![]() The results of this study suggest that we cannot separate economic (or cultural) patterns from the social qualities that are implicated within the practice of landscape modification, and that working and living through such places was socially consequential and bound up with concepts of history, memory, and identity. Two case studies from the central Coast Salish region are examined: first, the social practices and landscape features associated with cedar bark-stripping and second, gardening traditions in sub-alpine areas of the Coast and Cascade Mountains. Drawing from ethnographic, environmental and archaeological evidence, and taking into account how changes in the land would have become entangled within the routines of working the landscape, this article examines and interprets some of the social distinctions that people might have constructed through these places in the past. Less attention has been paid to the ways in which landscapes were socially constructed and how living and working in such places gave meaning to social life at a variety of scales. Ethnobotanical, paleoenvironmental, ethnographic, and archaeological approaches have documented the degrees to which people managed ecosystems or otherwise altered the physical landscape in places once considered “wilderness” by newcomers. Recent research into the environmental history of the Northwest Coast has revealed the significant cultural impact that pre-contact and contact period Indigenous communities had on the surrounding landscape. Four critical features of knowledge integration are likely to enable a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship between indigenous and scientific knowledge: new frames for integration, greater cognizance of the social contexts of integration, expanded modes of knowledge evaluation, and involvement of inter-cultural “knowledge bridgers.” A minority of papers discuss a relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience, but there remains a lack of clarity and empirical evidence for such a relationship that can help distinguish how indigenous knowledge and knowledge integration contribute most to resilience. We identified broad themes in the literature related to: (1) similarities and differences between knowledge systems (2) methods and processes of integration (3) social contexts of integration and (4) evaluation of knowledge. We examine these questions through content analyses of three special journal issues and an edited book published in the past decade on indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge and its interface with science. In this paper we investigate: (1) themes, questions, or problems encountered for integration of indigenous knowledge and science (2) the relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience and (3) critical features of knowledge integration practice needed to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships between indigenous knowledge and science. Despite the increasing trend worldwide of integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in natural resource management, there has been little stock-taking of literature on lessons learned from bringing indigenous knowledge and science together and the implications for maintaining and building social-ecological system resilience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |