IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v128y2020ics0305750x19305078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating local nature-based cultural values into biodiversity No Net Loss strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Griffiths, Victoria F.
  • Bull, Joseph W.
  • Baker, Julia
  • Infield, Mark
  • Roe, Dilys
  • Nalwanga, Dianah
  • Byaruhanga, Achilles
  • Milner-Gulland, E.J.

Abstract

Achieving “No Net Loss” (NNL) of nature from a development typically requires projects to follow a ‘mitigation hierarchy’, by which biodiversity losses are first avoided wherever possible, then minimised or remediated, and finally any residual impacts offset by conservation activities elsewhere. Biodiversity NNL can significantly affect people, including their cultural values. However, empirical research is lacking on how to incorporate impacts on cultural values of nature into NNL strategies. We use the Bujagali and Isimba Hydropower Projects and Kalagala Offset in Uganda as a case study to explore local people’s perceptions of the importance of cultural heritage to their wellbeing, how the developments affected their cultural heritage, and how these perceived impacts could be incorporated into NNL strategies. We sampled six villages experiencing different levels of hydropower development along the Victoria Nile River. Many river features, particularly rapids and waterfalls, are important cultural sites, associated with spirits and are worshipped by local communities. Spiritual beliefs, rituals and ceremonies, nature, and how cultural heritage is changing were frequently mentioned when respondents described cultural heritage. People perceived cultural heritage to be an important component of their wellbeing, but its importance differed between villages and socio-demographic groups. Men and the less poor found it to be very important, whilst people who had lived in the village for a short time and who had higher education levels found it less important. Respondents in villages where sacred sites are well-known or still intact described cultural heritage as being an important factor contributing to wellbeing. The study highlights the complex relationships between cultural heritage, nature and people’s wellbeing, and how essential it is to understand and account for cultural heritage when planning developments and associated offsets, if they are to be sustainable and fair to local people.

Suggested Citation

  • Griffiths, Victoria F. & Bull, Joseph W. & Baker, Julia & Infield, Mark & Roe, Dilys & Nalwanga, Dianah & Byaruhanga, Achilles & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2020. "Incorporating local nature-based cultural values into biodiversity No Net Loss strategies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:128:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19305078
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X19305078
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104858?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph William Bull & Niels Strange, 2018. "The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 790-798, December.
    2. Bull, Joseph William & Abatayo, Anna Lou & Strange, Niels, 2017. "Counterintuitive Proposals for Trans-boundary Ecological Compensation Under ‘No Net Loss’ Biodiversity Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 185-193.
    3. Romina Boarini & Alexandre Kolev & Allister McGregor, 2014. "Measuring Well-being and Progress in Countries at Different Stages of Development: Towards a More Universal Conceptual Framework," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 325, OECD Publishing.
    4. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    5. Anneli Ekblom & Anna Shoemaker & Lindsey Gillson & Paul Lane & Karl-Johan Lindholm, 2019. "Conservation through Biocultural Heritage—Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Bull, Joseph & Baker, Julia & Griffiths, Victoria Frances & Jones, Julia & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2018. "Ensuring No Net Loss for people as well as biodiversity: good practice principles," SocArXiv 4ygh7, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Yuddy Alejandra Castro Ortegón & Julio César Acosta-Prado & Pedro Mauricio Acosta-Castellanos & Juan Pablo Romero Correa, 2024. "Examining the Mediating Effect of the Rural Economic Dynamization between the Socio-Environmental Heritage and Sustainability of Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel L. Jones & Joseph W. Bull, 2020. "Major dams and the challenge of achieving “No Net Loss” of biodiversity in the tropics," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 435-443, March.
    2. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Radenka Mitova & Bilyana Borisova & Boian Koulov, 2021. "Digital Marketing of Bulgarian Natural Heritage for Tourism and Recreation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    6. Suling Guo & Wei Sun & Wen Chen & Jianxin Zhang & Peixue Liu, 2021. "Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Luambo Jeffrey Ramarumo, 2022. "Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    9. Fausto O. Sarmiento & Nobuko Inaba & Yoshihiko Iida & Masahito Yoshida, 2022. "Mountain Graticules: Bridging Latitude, Longitude, Altitude, and Historicity to Biocultural Heritage," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Drechsler, Martin, 2021. "On the cost-effective temporal allocation of credits in conservation offsets when habitat restoration takes takes time and is uncertain," MPRA Paper 108209, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    12. Isabelle King & John Martin, 2021. "Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Ángel Raúl Ruiz Pulpón & María del Carmen Cañizares Ruiz, 2022. "Intangible Heritage and Territorial Identity in the Multifunctional Agrarian Systems of Vineyards in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Katie Devenish & Sébastien Desbureaux & Simon Willcock & Julia P. G. Jones, 2022. "On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 498-508, June.
    15. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    17. Hanaček, Ksenija & Langemeyer, Johannes & Bileva, Tatyana & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2021. "Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Collier, Marcus J., 2014. "Novel ecosystems and the emergence of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 166-169.
    19. Joan Nyagwalla Otieno & Vittorio Bellotto & Lawrence Salaon Esho & Pieter Van den Broeck, 2023. "Conserving the Sacred: Socially Innovative Efforts in the Loita Enaimina Enkiyio Forest in Kenya," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Armand Faganel, 2018. "Global Diversities in Safeguarding the Cultural Heritage," MIC 2018: Managing Global Diversities; Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Bled, Slovenia, 30 May–2 June 2018,, University of Primorska Press.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:128:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19305078. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.