Researchers, Indigenous Peoples, and Place-Based Learning Communities

Davidson‐Hunt, Iain J.; O'Flaherty, R. Michael

doi:10.1080/08941920601161312

Cited by 171 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Davidson-Hunt and O'Flaherty (2007) highlight the potential for conflict around competing knowledge claims (research-based and local) given the politics of resource-management decision making and the history of unequal relations between those making decisions and those impacted by decisions. Armitage et al (2008a) ask questions around who is involved in learning and the nature of the risks involved in participating in social learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing Adaptive Marine Governance in a Developing Country Context: a Case Study of Southern Kenya

Evans¹,

Brown²,

Allison³

2011

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Adaptive governance can be conceptualized as distinct phases of: 1) understanding environmental change; 2) using this understanding to inform decision making; and 3) acting on decisions in a manner that sustains resilience of desirable system states. Using this analytical framework, we explore governance in practice in two case studies in Kenya, that reflect the "messiness" of contemporary coastal governance in many developing country contexts. Findings suggest that adaptive marine governance is unlikely to be a smooth process of learning, knowledge sharing, and responding. There are institutional, sociocultural, and political factors, past and present, that influence each phase of both local and state decision making. New local institutions related to fisher associations and Beach Management Units influence learning and knowledge sharing in ways contrary to those expected of institutions that enable collaborative fisheries management. Similarly, state decision making is relatively uninformed by the diverse knowledge systems available in the coastal zone, despite the rhetoric of participation. Historical relations and modes of working continue to play a significant role in mediating the potential for adaptive governance in the future. The case studies are illustrative and point to a number of institutional and political issues that would need to be addressed in processes of governance reform towards more adaptive management in developing country contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing Adaptive Marine Governance in a Developing Country Context: a Case Study of Southern Kenya

Evans¹,

Brown²,

Allison³

2011

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The socioeconomic disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoples is a key constraint, reflected in the life expectancy gap with non-Indigenous people of twelve years (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2010). Projects that seek to engage Indigenous peoples in environmental management always encounter the politics of Indigenous rights and the context of Indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage as key determinants of success (Palmer 2006, Davidson andO'Flaherty 2007). These distinctive features suggest that characteristics of Indigenous peoples' engagement will differ significantly from the general characteristics of "public" engagement in environmental management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System Sustainability

Hill¹,

Grant²,

George³

et al. 2012

E&S

173

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Indigenous peoples now engage with many decentralized approaches to environmental management that offer opportunities for integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and western science to promote cultural diversity in the management of social-ecological system sustainability. Nevertheless, processes of combining IEK with western science are diverse and affected by numerous factors, including the adaptive co-management context, the intrinsic characteristics of the natural resources, and the governance systems. We present a typology of Indigenous engagement in environmental management, derived through comparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies, and consider its implications for the integration of IEK with western science. Sociological and rational choice institutionalism underpin our analytical framework, which differentiates on three axes: (1) power sharing, incorporating decision making, rules definition, resource values and property rights; (2) participation, incorporating participatory processes, organizations engaged, and coordination approaches; (3) intercultural purpose, incorporating purposes of environmental management, Indigenous engagement, Indigenous development and capacity building. Our typology groups engagement into four types: Indigenous governed collaborations; Indigenous-driven cogovernance; agency-driven co-governance; and agency governance. From our analysis of manifestations of knowledge integration across the types, we argue that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems. Supporting Indigenous governance without, or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous cultural purposes underpinning IEK, and benefits knowledge integration. We conclude by advocating that the typology be applied to test its general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchers to develop robust governance for Indigenous knowledge integration in environmental management.

show abstract

“…The iconic works of Johannes (1978Johannes ( , 2002, Berkes (1999), and colleagues (Berkes et al 2000) have informed much discussion in the SES resilience literature about the potential for traditional knowledge to inform adaptive management and traditional institutions, such as taboo systems, to function as conservation tools (Castro and Nielson 2001, Olsson and Folke 2001, Drew 2005, Cinner and Aswani 2007, Davidson-Hunt and O'Flaherty 2007. Some of this literature acknowledges that these institutions were not necessarily designed for conservation purposes per se, but it still often portrays them as emergent primarily from environmental influences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology

Fabinyi¹,

Evans²,

Foale³

2014

E&S

277

224

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A social-ecological system (SES) framework increasingly underpins the "resilience paradigm." As with all models, the SES comes with particular biases. We explore these key biases. We critically examine how the SES resilience literature has attempted to define and analyze the social arena. We argue that much SES literature defines people's interests and livelihoods as concerned primarily with the environment, and thereby underplays the role of other motivations and social institutions. We also highlight the SES resilience literature's focus on institutions and organized social units, which misses key aspects of social diversity and power. Our key premise is the importance of inter-and multi-disciplinary perspectives. To illustrate this, we draw attention to the critique of earlier ecological anthropology that remains relevant for current conceptualizations of SESs, focusing on the concepts of social diversity and power. And we discuss insights from social anthropology and political ecology that have responded to this critique to develop different ways of incorporating social diversity and power into human-environment relations. Finally, we discuss how these social science perspectives can help improve the understanding of the "social" in SES resilience research.Key Words: anthropology; political ecology; power; social diversity; social-ecological system INTRODUCTION Underpinning current use of the "resilience paradigm" is a focus on the social-ecological system (SES). The SES is a model with the attendant biases and particular strengths and weaknesses that come with all models (anthropological, ecological, economic, and political). In particular, social elements of the SES remain weakly theorized, highlighting the need for a Special Issue such as this. We focus on how much SES resilience literature tends to define people's interests and livelihoods as concerned primarily with the environment. This underplays the role of other motivations and social institutions, and portrays a limited understanding of the importance of social diversity and power. We discuss insights from the social sciences-in particular, social anthropology and political ecology-to critique the concept of SES, with a focus on the concepts of human adaptation to the environment, social diversity, and power. Emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary learning, we analyze how these social sciences have addressed similar conceptual issues within their own intellectual histories as a response to critiques of earlier forms of ecological anthropology. In our conclusion, we discuss to what extent this can contribute to a broader intellectual understanding of the "social" in SES resilience research.

show abstract

Researchers, Indigenous Peoples, and Place-Based Learning Communities

Cited by 171 publications

References 10 publications

Factors Influencing Adaptive Marine Governance in a Developing Country Context: a Case Study of Southern Kenya

Factors Influencing Adaptive Marine Governance in a Developing Country Context: a Case Study of Southern Kenya

A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System Sustainability

Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About