that employ 38 million people worldwide. The study develops a framework that bridges quantitative bio‑economic models and qualitative social analyses using a fishery with both indigenous and commercial sectors as a case study. The framework explicitly incorporates triple‑bottom‑line sustainability objectives—economic, social, and biological—highlighting trade‑offs and is applicable to most natural resource management decisions. The results show that indigenous communities prioritize communalism over capitalism, revealing complex trade‑offs between economic and social objectives, and that market‑based management can boost profits but harm community cohesion and equity in communal societies.

Abstract

Evaluating the success of natural resource management approaches requires methods to measure performance against biological, economic, social, and governance objectives. In fisheries, most research has focused on industrial sectors, with the contributions to global resource use by small-scale and indigenous hunters and fishers undervalued. Globally, the small-scale fisheries sector alone employs some 38 million people who share common challenges in balancing livelihood and lifestyle choices. We used as a case study a fishery with both traditional indigenous and commercial sectors to develop a framework to bridge the gap between quantitative bio-economic models and more qualitative social analyses. For many indigenous communities, communalism rather than capitalism underlies fishers’ perspectives and aspirations, and we find there are complicated and often unanticipated trade-offs between economic and social objectives. Our results highlight that market-based management options might score highly in a capitalistic society, but have negative repercussions on community coherence and equity in societies with a strong communal ethic. There are complex trade-offs between economic indicators, such as profit, and social indicators, such as lifestyle preferences. Our approach makes explicit the “triple bottom line” sustainability objectives involving trade-offs between economic, social, and biological performance, and is thus directly applicable to most natural resource management decision-making situations.