Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Kimmerer, Robin Wall

doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-039-2_18

Cited by 95 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These sources importantly include indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems. It seems no accident that the manifestation of sustainability, resilience, and socio-ecological systems as organizing ideas over the last several decades has coincided with the recognition of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and ecological wisdom in the scientific community (Berkes et al 2000;Kimmerer 2011;Wang et al 2016;Wang 2019;Xiang 2014). Behind the convergence of these systems of thought is a shared need to find meaning and coherence amid the myriad data points.…”

Section: Socio-ecological Systems In Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

From the land to socio-ecological systems: the continuing influence of Aldo Leopold

Meine

2020

Socio Ecol Pract Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of linked socio-ecological systems as an organizing concept over the last two decades casts the legacy of Aldo Leopold in a new light, allowing us to view him as a key forerunner in this interdisciplinary field. Leopold regarded "land" as the nexus of human and natural systems and framed his "land ethic" as a guide to appropriate human thought and action within them. Our understanding of Leopold's legacy, and of the land ethic itself, continues to evolve in response to rapidly changing social and ecological conditions.

show abstract

Section: Socio-ecological Systems In Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

From the land to socio-ecological systems: the continuing influence of Aldo Leopold

Meine

2020

Socio Ecol Pract Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While restoration appropriately includes human priorities, without a baseline for comparison, a danger exists that judgments of “good, bad, or neutral impacts” would be predicated on perceptions and values primarily associated with benefits to humans. Benefits to humans are important, but difficulties arise when ecocentric and anthropocentric values compete without the guidance of TEK or other cultural yardsticks, which identify human welfare as related to the welfare of the rest of nature (Kimmerer ).…”

Section: Would Adopting “Good Bad or Neutral” Impacts Provide An Immentioning

confidence: 99%

The SER Standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

McDonald¹,

Aronson

Eisenberg

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a "pure naturalness" model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both "natural" ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and "similar" cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits "good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems" as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social-ecological restoration.

show abstract

“…For example, the World Commission on Environment and Development stressed in its seminal report Our Common Future that tribal and Indigenous 'lifestyles can offer modern societies many lessons in the management of resources in complex forest, mountain and dryland ecosystems' (WCED 1987, 12). Furthermore, TEK has become widely embraced as a source for innovating domains such as conservation management (Berkes 2012;Gadamus et al 2015;Kimmerer 2011), sustainable agriculture (Altieri 2004;Cannarella and Piccioni 2011), and responses to climate change (Naess 2013;Nakashima et al 2012;Pearce et al 2015). At a more general level, TEK has been characterized as a source for rethinking human relationships with their environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation

Ludwig

Macnaghten

2019

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Change in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is not easily understood in terms of Western innovation discourses. In fact, innovations in the sense of modern and growth-oriented technologies are common sources for the erosion of TEK. This article brings together current literatures on TEK and innovation studies in addressing questions about the governance of socioecological change. First, we connect TEK to shifting meanings of 'innovation' that emphasize contributions to societal goals rather than economic growth or technological modernization. Second, we situate these shifts in governance frameworks of 'responsible innovation'. Third, we argue that the case for self-determination of traditional communities also identifies limits of integrating TEK with recent innovation discourses. As change in traditional communities is part of a wider political set of struggles about conditions of change and decolonization, debates about innovation require engagement with underlying social justice issues beyond mainstream debates about responsible governance. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Cited by 95 publications

References 27 publications

From the land to socio-ecological systems: the continuing influence of Aldo Leopold

From the land to socio-ecological systems: the continuing influence of Aldo Leopold

The SER Standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About