The University of Saskatchewan, Global Institute for Water Security, School of Environment and Sustainability, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B3, Canada.
The University of Saskatchewan, Global Institute for Water Security, School of Environment and Sustainability, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B3, Canada; The University of Saskatchewan, Toxicology Centre, School of Environment and Sustainability, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B3, Canada.
Environ Int. 2017 May;102:125-137. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
Cumulative environmental impacts driven by anthropogenic stressors lead to disproportionate effects on indigenous communities that are reliant on land and water resources. Understanding and counteracting these effects requires knowledge from multiple sources. Yet the combined use of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Scientific Knowledge (SK) has both technical and philosophical hurdles to overcome, and suffers from inherently imbalanced power dynamics that can disfavour the very communities it intends to benefit. In this article, we present a 'two-eyed seeing' approach for co-producing and blending knowledge about ecosystem health by using an adapted Bayesian Belief Network for the Slave River and Delta region in Canada's Northwest Territories. We highlight how bridging TK and SK with a combination of field data, interview transcripts, existing models, and expert judgement can address key questions about ecosystem health when considerable uncertainty exists. SK indicators (e.g., bird counts, mercury in fish, water depth) were graded as moderate, whereas TK indicators (e.g., bird usage, fish aesthetics, changes to water flow) were graded as being poor in comparison to the past. SK indicators were predominantly spatial (i.e., comparing to other locations) while the TK indicators were predominantly temporal (i.e., comparing across time). After being populated by 16 experts (local harvesters, Elders, governmental representatives, and scientists) using both TK and SK, the model output reported low probabilities that the social-ecological system is healthy as it used to be. We argue that it is novel and important to bridge TK and SK to address the challenges of environmental change such as the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors on ecosystems and the services they provide. This study presents a critical social-ecological tool for widening the evidence-base to a more holistic understanding of the system dynamics of multiple environmental stressors in ecosystems and for developing more effective knowledge-inclusive partnerships between indigenous communities, researchers and policy decision-makers. This represents new transformational empirical insights into how wider knowledge discourses can contribute to more effective adaptive co-management governance practices and solutions for the resilience and sustainability of ecosystems in Northern Canada and other parts of the world with strong indigenous land tenure.
人为压力源造成的累积环境影响对依赖土地和水资源的土著社区造成了不成比例的影响。了解和抵消这些影响需要来自多个来源的知识。然而,传统知识 (TK) 和科学知识 (SK) 的综合使用既有技术上的障碍,也有哲学上的障碍,并且受到内在不平衡的权力动态的影响,这可能不利于它旨在受益的社区。在本文中,我们提出了一种“两只眼看到”的方法,通过使用适应的贝叶斯信念网络来共同生成和混合关于加拿大西北地区 Slave 河流域和三角洲地区生态系统健康的知识。我们强调了如何通过结合实地数据、访谈记录、现有模型和专家判断,利用 TK 和 SK 来解决生态系统健康的关键问题,特别是当存在相当大的不确定性时。SK 指标(例如,鸟类计数、鱼类中的汞、水深)被评为中等,而 TK 指标(例如,鸟类使用、鱼类美观、水流变化)与过去相比被评为较差。SK 指标主要是空间的(即,与其他地点相比),而 TK 指标主要是时间的(即,随时间变化)。在 16 位专家(当地的采集者、长老、政府代表和科学家)使用 TK 和 SK 对模型进行填充后,模型输出报告说,社会-生态系统像以前那样健康的概率很低。我们认为,将 TK 和 SK 联系起来以应对环境变化的挑战,例如多个压力源对生态系统及其提供的服务的累积影响,这是新颖而重要的。这项研究为扩大证据基础提供了一个重要的社会生态工具,以更全面地了解生态系统中多种环境压力源的系统动态,并在土著社区、研究人员和政策决策者之间建立更有效的知识包容性伙伴关系。这代表了关于更广泛的知识话语如何有助于为加拿大北部和世界其他拥有强大土著土地保有权的地区的生态系统的弹性和可持续性制定更有效的适应性共同管理治理实践和解决方案的新的变革性经验见解。