Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management.

By Christopher M. Raymond, I. Fazey, M. Reed, Lindsay C. Stringer, G. Robinson, A. Evely. Journal of Environmental Management, 2010

1,109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/24eb7ab896d00fb64a270694a78a5049716847a6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling (2012, background): “Although the debate in the social sciences about the demarcation of expertise is ongoing, experience is a recurring qualifier (e.g. Nowotny, 2003; Collins and Evans, 2007; Raymond et al., 2010).”
Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research (2014, background): “…opportunities for global change research, which encourages co-production and co-management styles of knowledge exchange (Connick and Innes, 2003; Raymond et al., 2010) and brings together multi-stakeholder groups with different values and ontological and epistemological perspectives (Fazey,…”
An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies (2012, background): “count for these local values / nuances (Raymond et al., 2010).”
Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services (2016, background): “The local and traditional ecological knowledge literatures suggest that there is a close connection between these values, the knowledge we maintain of the environment, and our practices (Raymond et al. 2010; Tengö et al., 2014).”
Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science (2016, background): “Stewardship of landscapes and seascapes requires continuous learning and knowledge generation across knowledge systems about social-ecological systems and ecosystem services and their dynamics (e.g., Raymond et al. 2010, Takeuchi 2010, Brondizio and Le Tourneau 2016).”
Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action (2019, background): “This approach has moved the consideration of knowledge-integration products to the careful design of knowledge-integration or knowledge bridging processes [87], including co-science and coproduction of knowledge [59], dialogic networks [88], the Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) approach [89], and knowle”
ICES meets marine historical ecology: placing the history of fish and fisheries in current policy context (2016, background): “sented clearly, concisely, and in a defendable way (Raymond et al., 2010).”
Priority Threat Management for biodiversity conservation: A handbook (2018, background): “It also provides a communication environment that supports participatory science (Fortmann, 2009; Raymond et al., 2010).”