Social science research on Indigenous wildfire management in the 21st century and future research needs

Abstract

This article reviews social science research on Indigenous wildfire management in Australia, Canada and the United States after the year 2000 and explores future research needs in the field. In these three countries, social science research exploring contemporary Indigenous wildfire management has been limited although there have been interesting findings about how Indigenous culture and knowledge influences fire management. Research with Indigenous communities may be limited not because of a lack of interest by social scientists, but rather by obstacles to doing research with Indigenous communities, such as ethical and time concerns. Research needs on Indigenous wildfire management are presented, centred on the four pillars of emergency management (preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery).

Deliberation for wildfire risk management: Addressing conflicting views in the Chiquitania, Bolivia

“…Place‐based understandings of wildfire dynamics have been gained through cumulative traditional fire knowledge (TFK), defined by Huffman (, p. 1) as “fire‐related knowledge, beliefs and practices that have been developed and applied on specific landscapes for specific purposes by long‐time inhabitants.” This form of knowledge, which is common to Indigenous communities, functions differently from western or scientific ecological knowledge (SEK), which is based on objective documentation of natural phenomena resulting from observation, building on theories of general interest and applicability (Lake et al., ; Mason et al., ). In many countries, TFK‐based fire management changed significantly after colonisation, being partially or completely replaced by an SEK‐centric management approach (Christianson, ; Pyne, ).…”

The natural hazard sector's engagement with Indigenous peoples: a critical review of CANZUS countries

“…Similarly, in the United States, approximately 80 per cent of federally recognised Native American tribes do not have a disaster mitigation plans that would enable them to access federal funding for prevention and recovery processes (Carter & Peek, ), in part because they lack the funds to formulate such technical and specialised documents . As Christianson (, p.190) suggests in relation to wildfire management in Canada, the range of complex and sometimes severe socio‐economic issues affecting a significant number of Indigenous communities can make natural hazard management ‘a lower priority’…”

“…As Williamson () argues, in relation to southeast Australia, local Aboriginal people or Indigenous officers must be involved in implementing mitigation strategies. More broadly, ‘whereas wildfire managers may look at structures, infrastructure and natural resources, an Indigenous person may include archaeological sites, trap lines and traditional hunting areas as values at risk’ (Christianson, , p.197).…”

“…Across these very diverse contexts, in recent decades, Indigenous peoples have progressively regained some influence over various aspects of natural resource management through co‐management and community‐based development initiatives. Capacity deficits on the part of settler government institutions (Howitt et al ., ), and distrust and misunderstanding between Indigenous peoples and settler government institutions, nonetheless remain rife (Christianson, ), and processes of dispossession, recognition, and economic empowerment of Indigenous peoples have been spatially uneven. While various forms of Indigenous rights have been recognised over significant lands and waters by CANZUS governments, these rights are often limited or unrecognised in the urban and peri‐urban areas that most concern natural hazard management agencies (Christianson, ).…”

“…Capacity deficits on the part of settler government institutions (Howitt et al ., ), and distrust and misunderstanding between Indigenous peoples and settler government institutions, nonetheless remain rife (Christianson, ), and processes of dispossession, recognition, and economic empowerment of Indigenous peoples have been spatially uneven. While various forms of Indigenous rights have been recognised over significant lands and waters by CANZUS governments, these rights are often limited or unrecognised in the urban and peri‐urban areas that most concern natural hazard management agencies (Christianson, ). Furthermore, affected by colonisation, Indigenous peoples' cultures exist in intercultural contexts within which cultural similarity and difference are articulated and negotiated.…”