Improving cross-cultural knowledge exchange for collaborative forest stewardship

IF 5.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Rachel H. Swanwick , Rachel E. Schattman , Anthony W. D’Amato , Tyler Everett , Darren J. Ranco , Adam J. Daigneault
{"title":"Improving cross-cultural knowledge exchange for collaborative forest stewardship","authors":"Rachel H. Swanwick ,&nbsp;Rachel E. Schattman ,&nbsp;Anthony W. D’Amato ,&nbsp;Tyler Everett ,&nbsp;Darren J. Ranco ,&nbsp;Adam J. Daigneault","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaborative governance arrangements help maximize adaptive potential in the face of rapidly changing environmental conditions affecting forest systems to achieve cross-boundary stewardship goals. In part, the success of these cooperative efforts stems from their ability to enable exchange or “bridging” across knowledge systems (e.g., Western scientific, local, and Indigenous). Bridging knowledge systems can generate new insights, overcome power imbalances, and contribute to a sustainable future. There is a growing recognition of the benefits of including Indigenous knowledge and community perspectives in environmental collaborations. Yet, there is a need for more context-specific insights to enable equitable collaborative governance and knowledge exchange with Indigenous Nations. To explore this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 forest stewards associated with state agencies (n = 12) and Tribal Nations (n = 10) in present-day Maine (U.S.A). We argue that while different knowledge systems are highly valued and respected by forest stewards, barriers including Western and Indigenous paradigmatic incongruities, inflexible institutional arrangements, and socio-political tensions limit cooperation. We recommend recognizing the inherent adaptability and sovereignty of Indigenous Nations, encouraging cross-cultural engagement at the outset of project planning, and establishing new institutions that embrace ‘two-way’ knowledge exchange. An awareness of these dynamics has the capacity to transform governance systems and improve forest stewardship outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 104241"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002576","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collaborative governance arrangements help maximize adaptive potential in the face of rapidly changing environmental conditions affecting forest systems to achieve cross-boundary stewardship goals. In part, the success of these cooperative efforts stems from their ability to enable exchange or “bridging” across knowledge systems (e.g., Western scientific, local, and Indigenous). Bridging knowledge systems can generate new insights, overcome power imbalances, and contribute to a sustainable future. There is a growing recognition of the benefits of including Indigenous knowledge and community perspectives in environmental collaborations. Yet, there is a need for more context-specific insights to enable equitable collaborative governance and knowledge exchange with Indigenous Nations. To explore this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 forest stewards associated with state agencies (n = 12) and Tribal Nations (n = 10) in present-day Maine (U.S.A). We argue that while different knowledge systems are highly valued and respected by forest stewards, barriers including Western and Indigenous paradigmatic incongruities, inflexible institutional arrangements, and socio-political tensions limit cooperation. We recommend recognizing the inherent adaptability and sovereignty of Indigenous Nations, encouraging cross-cultural engagement at the outset of project planning, and establishing new institutions that embrace ‘two-way’ knowledge exchange. An awareness of these dynamics has the capacity to transform governance systems and improve forest stewardship outcomes.
促进跨文化知识交流,促进森林协同管理
协作治理安排有助于在面对影响森林系统的快速变化的环境条件时最大限度地发挥适应潜力,以实现跨界管理目标。在某种程度上,这些合作努力的成功源于它们能够实现跨知识系统(例如西方科学、地方和土著)的交流或“桥梁”。连接知识系统可以产生新的见解,克服权力不平衡,并为可持续的未来做出贡献。人们日益认识到在环境合作中纳入土著知识和社区观点的好处。然而,需要更多的具体情况的见解,以实现公平的协作治理和与土著民族的知识交流。为了探索这一差距,我们在今天的缅因州(美国)对22名与州机构(n = 12)和部落国家(n = 10)相关的森林管理员进行了半结构化访谈。我们认为,虽然不同的知识体系受到森林管理者的高度重视和尊重,但包括西方和土著范例不协调、僵化的制度安排和社会政治紧张局势在内的障碍限制了合作。我们建议认识到土著民族固有的适应性和主权,在项目规划之初鼓励跨文化参与,并建立新的机构,接受“双向”知识交流。对这些动态的认识能够改变治理系统并改善森林管理成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信