4.3 Review

Returning Fire to the Land: Celebrating Traditional Knowledge and Fire

期刊

JOURNAL OF FORESTRY
卷 115, 期 5, 页码 343-353

出版社

SOC AMER FORESTERS
DOI: 10.5849/jof.2016-043R2

关键词

wildland fire; fuels reduction; American Indians; cross-jurisdiction; communication

类别

资金

  1. Joint Fire Science Program [11-S-3-2]
  2. Northern Rockies Fire Science Network
  3. Salish Kootenai College
  4. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
  5. University of Idaho
  6. USDA Forest Service, National Science Foundation - Coupled Natural Human Systems grant [NSF-1232319]
  7. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  8. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1539820] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Office Of The Director
  10. Office of Integrative Activities [1443108] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

North American tribes have traditional knowledge about fire effects on ecosystems, habitats, and resources. For millennia, tribes have used fire to promote valued resources. Sharing our collective understanding of fire, derived from traditional and western knowledge systems, can benefit landscapes and people. We organized two workshops to investigate how traditional and western knowledge can be used to enhance wildland fire and fuels management and research. We engaged tribal members, managers, and researchers to formulate solutions regarding the main topics identified as important to tribal and other land managers: cross-jurisdictional work, fuels reduction strategies, and wildland fire management and research involving traditional knowledge. A key conclusion from the workshops is that successful management of wildland fire and fuels requires collaborative partnerships that share traditional and western fire knowledge through culturally sensitive consultation, coordination, and communication for building trust. We present a framework for developing these partnerships based on workshop discussions.

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

4.3
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