The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments?

Beaulieu‐Guay, Louis‐Robert

doi:10.1111/capa.12491

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes changing the status of western science-now potentially rubbishand (some) western scientists, whose expertise may be demoted or even unprivileged within alternative orderings (cf. Alfred 2005).…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory

Singleton

Gillette

2023

EBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as non-academic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume’s case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to “do conservation” according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory

Singleton

Gillette

2023

EBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It tends to minimize or ignore judgments based on experience, which are often better represented using qualitative methods. In particular, cultural knowledge or Indigenous experience may be disregarded or misrepresented (Beaulieu-Guay, 2022; Gulis et al, 2022; Turnbull, 1992). For example, Beaulieu-Guay (2022) mentions that even if Indigenous people and organizations are systematically consulted, traditional ecological knowledge is often treated as marginal in impact assessments: “consultation with Indigenous Peoples and organizations in regulatory impact assessments is primarily to identify their preferences, answer technical questions, or validate support for the proposed regulatory change” (Beaulieu-Guay, 2022: 412).…”

Section: Learnings From Evaluation Approaches Assessing Natural and H...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, cultural knowledge or Indigenous experience may be disregarded or misrepresented (Beaulieu-Guay, 2022; Gulis et al, 2022; Turnbull, 1992). For example, Beaulieu-Guay (2022) mentions that even if Indigenous people and organizations are systematically consulted, traditional ecological knowledge is often treated as marginal in impact assessments: “consultation with Indigenous Peoples and organizations in regulatory impact assessments is primarily to identify their preferences, answer technical questions, or validate support for the proposed regulatory change” (Beaulieu-Guay, 2022: 412). Similarly, another observation made by Gulis et al (2022) is that, despite the existing guidance, people without specific expertise in health often experience difficulties in conducting or even interpreting scientifically complex analysis.…”

Section: Learnings From Evaluation Approaches Assessing Natural and H...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Planetary health: Creating rapid impact assessment tools

Brousselle,

Curren,

Dunbar

et al. 2024

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing current environmental, social, health, and democratic challenges requires projects and evaluations to be conceptualized differently. This article proposes a pathway to creating rapid impact assessment tools that consider the dimensions that matter the most to ensure positive impacts for a thriving future. This work is based on three premises for evaluation practice, which needs to: contribute to a positive ecosystem, adopt a holistic perspective, and engage participants in deliberative and democratic practices. We first review related evaluation approaches—health impact and environmental impact assessments—to learn from these experiences and avoid their pitfalls. Second, we present and illustrate how the Planetary Health Rapid Impact Assessment tools can be developed and used. This article, is intended to inspire and support policymakers, program designers, decision-makers, administrators, and evaluators willing to positively influence planetary health and introduce such tools in their projects.

show abstract

“…Yet, TEK and LEK appear to be environmental decision-making considerations not widely utilized. At the federal level in Canada for example, TEK is officially recognized as a legitimate information source for wildlife management legislation, yet it is not widely used by administrators when writing regulations (Beaulieu-Guay, 2022).…”

Section: Application Of Tek In Situations Where Scientific Inference ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of traditional and local ecological knowledge for species recovery when scientific inference is limited

Sheppard,

Stark,

Muturi

et al. 2024

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many critically endangered species persist in remnant populations so small that ecological information required to assist recovery, such as species-typical demographic parameters and habitat preferences, can be difficult to acquire based on science alone. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) or local ecological knowledge (LEK) can fill information gaps and provide additional understanding, though this expertise is not everlasting and often overlooked. We report on research focused on a species survival plan for mountain bongo (Tragelaphus eurycerus isaaci), a critically endangered antelope endemic to Kenya, persisting in the wild with fewer than 80 individuals in four separated montane forests. In preparation for a potential conservation translocation of captive-bred bongos into one or more forests, extensive camera trapping yielded limited results, suggesting that data were based on the activities of just a few individuals. Moreover, additional information critical to translocations, such as typical group size and sex ratios, could neither be observed nor obtained from the literature. This knowledge gap was largely resolved using expert interviews conducted with eight former Kenyan hunters, along with historical range and browse mapping, enriching understanding of behavioral characteristics rendering bongo particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Consistently similar responses from observations spanning a 50-year period (1950s to 1990s) across four ecosystems added certainty to responses. This study endorses a combination of data sources when dealing with remnant populations, and specifically recommends making use of this documented mountain bongo TEK/LEK to inform decisions about potential bongo reintroductions in Kenya.

show abstract

The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments?

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory

Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory

Planetary health: Creating rapid impact assessment tools

Benefits of traditional and local ecological knowledge for species recovery when scientific inference is limited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About