Cited by 154Indigenous Studies and EcologyEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondSustainability and Climate Change Governance

Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: A typology of settings

Open access
Rathwell, Kaitlyn Joanne, Armitage, Derek, Berkes, Fikret·2015·International Journal of the Commons

Abstract

We offer a typology of settings to bridge scientific and indigenous knowledge systems and to enhance governance of the environmental commons in contexts of change. We contribute to a need for further clarity on how to incorporate diverse knowledge systems and in ways that contribute to planning, management, monitoring and assessment from local to global levels. We ask, what settings are discussed in the resource and environmental governance literature to support efforts to bridge indigenous and scientific knowledge systems? The objectives are: 1) to offer a typology that organizes various settings to bridge knowledge systems; and 2) to elaborate on how these settings function independently and in concert, using examples from a diverse literature in addition to field research experience. Our focus is on indigenous and scientific knowledge, but the typology offers lessons to bridge diverse knowledge systems more generally, and in ways that are sensitive to a moral, political and process-based approach. The typology includes specific methods and processes, brokering strategies, governance and institutional contexts, and the arena of epistemology. We describe each setting in the typology, and provide examples to reflect on the function and potential outcomes of different settings. Insights from our synthesis can inform policy and participatory action.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18352/ijc.584

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the Kaswentha, the distinct vessels remain separate, each containing their own laws, traditions and rights and neither disrupting the integrity or process of the other, though they travel together and work in partnership on common problems.

    “These distinct vessels | 249 REID Et al. remain separate, each containing their own laws, traditions and rights and neither disrupting the integrity or process of the other, though they travel together and work in partnership on common problems (Rathwell et al., 2015).”

    From “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management (2021) · cites this paper as Rathwell et al., 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Armitage, D. 2008. Governance and the Commons in a Mulitlevel World. International Journal of the Commons 2(1):7–32.
  2. Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology. (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge. Berkes, F. and D. Armitage. 2010. Co-Management Institutions, Knowledge and
  3. Learning: Adapting to Change in the Arctic. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 34(1):109–131. Berkes, F. and I. J. Davidson-Hunt 2008. The Cultural Basis for An Ecosystem
  4. Carolan, M. 2005. Society, Biology, and Ecology: Bringing Nature Back Into Sociology's Disciplinary. Organization and Environment 18(4):393–422.
  5. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:95–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ · DOI · Paper page
  6. Diduck, A., N. Bankes, D. Clark, and D. Armitage. 2005. Unpacking Social Learning in Social-Ecological Systems: Case Studies of Polar Bear and Narwhal Management in Northern Canada. In Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North, eds. F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck, 269–291. Calgary: Northern Light Series, Arctic Institute of North America and University of Calgary Press.
  7. Krupnik, I., C. Aporta, S. Gearheard, G. J. Laidler, and L. K. Holm, eds. 2010. SIKU: Knowing Our Ice: Documenting Inuit Sea Ice Knowledge and Use. New York: Springer.
  8. Ostrom, E., T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stovich, and E. U. Weber, eds. 2002. The Drama of the Commons. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Research Council, Washington (DC): National Academy Press.
  9. Reid, W., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano, eds. 2006. Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press http://www. millenniumassessment.org/en/Bridging.html.
  10. Robbins, P. 2012. Political Ecology. Critical Introductions to Geography. (2nd ed.). Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  11. Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous Knowledge in Envionmental Assessment. Arctic 49(3):278–291.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rathwell, K. J., Armitage, D., & Berkes, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
Venue
International Journal of the Commons
Published
2015-09-18
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
851
ISSN
1875-0281 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101779926
Cited by
154
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
17.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of the Commons (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ArcticNet
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • University of Waterloo
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keywords
environmental commons, indigenous knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge integration, governance, knowledge brokers, epistemology, participatory action, natural resource governance, institutional environment

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