Cited by 1,116Indigenous Studies and EcologyEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond

Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management

Open access
Raymond, Christopher M., Fazey, Ioan, Reed, Mark S., Stringer, Lindsay C., Robinson, Guy M., Evely, Anna C.·2010·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

This paper evaluates the processes and mechanisms available for integrating different types of knowledge for environmental management. Following a review of the challenges associated with knowledge integration, we present a series of questions for identifying, engaging, evaluating and applying different knowledges during project design and delivery. These questions are used as a basis to compare three environmental management projects that aimed to integrate knowledge from different sources in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. Comparative results indicate that integrating different types of knowledge is inherently complex - classification of knowledge is arbitrary and knowledge integration perspectives are qualitatively very different. We argue that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes. These processes need to be systematic, reflexive and cyclic so that multiple views and multiple methods are considered in relation to an environmental management problem. The results have implications for the way in which researchers and environmental managers undertake and evaluate knowledge integration projects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Raymond, Christopher M.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
91
Issue
8
Pages
1766-1777
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096170391
Cited by
1,116
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 43
FWCI
7.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H037144/1, ES/G021694/1, RES-227-25-0001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Keywords
knowledge integration, local knowledge, scientific knowledge, environmental management, participatory project design, knowledge classification, science-policy interface, comparative case study
MeSH terms
Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Environment, United Kingdom, Humans, Melanesia, Public Policy, Research Personnel, Science, Knowledge, Organizational Case Studies

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.

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