A scoping review exploring the relationships between Indigenous peoples and parks and reserves: Just more colonial structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parks and reserves are geographically demarcated and socially constructed. They are often celebrated as public places that are accessible to all. But are they places that honour and respect Indigenous values, especially those in more urban settings, managed by local and provincial governments? In Aotearoa New Zealand, legislation enshrines the involvement of Indigenous Māori in the management of these defined spaces, but particularly in the non-national park environments, historically, these have often been places of disenfranchisement, alienation, and removal. This scoping review explores how Indigenous peoples engage with state and local parks and reserves across four settler colonial countries (Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada). After screening more than 5,000 articles, the analysis of 102 articles revealed three core themes: (1) a dominance of binary depictions of nature and culture; (2) evidence that conservation is used as a colonial tool; (3) that existing and historical policy depict the dominance of Western policy frameworks and the scale of legislative control. By mapping the current field of research, this review demonstrates that, for the non-national park context, regulatory and legislative requirements alone are often insufficient to ensure parks and reserves depart from their histories of Indigenous disenfranchisement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".