4.1 Review

Food programs in Indigenous communities within northern Canada: A scoping review

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cag.12872

关键词

northern Canada; food program; food security; food sovereignty; Indigenous Peoples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recognizing the lack of literature on food programs in northern Indigenous communities in Canada, this study used a range of sources to map and characterize existing programs. The study also examined the inclusion of traditional food in these programs, which has implications for cultural appropriateness and food sovereignty.
Recognizing that limited literature exists regarding food programs in northern Indigenous communities within Canada, this study draws on a range of sources to map and characterize existing food programs in these contexts. A secondary aim assessed the extent to which traditional food was offered through the identified programs, which has implications for cultural appropriateness and, in turn, food sovereignty. Peer-reviewed articles and grey literature published between 2000 and 2022 were examined. Frameworks to guide methodologies include PRISMA-ScR, Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al., and Godin et al.'s grey literature search strategy. Inclusion criteria were food programs located north of the Northern Boundary Line, programs providing food access, and programs serving Indigenous communities. Data were synthesized based on program type, target population, and whether the program offered or incorporated traditional food. The review yielded 30 records wherein 46 unique food programs were identified and characterized into eight distinct program types. Program success of the identified programs depended on funding availability and continuity, staff/volunteer availability and retention (including program champions), and types of policies that impact traditional food provision. Findings are valuable to organizations and communities interested in using food programs to support Indigenous food security and sovereignty efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据