Using Indigenous and Western knowledge systems for environmental risk assessment.

I am grateful for the financial contributions provided by the Canadian Indigenous of Health Research (CIHR), Institute of Indigenous Peoples Health and Gender and Health, with First Nations Health Authority, the Canadian Nurses Foundation, and the University of Victoria.

Although the school natural sciences curricula in South Africa ask for the inclusion of indigenous knowledge systems in the classroom, it is either done very superficially by providing an example or two, or ignored completely by teachers (Cronje, De Beer & Ankiewicz, 2015). This mixed-methods study (with emphasis on the qualitative inquiry) into the status of indigenous knowledge in the natural- and life sciences classroom in Gauteng, NorthWest, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, and Limpopo provinces in South Africa, once again echoes what Rogan and Grayson (2003) reported: in South Africa the curriculum process focuses too much on the what (the curriculum itself), at the expense of the how (the implementation of the curriculum). Although the progressive curriculum makes it clear that indigenous knowledge should be addressed, it provides very little guidance to teachers on how this should be done. Two problems are specifically highlighted in this chapter: teachers’ lack of pedagogical and content knowledge in addressing indigenous knowledge systems, and their poor understanding of the nature of science (and how indigenous knowledge should be incorporated within this scientific framework). To effectively infuse indigenous knowledge in the school curriculum, effective epistemological border-crossing between indigenous knowledge and Western science is needed in terms of epistemological and ontological considerations, which places demands on teachers’ knowledge and pedagogies. Too often “Western” science and indigenous knowledge are seen as conflicting epistemologies, disregarding the notion of border crossing, or Odora-Hoppers’s (2002) idea of a “postmodern integrative paradigm shift” where indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge systems are seen as complimentary epistemologies. This chapter will elicit the value of indigenous knowledge in the life or natural sciences curricula from the perspective of embodied, situated, and distributed cognition (ESDC). Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) will be used as a research lens (linked to the theoretical framework of social constructivism), in looking at a funded research project, in which natural and life sciences teachers were trained in facilitating border-crossing between indigenous knowledge and “Western” science. This chapter also sheds light on interventions such as Ogunniyi’s course based on contiguity argumentation theory (Ogunniyi & Hewson, 2008), and how such interventions can enhance teachers’ understanding of how the nature of science and indigenous knowledge systems can be better integrated.

Aunty Mary Graham, Kombu-merri elder and philosopher, says: "You are not alone in the world." We have a responsibility to each other, as well as to the land; and violence is the refusal of this relationship that binds us (Rose). In this paper, I use Emannuel Levinas’s ethics as first philosophy and epistemological violence to consider how non-Indigenous educators come to know Indigenous people. In his philosophy, Levinas presents a paradox: that to act as if one is a free being, as first philosophy, is to ignore that one is not alone in the world and that the presence of others evokes responsibility. However, to claim to know another is to bring them into one’s totality, one’s knowledge framework; an act of reducing another to who you think they are. We must find a new relationship to knowledge, one that is not based on possession. For non-Indigenous educators learning about teaching Indigenous students and perspectives in schools, much of the curricular material draws on the corpus of knowledge constructed by non-Indigenous researchers, politicians, and professionals about Indigenous people (Nakata, Cultural Interface). This material is already bound by others' interests and motivations. How can non-Indigenous educators engage with Indigenous peoples, histories and knowledges in a way that foregrounds the responsibility that our entanglement prompts? In this paper, I present data from my research into pre-service teachers undertaking a compulsory university subject in Indigenous education, where the pre-service teachers wrote weekly reflective learning journals. This data is drawn primarily from the end of the semester, where students reflected on what their learning would mean as they moved into future practice. I explore the role of responsibility in regards to the ethical violence that Levinas discusses.

There is currently a debate on the role of modern and indigenous knowledge systems in the smallholder farming sector. While the modern knowledge systems have been viewed as superior and are being touted as key towards meeting sustainable development goals, especially goal two of eradicating hunger, the performance of smallholder farmers utilising modern systems remains below expectations. The performance of farmers using indigenous knowledge systems has not resulted in better outcomes either. There are growing calls for an integration of the two knowledge systems to co-produce solutions relevant to smallholder farmers. However, not much is known about the extent to which this is already happening, how the integration is happening, and welfare effects of this integration. This paper assessed the extent to which smallholder irrigators integrate indigenous and modern knowledge; and whether this integration has resulted in improvements in cost reduction, productivity, and welfare levels. A sample size of 392 farmers in four irrigation schemes of KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape were interviewed. The results showed that the majority (52%) of the farmers integrated knowledge systems, while 10% and 38% relied on indigenous and modern systems, respectively. Farmers actively incorporated modern knowledge to enhance their traditional practices in their production methods in response to local challenges or opportunities. The results indicate that high maize yields attained by modern users were eroded by high inputs cost, while integrators were able to significantly reduce input costs (such as fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide costs) and the money saved was used to purchase more food, hence improving household food security. The results suggest that government, private institutions and NGOs should build on farmers’ agencies to plug-in modern knowledge into the indigenous knowledge systems through appropriate research and innovations rather than completely replacing indigenous systems with modern farming systems. Extension officers should change their mindset and acknowledge the importance of integrating indigenous knowledge into their training so that what is relevant to farmers may be adopted, thus enhancing sustainability and resilience of development efforts in developing countries.

This special issue addressing the theme of “Indigenous and Trans-Systemic Knowledge Systems” seeks to expand the existing methods, approaches, and conceptual understandings of Indigenous Knowledges to create new awareness, new explorations, and new inspirations across other knowledge systems. Typically, these have arisen and have been published through the western disciplinary traditions in interaction and engagement with diverse Indigenous Knowledge systems. Written by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and in collaborations, the contributions to this issue feature the research, study, or active exploration of applied methods or approaches from and with Indigenous Knowledge systems as scholarly inquiry, as well as practical communally-activated knowledge. These engagements between Eurocentric and Indigenous Knowledges have generated unique advancements dealing with dynamic systems that are constantly being animated and reformulated in various fields of life and experiences. While these varied applications abound, the essays in this issue explore the theme largely through scholarly research or applied pedagogies within conventional schools and universities. The engagement of these distinct knowledge systems has also generated reflective, immersive, and transactional explorations of how to foster well-being and recovery from colonialism in Indigenous community contexts.

Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge Systems (ITKS) represent cumulative, community - based bodies of knowledge developed through long-term interaction between human societies and their natural, social, and cultural environments. These systems encompass ecological understanding, agricultural practices, healthcare traditions, governance structures, ethical principles, and cultural expressions that emphasize sustainability, reciprocity, and collective well-being. Historically marginalized by colonial and modern scientific paradigms, indigenous knowledge systems are now receiving renewed global attention due to their relevance in addressing pressing challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, disaster risk, and cultural erosion. This article provides a comprehensive examination of indigenous and traditional knowledge systems, exploring their conceptual foundations, defining characteristics, major domains, ethical dimensions, gender roles, challenges, and contemporary significance. It further discusses the importance of protecting indigenous knowledge through legal, educational, and policy frameworks and argues for respectful integration between indigenous knowledge and modern science. The article concludes that recognizing indigenous peoples as equal knowledge holders is essential for sustainable, inclusive, and resilient development in the twenty-first century.

Despite innovative technological "solutions" to address ongoing water crises in Indigenous communities, significant disparities persist in Canada. Financial investment in infrastructure is necessary, but it is hardly sufficient to address the real problem: entrenched colonialism. One of the greatest challenges in decolonizing research is to prevent that research from reproducing the very categories it is seeking to critique and dismantle. We share findings from thematically-analyzed interviews with academic and community-based researchers who conducted water research with a stated intent to implement Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. Findings revealed that while there is co-learning, ontological and epistemological assumptions carried into these relationships often impede truly integrative practice. Respondents shared how they worked through these persistent barriers of a colonial system.

An excellent antidote to the power of our Western hierarchical oppositions and the theory of knowledge upon which they ride is an acquaintance with other theories of knowledge and ontologies. – Joanna Overing Introduction Keeping in mind the caveats voiced above about the need to acknowledge differences within, and similarities across, indigenous and western knowledge systems, the burden of this chapter is to acknowledge some of the differences between them. One of the most consequential of these is the fact that knowledge tends to be tied to the natural world in very different ways within indigenous and western knowledge systems. Among indigenous peoples, for example, the belief that knowledge and land are intimately bound to one another is widely shared, as is the accompanying belief that the natural world is alive, spiritually replete. Not only are these beliefs generally not shared by the dominant knowledge system, but they are at odds with varying aspects of it. Without some appreciation of such differences, we cannot fully grasp the force of indigenist critiques of biocolonialism, nor can we understand well how contemporary relations of power sustain cultural imperialism. The policies which legitimate biocolonialism, and the practices which constitute it, arise within a cultural milieu notable for its marginalization and dismissal of indigenous knowledge systems. This chapter and the next situate the struggle over biocolonialism within the context of indigenous and western knowledge systems, and the dynamics of power which structure their interaction.

The integration and use of Indigenous knowledge to inform contemporary environmental policy decisions and management solutions is a growing global phenomenon. However, there is little critical inquiry about how the interactions between scientific and Indigenous knowledge (IK) systems can be effectively negotiated for the joint management of social-ecological systems. Such issues are urgent on Indigenous lands where co-management efforts respond to pressing conservation agendas and where the contribution of scientific knowledge and IK is required to better understand and manage complex social-ecological systems. We draw on the notion of boundary work to examine how interaction at the boundaries of scientific and IK systems can be managed effectively as a contribution to co-management. The case study of feral animal co-management in Australia’s Kakadu National Park illuminates the work required for local co-managers to bridge the divide between scientific and IK systems and to ensure the translation of knowledge for management decisions. Attributes of effective boundary work demonstrated in this case include: meaningful participation in agenda setting and joint knowledge production to enable co-managers to translate available knowledge into joint feral animal programs, Indigenous and non-Indigenous ranger efforts to broker interactions between knowledge systems that are supported by co-governance arrangements to ensure that boundary work remains accountable, and the production of collaboratively built boundary objects (e.g., feral animal impact assessment data) that helps to coordinate local action between co-managers. This case study illustrates the contribution of boundary work to local co-manager efforts to translate across knowledge systems and across the knowledge-action divide, even when consensus is difficult to achieve.

This study aims to bridge the ethical gap in integrating indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and scientific knowledge systems (WSK) to enable sustainable mitigation of environmental and climate change challenges. Indigenous knowledge and belief systems have been used to guide nature conservation in sub-Saharan Africa for many years. Traditional knowledge is passed down from generation to generation, leading to resource management practices that promote environmental protection and sustainable development. Many indigenous communities in Asia, Australia and Africa just as globally have developed conservation plans that incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and community participation to protect habitats, animals, and ecosystems. However, there are ethical issues surrounding the integration of IKS and WSK that may weaken efforts to combat environmental and climate change challenges. To analyze many case studies from Asia, Australia, and sub-Saharan Africa (including Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, and Zambia) that have investigated the integration of IKS and WSK for environmental and climate change mitigation, this study used a qualitative research method through the combination of document and content analyses. The study uses consequentialism and utilitarianism as environmental ethics theories to guide the integration of indigenous and scientific knowledge systems for sustainable mitigation strategies. Ethical issues encountered during the integration include proprietary rights for IKS, distortion and loss of traditional, cultural, and religious beliefs, and unequal recognition of IKS. The study advocates for broad and meaningful participation of indigenous and local knowledge in the international assessment process to promote effective environmental and climate change initiatives across diverse knowledge systems and perspectives.

The IPCC has begun to acknowledge, albeit slowly, the importance of Indigenous knowledge (IK) systems in contributing to understandings of climate change and effective climate action. Yet Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and IK systems remain largely excluded and marginalised from the IPCC global assessment reports. IPCC scientists and leaders have a unique and specific obligation to IK systems that does not extend to other knowledge systems. IK is the knowledge of rights holders and therefore acknowledging and respecting the self-determination of IPs over their knowledge – including how it is used, interpreted, and synthesised – is imperative. There are examples of IPs organising themselves in other international spaces that could inform how the IPCC can approach a stronger, more durable engagement with IPs. Perhaps the ultimate challenge for the IPCC is that when bringing IK systems together with other knowledge systems, the framing of evidence must reflect the diversity of these distinct and discrete ways of knowing. Examples from the lived experience of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in engaging with the IPCC demonstrate diverse channels for engagement, yet significant limitations persist.

This article focuses on drought risk reduction and climate change adaptation strategies adopted by rural households to sustain their livelihood activities. The overall objective was to understand the local household’s responses to the changing climate especially drought. The study was carried out in Chirumhanzu district in Zimbabwe and used a mixed methods approach combining 217 household surveys, targeted focus group discussions, participatory learning actions methods, key informant interviews and a document review. Household data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences and thematic content analysis was used for the qualitative data. We found that the majority of households showed awareness of several risk reduction and adaptation strategies to implement during and/or when drought was predicted, with 56% of the respondents stating stocking of grain as initial strategy. Other strategies adopted at household level included early planting (at first rains), conservation farming, planting small grains and dry planting. Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including local people’s holistic view of the community and environment, were a major resource for adapting to climate change and drought risks. However, these indigenous knowledge systems and practices had not been consistently used in the existing adaptation and risk-reduction efforts. Indigenous knowledge was not sufficiently acknowledged and integrated into formal risk reduction and adaptation strategies, which resulted in limited success for external interventions. There is need for integration of local and indigenous knowledge systems and external interventions to build household livelihoods that are resilient to climate risks.

The implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in integrative water research and management is gaining prominence in the realm of academia, particularly in four countries with a shared, albeit different, history of British colonialism: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. While integrative water research in particular is gaining popularity, currently there is a gap in our understanding regarding where, when, why, how, and for whom this type of research has been successful. A systematic review method was used to identify peer-reviewed literature from each of the four countries and to understand where and when integrative water research projects were taking place. Then, we used a realist review method to synthesize and analyze the included peer-reviewed literature to determine why, how, and for whom this type of research has been successful, or not. Our systematic literature search provided 669 peer-reviewed articles from across the four countries, of which 97 met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Our findings indicate that the total number of integrative water research projects has been increasing since 2009, though these projects are largely concentrated within the realm of social science and conducted by non-Indigenous authors. Recognition of the value of Indigenous knowledge systems, coupled with an understanding that the use of Western knowledge systems alone has not remedied the disparity in access to safe water sources in Indigenous communities, has led researchers to recommend collaborative partnerships and governance structures as a potential pathway to effective integrative water research. Our research was conducted to enhance contemporary understanding of the strengths of implementing Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and to encourage readers to continue working towards a common goal of reconciliation and equality in all partnerships.

The relevance of indigenous knowledge system (IKS) to sustainable development of any country is no longer in doubt. Therefore, any nations that do not adapt its traditional indigenous knowledge system into its western system of education are likely to have a retarded development. This is because there is always a conflict between traditional knowledge systems with the western knowledge system. This paper had to argued that there is need to decolonized science curricula into indigenous knowledge system especially Secondary School Biology for sustainable development in order to compliment scientific concepts, making learning more comprehensive and relatable. The paper discusses the nature and place of Secondary School Biology curriculum in Nigeria Science Education, challenging the myth of objectivity in Biological Science, The need for indigenous knowledge in Secondary School Biology curriculum, pedagogical benefits and practical approaches to indigenous knowledge, challenges and ethical considerations of decolonizing Biology curricula into indigenous knowledge, implication of decolonizing Biology curriculum into indigenous knowledge in Nigeria science education and conclusion.

To curb environmental challenges effectively, Western environmental knowledge has been adopted besides indigenous environmental knowledge system in Africa. However, the dualistic nature of knowledge integration, this paper notes, is tinted by unfair power relations where indigenous knowledge is masked by neo-colonial tenets of the West. Neo-colonialism, as argued in this paper, is the attempt of the Western societies to impose their knowledge system to micro-manage the environmental and other affairs in Africa, taking a case study of Uganda. Our central inquiry is why Africa is gradually deviating from indigenous knowledge systems in preference of Western environmental knowledge. Using a critical analytical survey method, this paper argues that there is environmental knowledge neo-colonialism in Africa today characterized by Western identity construction, language dominance, cross-cultural cloning, undermining of indigenous education patterns, academic division of labor, education as an investment, top-down distribution of knowledge, and improper contextualization of knowledge construction and application. This appeals for Africanized production of knowledge to suit the continent’s environmental needs and achieve African epistemic autonomy.