Traditional ecological knowledge

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) describes indigenous and other traditional knowledge of local
resources. As a field of study in anthropology, TEK refers to "a cumulative body of knowledge, belief, and
practice, evolving by accumulation of TEK and handed down through generations through traditional songs,
stories and beliefs. It is concerned with the relationship of living beings (including human) with their traditional
groups and with their environment."[1] Such knowledge is used in natural resource management as a substitute
for baseline environmental data in cases where there is little recorded scientific data,[2] or may complement
Western scientific methods of ecological management.

The application of TEK in the field of ecological management and science is still controversial, as methods of
acquiring and collecting knowledge—although often including forms of empirical research and
experimentation—differ from those used to create and validate scientific ecological knowledge from a Western
perspective.[3][4] Non-tribal government agencies, such as the U.S. EPA have established integration programs
with some tribal governments in order to incorporate TEK in environmental plans and climate change tracking.

There is a debate whether Indigenous populations retain an intellectual property right over traditional
knowledge and whether use of this knowledge requires prior permission and license.[5] This is especially
complicated because TEK is most frequently preserved as oral tradition and as such may lack objectively
confirmed documentation. As such, the same methods that could resolve the issue of documentation to meet
Western requirements may compromise the very nature of traditional knowledge.

Traditional knowledge is used to maintain resources necessary for survival.[6] While TEK itself, and the
communities tied to the oral tradition, may become threatened in the context of rapid climate change or
Environmental degradation,[7] TEK is proving critical for understanding the impacts of those changes within
the ecosystem.

TEK can also refer to traditional environmental knowledge which emphasizes the different components and
interactions of the environment.[8]

Contents
Development of the field
Differences from science
Aspects of traditional ecological knowledge
Factual observations
Management systems
Past and current uses
Ethics and values
Culture and identity
Cosmology
Ecosystem management
Traditional knowledge and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Effects of environmental degradation on traditional knowledge
Climate change
 Case Study: Savoonga and Shaktoolik, Alaska
See also
References
Notes
Further reading
External links

Development of the field

The earliest systematic studies of TEK were conducted in anthropology. Ecological knowledge was studied
through the lens of ethnoecology, "an approach that focuses on the conceptions of ecological relationships held
by a people or a culture," in understanding how systems of knowledge were developed by a given culture.[9]
Harold Colyer Conklin, an American anthropologist who pioneered the study of ethnoscience, took the lead in
documenting indigenous ways of understanding the natural world. Conklin and others documented how
traditional peoples, such as Philippine horticulturists, displayed remarkable and exceptionally detailed
knowledge about the natural history of places where they resided. Direct involvement in gathering, fashioning
products from, and using local plants and animals created a scheme in which the biological world and the
cultural world were tightly intertwined. Although the field of TEK began with documentation of lists of
species used by different indigenous groups and their "taxonomies of plants, animals, and later, of other
environmental features such as soils," the shift from documentation to consideration of functional relationships
and mechanisms gave rise to the field as it is recognized today. In emphasizing the study of adaptive processes,
which argues that social organization itself is an ecological adaptational response by a group to its local
environment, human-nature relations and the practical techniques on which these relationships and culture
depended, the field of TEK could analyze a broad range of questions related to cultural ecology and ecological
anthropology, .[10]

By the mid 1980s a growing body of literature on traditional ecological knowledge documented both the
environmental knowledge held by diverse indigenous peoples and their ecological relations.[9] The studies
included examining "cultivation and biodiversity conservation in tropical ecosystems, and traditional
knowledge and management systems in coastal fisheries and lagoons, semi-arid areas, and the Arctic." What
these studies illustrated was that a variety of "traditional peoples had their own understandings of ecological
relationships and distinct traditions of resource management." [10] The rise of traditional ecological knowledge
at this time led to international recognition of its potential applications in resource management practices and
sustainable development. The 1987 report by the World Commission on Environment and Development
reflects the consensus at the time. The report points out that the successes of the 20th century (decreases in
infant mortality, increases in life expectancy, increases in literacy, and global food production) have given rise
to trends that have caused environmental decay "in an ever more polluted world among ever decreasing
resources."[11] Hope, however, existed for traditional lifestyles. The report declared that tribal and indigenous
peoples had lifestyles that could provide modern societies with lessons in the management of resources in
complex forest, mountain, and dryland ecosystems.

Differences from science

Fulvio Mazzocchi of the Italian National Research Council's Institute of Atmospheric Pollution contrasts
traditional knowledge from scientific knowledge as follows:
 Traditional knowledge has developed a concept of the environment that emphasizes the symbiotic
character of humans and nature. It offers an approach to local development that is based on co‐
evolution with the environment, and on respecting the carrying capacity of ecosystems. This
knowledge-based on long‐term empirical observations adapted to local conditions—ensures a
sound use and control of the environment, and enables indigenous people to adapt to
environmental changes. Moreover, it supplies much of the world's population with the principal
means to fulfil their basic needs, and forms the basis for decisions and strategies in many practical
aspects, including interpretation of meteorological phenomena, medical treatment, water
management, production of clothing, navigation, agriculture and husbandry, hunting and fishing,
and biological classification systems.... Beyond its obvious benefit for the people who rely on this
knowledge, it might provide humanity as a whole with new biological and ecological insights; it
has potential value for the management of natural resources and might be useful in conservation
education as well as in development planning and environmental assessment...Western science is
positivist and materialist in contrast to traditional knowledge, which is spiritual and does not make
distinctions between empirical and sacred. Western science is objective and quantitative as
opposed to traditional knowledge, which is mainly subjective and qualitative. Western science is
based on an academic and literate transmission, while traditional knowledge is often passed on
orally from one generation to the next by the elders.[12]

Aspects of traditional ecological knowledge

The aspects of traditional ecological knowledge provide different typologies in how it is utilized and
understood. These are good indicators in how it is used from different perspectives and how they are
interconnected, providing more emphasis on "cooperative management to better identify areas of difference
and convergence when attempting to bring two ways of thinking and knowing together."[13]

Factual observations

Houde identifies six faces of traditional ecological knowledge.[14] The first aspect of traditional ecological
knowledge incorporates the factual, specific observations generated by recognition, naming, and classification
of discrete components of the environment. This aspect is about understanding the interrelationship with
species and their surrounding environment. It is also a set of both empirical observations and information
emphasizing the aspects of animals and their behavior, and habitat, and the physical characteristics of species,
and animal abundance. This is most useful for risk assessment and management which provides nations with
opportunity to influence resource management. However, if a nation does not act, then the state may act on its
own interests. This type of "empirical knowledge consists of a set of generalized observations conducted over
a long period of time and reinforced by accounts of other TEK holders."[15]

Management systems

The second face refers to the ethical and sustainable use of resources in regards to management systems. This
is achieved through strategic planning to ensure resource conservation. More specifically this face involves
dealing with pest management, resource conversion, multiple cropping patterns, and methods for estimating
the state of resources.[16] It also focuses on resource management and how it adapts to local environments.[14]

Past and current uses

The third face refers to the time dimension of TEK, focusing on past and current uses of the environment
transmitted through oral history,[17] such as land use, settlement, occupancy, and harvest levels. Specifically
medicinal plants and historical sites are great concerns.[14] Oral history is used to transmit cultural heritage
generation to generation, and contributes to a sense of family and community.

Ethics and values

The fourth face refers to value statements and connections between the belief system and the organization of
facts. In regards to TEK it refers to environmental ethics that keeps exploitative abilities in check. This face
also refers to the expression of values concerning the relationship with the habitats of species and their
surrounding environment - the human-relationship environment.

Culture and identity

The fifth face refers to the role of language and images of the past
giving life to culture.[18] The relationship between Aboriginals
(original inhabitants) and their environment is vital to sustaining the
cultural components that define them. This face reflects the stories,
values, and social relations that reside in places as contributing to the
survival, reproduction, and evolution of aboriginal cultures, and
identities. It also stresses "the restorative benefits of cultural
landscapes as places for renewal"[19]
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
frequently relates to knowledge
surrounding plants and foliage
Cosmology

The sixth face is a culturally based cosmology that is the foundation

of the other aspects. Cosmology is the notion of how the world works for many cultures. This can vary greatly
from one culture to the next. In the U.S for example, there are over 577 federally recognized tribes with their
own culture, languages and belief system. Many of these are interconnected with the land and astrology.(add
cite) The combination relates to the assumptions and beliefs about how things work, and explains the way in
which things are connected, and gives principles that regulate human-animal relations and the role of humans
in the world. From an anthropological perspective, cosmology attempts to understand the human-animal
relationship and how these directly influence social relationships, obligations toward community members, and
management practices.

Ecosystem management
Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It
incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that
science cannot. This is achieved by scientists and researchers collaborating with Indigenous peoples through a
consensus decision-making process while meeting the socioeconomic, political and cultural needs of current
and future generations. Indigenous knowledge has developed a way to deal with the complexity while western
science has the techniques and tools. This is a good relationship to have which creates a better outcome for
both sides and the environment. The dangers of working together is that nations do not benefit fairly or at all.
Many times Indigenous knowledge has been used outside of the nation without consent, acknowledgment, or
compensation. Indigenous knowledge can sustain the environment, yet it can be sacred knowledge. Therefore,
we must be respectful of the traditions and their rights.
Traditional knowledge and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was one of the first
federal agencies to develop formal policies detailing how it would
collaborate with tribal governments and acknowledge tribal interests
in enacting its programs "to protect human health and the
environment."[20] In recognizing tribal peoples connection to the
environment the EPA has sought to develop environmental programs A great example of this is the
that integrate traditional ecological knowledge into the "agency's Australian government giving back
environmental science, policy, and decision-making processes."[21] land to the Aboriginal people to
practice their tradition of controlled
Although TEK is not currently recognized as an important component fires. This made the areas more
of mainstream environmental decision making, scientists are working biologically diverse and decreased
on developing core science competency programs that align with the threat of wildfires and their
TEK and promote self-sufficiency and determination.[22] severity.

In November 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton issued Executive

Order 13175, which required federal departments and agencies to consult with Indian Tribal governments in
the development of policies that would have Tribal implications.[23] Tribal Implications are defined by the
EPA as having "substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes."[24] As a Federal agency of the U.S. government, the EPA was required to
establish a set of standards for the consultation process. As its initial response, the agency developed a set of
standards that would allow for meaningful communication and coordination between the agency and tribal
officials prior to the agency taking actions or implementing decisions that may affect tribes. The standards also
designated EPA consultation contacts to promote consistency and coordination of the consultation process, and
established management oversight and reporting to ensure accountability and transparency.

One form of consultation has been EPA Tribal Councils. In 2000, the EPA's Office of Research and
Development formed the EPA Tribal Science Council. The council, made up of representatives from tribes
across the nation, is meant to provide a structure for tribal involvement in EPA's science efforts, and serve as a
vehicle through which EPA may gain an understanding of the scientific issues that are of highest priority to
tribes at a national level. The Council also offers tribes an opportunity to influence EPA's scientific agenda by
raising these priority issues to an EPA-wide group.[25]

Of importance for tribal members at the initial gathering of the EPA Tribal Science Council was the inherent
differences in tribal traditional lifeways and western science. These lifeways include "spiritual, emotional,
physical, and mental connections to the environment; connections which are based on intrinsic, immeasurable
values"; and an understanding that the earth's resources will provide everything necessary for human
survival.[23]

The EPA's Tribal Science Council, however, was meant to act as a meeting place where both groups could
"share information that may contribute to environmental protection for all peoples with neither culture
relinquishing its identity." In an effort to protect TTL the Council identified subsitence as a critical area for
investigation. The EPA-Tribal Science Council defined subsistence as: the "relationships between people and
their surrounding environment, a way of living. Subsistence involves an intrinsic spiritual connection to the
earth, and includes an understanding that the earth’s resources will provide everything necessary for human
survival. People who subsist from the earth’s basic resources remain connected to those resources, living
within the circle of life. Subsistence is about living in a way that will ensure the integrity of the earth’s
resources for the beneficial use of generations to come." Because TTL or TEK is specific to a location and
includes the relationships between plants and animals, and the relationship of living beings to the environment,
acknowledgment of subsitence as a priority allows for the knowledge and practices of TTL to be protected.
For example, as part of their deliberation regarding subsistence, the Council agreed to identify resource
contamination as “the most critical tribal science issue at this time.” Because tribal people with subsistence
lifestyles rely the environment for traditional techniques of farming, hunting. fishing, forestry, and medicines,
and ceremonies, contaminants disproportionately impact tribal peoples and jeopardizes their TTL. As the EPA
Council stated, "Tribal subsistence consumption rates are typically many times higher than those of the general
population, making the direct impact of resource contamination a much more immediate concern."[23] As
native peoples struggle with tainted resources, the Council has made progress in investigating its impacts.

Despite such efforts, there are still barriers to progress within the EPA-Tribal Science Council. For example,
one obstacle has been the nature of TTL. Tribal Traditional Lifeways are passed down orally, from person to
person, generation to generation, whereas western science relies on the written word, communicated through
academic and literate transmission.[23] Endeavors to bring together western scientists and tribal people have
also been hindered by Native American's perceptions that scientific analysis are put in a metaphorical “black
box” that shuts out tribal input. Regardless, the EPA has recognized the ability of indigenous knowledge to
advance scientific understanding and provide new information and perspectives that may benefit the
environment and human health.

The integration of TTL into the EPA's risk assessment paradigm is one example of how the EPA-Tribal
Science Council has been able to enact change in EPA culture. The risk assessment paradigm is an
"organizing framework for the scientific analysis of the potential for harmful impacts to human health and the
environment as a result of exposure to contaminants or other environmental stressors." Risk assessment has
been used by the EPA to establish "clean-up levels at hazardous waste sites, water quality and air quality
criteria, fish advisories, and bans or restricted uses for pesticides and other toxic chemicals."[22] Tribal people
are concerned, however, that current risk assessment methodologies do not afford complete value to tribal
culture, values, and/or life ways. The Tribal Science Council seeks to incorporate TTL into exposure
assumptions existent in the EPA risk assessment model. A long-term goal for the EPA's Tribal Science
Council, however, is a complete shift in decision-making assessments from risk to preserving a healthy people
and environment. As stated above, tribal people do not accept a separation of the human and ecological
condition when they characterize risk. Through EPA initiated seminar, workshops, and projects, tribes have
been able to engage in dialogue about the integration of Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA risk assessment
and decision-making. This has occurred in a number of ways: inclusion of unique tribal cultural activities such
as native basketry, the importance of salmon and other fishes, native plant medicine, consumption of large
amounts of fish and game, and sweat lodges as exposures for estimating potential risk to people or to
communities. Although these types of tribal specific activities may be included in EPA's risk assessment, there
is no assurance that they will be included nor is there consistency in how they may be applied at different sites
across the country.[22]

In July 2014, the EPA announced its “Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally
Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples," setting forth its principles for programs related to federally
recognized tribes and indigenous peoples in order to "support the fair and effective implementation of federal
environmental laws, and provide protection from disproportionate impacts and significant risks to human
health and the environment."[26] Among the 17 principles were #3 ("The EPA works to understand definitions
of human health and the environment from the perspective of federally recognized tribes, indigenous peoples
throughout the United States, and others living in Indian country"); #6 ("The EPA encourages, as appropriate
and to the extent practicable and permitted by law, the integration of traditional ecological knowledge into the
agency’s environmental science, policy, and decision-making processes, to understand and address
environmental justice concerns and facilitate program implementation"); and #7 ("The EPA considers
confidentiality concerns regarding information on sacred sites, cultural resources, and other traditional
knowledge, as permitted by law.").[27] While this policy identifies guidelines and procedures for the EPA in
regards to environmental justice principles as they relate to tribes and indigenous peoples, the agency noted
that they are in no way applicable as rules or regulations. They cannot be applied to particular situations nor
change or substitute any law, regulation, or any other legally-binding requirement and is not legally
enforceable.[26]

Effects of environmental degradation on traditional knowledge

In some areas, environmental degradation has led to a decline in traditional ecological knowledge. For
example, at the Aamjiwnaang community of Anishnaabe First Nations people in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada,
residents suffer from a "noticeable decrease in male birth ratio ..., which residents attribute to their proximity to
petrochemical plants":[28]

In addition to concerns about the physical reproduction of community members, indigenous

people are concerned about how environmental contamination impacts the reproduction of
cultural knowledge. In Aamjiwnaang, oral traditions once passed down from grandfathers during
fishing or grandmothers during berry picking and medicine gathering are being lost as those
activities are no longer practiced because of concerns about these foods being contaminated.
Rocks once used for sweat lodges are no longer being collected from local streams because the
streams have become contaminated. The cedar used for making tea, smudging, and washing
babies contains vanadium at concentrations as high as 6 mg/kg..., reflecting local releases to air of
> 611 tons of vanadium between 2001 and 2010.... At Akwesasne, community members report a
loss of language and culture around subsistence activities like fishing, which have been largely
abandoned because of fears of exposure to contaminants.[28]

Climate change
Traditional ecological knowledge provides information about climate change
across generations and geography of the actual residents in the area.[29]
Traditional ecological knowledge emphasizes and makes the information
about the health and interactions of the environment the center of the
information it carries.[30] Climate change affects traditional ecological
knowledge in the forms of the indigenous people's identity and the way they
live their lives. Traditional knowledge is passed down from generation to
generation and continues today. Indigenous people depend on these traditions
for their livelihood. For many harvesting seasons, indigenous people have
shifted their activity months earlier due to impacts from climate change.

The rising temperature poses as threats for ecosystems because it harms the
livelihoods of certain tree and plant species. The combination of the rise in Indigenous people and
temperatures and change in precipitation levels affects plant growth Climate Change: fact sheet
locations.[31] Climate change has wiped out much of the salmonids and about the health impacts of
climate change on
acorns which make up a significant portion of the Karuk people's food. The
indigenous populations.
increase in temperatures has stunted the wild rice's ability to grow and that has
a negative influence on the Anishinaabe people's lifestyle.[32] The Ojibwe
people are also affected by the rising temperature's effect on rice growth.[33]

The warming also affects insects and animals. The change in temperatures can affect many aspects from the
times that insects emerge throughout the year to the changes in the habitats of animals throughout seasonal
changes. In Maine, the loss of certain habitats and the increase in temperatures, especially in the colder
seasons, encourages the survival of ticks that harm the moose population.[32]
As the temperature gets hotter, wild fires become more likely. One Indigenous nation in Australia was recently
given back land as are running it as park rangers to start their own controlled fires as was their tradition. Doing
this there was better biodiversity and wildfires are less severe and less common due to this tradition. Not only
are different aspects of the environment affected, but together, the health of the ecosystem is affected by
climate change and so the environmental resources available to the indigenous people can change in the
amount available and the quality of the resources.[32]

The Navajo Nation peoples in the Southwestern United States are victims to the pollution in the air. Climate
change increases chances for droughts which lead to the dangers of airborne dust to be picked up from the
ground.[33]

Water resources are also affected. In particular, about a third of the Navajo Nation people need to physically
attain their own water. Damage to their water resources poses as dangers to overall health and crop failures. In
Arizona, the Fort Apache reservation's children are victims to the rising temperatures in their water which
allows more impurities to grow in the water and causes them to have diarrhea and stomach problems.[33]

As sea ice levels decrease, Alaska Native peoples experience changes in their daily lives; fishing,
transportation, social and economic aspects of their lives become more unsafe. The Native peoples residing on
the Gulf and West Coasts are affected by the rising sea temperatures because that makes the fish and shellfish,
that they rely on for food and cultural activities, more susceptible to contamination.[33] The defrosting of soil
has caused damages to buildings and roadways. Water contamination becomes exacerbated as clean water
resources dwindle.[32]

Climate changes undermine the daily lives of the Native peoples on many levels. Climate change and
indigenous people have a varying relationship depending on the geographic region which require different
adaption and mitigation actions. For example, to immediately deal with these conditions, the indigenous people
adjust when they harvest and what they harvest and also adjust their resource use. Climate change can change
the accuracy of the information of traditional ecological knowledge. The indigenous people have relied deeply
on indicators in nature to plan activities and even for short- term weather predictions.[34] As a result of even
more increasing unfavorable conditions, the indigenous people relocate to find other ways to survive. As a
result, there is a loss of cultural ties to the lands they once resided on and there is also a loss to the traditional
ecological knowledge they had with the land there.[32] Climate change adaptations not properly structured or
implemented can harm the indigenous people's rights.[35]

The EPA has mentioned that it would take traditional ecological knowledge into consideration in planning
adaptations to climate change. The National Resource Conservation Service of the United States Department
of Agriculture has used methods of the indigenous people to combat climate change conditions.[30]

Case Study: Savoonga and Shaktoolik, Alaska

In one study, villagers of Savoonga and Shaktoolik, Alaska reported that over the last twenty years of their
lives, the weather has become more difficult to predict, the colder season has shortened, there is more difficulty
in predicting the amount of plants available for harvests, there are differences in animal migrations, there are
more sightings of new species than before, and the activities of hunting and gathering have become not as
predictable nor occur as often due to more limited availability to do so. The residents saw a noticeable change
in their climate which also affected their livelihoods. The plants and animals are not as consistent with their
availability which affects the residents' hunting and gathering because there is not as much to hunt or gather.
The appearance of new species of plants and animals is also a physical and nutritional safety concern because
they are not traditionally part of the land.[29]

See also
 Agroecology
Braiding Sweetgrass
Traditional knowledge
African Insect TEK

References

Notes
1. Berkes, F. (1993). "Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A
Call to Action" (https://doi.org/10.1641%2F0006-3568%282002%29052%5B0432%3AWTEKI
B%5D2.0.CO%3B2). BioScience. 52 (5): 432. doi:10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 (https://doi.org/10.1641%2F0006-3568%282002%290
52%5B0432%3AWTEKIB%5D2.0.CO%3B2).
2. Freeman, M.M.R. 1992. The nature and utility of traditional ecological knowledge. Northern
Perspectives, 20(1):9-12
3. McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future.
American Indian Quarterly, 28(3 & 4), 385-410
4. Becker, C. D., Ghimire, K. (2003). Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and
conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology, 8(1): 1
5. Simeone, T. (2004). Indigenous traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights. Library of
Parliament: PRB 03-38E. Parliamentary Research Branch Political and Social Affairs Division.
6. AAAS - Science and Human Rights Program. 2008. 10 February 2009
<http://shr.aaas.org/tek/connection.htm>.
7. Henriksen, John (2007). HIGHLY VULNERABLE INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
INTER ALIA, OF THE ARCTIC, SMALL ISLAND STATES AND HIGH ALTITUDES,
CONCERNING THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACCELERATED THREATS,
SUCH AS POLLUTION, DROUGHT AND DESERTIFICATION, TO TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES WITH A FOCUS OF CAUSES AND SOLUTION (https://ww
w.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/wg8j-05/information/wg8j-05-inf-18-en.doc). Montreal:
UNEP/Convention on Biological Diversity. p. 30.
8. "What is Traditional Knowledge" (http://www.nativescience.org/html/traditional_knowledge.htm
l).
9. Berkes, Fikret (1993). "Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective" (http://library.umac.m
o/ebooks/b10756577a.pdf) (PDF).
10. Berkes, Fikret. "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" (https://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_reso
urces/canadaresearchchair/Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%20And%20Nature%20Tradition
al%20Ecological%20Knowledge.pdf) (PDF).
11. "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future" (htt
p://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf) (PDF). March 20, 1987.
12. Mazzocchi, Fulvio (2006-05-01). "Western science and traditional knowledge" (https://www.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1479546). EMBO Reports. 7 (5): 463–466.
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400693 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.embor.7400693). ISSN 1469-
221X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1469-221X). PMC 1479546 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC1479546). PMID 16670675 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16670675).
13. Houde, N. (2007) Ecology & Society.
14. Houde, Nicolas (2007-12-20). "The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge:
Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements" (http://dlc.dlib.indi
ana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/2639/ES-2007-2270.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
(PDF). Ecology and Society. 12 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-02270-120234 (https://doi.org/10.5751%2
FES-02270-120234). ISSN 1708-3087 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1708-3087).
15. Usher, P.J. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in environmental assessment and
management
16. Berkes 1988, Gunn et all. 1988
17. Usher 2000
18. Houde 2007
19. Lewis and Sheppard 2005
20. EPA, OITA, AIEO, US (2015-04-28). "EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations (1984 Indian Policy)" (https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-a
dministration-environmental-programs-indian-reservations-1984-indian-policy). www.epa.gov.
Retrieved 2017-04-12.
21. Woolford, James (January 17, 2017). "Consideration of Tribal Treaty Rights and Traditional
Ecological Knowledge" (https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/500024668.pdf) (PDF).
22. "Integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Environmental Science, Policy and
Decision-Making" (https://archive.epa.gov/region9/tribal/web/pdf/tribal-ecological-knowledge-e
nv-sci-policy-dm.pdf) (PDF). June 2011.
23. Sepez, Jennifer; Lazrus, Heather (Winter 2005). "Traditional Environmental Knowledge in
Federal Natural Resource Management Agencies" (https://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/tek
-j-sepez.pdf) (PDF). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
24. EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD, US (2013-02-22). "Summary of Executive Order 13175 -
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (https://www.epa.gov/laws-reg
ulations/summary-executive-order-13175-consultation-and-coordination-indian-tribal).
www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
25. "Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples" (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/ej-indigen
ous-policy.pdf) (PDF). www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/. July 24, 2014.
26. "EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples" (https://archive.epa.gov/partners/web/pdf/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf) (PDF).
July 24, 2014. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
27. McCarthy, Gina. "EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized
Tribes and Indigenous Peoples" (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/document
s/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf) (PDF). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in
the public domain.
28. Hoover, Elizabeth (2012). "Indigenous Peoples of North America: Environmental Exposures
and Reproductive Justice" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548285).
Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (12): 1645–1649. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205422 (https://do
i.org/10.1289%2Fehp.1205422). JSTOR 23323091 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23323091).
PMC 3548285 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548285). PMID 22899635 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22899635).
29. Ignatowski, Jonathan Andrew; Rosales, Jon (2013). "Identifying the exposure of two
subsistence villages in Alaska to climate change using traditional ecological knowledge".
Climatic Change. 121 (2): 285–299. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..285I (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2013ClCh..121..285I). doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0883-4 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs105
84-013-0883-4). S2CID 154338699 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154338699).
30. Moffa, Anthony. "Traditional Ecological Rulemaking" (https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploa
ds/2017/01/moffa.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 16 March 2017.
31. "Climate Change Threats and Solutions" (https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/glo
bal-warming-climate-change/threats-solutions/). The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved 22 March
2017.
32. "Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources" (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/i
ndigenous-peoples#). Global Change. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
33. "Climate Change and the Health of Indigenous Populations" (https://www3.epa.gov/climatecha
nge/impacts/health/factsheets/indigenous-health-climate-change.pdf) (PDF). EPA United
States Environmental Protection Agency. May 2016. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
34. Vinyeta, Kirsten; Lynn, Kathy. "Exploring the role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate
change initiative" (https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo37896/pnw_gtr879.pdf) (PDF).
Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
35. Raygorodetsky, Gleb. "Why Traditional Ecological Knowledge Holds the Key to Climate
Change" (https://unu.edu./publications/articles/why-traditional-knowledge-holds-the-key-to-clim
ate-change.html). United Nations University. Retrieved 16 March 2017.

Further reading
Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica; et al. (2014). "Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: Status
quo and insights for the environmental policy agenda" (https://zenodo.org/record/33573).
Environment. 56 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/00139157.2014.861673 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00
139157.2014.861673). S2CID 153834585 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15383458
5).
Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013). "Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific
Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants" (Milkweed Edition) ISBN 9781571313355.

External links
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Interdisciplinary Stewardship of Mother Earth, National Park
Service (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/index.htm)
Center for Native Peoples and the Environment, at State University of New York, College of
Environmental Science and Forestry (http://www.esf.edu/nativepeoples/)
Indigenous Peoples' Restoration Network (IPRN) (https://web.archive.org/web/2010022101513
3/http://www.ser.org/iprn/default.asp)
Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site (http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/g
waiihaanas/index.aspx)
Table of the Six Faces of TEK (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/table1.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_ecological_knowledge&oldid=1000360024"

This page was last edited on 14 January 2021, at 20:07 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.