From Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the Implications

By N. Turner, R. Gregory, Cheryl Brooks, Lee Failing, Terre Satterfield. 2008

255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper explores the need for a broader and more inclusive approach to decisions about land and resources, one that recognizes the legitimacy of cultural values and traditional knowledge in environmental decision making and policy. Invisible losses are those not widely recognized or accounted for in decisions about resource planning and decision making in resource- and land-use negotiations precisely because they involve considerations that tend to be ignored by managers and scientists or because they are often indirect or cumulative, resulting from a complex, often cumulative series of events, decisions, choices, or policies. First Nations communities in western North America have experienced many such losses that, together, have resulted in a decline in the overall resilience of individuals and communities. We have identified eight types invisible losses that are often overlapping and cumulative: cultural/lifestyle losses, loss of identity, health losses, loss of self-determination and influence, emotional and psychological losses, loss of order in the world, knowledge losses, and indirect economic losses and lost opportunities. To render such invisible losses more transparent, which represents the first step in developing a more positive and equitable basis for decision making and negotiations around land and resources, we recommend six processes: focusing on what matters to the people affected, describing what matters in meaningful ways, making a place for these concerns in decision making, evaluating future losses and gains from a historical baseline, recognizing culturally derived values as relevant, and creating better alternatives for decision making so that invisible losses will be diminished or eliminated in the future.

Subfields: Building and Construction, General Health Professions, Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/24a6d1b038e8333353e724158caf7b7dccb148a8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Lee Failing
2. J. Link
3. J. Samhouri
4. R. Gregory
5. P. Higgins
6. A. Haupt
7. P. Levin
8. R. Shuford

Citations in the corpus

• Science, Uncertainty, and Values in Ecological Restoration: A Case Study in Structured Decision‐Making and Adaptive Management (2013, background): “At the simplest level, giving these previously invisible values a legitimate place in decisions demonstrated respect for St’at’imc values (Turner et al. 2008).”
• Lessons learned from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine ecosystem-based management in the USA (2014, background): “…of ecosystems can enhance the implementation of EBM by quantifying impacts on livelihoods and communities, increasing buy-in, reducing conflict (Evans and Klinger, 2008), and helping to develop alternatives that address concerns of those affected by ecosystem changes (Turner et al., 2008).”