Provided for non-commercial research and educational use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This article was published in the Elsevier Reference Module in Life Sciences, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial K.A. Galvin, T.A. Beeton and R.K. Hitchcock, Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of, In Reference Module in Life Sciences, Elsevier, 2017, ISBN: 978-0-12-809633-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8096338.02237-8 © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Author's personal copy Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of$ KA Galvin and TA Beeton, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States RK Hitchcock, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States r 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Glossary Bands The basic economic, social, and political unit of hunter-gatherer societies. Complex hunter-gatherers Hunter-gatherers with institutionalized leadership, ranking, redistribution, ceremonial feasting, sedentism, storage and sometimes war. Cultural change The process by which cultures undergo change in response to social, political, and environmental factors. Cultures and the global system The analysis of cultural diversity, responses and adaptations of smaller scale societies to emerging global trends. Exogamy The practice of a person seeking a mate outside of his or her group. Foragers Those people who are dependent on natural resources (wild plants and animals) for their survival. Global environmental sustainability The effect of human social systems and economies on ecosystem processes and, their feedbacks, now and into the future. Human–environment interactions The study of the complex systems of interaction between people and their environment. Patrilocal residence The practice of a married couple living in the husband’s community. Introduction Many people have impressions of hunter-gatherers as people who live in harmony with nature, who are organized into simple societies, and are associated with our “pristine” Paleolithic hunter-gatherer past. Many of these stereotypic impressions are false (cf. Moran, 1991; Cane, 1996). Today, all foragers live in nation-states, have some dependence on either crop cultivation or wage labor, and are not isolated. Hunter-gatherer societies have social systems that are extremely complex and whose interactions with the biodiversity surrounding them are as complicated and variable as was probably the case 10,000 years ago when all humans were foragers. It is no accident that today, areas with the greatest remaining biodiversity are currently also the areas inhabited by hunter-gatherers (Durning, 1992). Many hunter-gatherers retreating from land appropriation, settler immigration, and European diseases have occupied the most remote parts of their regions. Today, these homelands are often part of or adjacent to conservation areas, parks, or other protected areas, which has affected their livelihoods. This article describes traditional hunter-gatherer societies and the adaptations these societies have made to the environment. As hunter-gatherer societies and the environments in which they live have undergone continuing changes, issues of biodiversity conservation and hunter-gatherer welfare are discussed within the context of their changing world. Hunter-Gatherer Societies and Natural Resource Exploitation Because hunter-gatherers have lived in diverse environments and reside next to numerous other cultural groups, they have manifested an incredible diversity of cultures and natural resource-management strategies. Nevertheless, there are several general characteristics of hunter-gatherer societies. These traits have had a direct impact on the use of natural resources. Some traditional hunter-gatherer societies were comprised of bands, which are social groups made up of close biological kin and friends. The composition and sizes of bands changed seasonally, depending on the abundance and location of food resources and the number of people in the group. Bands were led by individuals who were respected for particular talents such as oration, storytelling, singing or dancing well, knowledge of the habitat, or in some cases hunting prowess. Other features of band organization are small group size, flexible but primarily patrilocal residence, and strong pair bonds between individual men and women. Marriage generally was exogamous, in that females were recruited from other groups. These features of hunter-gatherer society were a reflection of a history of ecological, economic, and social interactions. For example, Efe Pygmy hunter-gatherer men of the Ituri Forest in the former Zaire had very strong relationships with close kin, which facilitated defense of their territories against other cooperative kin groups (Bailey and Aunger, 1989). Moreover, related men could assure women access to valuable resources in neighboring Lese agricultural villages. Also, women were attracted to men who could guarantee long-standing reciprocal economic relationships with Lese villagers. There were also complex hunter-gatherers such as those residing on the northwest coast of North America and California who had complicated systems of resource redistribution, social ranking, ☆ Change History: May 2016. K.A. Galvin made updates throughout the text and added new references. Reference Module in Life Sciences doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.02237-8 1 Author's personal copy 2 Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of institutionalized leadership, ceremonial feasting, sedentism, storage, and relatively high population densities (Ames, 1994; Arnold, 2004; Daly, 2014). Hunter-gatherers were sedentary or nomadic depending on the distribution and dynamics of their resource base and their economic relations with other people. Typically, men hunted and fished while women gathered and collected foods. Sometimes women’s work contributed more to the diet and sometimes male hunting and fishing products were most important. For instance, gathering of wild foods tended to contribute more to the diet among people inhabiting tropical and semitropical areas (eg, the San of the Kalahari) than among hunter-gatherers in northern temperate climates (eg, the Inuit of Canada and Alaska) where hunting contributes the bulk of the diet. Staple foods were exchanged with kin and neighbors and more recently were bartered or sold for cash in markets (Moran, 1991; Ichikawa, 2000). The Ju/’hoansi and other San of the Kalahari Desert region of southern Africa occupy the savanna, the birthplace of human evolution. This environment is characterized by a pronounced wet/dry seasonal cycle and relatively variable but low to moderate inputs of rainfall. Habitat structure and function is mediated by intermediate wildland fire disturbances. In the past, foraging groups moved from 5 to 35 times per year, depending on the availability of surface water, wild plants, wild animals, key resources such as stone for tools, and the distribution of other groups. Differences in mobility patterns existed between groups. For example, the Ju/’hoansi San of the northwestern Kalahari Desert, resided in areas that had permanent water holes and higher rainfall (Lee, 1968; Marshall, 1976; Yellen, 1977) whereas mobility patterns the G/ui and G//ana San of the Central Kalahari region of Botswana (Tanaka, 1980; Silberbauer, 1981), was determined largely by the distribution of wild plants that contained moisture intermittent surface water that existed only 1–2 months per year. Mobility allowed the resources in various areas to rest while pressures were exerted elsewhere. The fact that these groups exploited dozens of different kinds of plants and animals (ie, they were generalists) also had implications for the impacts that they had on specific natural resources. Even today they have complex systems of exchange in which goods are shared widely on a delayed, reciprocal basis, giving people access to heirlooms which can serve both utilitarian and social purposes (Wiessner, 2002). Foragers learned about their environment and resource use through a combination of imitation, assimilation, and acculturation. Parents taught their children different kinds of ecological knowledge and resource-exploitation strategies. Ecological knowledge is sometimes a source of landscape manipulation. For example, the Pume of Venezuela created forest islands of planted semi-domesticated crops of manioc while also exploiting wild plant foods and medicines (Greaves and Kramer, 2014). A fully grown island had sites that varied in shade and moisture, thereby creating the opportunity for cultivation of crops. They became, through time, forest patches of varying successional stages within the sub-tropical savanna. Similar strategies were employed by the Huaorani Indians in the Oriente region of Ecuador in dense tropical forests (Rival, 2002). Cree Indians of North America rotated their hunting and fishing lands yearly to reduce wildlife disturbance and increase harvests. There is evidence that until recently, Indians of Canada used fire to maintain trails and to open up meadows (Lewis, 1989). This provided improved habitat for ungulates and increased hunting success. Australian Aborigines such as the Martu used fire to clear trails (eg, of poisonous snakes), promote the reproduction of lizards, reduce the impact of large-scale fires, and keep game habitat open (Bliege Bird et al., 2008, 2013). Appropriate use of natural resources was maintained through moral and belief systems of forager societies, which included a strong respect for nature. Some hunter-gatherer groups had taboo systems where certain animals, plants, or insects were off limits to members of those groups. At the same time, the defining of territories and the control of access to those areas by other people through permission-seeking requirements to enter also had an impact on levels of resource exploitation. Through religious belief and social conventions, people revered and exerted some control over their natural resources. These beliefs, however, did not necessarily prevent hunter-gatherers from overusing their resource base (Hames, 2007). Hunter-gatherers did not always live harmoniously with the environment. Indeed, evidence of escalating overuse is accumulating (eg, Redford and Mansour, 1996; Lyman, 2003). Conservation Among Hunter-Gatherers It has been suggested that hunter-gatherer adaptation occurred in environments where resources were freely available to all and were abundant. Thus, the environment was one where subsistence strategies emphasized short-term returns over long-term conservation. But during the Neolithic rise of agriculture, natural ecosystems were compressed and the value of resources increased as relative abundance declined. Some scholars have suggested that self-regulatory mechanisms evolved under resource limitation in some hunter-gatherer societies (Berkes and Folke, 1998). There has been much written about how hunter-gatherers are actively engaged in conserving resources, especially animal resources. However, the actual data gathered on the subject suggest that subsistence hunters do not conserve prey resources. Most work shows that hunters are concerned about short-term gains and not about resource conservation (Smith and Wishnie, 2000; Hames, 2007; Alcorn, 2010). Small, mobile groups may use resources in a sustainable manner, for example, by maintaining small groups and ranging over a large territory, but this does not necessarily imply that they are consciously conserving resources. Evidence suggests that some resources may be used intensively or even depleted in local areas while other resources are used Author's personal copy Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of 3 sparingly. For example, Alvard (1998) showed that the Piro hunters of Peru depleted the large primates in the area around their village but have not yet done so to peccaries. Alvard (1998) also showed that the Indonesian Wana nearly depleted their area of macaques (large primates) but hunted pigs in a sustainable manner. Overexploitation of bushmeat in Mozambique (Fusari and Carpaneto, 2006) and in Gabon (Carpaneto et al., 2007) is leading to resource depression of certain species. These and other studies (eg, among the Inuit of Canada, the Ache of Paraguay, and the Cree of Canada) show that both overexploitation and conservation may be practiced by hunting groups. However, the point remains that hunters sometimes reduce prey species to the point of local extinction. For example, there is a major debate over what transpired with megafauna toward the end of the Pleistocene, with researchers arguing that Pleistocene extinctions were due to human intervention, while others argue that climate change played a greater role than did anthropogenic ones (Meltzer, 2015; Surovell et al., 2015). One plausible explanation for resource depletion is that the resources exploited by subsistence hunters are considered to be open-access resources. Open access implies that there are no controls over resource use, which is said to result in the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom et al., 2002). This concept proposed that deterioration of open-access grazing land is inevitable when individuals see no benefits from resource conservation. It should be noted, however, that there are few, if any, open access grazing lands, nearly all land being sub-divided among social groups, as seen, for example, among the Bakgatla of Botswana (Peters, 1994). Another reason for resource depletion is an apparent lack of concern for very abundant resources. Some level of scarcity adds value to a resource relative to when resources are quite abundant. Resource users are motivated to conserve only when they see benefits to nonuse of resources. Thus, it is only when long-term benefits outweigh the short-term benefits that conservation is expected. When tied to a specific resource base and well-defined territories, hunter-gatherers have long-term strategies for natural resource conservation (Alvard, 1998; Arunatoi, 2006; Alcorn, 2010). For example, traditional fishers in the Philippines and Indonesia have strong norms of territory ownership, which are enforced through threats of violence and damage to property. Additionally, the Hadza of the Lake Eyasi region of Tanzania have maintained a foraging existence in spite of numerous government efforts to settle them, and they have generally not overexploited their resource base (Marlowe, 2010). Although foragers may or may not overuse resources, their perception of the land and its value is based on use rights. Local biological diversity is an important element of local survival strategies. This view contrasts with the western view of biodiversity conservation, which is based on Western epistemology. In the western view, nature exists apart from humankind and has value independent of human use. Biodiversity conservation implies either no resource use or restraints in resource use. Processes of Modernization and Hunter-Gatherers Major changes in hunter-gatherer societies are occurring even in the most remote regions of the world. The magnitude of these changes calls into question the degree to which hunting and gathering exists today as a distinct economic occupation. These changes are associated with human population growth, land invasions by other groups, infrastructure development (eg, construction of roads, dams, and agricultural projects) and other kinds of development programs. Examples of involuntary displacement of local groups are numerous. For example, a number of Penan of Sarawak in Malaysia have been displaced by the construction of the Baku Dam on the Balui River, as recorded in a film “Broken Promises: Displaced by Dams” (see also Sovacool and Butan, 2011). Additionally, the construction of the Nam Theun 2 Dam on the Xe Bang Fai River in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos) also displaced hundreds of indigenous people whose livelihoods were dependent on foraging and fishing (Baird et al., 2015). Further, the establishment of protected areas such as Khaudum National Park in Namibia and Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe has also led to the involuntary resettlement of hunter-gatherer populations (Diecmann, 2007). In the mid-1960s, the construction of a new road opened up the Aché territory in eastern Paraguay. There were charges made that the Aché, who numbered some 900–1000 people at the time, were killed off, enslaved, and generally treated inhumanely by the Paraguayan government and by settlers (Harder Horst, 2007; Reed and Renshaw, 2012). Many of the Aché were forcibly moved into settlements. The Kuetuvy Aché of eastern Paraguay received official recognition on December 11, 2000 from the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) that they have access to the Mbaracayu Forest Reserve, which had been created originally in 1991. Subsequently, on June 25th the Kuetuvy community obtained the status of a “legally recognized entity” in Paraguay. These legal achievements have not, however, prevented the invasions of Northern Aché land by loggers from Brazil along with “landless peasants.” The Paraguayan government initially ejected the loggers and the peasants, but the process of invasion occurred several more times. The Aché organized strong resistance supported by non-government organizations, the media, and the government. Eventually, in 2004, the Kuetuvy Aché people received the rights to an area known as Finca 470, and the Kuetuvy Indigenous Reserve was created. Getting de jure (legal) title over the land has, however, continued to be a problem, as it is in many other indigenous areas. The building of roads makes it easier for outsiders to gain access to remote areas and to the resources therein. In addition, many hunter-gatherer populations are growing and, altering their relationship to the land, as can be seen among the Aché of Paraguay and the Ju/’hoansi of Namibia and Botswana (Lee, 2013). The result is that indigenous systems of resource use are changing due to both internal and external pressures. The traditional systems of resource use are not sufficient or are sometimes less effective under current conditions. For example, traditional sanctions to protect, or at least not exhaust, resources are becoming ineffective as cash Author's personal copy 4 Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of income has become increasingly important to individuals interested in commodities. Under these conditions, it is less likely that people will give priority to conservation unless it is economically profitable (Daily et al., 2000). Some hunter-gatherer groups have formed associations aimed at protecting their resources from exploitation by other people, and a number of hunter-gatherer and former foraging groups have gone to court in order to regain access to land and natural resources from which they had been excluded (Sapignoli, 2015; Hitchcock et al., 2011). Hunter-gatherers are also involved in negotiations with nation-states and nongovernment organizations over rights to resources in protected areas. This is particularly important for those people who are “conservation refugees” (Dowie, 2009). Land Tenure, Institutions, and Biodiversity One political factor that is almost universally common among hunter-gatherers today is that they often do not own or have control of the land they inhabit (Wily, 2011). Until recently, their remoteness meant that their livelihoods and the resources on which they depended were somewhat protected from outside influences. Thus, resources were locally controlled by informal norms through individual behavior. Now, however, national governments and private entrepreneurs, among others, have put native lands to “productive” use. This means that if the market for some product is strong, it will be exploited or cultivated regardless of environmental impact (Lambin et al., 2001). For example, the strong local demand for aguaja (a local plant) in the Peruvian Amazon has led to destructive harvesting. In theory, most hunter-gatherer communities have use rights to their territories but both old and new laws and treaties are continually violated. Legalizing communal resource-use rights is a way of giving huntergatherers a long-term stake in conserving the resources on which they depend. Securing rights to resources can occur through various management and development institutions. This means that hunter-gatherers, many of whom did not have institutions for collective action in the formal sense, find the need to work with formal western institutions to acquire control over their lands. What this means is that they must participate in land mapping, land adjudication, and land registration exercises, something that hunter-gatherers and former foragers and their supporters are doing in Africa, Asia, and Latin America today (Chapin et al., 2005; Vermeylen et al., 2012). Some groups, such as the Ju/’hoansi San of northeastern Namibia, have established formal linkages between traditional land managers, communal resource management institutions, and non-government organizations with the skills and knowledge to undertake mapping using geographic positioning instruments and Geographic Information Systems (Hitchcock, 2015). The future of biodiversity, conservation, and hunter-gatherer sustainability depends on understanding that there are fundamental differences in the concept of conservation for westerners and for indigenous hunter-gatherers. First, understanding that there are different worldviews toward nature is fundamental to forming a relationship between conservation organizations and hunter-gatherer peoples. The reality is that even if hunter-gatherers are using resources, selling wild animals, and cutting down trees, they perhaps remain the most effective conservationists for the regions in which they reside. Therefore, acceptance that there are different ways of knowing the world is a first prerequisite to working with indigenous hunter-gatherer populations. Second, it is necessary to recognize that there are no “pristine” hunter-gatherers and that hunter-gatherers have needs and aspirations just like the rest of us. Third, securing land and resource tenure rights for hunter-gatherers and biodiversity conservation is required to serve as a basis of a sustainable interaction. Economic Development and Biodiversity Conservation Community-based conservation is a concept aimed at involving local people in the conservation of wildlife or protection of biodiversity. The concept developed from failures of “fortress conservation” in the late 1980s, in addition to the realization that much of the planet’s wildlife and biodiversity exist outside protected areas and in regions occupied by rural people in developing countries (Galvin et al., 2008; Hitchcock et al., 2015). The ultimate goal of community-based conservation is to simultaneously enhance human livelihoods and conserve biodiversity through conservation-development initiatives (Berkes, 2007). Models of community-based conservation adhere to the notion that if local communities can derive some value and income, through conserving biodiversity, they will do so. This promising concept has been widely promoted as “the answer” to conservation in developing countries. Thus, several models of community-based conservation have developed (Goldman, 2003; Berkes, 2007) such as Integrated Conservation and Development projects. However, results from community-based conservation projects suggest that there are more failures than successes (Goldman, 2003; Berkes, 2004; Duffy, 2006). For instance, many community-based conservation efforts involve local communities in name only. Locals are neither involved in project identification and planning, nor are they direct beneficiaries; thus, these projects are not really community-based conservation projects. For community-based conservation to work, people need to be considered a component of the system being conserved and brought into the project process from the beginning (Carlson and Berkes, 2005; Reid et al., 2009). Particular emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring transparency, accountability, responsibility, and shared governance systems to ensure that these community-based conservation programs work efficiently. Co-management systems must be established for protected areas, as has been done, for example, in Author's personal copy Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of 5 Bwabwata National Park in Zambezi Region, Namibia where local Khwe and Mbukushu can have access to the park and can get benefits from the gate receipts and from the resources inside the protected area (Boden, 2007; Taylor, 2012). It Is Useful to View Hunter-Gatherers and Biodiversity as a Social–Ecological System One of the fundamental problems with community-based conservation is that hunter-gatherers as well as other indigenous populations are often viewed as an external disturbance to the natural system rather than as integral components of the ecosystem. But hunter-gatherer societies see their relationship with the environment as one: they are part of that environment. Though not a study on foragers, but rather herders who do some hunting and gathering, the South Turkana Ecosystem Project (Ellis and Swift, 1988; Little and Leslie, 1999) is one of the only truly interdisciplinary and long-term projects to study the social behavior, knowledge systems, demography, human biology, and ecology of a group of people. An important goal of this study was to understand how the environment affected human management and how people affected the environment. In this case, people and livestock (camels, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys) lived in a harsh, dry, and highly seasonal environment. This assemblage of people, livestock, plants, and other organisms within a semiarid ecosystem produced a remarkably interactive system. Vegetation structure in this tropical savanna and dry woodlands was shown to be hierarchically constrained by physical factors: by climate at regional scales, by topography and geomorphology at landscape scales, and by water redistribution and disturbance at local and patch scales; livestock and humans played a small role. The pastoralists did influence vegetation composition and cover by burning, woodcutting, and through seed distribution by livestock. Livestock ecology and production followed those of the seasonal dynamics of plants. The different patterns of forage utilization by different herbivores, plus differential habitat use, led to almost complete niche separation among this suite of domestic herbivores; among all five livestock species, they managed to utilize a wide variety of the available plant types in the ecosystem. Thus, physical heterogeneity of the Turkana landscapes ultimately resulted in spatial and temporal variation in plant production, plant life form diversity, and refuge areas for pastoralists. These, in turn, contributed to social and ecological persistence by reducing variability of ecosystem energy flow and long-term variations in species diversity. Thus, biodiversity was important to ecosystem and societal maintenance. This systems approach to understanding human–environment interactions is a useful way to discern the ecological impact of hunter-gatherers and, more importantly, to derive appropriate management targets of lands where hunter-gatherers live. The description presented here shows that indigenous concepts of conservation, ecological knowledge, and moral and religious beliefs are fundamental to understanding how hunter-gatherers utilize resources. Not all hunter-gatherers conserve their resources, thus whether or not and to what extent hunter-gatherers affect their environment is an empirical question that needs to be investigated, not a notion to be assumed one way or another. It is, however, the case that when hunter-gatherers have short-term strategies for resource use, they may overuse some resources; when long-term goals are in place, they may not. Informal institutions control use of some resources in hunter-gatherer societies, but collective action or formal institutions are generally not as well developed as they are among pastoralists, farmers, or urban populations. With major changes in and around the lands inhabited by hunter-gatherers, it is becoming increasingly necessary for hunter-gatherers to develop new kinds of institutions to gain control over their resource base. Alliances between hunter-gatherers and others interested in conservation may facilitate resource-management strategies that reduce the impact of negative changes. Hunter-gatherer natural resource-management strategies that include their social and ideological systems are important attributes of these social–ecological systems and need to be the fundamental components of any plan to conserve biodiversity. References Alcorn, J., 2010. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation. Chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Alvard, M.S., 1998. Evolutionary ecology and resource conservation. Evolutionary Anthropology 72, 62–74. Ames, K.M., 1994. The Northwest Coast: Complex hunter-gatherers, ecology, and social evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 209–229. Arnold, J.E., 2004. Foundations of Chumash Complexity. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Arunatoi, N., 2006. Moken traditional knowledge: An unrecognized form of natural resources management and conservation. International Social Science Journal 58, 139–150. Bailey, R.C., Aunger Jr., R., 1989. Significance of the social relationships of Efe Pygmy men in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78, 495–507. Baird, I.G., Shoemaker, B.P., Manorom, K., 2015. The people and their river, the world bank and its dam: Revisiting the Xe Bang Fai River in Laos. Development and Change 46 (5), 1080–1105. Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3), 621–630. Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America 104 (23), 15188–15193. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems, Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bliege Bird, R., Bird, D.R., Codding, B.F., Parker, C.H., Jones, J.H., 2008. The fire stick farming hypothesis: Australian aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (39), 14796–14801. Bliege-Bird, R., Taylor, N., Codding, B.F., Bird, D.W., 2013. Niche construction and dreaming logic: Aboriginal patch mosaic burning and varanid lizards (Varanus gouldii) in Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280, 20132297. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2297 Boden, G., 2007. Mapping culture, representing boundaries, and politicizing difference: Reflections on Two San cases in Namibia. In: Bubenzer, O., Bolten, A., Darius, F. (Eds.), Atlas of Cultural and Environmental Change in Arid Africa. Cologne: Heinrich-Barth-Institute, pp. 112–115. Author's personal copy 6 Hunter-Gatherer Societies, Ecological Impact of Cane, S., 1996. Australian aboriginal subsistence in the western desert DG Bates. In: Lees, S.H. (Ed.), Case Studies in Human Ecology. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 17–54. Carlsson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75, 65–76. Carpaneto, G.M., Fusari, A., Okongo, H., 2007. Subsistence hunting and exploitation of mammals in the Haut-Ogooue Province, South Eastern Gabon. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 85, 183–193. Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., Threlkeld, B., 2005. Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review of Anthropology 34, 619–638. Daily, G.C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., et al., 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289, 395–396. Daly, R., 2014. War, peace and Northwest Coast complex hunter-gatherers. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 6 (4), 240–254. Diecmann, U., 2007. Hai//om in the Etosha Region: A History of Colonial Settlement, Ethnicity, and Nature Conservation. Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien. Dowie, M., 2009. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred Year Conflict Between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duffy, R., 2006. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: The politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Political Geography 25, 89–112. Durning, A.T., 1992. Guardians of the Land: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth. Washington, DC: WorldWatch Institute, WorldWatch Paper 112. Ellis, J.E., Swift, D.M., 1988. Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management 41, 450–459. Fusari, A., Carpaneto, G.M., 2006. Subsistence hunting and conservation issues in the game reserve of Gile, Mozambique. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2477–2495. Galvin, K.A., Reid, R.S., Behnke, R.H., Hobbs, N.T. (Eds.), 2008. Fragmentation of Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes: Consequences for Human and Natural Systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Goldman, M., 2003. Partitioned nature, privileged knowledge: Community based conservation in Tanzania. Development and Change 34 (5), 833–862. Greaves, R.D., Kramer, K.L., 2014. Hunter-gatherer use of wild plants and domesticates: Archaeological implications for mixed economies before agricultural intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 263–271. Hames, R., 2007. The ecologically noble savage debate. Annual Review of Anthropology 36 (1), 177–190. Harder Horst, R., 2007. The Stroessner Regime and Indigenous Resistance in Paraguay. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. Hitchcock, R.K., 2015. Improving the Viability and Sustainability of the Nyae Nyae Conservancy and the Naa Jaqna Conservancy: A Mid-Term Evaluation of an NNDFN/Brot für die Welt Project in Namibia. Windhoek: Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia and Berlin: Brot für die Welt. Hitchcock, R.K., Sapignoli, M., Babchuk, W.A., 2011. What about our rights? settlements, subsistence, and livelihood security among Central Kalahari San and Bakgalagadi. The International Journal of Human Rights 15 (1), 67–87. Hitchcock, R.K., Sapignoli, M., Main, M., Babchuk, W.A., 2015. The politics and economics of community-based natural resource management in /Xai/Xai, Ngamiland, Botswana. African Study Monographs 36 (4), 211–260. Ichikawa, M., 2000. Interest in the present in the nationwide monetary economy: The case of Mbuti hunters in Zaire. In: Schweitzer, P., Biesele, M., Hitchcock, R.K. (Eds.), Hunters and Gatherers in the Modern World.. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 263–274. Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., et al., 2001. The causes of land use and land cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11, 261–269. Lee, R.B., 1968. What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources. In: Lee, R.B., DeVore, I. (Eds.), Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 30–48. Lee, R.B., 2013. The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, fourth ed. Independence, Kentucky: Cencage. Lewis, H.T., 1989. Ecological and technical knowledge of fire: Aborigines versus park managers in Northern Australia. American Anthropologist 91, 940–961. Little, M.A., Leslie, P.W., 1999. Turkana Herders of the Dry Savanna: Ecology and Biobehavioral Response of Nomads to an Uncertain Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyman, R.L., 2003. Pinniped behavior, foraging theory, and the depression of metapopulations and non depression of a local population on the southern northwest coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22, 376–388. Marlowe, F.W., 2010. The Hadza Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Marshall, L., 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Meltzer, D.J., 2015. Pleistocene overkill and North American mammalian extinctions. Annual Review of Anthropology 44, 33–53. Moran, E.F., 1991. Human adaptive strategies in Amazonian black-water ecosystems. American Anthropologist 93, 361–382. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak., N., et al., 2002. The drama of the commons. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Peters, P., 1994. Dividing the Commons: Politics, Policy, and Culture in Botswana. Charlottesville and London: The University Press of Virginia. Redford, K.H., Mansour, J.A., 1996. Traditional Peoples and Biodiversity Conservation in Large Tropical Landscapes. Arlington, VA: America Verde Publications. The Nature Conservancy Latin America and Caribbean Division. Reed, R., Renshaw, J., 2012. The Aché and Guarani thirty years after maybury–lewis and howe’s report on Genocide in Paraguay. Tipiti: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 10 (1–2), 1–18. Reid, R.S., Nkedianye, D., Said, M.Y., et al., 2009. Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: Balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of United States of America. Available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900313106 Rival, L., 2002. Trekking Through History: The Huaorani of Amazonian Ecuador. New York: Columbia University Press. Sapignoli, M., 2015. Dispossession in the age of humanity: Human rights, citizenship, and indigeneity in the Central Kalahari. Anthropological Forum: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology 25 (3), 285–305. Silberbauer, G.B., 1981. Hunter and Habitat in the Central Kalahari Desert. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, E.A., Wishnie, M., 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 29, 493–524. Sovacool, B.K., Bulan, L.C., 2011. Behind an ambitious megaproject in Asia: The history and implications of the Bakun hydroelectric dam in Borneo. Energy Policy 39, 4842–4859. Surovell, T.A., Pelton, S.R., Anderson-Sprecher, R., Myers, A.D., 2015. Test of Martin’s overkill hypothesis using radiocarbon dates on extinct megafauna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 04, 020. Tanaka, J., 1980. The San, Hunter-Gatherers of the Kalahari: A Study in Ecological Anthropology. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Taylor, J., 2012. Naming the Land: San Identity and Community Conservation in Namibia’s West Caprivi. Windhoek: Demasius Publications and Basel, Switzerland: Basler Afrika Bibliographien. Vermeylen, S., Dovies, G., van der Horst, D., 2012. Deconstructing the conservancy map: Hxaro, N!ore, and Rhizomes in the Kalahari. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 47 (2), 121–134. Wiessner, P., 2002. Hunting, healing, and hxaro exchange: A long term perspective on !Kung (Ju/’hoansi) large game hunting. Evolution and Human Behavior 23, 407–436. Wily, E., 2011. The law is to blame: The vulnerable status of common property rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Development and Change 42 (3), 733–757. Yellen, J.E., 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. New York: Academic Press. Relevant Website www.borneoproject.org Borneoproject.