Community-based Criteria and Values for Non-timber Forest Products Management in the Traditional Territory of the Missanabie Cree First Nation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite the push for meaningful Indigenous participation in forest management, conventional top-down planning processes fail to sufficiently integrate local knowledge and values necessary to achieve truly sustainable forestry.As Indigenous communities regain control over their traditional territories, there continues to be a growing emphasis on developing locally adapted frameworks by which Indigenous communities and partners may achieve integrated development-conservation systems that reflect their values and aspirations.This communitybased case study explores the plurality of local values and perspectives within an Indigenous context, building on the experiences of the Missanabie Cree First Nation (MCFN) of Ontario, Canada.Using an inclusive and participatory approach, this research qualifies and elaborates on local criteria and critical local values surrounding non-timber forest product (NTFP) development and conservation within the MCFN traditional territory.Non-timber forest products are an important element of the spiritual and cultural identity of Canada's Indigenous communities, while playing a significant role in traditional economies.Current commercial forest management.systemsdo not adequately protect these natural resources Cas managers have yet to sufficiently incorporate both Western science and local Traditional Knowledge and experience into the planning process.Appliedethnobotany and policy analysis theory were used to develop a mixed-methods case study that developed a framework that allows for improved assessments of forest management in relation to the local landscape, community, and culture.Perspectives of Missanabie community members were analyzed through 26 semistructured interviews conducted in August 2016 that addressed specific components of the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) knowledge-practice-belief complex.Qualitative analysis documented and organized critical local values.Previous Criteria and Indicators (C&I)studies to help inform and guide qualitative coding processes and help saturate emergent criteria and elements.Qualitative results were used to develop a preference ranking questionnaire, administered to MCFN adults (2:18) as a mixed-mode survey.Quantitative findings were used to support qualitative interview by providing an index of relative importance within the community.Prioritized values helped to corroborate trends found throughout the interview results, provide the basis for NTFP development and conservation recommendations, and help provide direction for future planning.By drawing on multiple perspectives, the MCFN, as well as other parties, are able to better understand and make well informed decisions to address socio-ecological issues, begin reestablishing their own institutions directed towards managing forest access and use, and increasing local autonomy and self-determination in forest planning and decision-making processes.This analysis establishes key community-based objectives that have been prioritized by the community with the intent of promoting diverse socio-economic benefits, while advancing local forest management systems.Collaborative research findings will allow for Traditional Knowledge to be considered alongside Western scientific knowledge in working towards an NTFP development plan that can support social, economic, and environmental benefits to the Missanabie Cree community.This framework represents a starting for Missanabie in the forest planning process.Moving forward, leadership can continue to build and revise this framework to accommodate changing needs, further engage their membership, and in doing so perhaps further refine their roles in forest governance and decision-making processes.acknowledge that this research was conducted in the Treaty 9 territory.Without the participation and guidance ofthe Missanabie Cree community, this would not have been possible.In particular, I would like to thank Chief Jason
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».