Cited by 134Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawIndigenous Cultures and History

The Possibility of Difference: Rethinking Co-management

Stevenson, Marc G.·2006·Human Organization

Abstract

Many of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples have adopted the language, concepts and procedures of environmental resource management in order to advance their needs, rights and interests in co-management. Drawing on the author’s experiences in co-management, the advantages and disadvantages of this project for Canada, its Aboriginal peoples, and its landscapes are explored. Alternatives to the status quo, grounded in social, cultural and ecological sustainability, and modelled after the two-row wampum, are then considered. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal parties to co-management must critically examine current management policies and practices in order to develop innovative approaches that will create the space required for the meaningful and equitable inclusion of Aboriginal peoples in decisions taken in respect to their lands and resources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17730/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m53

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The Kaswentha remains salient today where it is being applied to environmental protection and restoration programmes, water quality monitoring projects and resource co-management initiatives.

    “Though a historical model of coexistence, it remains salient today where it is being applied to environmental protection and restoration programmes (Ransom & Ettenger, 2001), water quality monitoring projects (McGregor, 2002) and resource co-management initiatives (Stevenson, 2006).”
  • Similar arguments and scenarios to those for Two-Eyed Seeing co-governance have been built around the Two Row Wampum model, the Two Ways philosophy, and the Double-Canoe framework.

    “similar arguments and scenarios have been built around the Two Row Wampum model (seeStevenson, 2006), the Two Ways philosophy (seeMuller, 2014), and the Double-Canoe framework (seeMaxwell et al., 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, M. G.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Stevenson, Marc G.
Venue
Human Organization
Published
2006-06
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
167-180
ISSN
  • 0018-7259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3525
OpenAlex
W2063634883
Cited by
134
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Organization (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
Keywords
co-management, Aboriginal peoples, environmental resource management, Two Row Wampum, socio-cultural sustainability, environmental sustainability

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