The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 69 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation
Open accessAbstract
Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, bringing scientists and indigenous peoples together to collaborate and exchange knowledge. These partnerships can benefit both researchers and indigenous peoples through mutual learning and mutual knowledge generation. Despite these benefits, most descriptions focus on the social contexts of exchange. The implications of the multiple cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been less recognized. The failure to consider these contexts of knowledge exchange can result in the promotion of benefits while failing to adequately address adverse consequences. The purpose of this article is to promote awareness of these issues to encourage their wider incorporation into research, policy, measures to implement free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the development of equitable adaptation partnerships between indigenous peoples and researchers.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for climate change adaptation, but knowledge exchanges occur within cultural, legal, risk-benefit, and governance contexts that are often overlooked. The paper argues that equitable indigenous–researcher partnerships require free, prior and informed consent, respect for indigenous sovereignty, and legal/governance reforms to prevent harm and appropriation.
Key findings
- Traditional knowledge can help define environmental baselines, identify climate impacts, provide observational evidence, support culturally appropriate adaptation, and supply technologies/practices for coping with change; partnerships can yield co-learning and co-production benefits for researchers and indigenous communities.
- The cultural, legal, risk-benefit, and governance contexts of knowledge exchange are under-examined, and ignoring them can promote benefits while failing to address adverse consequences such as loss of control, misappropriation, and spiritual/cultural harm.
- Legal frameworks—copyright, FOIA, freedom of expression, and common heritage of humankind—often override customary laws and stewardship obligations, placing shared traditional knowledge into foreign legal contexts; instruments like the Nagoya Protocol, WIPO negotiations, and national laws remain insufficient.
- Indigenous peoples are not merely stakeholders but peoples with governance/sovereignty rights; examples include the Clyde River Inuit weather observations, Coast Salish risk concerns, Waswanipi Cree family maps, and a review of 21 Australian natural resource management case studies finding indigenous-driven co-governance offers better prospects for integrating indigenous and Western knowledge.
Methods
- Conceptual/review article synthesizing literature, legal instruments, and case examples rather than presenting new empirical data.
- Draws on illustrative cases including Clyde River Inuit weather knowledge, Coast Salish risk reasoning, the Waswanipi Cree Ndhoho Itschee Process, and a review of 21 Australian natural resource management case studies.
- Main analysis examines cultural, legal (copyright, FOIA, freedom of expression, common heritage), risk/FPIC, and governance contexts, arguing for governance-based rather than voluntary social frameworks.
Limitations
- Paper-stated: there are as yet no standards for implementing the “informed” component of FPIC, and more research is needed to develop FPIC guidance in climate change adaptation; legal coverage focuses on copyright as a primary example and does not detail all legal conflicts.
- Evident: it is a conceptual review with illustrative examples, not a systematic empirical assessment, and it reports no primary quantitative outcome measures.
- Evident: the risk matrix is described as illustrating “hypothetical trade-offs,” and the examples are largely from US/Canada/Pacific Northwest contexts, limiting generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
60 Own interpretation · 27 Sources not found · 25 No full text of the sources · 11 No basis given · 4 Supported · 3 Partly supported · 3 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Their knowledge of past ecological patterns can help reconstruct historical baselines (Thornton and Scheer 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Thornton and Scheer 2012 source
The Documentation and research design section (page not specified) says local and traditional knowledge can reveal the historical structure of, and changes in, marine ecosystems. The Improving resource management section (page not specified) also describes knowledge recorded across generations as useful for interpreting environmental change. Together, these support the paraphrase about reconstructing historical baselines. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples have often expressed that their knowledge is inextricably linked to their lands, waters and heritage as inalienable and permanently associated with their identity and territories through ancestral, material and spiritual relationships (Carpenter et al. 2010;Kipuri 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Carpenter et al. 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction links Indigenous cultural resources to collective identity and describes the Awas Tingni community’s relationship to its territory as material and spiritual. The Stewardship and Governance section also connects duties toward cultural resources to tribal creation stories. Our copy does not establish that knowledge is inalienable or permanently associated with lands, waters, and territories across Indigenous peoples generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Kipuri 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risks and benefits are linked to specific values held by the knowledge holders, to external legal and social environments and to the characteristics of the resources to which the knowledge is bound.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as valuable for adaptation to climate change, bringing scientists and indigenous peoples together to collaborate and exchange knowledge.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“Indigenous peoples are increasingly recognized to possess considerable knowledge on issues related to climate change adaptation (Nakashima et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakashima et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When traditional knowledge is shared, it is often accompanied by stewardship obligations within communities with expectations that outsiders also carry these obligations when knowledge is shared.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge embodied in technologies, practices and cultivated species facilitate coping with climate change (Clements et al. 2011).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Clements et al. 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Studies have demonstrated the value of indigenous peoples' observations of changes in climate-related weather patterns (Green and Raygorodetsky 2010), ocean phenomena (Fienup-Riordan and Rearden 2010), phenology (Egeru 2012), and fire behavior (Mason et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples are increasingly recognized to possess considerable knowledge on issues related to climate change adaptation (Nakashima et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakashima et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Because of a Supreme Court decision in 2001 (Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn), tribes cannot share sensitive knowledge or information privately with the US on a government-to-government basis, because any exchanges are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (Doremus and Tarlock 2008).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Doremus and Tarlock 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Climate adaptation projects often extoll benefits without addressing the potential risks of knowledge sharing, as in two otherwise admirable attempts to survey existing experience, Advance Guard (McLean 2010) and Weathering Uncertainty (Nakashima et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McLean 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Nakashima et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These partnerships can benefit both researchers and indigenous peoples through mutual learning and mutual knowledge generation.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“Research partnerships for using traditional knowledge and Western science for coping with and adapting to climate impacts offer benefits to both researchers and indigenous communities (Nakashima et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakashima et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
In the paper
“These have limitations, however, as there is a spectrum of both indigenous and scientific ways of knowing with many areas of overlap (Berkes 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Traditional ecological knowledge of ecosystem health and species distributions can contribute to culturally appropriate adaptation (Girot et al. 2011).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Girot et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-intellectual property laws may also serves as impediments to sharing traditional knowledge.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This has been countered by studies that demonstrate traditional ways of knowing occur in a wide spectrum of beliefs, norms, institutions and ways of owning that includes property concepts (Carpenter et al. 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carpenter et al. 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under these conditions, there may be few options for risk spreading through knowledge sharing.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even without cultural sensitivities to sharing, there are risks to publicly revealing the locations of valuable game.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Framing intangible cultural heritage as part of the common heritage of humankind can take away governance, ownership and control by indigenous peoples in the name of humanity (Coombe 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Coombe 2009 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Without special legal measures to recognize stewardship obligations associated with the knowledge, it becomes subject to foreign norms and laws that generally automatically apply regardless of the intentions of either the communities or the researchers (Riley 2005).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riley 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is regulated by customary norms and embedded in a web of relationships defining who may use it, when it may be used, appropriate uses, and the rituals, words or practices that must accompany its use (Thom and Bain 2004).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Thom and Bain 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One explanation for the discrepancies is that the weather station was in a fixed flat area at the airport, while Inuit hunters ranged long distances in complex topographies.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weatherhead et al. 2010 source
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these measures fall short of fully recognizing and respecting the values, beliefs and customary laws of the traditional knowledge holders themselves.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This definition frames TEK within a materialistic, evolutionary framework that does not always conform to the beliefs of the knowledge-holders themselves, who may refer their knowledge as living breath, coming directly from the spirit world, ancestors, dreams, or conversations with plants, trees, rocks or other aspects of a living and spiritual nature (Little Bear 2000).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2012 source
- Not matchedcites Little Bear 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite good intentions, protocols and best practices, the exchanged knowledge is not governed by customary laws or community aspirations, but by foreign laws such as intellectual property, freedom of expression, public domain and common heritage of mankind.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These so-called constructs are often at the core of indigenous identity and underpin their beliefs and practices, and ignoring them can create significant impediments to equitable partnerships (Burkett 2013).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Burkett 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Coast Salish elders already complain they can no longer access many traditional foods because of overharvesting (Richards and Alexander 2006).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Richards and Alexander 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Climate adaptation can be enhanced by traditional knowledge of wildlife movements and concentrations, for which tribal hunters have considerable knowledge (Huntington 2000).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huntington 2000 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Traditional water-related knowledge, water harvesting and storage have allowed indigenous peoples to survive in arid lands and cope with drought for millennia (Johnston 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnston 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These risks can be amplified where tribes have low control over access to game in off-reservation situations.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Peoples have the right of self-determination to freely determine their political status and form of governance within their territories (Anaya 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anaya 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combined arguments suggest that traditional knowledge exchanges in adaptation partnerships cannot be viewed as unproblematic information exchanges, and potentially carry significant risks as well as benefits and opportunities.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The maps are used to prepare a map of conservation values, which are shared with the government and industry for use in collaborative planning processes.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Official US policy affirms that tribes have sovereign rights “to protect tribal cultural heritage and cultural identity expressed in both tangible and intangible forms.”foot_6”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Berkes F (2009) Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. J R Soc N Z 39:151–156 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, in the United States it is well-established in Constitutional law and national policy that the tribes have retained unextinguished sovereign jurisdiction over their tangible and intangible cultural heritage.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Any right not explicitly ceded is retained (Pevar 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pevar 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Supreme Court has ruled that the tribes' sovereign status is not granted to them by the United States, but an original right reserved by them in the treaties.6”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Berkes F (2009) Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. J R Soc N Z 39:151–156 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An example of using traditional knowledge in a respectful manner for climate change adaptation comes from the Waswanipi Cree in Northern Quebec through the Ndhoho Itschee Process (Trosper et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some knowledge useful to adaptation cannot be shared because it is too sacred, risky to disclose or weakly protected from appropriation and misuse.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concepts, instruments and approaches for stakeholder processes are inadequate when addressing issues related to sovereign property, which are dealt with through treaties, bilateral agreements and other government-to-government instruments.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge holders are therefore not one stakeholder group among others.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Communities are producing detailed community “family maps” which detail past, present and future desired land use.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Tribes often reserved offreservation rights to fish, hunt, trap and gather because their ancestors understood that their reservations would be insufficient to maintain their ways of life (Goodman 2000).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goodman 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While their status as peoples is not universally recognized by all countries, it is affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge held by indigenous peoples has significant political or governance dimensions in addition to cultural, legal and risk dimensions.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes the obligation to obtain the prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities prior to accessing and using their knowledge.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nagoya Protocol
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, tribal treaties are not legally interpreted as a listing of all rights that are retained, but primarily as a listing of those that are ceded.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combined arguments suggest that traditional knowledge exchanges in adaptation partnerships cannot be viewed as unproblematic information exchanges, and potentially carry significant risks as well as benefits and opportunities.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tribal treaties have the fundamental purpose of allowing tribes to freely determine their ways of life in return for the cession of vast amounts of land.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The bark of the Pacific yew is used for healing wounds by several Pacific Northwest tribes (Moerman 1998),”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Moerman 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These maps are not shared outside the community.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They are interested in documenting their traditional forest knowledge in order to enter into respectful stewardship agreements to promote climate change adaptation and appropriate forest management on traditional lands not under their direct control.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- Probably not a substantial claim. 58
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Co-learning and co-production processes do not guarantee fairness, equal standing or address power asymmetries (Hill et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hill et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says power relations in Indigenous ecological knowledge projects can further marginalize Indigenous interests, and the Results warn that agency-driven co-governance may crowd out Indigenous perspectives. These support the caution about power asymmetries, but the paper does not specifically assess whether co-learning and co-production guarantee fairness or equal standing. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A review of 21 case studies of natural resources management in Australia resulted in a classification of resource management initiatives as indigenous governed collaborations, indigenous-driven co-governance, agency-driven co-governance and agency governance (Hill et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hill et al. 2012 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They stress the importance of processes that support indigenous governance and do not vest power in government agencies but instead distribute decision making in “wider networks of families and communities” (Hill et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hill et al. 2012 source
The Results section (page unavailable) contrasts agency-driven models, which keep power within an organization, with Indigenous governance, which shares power across families and communities. The Participatory processes and functions section also emphasizes Indigenous decision-making structures. Together, these support the cited paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They concluded that “indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems” than agency-driven co-governance and agency governance.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hill et al. 2012 source
The Discussion states that Indigenous-governed and Indigenous-driven co-governance types offer better prospects for integrating IEK and western science than agency-driven co-governance and agency governance. The Conclusion repeats that comparison and describes the link to social-ecological system sustainability as suggested by the research, rather than established. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirectn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Under conditions of sovereignty, governments may elect to engage in co-management or self-management of their resources and heritage (Goodman 2000;Nie 2008).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goodman 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Nie 2008Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Co-Management and Federal Indian Law’ section identifies tribal governments as sovereign and discusses their co-management of lands and resources. The ‘Authorities’ section says tribes may petition to manage certain federal programs of cultural significance. The paper does not establish a general choice by sovereign governments between co-management and self-management of their resources and heritage; it describes specific tribal–federal arrangements subject to legal limits. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Social science researchers commonly use political, social or moral/ethical frameworks.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hardison and Bannister 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“FPIC ensures that when they are approached with proposals for access to their lands, resources or traditional knowledge, they are provided with all necessary and appropriate information they deem necessary to make an informed decision (FSC 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites FSC 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The discovery of these discrepancies has led to the establishment of more weather stations around the hunting areas which are being correlated to indigenous weather observations, as well as other projects to extend indigenous monitoring of sea-ice thickness, extent and other climate-related phenomena.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weatherhead et al. 2010 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The failure to consider these contexts of knowledge exchange can result in the promotion of benefits while failing to adequately address adverse consequences.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been under-examined.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once traditional knowledge is shared outside of a community, it enters alien social and legal contexts.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FPIC is used in UNDRIP to create procedural safeguards for decision-making by indigenous peoples.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This may be contrasted with traditional ways of knowing which are place-based, localized, and may carry prescriptions related to their use (Kipuri 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kipuri 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, seekers of traditional knowledge related to genetic resources must first obtain the prior informed consent (PIC) of indigenous and local communities.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Countries have begun to put into place laws that protect such transfers of traditional knowledge to third parties.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4 Legal contexts of traditional knowledge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples often believe their knowledge has spiritual origins and powers, and employ it to communicate with the spirit world to create outcomes in this world (Kipuri 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kipuri 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once published or shared, traditional knowledge immediately starts its journey into the public domain where all of the traditional norms, beliefs or customary laws associated with it are stripped away.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1 Copyrights · plain
“It becomes available to anyone with no legal requirement to obtain permission, share in any benefits or observe stewardship obligations for its use.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.1.1 Copyrights
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1 Copyrights · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This concept is contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and in decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol as prior informed consent (PIC).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5 Risk contexts of traditional knowledge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These uncultivated resources are sensitive to external drivers such as climate change, invasive species, species range shifts, habitat fragmentation and human population growth.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge holders themselves may not express their knowledge in this way (Berkes 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 3 Cultural contexts of traditional knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite these demonstrated benefits, concerns have been raised over potential adverse consequences of knowledge exchanges (WIPO 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites WIPO 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of intangible cultural heritage laws, copyright law is automatically applied to any shared traditional knowledge and offers few legal safeguards that allow indigenous peoples to have their traditions respected or to gain benefits from the use of their knowledge.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.1.1 Copyrights
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social aims for respectful partnerships may be difficult to achieve without changes in legal systems to accommodate indigenous concepts and ways of being.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is not generally about abstract things, but more focused on relationships and activities that constitute a way of life (Berkes 2012), and these can be harmed by misuse.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tribes have retained rights to wild resources on off-reservation lands to which they have little control.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Coast Salish of the Pacific Northwest live on small territories surrounded by much larger populations with different traditions and values, which increases conflicts over use of resources.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inuit hunters had reported significant changes in wind persistence (likelihood that wind conditions 1 day are followed by similar conditions the following day).”
- Also stated in: § 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change · plain
“These observations were not supported by the research station, which recorded no significant changes in wind direction or wind persistence in northeast winds (Weatherhead et al. 2010).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weatherhead et al. 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change · plain
In the paper
“There are as yet no standards on how to implement this, although there are some emerging attempts (FSC 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites FSC 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge related to observations of changes in phenology, ice-out dates, coastal currents, fire behavior or hydrological patterns may carry few risks when shared.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Disclosing knowledge of medicinal plants useful for addressing climate change impacts on health carries the risks of use against cultural traditions and overharvesting.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other kinds of traditional knowledge carry more risks, either through moral hazards related to cultural values or through misuse that can seriously threaten indigenous livelihoods and cultural sustainability.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge exchanges occur within powerful and compelling legal frameworks that often conflict with and take precedence over social arrangements.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is useful in: defining earlier environmental baselines, identifying impacts that need to be mitigated, providing observational evidence for modelling, providing technologies for adapting, and for identifying culturally appropriate values for protection from direct impacts or from the impacts of adaptation measures themselves.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 2 Traditional knowledge in the context of climate change
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is often treated as being in the public domain because it is too old to be protected, it is orally expressed rather than written down (”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.1.1 Copyrights
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stewardship obligations generally have no equivalent in national and international legal systems.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 4.2 Non-intellectual property laws: freedom of information Act (USA) / freedom of expression / the common heritage of humankind
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The exchange of traditional knowledge involves cultural values, multiple legal jurisdictions, risks to cultural sustainability and survival and rights to self-governance.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples are engaging in adaptation projects and knowledge exchanges, and these are leading many documented benefits.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The US has a government-to-government relationship with tribes in which tribes have retained inherent sovereign powers.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, they retain and manage sensitive cultural knowledge internally, while making available proxy values useful for climate change adaptation and resource scenario building.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One sovereign cannot unilaterally impose their will on another, and equitable outcomes must be found in mutually agreed terms.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consequences of disclosing valuable knowledge can add to these pressures.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Traditional knowledge and associated biocultural heritage are often already threatened by drivers of global climate change such as population growth, urban sprawl, excessive consumption and land conversion.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many traditional knowledge studies have framed indigenous peoples as stakeholders and have not treated traditional knowledge as a governed, sovereign property.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They do not believe they can convey their complex knowledge and values to others for management on their behalf, but want their stewardship role acknowledged.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trosper et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Berkes suggests there are limits to the extent to which science and traditional knowledge can be combined (Berkes 2009), concluding “the two kinds of knowledge should not be blended or synthesised; both should retain its own integrity” as they have their own epitemologies based on different worldviews.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The development of the anti-cancer drug taxol from bark extracts lead to illegal overharvesting in which trees were killed by stripping them entirely, endangering the yew (Laird and Wynberg 2008;Wynberg et al. 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Laird and Wynberg 2008
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wynberg et al. 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In those cases where traditional knowledge is held by those with governance rights, it is governed by its own rules and laws determined by its proper sovereign, which do not necessarily resemble the laws of other sovereigns.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sovereigns work through diplomacy and treaty making to gain cross-recognition for transboundary issues.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The guiding principle is that exchanges should be based on free, prior and informed consent and mutually agreed terms based on equal standing.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One pathway for resolving this dilemma is through viewing traditional knowledge exchanges through a governance mechanism, as opposed to a voluntary social framework.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Building respect for traditional knowledge and FPIC through professional training, public education, the development and implementation of guidelines and policies and other measures are necessary to reduce conflict over time (Hardison and Bannister 2011).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hardison and Bannister 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Useful and unproblematic knowledge exchanges can occur without involving traditional knowledge.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As indigenous peoples are some of those least responsible and most threatened by climate impacts, it is the highest duty of those seeking access to their knowledge and resources to ensure they are not further harmed and that their rights in cultural values are fully respected.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Indigenous peoples are some of those least responsible and most threatened by climate impacts.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is not to argue that traditional knowledge exchanges should not occur, but their rights of governance should be taken seriously, respected and accommodated in resolving issues.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under indigenously-led FPIC, many traditional knowledge exchanges related to climate change are likely to continue where they present few risks and provide benefits to indigenous peoples.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These challenges do not pose an insurmountable barrier to respectful knowledge exchanges.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This performance-oriented approach allows the knowledge to be retained by the knowledge holders while upholding standards for public accountability in the management of resources.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite these documented benefits, it must be kept in mind they are being invited to mobilize traditional knowledge, often deeply spiritual and core to their identity, to solve large-scale problems they cannot avoid and that are not of their making.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Traditional knowledge is often deeply spiritual and core to indigenous identity.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-determined governments have the inherent authority to grant and make trade-offs between the rights of their citizens, but not the rights of the citizens of other sovereigns.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Where traditional knowledge is needed, solving management problems may not require its transfer, allowing indigenous peoples to apply their knowledge by themselves to their own biocultural heritage using negotiated outcomes that are mutually agreeable to the sovereigns (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While indigenous sovereigns cannot directly impose these rules and laws on citizens of other sovereigns, they can expect that equitable relationships can be worked out for cross-recognition of their issues based on comity guiding peaceful relations among states, respect for their human rights, and federal fiduciary obligations to respect their rights (Smith 2010).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples may be wary of sharing because of a history of exploitation, a lack of recognition and respect for their values and rights, a lack of safeguards for the control and proper use of their knowledge and associated biocultural heritage and by a lack of perceived long-term benefits to themselves for sharing.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is a history of exploitation, a lack of recognition and respect for indigenous values and rights, a lack of safeguards for the control and proper use of their knowledge and associated biocultural heritage, and a lack of perceived long-term benefits to themselves for sharing.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exercising the right to FPIC creates a duty to sort out processes for authoritative decision-making.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many cases of issues related to adaptation to climate change may involve both traditional knowledge and its associated biocultural heritage.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge sharing and learning from one another will be critical for finding just and lasting solutions to the climate crisis.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These rights are not limited to treaty tribes, but are increasingly recognized as a general right of indigenous peoples in international law, national constitutions and national legislation (Tsosie 2013).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tsosie 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Partnership arrangements without proper safeguards may be encourage them to disclose relatively unprotected knowledge associated with relatively unprotected resources.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Governance rights over traditional knowledge are not separable from governance rights over the biocultural heritage to which they are associated.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The number of states that recognize the right to self-determination and self-governance is growing (Anaya 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anaya 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The changes from past practices will likely involve uncertainty and conflicts at first, but will reduce them in the long-run.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dilemma often facing indigenous peoples is to either disclose their knowledge and lose control of it, or fail to have their values reflected and protected from climate impacts in adaptation measures.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This reserved rights doctrine holds that any right not explicitly ceded by treaty is retained as a sovereign right.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of indigenous traditional knowledge, scientists therefore may not be dealing with knowledge and resources held by one stakeholder among many whose rights can be balanced, but with knowledge held collectively by a political entity that has the right of selfdetermination and self-governance.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The examples emphasize the need for precaution in ensuring their values and rights are protected both against the impacts of climate change and adaptation measures that fail to accommodate their rights and values.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 5.2 Risks of sharing climate-relevant traditional knowledge in the coast Salish
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional knowledge is fundamental to the purpose of the treaties and a component of the governance rights reserved in them.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Article 31 of UNDRIP affirms the similar right of indigenous peoples “to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures.””
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites UNDRIP
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The United States Constitution, policy and law recognize them as members of sovereign governments that have retained inherent rights to determine their own laws and constitute their own cultural arrangements and institutions.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a comanagement and self-management model, indigenous peoples are recognized to have governance rights over their biocultural heritage, including tangible forms (resources) and intangible forms (traditional knowledge), both on their territories and in specified external areas.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Berkes suggests there are limits to the extent to which science and traditional knowledge can be combined (Berkes 2009), concluding “the two kinds of knowledge should not be blended or synthesised; both should retain its own integrity” as they have their own epitemologies based on different worldviews.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One sovereign cannot unilaterally impose their will on another, and equitable outcomes must be found in mutually agreed terms.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While indigenous peoples wish to keep some of their gifts to themselves, it is clear many also wish to share some of them in the spirit of mutualism and reciprocal accommodation.”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 8 Conclusion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While their status as peoples is not universally recognized by all countries, it is affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indigenous peoples are a subject of international law as being a distinct group with a distinct bundle of rights, which they hold as peoples with the right of self-determination (Anaya 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 6 Traditional knowledge governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anaya 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
““Not taking knowledge out of its cultural context is one of the biggest challenges of indigenous knowledge research” (Berkes 2009).”
§ Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation > 7 Respect for indigenous governance in a climate change context
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berkes 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been under-examined.
“The implications of the multiple cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts of knowledge exchange have been less recognized.”
“The cultural, legal, risk-benefit and governance contexts in which knowledge exchanges occur have been under-examined.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Indigenous peoples are some of those least responsible and most threatened by climate impacts.
“As indigenous peoples are some of those least responsible and most threatened by climate impacts”
The paper relies on this without support.
Traditional knowledge is often deeply spiritual and core to indigenous identity.
“often deeply spiritual and core to their identity”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a history of exploitation, a lack of recognition and respect for indigenous values and rights, a lack of safeguards for the control and proper use of their knowledge and associated biocultural heritage, and a lack of perceived long-term benefits to themselves for sharing.
“because of a history of exploitation, a lack of recognition and respect for their values and rights, a lack of safeguards for the control and proper use of their knowledge and associated biocultural heritage and by a lack of perceived long-term benefits to themselves for sharing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The earth system is in decline.
“The earth system is in decline”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many nations view UNDRIP to be aspirational and not currently legally binding.
“Although many nations view UNDRIP to be aspirational and not currently legally binding”
The paper relies on this without support.
All signatories of UNDRIP have committed themselves to moving towards implementing its principles.
“all signatories have committed themselves to moving towards implementing its principles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Traditional knowledge and associated biocultural heritage are often already threatened by drivers of global climate change such as population growth, urban sprawl, excessive consumption and land conversion.
“Traditional knowledge and associated biocultural heritage are often already threatened by drivers of global climate change such as population growth, urban sprawl, excessive consumption and land conversion.”
Citations
Cites
Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications
Huntington, H. P. (2000) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:utekis]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,445
Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision
Battiste, M. (2007) · University of British Columbia Press eBooks · doi:10.59962/9780774853170 · Cited by 1,428
Schmid, R., & Moerman, D. E. (1998) · Taxon · doi:10.2307/1224232 · Cited by 780
Berkes, F. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9780203123843 · Cited by 747
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases
Inglis, J. T. (1993) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 588
Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change
Berkes, F. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · doi:10.1080/03014220909510568 · Cited by 501
Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook
Bank, W., & Development, I. F. F. A. (2008) · World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7587-7 · Cited by 452
Weathering uncertainty traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation
McLean, K. G., & Nakashima, D. (2012) · Cited by 412
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-3327 · Cited by 388
Thornton, T. F., & Scheer, A. M. (2012) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-04714-170308 · Cited by 281
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- AIPP (2012) Indigenous peoples and climate change adaptation in Asia. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Thailand, 24 pp
- Goodman EC (2000) Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right. Environl Law 30:279–361
- McLean KG (2010) Advance guard: Climate change impacts, adaptation. Mitigation and Indigenous Peoples. United Nations University—Traditional Knowledge Initiative, Darwin
- Riley AR (2005) “Straight stealing”: towards an indigenous system of cultural property protection. Wash Law Rev 80:69–165
- Thom B, Bain D (2004) Aboriginal intangible property in Canada: An ethnographic review. Industry Canada - Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Ottawa
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 · Cited by 1,329
Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene
Whyte, K. (2017) · English Language Notes · doi:10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153 · Cited by 1,081
Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005 · Cited by 794
Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E. M., Syamsidik, S., & Shaw, R. (2014) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.007 · Cited by 446
A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research
David-Chavez, D., & Gavin, M. C. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300 · Cited by 390
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, T., & Hardison, P.
- Corresponding author
- Hardison, Preston
- Venue
- Climatic Change
- Published
- 2013-08-15
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 531-544
- ISSN
- 0165-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1480
- OpenAlex
- W2163295355
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 24.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Climatic Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
- Keywords
- traditional knowledge, climate change adaptation, indigenous peoples, knowledge sharing, free, prior and informed consent, equitable partnerships, mutual learning, risk-benefit assessment, governance, legal context, cultural context
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-27, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-27 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
