The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments?

IF 1.1 4区 管理学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada Pub Date : 2022-08-14 DOI:10.1111/capa.12491
Louis-Robert Beaulieu-Guay
{"title":"The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments?","authors":"Louis-Robert Beaulieu-Guay","doi":"10.1111/capa.12491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Traditional Ecological Knowledge is officially recognized as a legitimate source of information when legislating on wildlife management at the federal level. This study assesses the extent to which this kind of information is mobilized by administrators when writing regulations. Analyzing the use of traditional knowledge in classifying endangered species shows that although Indigenous individuals and organizations are systematically consulted, traditional knowledge is rarely a factor in impact assessments. However, for scientific examinations conducted before these regulatory impact assessments, traditional ecological knowledge does appear to be considered a reliable source of information, even if it is not widely used.</p>","PeriodicalId":46145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada","volume":"65 3","pages":"403-420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12491","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Traditional Ecological Knowledge is officially recognized as a legitimate source of information when legislating on wildlife management at the federal level. This study assesses the extent to which this kind of information is mobilized by administrators when writing regulations. Analyzing the use of traditional knowledge in classifying endangered species shows that although Indigenous individuals and organizations are systematically consulted, traditional knowledge is rarely a factor in impact assessments. However, for scientific examinations conducted before these regulatory impact assessments, traditional ecological knowledge does appear to be considered a reliable source of information, even if it is not widely used.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知识的多面性:科学和传统生态知识在联邦评估中共存吗?
在联邦一级制定野生动物管理立法时,传统生态知识被正式认定为合法的信息来源。本研究评估了管理者在制定规章时调动这类信息的程度。分析在濒危物种分类中使用传统知识的情况表明,尽管系统地咨询了土著个人和组织,但传统知识很少成为影响评估的一个因素。然而,对于在这些监管影响评估之前进行的科学检查,传统的生态知识似乎确实被认为是可靠的信息来源,即使它没有被广泛使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Canadian Public Administration/Administration publique du Canada is the refereed scholarly publication of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC). It covers executive, legislative, judicial and quasi-judicial functions at all three levels of Canadian government. Published quarterly, the journal focuses mainly on Canadian issues but also welcomes manuscripts which compare Canadian public sector institutions and practices with those in other countries or examine issues in other countries or international organizations which are of interest to the public administration community in Canada.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Canada Water Act, 1970: Did Parliamentarians Seek Cooperative Federalism? Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Administration Breaking All the Rules: Information Technology Procurement in the Government of Canada Moving On, But Where? A Snapshot of Ontario Ministerial Staff Career Trajectories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1