The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Increasingly, federal environmental guidelines require developers to consider the "traditional knowledge" of aboriginal people in assessing the impact of proposed projects on northern environments, economies, and societies. However, several factors have limited the contributions of traditional knowledge to environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the North, including confusion over the meaning of this term, who "owns" this knowledge, and its role in EIA. The term "indigenous knowledge," which comprises traditional and nontraditional, ecological and nonecological knowledge, is proposed as an alternative that should allow aboriginal people, and the full scope of their knowledge, to assume integral roles in EIA. Experience gained in attempting to give aboriginal people a voice and an assessment role in the diamond mine proposed by BHP Diamonds Inc. at Lac de Gras in the Northwest Territories has led to the development of a multiphased, holistic approach to involving aboriginal people and their knowledge in EIA. Because of their in-depth knowledge of the land, aboriginal people have a particularly important role to play in environmental monitoring and distinguishing project-related changes from natural changes in the environment. However, the strengths of traditional and Western scientific knowledge in EIA will not be realized until both are recognized as parts of a larger worldview that influences how people perceive and define reality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Brundtland, G. H. (1991) · Earth and Us · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-1049-0.50009-5 · Cited by 12,174
Bringing Home Animals: Religious Ideology and Mode of Production of the Mistassini Cree Hunters
Spindler, G., & Tanner, A. (1985) · American Indian Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1184589 · Cited by 266
Traditional Resource Management Systems
Gadgil, M., & Berkes, F. (1991) · Cited by 160
Native Harvest Surveys and Statistics: A Critique of Their Construction and Use
Usher, P. J., & Wenzel, G. W. (1987) · ARCTIC · doi:10.14430/arctic1759 · Cited by 76
Recovering Rights: Bowhead Whales and Inuvialuit Subsistence in the Western Canadian Arctic
Freeman, M. M. R., Wein, E. E., & Keith, D. (1992) · Cited by 25
The Beverly-Kaminuriak Caribou Management Board: An Experience in Co-management
Usher, P. J. (1991) · Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · Cited by 4
Cited by
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
Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management
Usher, P. J. (2000) · ARCTIC · doi:10.14430/arctic849 · Cited by 522
Huntington, H. P. (1998) · ARCTIC · doi:10.14430/arctic1065 · Cited by 317
The Possibility of Difference: Rethinking Co-management
Stevenson, M. G. (2006) · Human Organization · doi:10.17730/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m53 · Cited by 134
Self-citationEckert, L. E., Claxton, N. X., Owens, C., Johnston, A., Ban, N. C., Moola, F., & Darimont, C. T. (2020) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2019-0039 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Stevenson, M. G.
- Venue
- ARCTIC
- Published
- 1996-01-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0004-0843 (ISSN-L)
- 1923-1245
- OpenAlex
- W2150779302
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14430/arctic1203
- The paper
- Stevenson, M. G. (1996). Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. ARCTIC. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.