Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CLUES-DECEB (Cultural Loss Under Emulated Shocks – Demographic Environmental Climatic Empirical Bottlenecks)
Reporting period: 2022-09-01 to 2024-08-31
CLUES-DECEB (Cultural Loss Under Emulated Shocks – Demographic Environmental Climatic Empirical Bottlenecks) focuses on the critical lack of research on cultural loss, specifically the mechanisms that drive it, how to measure it in the context of shocks, and its long-term consequences. Current theoretical and empirical understanding is insufficient to address the impacts of demographic, ecological, and climatic shocks that have historically caused significant cultural changes.
Understanding cultural loss is crucial in today’s rapidly changing world, where populations face disasters at an accelerated rate and increased amplitude, including natural disasters, pandemics, and migrations. Identifying which shocks lead to cultural loss and which cultural traits promote resilience is essential for protecting societal well-being and ensuring sustainable development in an increasingly unstable environment.
Towards understanding the effects and drivers of loss, CLUES aims to identify the key factors and tipping points for cultural loss by (i) developing and analysing computer models simulating the basic mechanisms that drive loss motivated by different empirical cases where populations experience stress and shocks and (ii) setting frameworks for empirical measures of past and present cultural loss. The primary objective is to determine the empirical and methodological requirements for identifying tipping points where short-term external shocks trigger long-term cultural loss. Additionally, the project seeks to transfer its findings to academics, policy-makers, and the public to aid in the formulation of strategies that strengthen cultural resilience.
Understanding cultural loss is crucial in today’s rapidly changing world, where populations face disasters at an accelerated rate and increased amplitude, including natural disasters, pandemics, and migrations. Identifying which shocks lead to cultural loss and which cultural traits promote resilience is essential for protecting societal well-being and ensuring sustainable development in an increasingly unstable environment.
Towards understanding the effects and drivers of loss, CLUES aims to identify the key factors and tipping points for cultural loss by (i) developing and analysing computer models simulating the basic mechanisms that drive loss motivated by different empirical cases where populations experience stress and shocks and (ii) setting frameworks for empirical measures of past and present cultural loss. The primary objective is to determine the empirical and methodological requirements for identifying tipping points where short-term external shocks trigger long-term cultural loss. Additionally, the project seeks to transfer its findings to academics, policy-makers, and the public to aid in the formulation of strategies that strengthen cultural resilience.
My main work has been the creation of the model called EMBERS, which captures, simply and elegantly, the loss of a complex cultural trait that was revolutionary for hominins—fire use. The model is applied to the observation that the use of campfires in some Neanderthal settlements ceased entirely during cold periods, but it could also be used to describe the loss of contemporary useful arts and technologies observed across the globe in various societies when a practice is relatively isolated or niche.
The model captures the mechanisms of loss using just four empirically motivated parameters. It follows a “use it or lose it” framework, where a lack of practice leads to the skill being lost. The four parameters are the mean frequency of use and its variability, group memory or skill decay, and the number of skilled users, all of which can be empirically measured.
In another study, we addressed the need to connect sustainability studies with cultural loss and examined how that loss can have cascading effects on an eco-cultural landscape, particularly when triggered by a shock or a series of shocks. We proposed ways to unify research and refocus discussions, highlighting issues related to terminology, as well as the lack of dialogue and standardised language among different academic fields, stakeholders, affected communities, and policymakers.
We introduced the“keystone cultural practice (KCPr)” concept, both as a way to direct attention to specific practices that act as cultural safeguards and as a method for identifying and measuring them. I reinforced this concept by drawing from the well-established idea of cultural keystone species and collaborating with one of the leading figures who proposed and championed that term. I also reviewed and compared various uses of “cultural keystones” in the literature, proposed a standardised definition for CKPr, and contrasted this methodology with other cultural protection programmes such as UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage List and Geographical Indicators.
We have 6 publications under preparation or submitted for review. I participated in 6 conferences, presenting the work in 3 of them. I have also given several seminars at the host institutions and one colloquium. We organised a workshop with the participation of 12 academics of different backgrounds.
While at SFU, I received several trainings on project management, knowledge mobilisation. I also received extensive training in academic writing, developing skills to write academically for humanities and for the general public. At MPI-EVA, I participated in a data management workshop.
The model captures the mechanisms of loss using just four empirically motivated parameters. It follows a “use it or lose it” framework, where a lack of practice leads to the skill being lost. The four parameters are the mean frequency of use and its variability, group memory or skill decay, and the number of skilled users, all of which can be empirically measured.
In another study, we addressed the need to connect sustainability studies with cultural loss and examined how that loss can have cascading effects on an eco-cultural landscape, particularly when triggered by a shock or a series of shocks. We proposed ways to unify research and refocus discussions, highlighting issues related to terminology, as well as the lack of dialogue and standardised language among different academic fields, stakeholders, affected communities, and policymakers.
We introduced the“keystone cultural practice (KCPr)” concept, both as a way to direct attention to specific practices that act as cultural safeguards and as a method for identifying and measuring them. I reinforced this concept by drawing from the well-established idea of cultural keystone species and collaborating with one of the leading figures who proposed and championed that term. I also reviewed and compared various uses of “cultural keystones” in the literature, proposed a standardised definition for CKPr, and contrasted this methodology with other cultural protection programmes such as UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage List and Geographical Indicators.
We have 6 publications under preparation or submitted for review. I participated in 6 conferences, presenting the work in 3 of them. I have also given several seminars at the host institutions and one colloquium. We organised a workshop with the participation of 12 academics of different backgrounds.
While at SFU, I received several trainings on project management, knowledge mobilisation. I also received extensive training in academic writing, developing skills to write academically for humanities and for the general public. At MPI-EVA, I participated in a data management workshop.
Under CLUES, we successfully modelled the basic mechanisms that drive cultural loss, which, moreover, are empirically motivated and can potentially be measured. This modelling approach is beyond the state-of-the-art, as models that focus on memory loss are almost non-existent in the literature, and none distinguish between different decay rates while hierarchically inferring which parameters play a more significant role than others. Our results highlight that demographics is the least significant parameter in explaining retention or loss, a result seldom identified in the literature. Moreover, we identified variability in use as the main driver of loss, with its effects being orders of magnitude more significant than the number of skilled users. Additionally, we emphasise the importance of distinguishing between cultural loss and the decay of a skill or memory, identifying that procedural skills are the fastest decaying ones and, therefore, the most likely to be lost.
We aim to extend this modelling approach to focus on the scale of change in variability as the primary mechanism behind emulations of shocks. By measuring the coping scale of variability that characterises each cultural practice, we can predict when certain shocks that disrupt the use of a practice for longer or shorter periods will lead to its disappearance. This approach should provide natural tipping points. The impact would be to develop well-tested strategies that are most effective in protecting against cultural loss in specific areas by understanding how a shock perturbs a given practice depending on its core attributes.
Another extension of the model is to incorporate it into networks and examine which kinds of network structures best prepare for and shield against loss. A novel approach will be to make cultural traits interdependent, thereby enabling us to model how the loss of one specific cultural practice resonates throughout the network, knocking down other practices in the process.
On a separate line, we consolidated and expanded the KCPr concept, something that was scarcely present in the literature and had received little to no attention. This concept focuses on the need to identify salient cultural practices that play a crucial cultural function in the community.
We plan to expand this concept and propose a measurement protocol inspired by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, alongside the results of our modelling strategy. This approach has the potential to be the equivalent of the Red List for cultural practices, with potentially revolutionary effects on grassroots conservation plans for cultural diversity and social well-being.
Finally, we established the basis for the effects of cultural loss in sustainability. This connection remains largely unexplored in both the literature and policymaking, despite ample evidence of their deep correlation. Our results identify the fragmented nature of research on cultural loss as one of the primary reasons explaining this gap in the field. We propose unification on nomenclature and a methodology to establish the needed conversation between the different areas affected.
We aim to extend this modelling approach to focus on the scale of change in variability as the primary mechanism behind emulations of shocks. By measuring the coping scale of variability that characterises each cultural practice, we can predict when certain shocks that disrupt the use of a practice for longer or shorter periods will lead to its disappearance. This approach should provide natural tipping points. The impact would be to develop well-tested strategies that are most effective in protecting against cultural loss in specific areas by understanding how a shock perturbs a given practice depending on its core attributes.
Another extension of the model is to incorporate it into networks and examine which kinds of network structures best prepare for and shield against loss. A novel approach will be to make cultural traits interdependent, thereby enabling us to model how the loss of one specific cultural practice resonates throughout the network, knocking down other practices in the process.
On a separate line, we consolidated and expanded the KCPr concept, something that was scarcely present in the literature and had received little to no attention. This concept focuses on the need to identify salient cultural practices that play a crucial cultural function in the community.
We plan to expand this concept and propose a measurement protocol inspired by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, alongside the results of our modelling strategy. This approach has the potential to be the equivalent of the Red List for cultural practices, with potentially revolutionary effects on grassroots conservation plans for cultural diversity and social well-being.
Finally, we established the basis for the effects of cultural loss in sustainability. This connection remains largely unexplored in both the literature and policymaking, despite ample evidence of their deep correlation. Our results identify the fragmented nature of research on cultural loss as one of the primary reasons explaining this gap in the field. We propose unification on nomenclature and a methodology to establish the needed conversation between the different areas affected.