Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal-marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada: a systematic map protocol

Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Steven M. Alexander1,2, Jennifer F. Provencher3, Dominique Henri4, Jessica J. Taylor5, Steven J. Cooke5
1Environmental Change and Governance Group, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
2Environment and Biodiversity Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Canada
3Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Canada
4Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change, Gatineau, Canada
5Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Tóm tắt

AbstractBackgroundThe incorporation of multiple types of knowledge (e.g., science, Indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge) is an important undertaking, which can strengthen the evidence-base for policy advice, decision making, and environmental management. While the benefits of incorporating multiple types of knowledge in environmental research and management are many, successfully doing so has remained a challenge. In response there has been a number of recent reviews that have sought to better understand the what and how, when it comes to bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge. Yet there continues to be a need for methods, models, and approaches for integrative work. This systematic map seeks to examine the extent, range, and nature of the published literature (i.e., peer-reviewed and grey) that integrates and/or includes Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal-marine research, monitoring, or management in Canada. Results from this study can be used to inform new and ongoing research and monitoring efforts and highlight evidence gaps.MethodsThe systematic map will aim to capture all available studies relevant to the question found in the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Accordingly, the search will leverage four databases focused on peer reviewed publications, carefully selected specialist websites, and two web-based search engines. Reference sections of relevant review articles will also be cross-checked to identify articles that were not found using the search strategy. All searches will be conducted in English. Search results will be reviewed in two stages: (1) title and abstract; and (2) full text. All screening decisions will be included in the database. The systematic map will employ a narrative synthesis approach that will include the use of descriptive statistics, tables (including SM database), and figures (including map with the studies geospatially referenced). In addition, an online version of the map and queryable database will be developed similar to other knowledge mobilization tools.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Fazey I, Fazey JA, Salisbury JG, Lindenmayer DB, Dovers S. The nature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ Conserv. 2006;33(1):1.

Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage. 2009;90:1692–702.

Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio. 2014;43(5):579–91.

Mistry J, Berardi A. Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science. 2016;352(6291):1274–5.

Sutherland WJ, Gardner TA, Haider LJ, Dicks LV. How can local and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international assessments? Oryx. 2014;48(1):1–2.

Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017;26:17–25.

Gagnon CA, Berteaux D. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecol Soc. 2009;14:2.

Bélisle AC, Asselin H, LeBlanc P, Gauthier S. Local knowledge in ecological modeling. Ecol Soc. 2018;23:2.

Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy. 2013;28:60–70.

Miller CA, Munoz-Erikson T. The rightful place of science: designing knowledge. Tempe: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes; 2018.

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A. The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Cur Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:1–6.

Mazzocchi F. Western science and traditional knowledge: despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Rep. 2006;7(5):463–6.

Agrawal A. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Develop Change. 1995;26:413–39.

Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2006.

Rathwell K, Armitage D, Berkes F. Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: a typology of settings. Int J Commons. 2015;9(2):851–80.

Johnson JT, Howitt R, Cajete G, Berkes F, Louis RP, Kliskey A. Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustain Sci. 2016;11(1):1.

Castleden HE, Hart C, Harper S, Martin D, Cunsolo A, Stefanelli R, Day L, Lauridsen K. Implementing Indigenous and Western Knowledge Systems in Water Research and Management (Part 1): a systematic realist review to inform water policy and governance in Canada. Int Indigenous Policy J. 2017;8(4):7.

Huntington HP. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(5):1270–4.

McGregor DMD. Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western science: aboriginal perspectives from the 2000 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. Can J Native Stud. 2008;28(1):139–58.

Stevenson MG. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic. 1996;49(3):278–91.

Usher PJ. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic. 2000;53(2):183–93.

Nadasdy P. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic. 2003;56:367–80.

Menzies CR, Butler C. Introduction: understanding ecological knowledge. In: Menzies CR, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press; 2006. p. 1–20.

Sandlos, J. Hunters at the margins. Native people and wildlife conservation in the Northwest Territories. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 2007.

Henri D. Managing nature, producing cultures: Inuit participation, science, and policy in wildlife governance in the Nunavut Territory, Canada. PhD thesis, University of Oxford. 2012.

Nadasdy P. The politics of TEK: power and the integration of knowledge. Arctic Anthropol. 1999;36:1–18.

Cruikshank J. The social life of stories: narrative and knowledge in the Yukon Territory. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; 1998.

Kendrick A. Community perceptions of the Beverly–Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board. Can J Native Stud. 2000;20(1):1–33.

Peters EJ. Views of traditional ecological knowledge in co-management bodies in Nunavik, Quebec. Polar Record. 2003;39(208):49–60.

Rodon T. En partenariat avec l’état: les expériences de co-gestion des autochtones du Canada. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; 2003.

Spak S. The position of indigenous knowledge in Canadian co-management organizations. Anthropologica. 2005;47(2):233–42.

McGregor D. The state of traditional ecological knowledge research in Canada: a critique of current theory and practice. In: Laliberte R, Settee P, Waldram J, Innes R, Macdougall B, McBain L, Barron F, editors. Expressions in Canadian Native studies. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Extension Press; 2000. p. 436–58.

Simpson L. Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: decolonizing our processes. Can J Native Stud. 2001;21(1):137–48.

White G. “Not the Almighty”: evaluating Aboriginal influence in northern land-claim boards. Arctic. 2008;61(1):71–85.

Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 2010;91(8):1766–77.

Stefanelli RD, Castleden H, Harper SL, Martin D, Cunsolo A, Hart C. Experiences with integrative Indigenous and Western knowledge in water research and management: a systematic realist review of literature from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Environ Rev. 2017;25(3):323–33.

Thornton TF, Scheer AM. Collaborative engagement of local and traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: a review. Ecol Soc. 2012;17(3):8.

Breton-Honeyman K, Furgal CM, Hammill MO. Systematic review and critique of the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge of Beluga Whales in the marine mammal literature. Arctic. 2016;69:37–46.

James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 2016;5:7.

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 5.0. In: Pullin A, Frampton G, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G; 2018. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors. Accessed: 17 Aug 2018.

Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES Reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7:7.

Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi J. EPPI-reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. 2010.50.

Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environ Change. 2011;21(3):995–1004.

Levine J, Muthukrishna M, Chan KM, Satterfield T. Sea otters, social justice, and ecosystem-service perceptions in Clayoquot Sound, Canada. Conserv Biol. 2017;31(2):343–52.

Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):39.

McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, Holland MB, Levine E, Masuda YJ, Miller DC, Oliveira I. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ Evid. 2016;5(1):8.

Bottrill M, Cheng S, Garside R, Wongbusarakum S, Roe D, Holland MB, Edmond J, Turner WR. What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2014;3(1):1.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả