The Relationship between Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Evolving Cultures, and Wilderness Protection in the Circumpolar North

Abstract

ABSTRACT. There are many unique issues associated with natural resource management in the far north as a result of legislative direction, historic settlement and occupation patterns, northern cultural traditions, ecotourism, economic depression, pressures for energy development, and globalization and modernization effects. Wilderness designation in Canada, the USA, and Finland is aimed at preserving and restoring many human and ecological values, as are the long-established, strictly enforced, nature reserves in Russia. In Alaska and Finland, and in some provinces of Canada, there is a variety of values associated with protecting relatively intact relationships between indigenous people and relatively pristine, vast ecosystems. These values are often described as "traditional means of livelihood," "traditional means of access," "traditional relationships with nature," or "traditional lifestyles." Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) forms part of these relationships and has been acknowledged as a contributor to understanding the effects of management decisions and human-use impacts on long-term ecological composition, structure, and function. Wilderness protection can help maintain opportunities to continue traditional relationships with nature. As cultures continue to evolve in customs, attitudes, knowledge, and technological uses, values associated with both TEK and relationships with relatively pristine ecosystems will also evolve. Understanding these relationships and how to consider them in wilderness protection and restoration decision making is potentially one of the most contentious, widespread natural resource management issues in the circumpolar north.

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on "Integration"?

“…Long et al's (2003) interviews with cultural advisors in the White Mountain Apache community about their views on wetland restoration suggest that cultural traditions can guide ecological restoration efforts. Watson et al (2003) investigate how global and regional change affect the culture-knowledge link regarding wilderness protection and restoration in the Circumpolar North, arguing that evolution of culture and TEK values related to pristine ecosystems must be considered in Western systems of wilderness management.…”

“…Even so, much of the evaluation of integrated knowledge has largely concerned the credibility of IK in the eyes of science. Watson et al (2003) contend that IK has its own rules about processes of knowing, which diverge from the rules of science regarding evidence, repeatability, and quantification. Green (2009) suggests there is a need for social and cultural critique of scientific knowledge that is neither deferential to nor cynical about natural sciences, and is cooperative rather than competitive.…”

<i>Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit</i>: Social History, Politics and the Practice of Resistance

“…These questions raise a matter that dominates the literature dealing with IQ, TEK, and IK. What is the best way to integrate indigenous knowledge (particularly cultural and spiritual dimensions) and Western science (Colorado, 1988;Johnson and Ruttan, 1992;Nakashima, 1993;Agrawal, 1995;Bielawski, 1996;Zamparo, 1996;Duerden and Kuhn, 1998;Pellerin and Grondin, 1998;Huntington, 2000;Watson et al, 2003;Collignon, 2004;Whiteman, 2004)? Can this be done?…”

Polar Bear Conservation in Canada: Defining the Policy Problems

“…Co-management regimes have arisen from the settlement of aboriginal land claims throughout northern Canada, changing the distribution of power in wildlife management systems (Nadasdy, 2003;Armitage and Clark, 2005) and introducing traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as a basis for decision making, alongside science (Berkes, 1999;Treseder et al, 1999;Watson et al, 2003;Menzies, 2006). This transition has been a turbulent process not wholly welcomed by the scientific and non-aboriginal managerial communities (Howard and Widdowson, 1996;Gilchrist et al, 2005), whose roles are themselves the subject of much recent critique (e.g., Nadasdy, 2003;Natcher et al, 2005;Brook and McLachlan, 2005;Stevenson, 2006;White, 2006).…”