Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 57–67 | Cite as

Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science

  • Kekuhi KealiikanakaoleohaililaniEmail author
  • Christian P. Giardina
Special Feature: Original Article Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods (WIS2DOM)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods (WIS2DOM)

Abstract

Mahalo (thank you) for reading our paper. What you will find is an attempt to synthesize and compare the strengths and weaknesses of Indigenous and Western perspectives on sustainability and a proposed path leading to the integration of these two perspectives into a sustainability framework that considers resources as much more than commodities. We enter into this discussion with 50 years of experience between us, both of us products of our experimentation with the integration that we are advocating. From this experimentation, we have concluded that sacred relationship must be the foundation of any successful sustainability effort, with success achieved only when resource management practices and policies engage the spirit and are aligned with equitable and respectful interactions among human and non-human. By sacred, we refer to those sentiments, actions, and commitments that emerge from spirit-based relationships that are founded on love, respect, care, intimate familiarity, and reciprocal exchange. By spirit, we refer to that which gives life to the material body, the enigma that is our collective conscious, subconscious, and unconscious beings. In formulating this paper, we made three assumptions: (1) the need to shift our spiritual selves, and our collective weight and resulting ecological footprints, is fully evidenced by the failure of purely Western approaches to sustain the social and biophysical world around us; (2) each and every citizen of our planet contributes to both sustainability’s advancement and its demise; and (3) by engaging the spirit and reclaiming sacredness in all our relationships, we can help move the Earth community towards her fullest potential of wellbeing. Our hope here is that we are able to grow the connections among a nascent but rapidly evolving transformational vision for sustainability, the enlightened thinking of contemporaries, and inspired ancestral knowledge. To facilitate the continued emergence of this transformative vision, we marry Western sustainability concepts to an Indigenous sacredness framework.

Keywords

Hawaii Aloha aina Malama aina Love Relationship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper resulted from a 2012 National Science Funded workshop entitled: Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences: Diversifying our Methods. We thank our workshop host, Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington; workshop organizers, especially Jay Johnson and Renee Pualani Fisher; and other workshop participants, who over the course of three days, provided much inspiration for this paper. We thank Paul Hessburg, Marla Emery, Tamara Ticktin, and Frank Lake for important insights into how integration of multiple knowledge systems can support efforts to foster sustainability. We thank Tamara Ticktin, Kealoha Kinney, Chris Heider, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abram D (1996) The spell of the sensuous. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:15188–15193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cajete G (1999) Look to the mountain; reflections on indigenous ecology. In: Cajete G (ed) A people’s ecology: explorations in sustainable living, health, environment, agriculture, native traditions. Clear Light Publishers, Sante FeGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase A (1986) Playing god in yellowstone. The destruction of America’s First National Park. Harcourt Brace and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Crutzen PJ (2006) The “anthropocene”. In: Ehlers E, Krafft T (eds) Earth system science in the anthropocene. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dirzo R, Young H, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac N, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donatuto J, Grossman EE, Konovsky J, Grossman S, Campbell LW (2014) Indigenous community health and climate change: integrating biophysical and social science indicators. Coast Manag 42(4):355–373. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2014.923140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawken P (2011) Blessed unrest. How the largest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it coming. Penguin Books, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  11. Hessburg P, Reynolds K, Salter R, Dickinson J, Gaines W, Harrod R (2012) Landscape evaluation for restoration planning on the 46 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Sustainability, USA. doi: 10.3390/su40x000x Google Scholar
  12. Hobbs et al (2014) Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 10:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson J, Larsen S (2013) Deeper sense of place. OSU Press, OhioGoogle Scholar
  15. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamb D, Erskine P, Parotta J (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes science. Science 310:1628–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Livingston D (1968) Some interstadial and postglacial pollen diagrams from eastern Canada. Ecol Monogr 38:87–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Louv R (2006) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Marris E (2011) Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a post-wild world. Bloomsbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. McGregor DP, Morelli PT, Matsuoka JK, Minerbi L (2003) An ecological model of wellbeing. In: Becker HA, Vanclay F (eds) International handbook of social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances, chap 8. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Cheltenham, pp 108–127. doi: 10.4337/9781843768616.00019 Google Scholar
  22. Nash R (2014) Wilderness and the american mind. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 235:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tallis H et al (2014) A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trenholm VC (1986) The arapahoe, our people. University of Oklahoma Press, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  27. Vaughan MB (2014) ‘Āina (land), that which feeds: researching community-based natural resource management at home. J Res Pract 10(2) (article N19)Google Scholar
  28. Vaughan MB, Vitousek PM (2013) Mahele: sustaining communities through small-scale inshore fishery catch and sharing networks. Pac Sci 67:329–344. doi: 10.2984/67.3.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vaughan-Lee L (2013) Spiritual ecology- the cry of the earth. The Golden Sufi Center Publishing, InvernessGoogle Scholar
  30. Vignieri S (2014) Vanishing fauna: charting and reversing the decline. Science 345:392–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams RA (1990) The American Indian in Western legal thought: The discourses of conquest. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Winthrop RH (2014) The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol Econ 108:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanities DepartmentHawaii Community CollegeHiloUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, USDA Forest ServiceHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations