Ecology and SocietyEcology and Society
 E&S Home > Vol. 18, No. 4 > Art. 29
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Turner, N., and P. R. Spalding. 2013. “We might go back to this”; drawing on the past to meet the future in northwestern North American indigenous communities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 29.
Insight, part of a special feature on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Global Environmental Change: North and South Perspectives

“We Might Go Back to This”; Drawing on the Past to Meet the Future in Northwestern North American Indigenous Communities

1University of Victoria


Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) systems are as important today for the survival and well-being of many indigenous peoples as they ever were. These ways of knowing have much to contribute at a time of marked climate change. As indigenous peoples have sustained exposure to natural resources and phenomena in particular places over time, they are privy to the cumulative knowledge on the location and timing of a host of significant environmental events and processes. Not only do their intimate experiences of seasonal weather conditions, tides and currents, species, and environmental indicators contribute to a better understanding of the nature, rate, and intensity of climate change, but TEK systems can potentially contribute to more effective planning and decision making regarding resilience and adaptation to climate change. Furthermore, the values of respect and recognition of kinship with other species that are often embodied in these systems can serve to remind all of us about the imperative to conserve and protect these other species if we are to survive as humans. We identify some of the more obvious areas where TEK systems can provide important insights for climate change planners in British Columbia, Canada as well as some of the potential challenges to attempting to integrate TEK into mainstream planning for climate change.
Key words: applying indigenous knowledge; climate change planning; indigenous values; resilience; traditional ecological knowledge


“We might go back to this, the way the world is going” (Gitga’at elder Tina Robinson, making spruce pitch salve, Gitga’ata Spring Harvest film, Gitga’at Nation and CUS 2003).

Traditional systems of environmental knowledge of indigenous peoples have been widely studied, beginning especially in the mid-1980s with the publication of Our Common Future (WCED 1988, see Berkes 1993, 2012, Clayoquot Scientific Panel 1995, Ford and Martinez 2000, Menzies 2006, Turner and Berkes 2006 for overviews). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) systems are defined by Berkes (2012:7) as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and beliefs, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission.” TEK systems can also reflect the harmonization of an indigenous group’s resistance and flexibility in the face of various levels and periods of environmental change over time (Sayles and Mulrennan 2010). Although most TEK systems have changed significantly over the past few centuries, many indigenous individuals still retain not only key memories and experiences of transformation and variability in their homeland environments, but also important modes of knowledge transmission, approaches to decision making, and particular values and worldviews. In British Columbia (B.C.), Canada during recent decades, TEK has provided valuable insights and depth of understanding to legal issues, such as Aboriginal rights and title cases, academic research in First Nations issues and environmental studies, interpretation of the archaeological and historical record, health care, and, to some degree, land and resource use planning. In this paper, we attempt to identify the potential advantages and challenges of applying TEK to planning for climate change adaptation in B.C., particularly along the coastal region.

The Earth’s climate is changing relatively rapidly, because in large measure of human-caused increases in so-called “greenhouse” gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, from intensive burning of fossil fuels, from the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s to the present day (IPCC 2007). The change is reflected in increased overall global warming, of atmosphere, oceans and lands, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea levels. It is also resulting in increased incidence and intensity of extreme weather events, such as major storms, floods and droughts, and unseasonable and unpredictable weather, with changes more intense in some regions and localities than others (IPCC 1997, 2007; see documents at UN DESA, The ramifications are immense, ranging from dramatic shifts in species distributions, to greater vulnerability for those living in the Arctic, in montane regions, and near coastlines (Boesch et al. 2000, Pauly 2000, IPCC 2007, Pojar 2010, MPA Monitoring Enterprise 2012). Coping with these changes will require complex planning, undertaken at every level of society by an evolving group of specialists and decision makers who will consider: the scale of the physical and ecological change in any given region; the adaptive capacity of the communities and species within the region; possible adaptive strategies including avoidance; mitigation; and increasing the resilience of social and ecological systems (Adger et al. 2005). As politicians, administrators, planners, and policy makers grapple with planning for adaptation to a different environment, we strongly urge that they include indigenous practitioners of TEK in this process.

Today, along coastal B.C. and elsewhere, indigenous communities are among those potentially most affected by, and most vulnerable to, global climate change. Most coastal First Nations live in small, relatively remote communities usually near sea level (IPCC 2007). They rely on anticipated seasonal abundance of particular resources, and predictable levels of rainfall, winter snowpack, and montane glaciers to feed the waterways that are essential habitat for salmon and other species critical to their diets and livelihoods. Their transportation systems, communication, community infrastructure, resource harvesting areas, foods, and resource-based economies are all at risk (e.g., Hennon et al. 2012, for an example of loss of yellow cedar, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis, a key species for Northwest Coast peoples). Each coastal B.C. First Nation is politically, linguistically, and culturally distinct, but here we refer to them collectively because they face a common threat and share many traditional cultural linkages and alliances. Our intention is to provide insight into the possibilities and challenges of incorporating TEK into climate change planning at a regional level.

Despite the excessive rate of climate change occurring and predicted over the next century (Meinhausen et al. 2009), variations in the Earth’s climate, geography, and ecosystems are not new. Environmental variability has been a constant feature of the Northwest Coast of North America since humans arrived in the area around the close of the Pleistocene or earlier (Burroughs 2005, Kirk and Daugherty 2007, Turner 2014). Sea level fluctuations, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, ice ages, floods and drastic torrents, and species extinctions are enshrined in the geomorphological and paleoecological records, and adapting to these changes has been an ongoing challenge for humans and other species (cf. Lertzman et al. 2002, Geladof et al. 2006). Recognizing and accommodating change has always been a part of TEK systems for peoples of the Northwest Coast. Oral histories of these groups present instructive examples of how the ancestors endured and responded to environmental variability through time (Boas 1895/2002, Cove and MacDonald 1987). It seems logical then, that this body of TEK knowledge can contribute to climate change planning and adaptation initiatives. We outline some of the obvious areas where TEK may assist these initiatives and, also, where there may be obstacles to including TEK into climate change adaptation planning.


Each indigenous culture has its own associated knowledge system, but the commonalities seen in the TEK systems of peoples closely linked to particular territories over many generations are notable in addressing current global climate change (Krupnik and Jolly 2002, Salick and Ross 2009, Turner and Clifton 2009, Tebtebba Foundation 2010, Turner and Singh 2011, Berkes 2012). Recognizing, responding to, and alleviating the effects of global climate change presents a complex challenge for humankind. Although most scientists, academics, and decision makers can appreciate the value of TEK in principle, they often relegate it to secondary consideration, privileging “scientific” knowledge, measurements, and projections over TEK (King 2004, Ellis 2005, Nadasdy 2006). Ideally, as suggested by Atleo (2011), Berkes (2012), and others, a society needs to find a way to draw on multiple perspectives, and as much detailed knowledge as possible integrated from local to regional to global scales, to develop solutions to climate change adaptation and amelioration that are effective and participatory. Society’s resilience depends on diversity. Many indigenous peoples accept the strength derived from weaving TEK together with western scientific and academic knowledge (Trosper 2009, Atleo 2011). Increasingly, too, as noted previously, practitioners of western science and other academic disciplines are acknowledging the potential of such cross-fertilization (Clayoquot Scientific Panel 1995, Lertzman 2010, Salick and Ross 2009, Berkes 2012). In terms of humanity’s capacity to manage climate change, the ability to draw from and bridge these knowledge systems is desirable, especially given the complexity of the problem and the need to address it at a multitude of scales.

Need for empirical knowledge

TEK systems of indigenous peoples reflect a wide spectrum of practical information based on generations of observations and experiences within particular places (Turner et al. 2000). Over the past 30 years, a large body of TEK has been documented in the coastal B.C. region. It could be beneficial to use TEK to assist in defining a baseline picture of the Pacific Northwest coastal ecosystems, such as:
Because this knowledge is accumulated multigenerationally, it incorporates perceptions both of change over time and of the expected range of variability in these factors seasonally, annually, and over more extended time periods and cycles. This kind of knowledge, essential for the survival of those relying on resources in their own territories, may vary among individuals and subgroups depending on particular training, experiences, and gender. For example, men who hunt will have deeper knowledge of animal populations and migrations, whereas women may be more knowledgeable about plant foods, herbal medicines, and use of plant fibres. Taken collectively, however, a community’s knowledge spans all of these areas.

Historically, the highly structured seasonal round whereby many groups divided their time between semipermanent winter villages and smaller summer villages and camps so that extended family groups could harvest plants and hunt for food and medicines to help them through the winter was an important strategy for survival, based on a deep knowledge of species and their lifecycles. Adopting this approach, Pacific Northwest Coast peoples increased their ability to survive even when a single resource, e.g., salmon, was reduced, as well as becoming very familiar with the ecosystem of large and diverse territories, and spreading out the effects of resource harvesting over a wider area. The resulting effect of this approach was resilience in the face of change, the ability to respond to surprise events, and maintenance of food security (Turner and Davis 1993, Turner et al. 2003, 2012).

In the Canadian Arctic, indigenous peoples’ observations of ecological impacts due to unusual climate events has proven valuable and is becoming accepted as a valid source of information for local environments over relatively short time frames (Krupnik and Jolly 2002, Salick and Ross 2009, Kunuk and Mauro 2010, Berkes 2012). In general, this type of traditional knowledge, i.e., observations and experiences of environments at the local level, is the most congruent with western scientific knowledge of species, ecosystems, geography, and weather patterns (Turner et al. 2000, Lantz and Turner 2003). In B.C., a large body of TEK has been documented for land-use and occupancy studies undertaken by B.C. First Nations as a way to protect their aboriginal rights and title in the absence of formal treaties. As well, the TEK of B.C. indigenous groups has been compiled and organized by a growing number of academic researchers in recent decades (Turner 2014). If used with close attention to the intellectual rights and legal interests of the knowledge holders, the TEK already compiled could contribute a richly layered picture of local changes and impacts, multiplied out across the landscape (Neis and Morris 2002, Failing et al. 2007, Tobias 2010). As in the Arctic region, the compendium of Pacific Northwest local experience and observations could inform broader understandings both of the intensity and the extent of climate change.

Along the B.C. coast, archaeological records show the ancestors’ ability to shift from one resource to another with changing circumstances, based on knowledge of alternative resources, and ability to travel and access different locales for resource harvesting. They also show how people have been able to intensify the use of resources based on innovations in harvesting and management techniques, processing, or storage (Peacock 1998, Ames 2005). This flexibility and adaptability proved essential in the historic period as people responded to immense changes in virtually all aspects of their lives, from incorporating potatoes and a whole range of other new foods in their diets, to finding new ways to undertake their sacred ceremonies in the face of legal prohibitions. The overall character of this capacity for resilience in the face of constant change may prove instructive for the challenges ahead.

Even though coastal indigenous peoples maintain relatively small populations, they used, and, to a great extent, still use, resources over large and diverse territories (B.C. Treaty Commission 2012). Their unique historical and contemporary perspective of the rural and vulnerable areas of coastal B.C. can provide key information to government planners who are developing regional, provincial, and national plans for climate change. Not only are people living in key remote areas where they are alert to the changes already evident, e.g., heavy winds, unusually high tides, higher precipitation, etc., but because of their intimate local environmental knowledge, they can detect a far greater subtlety in how these weather events are impacting ecosystems. Hence, at the initial stage of climate change planning, i.e., intelligence gathering, mapping, and monitoring change, there are tremendous opportunities for applications of TEK.

Effective, inclusive communication and knowledge transmission

As Berkes (2012:175) reveals, in the Canadian Arctic different techniques have been employed to involve Inuit knowledge holders in climate change research. Researchers there have made explicit efforts to “share scientific understandings with the Inuit, rather than ‘mining’ Inuit knowledge, and ... to establish a dialogue that provides space for the Inuit to respond to the science of climate change.” The exchange of technology, ideas and information has served to complement the knowledge systems of both groups, to the point where Berkes (2012:189) notes, “...the people of Sachs Harbour do not see themselves as victims of a climate change drama. Rather, they see themselves as part of the solution... as resourceful and adaptable.”

The ways in which TEK and associated worldviews are acquired and transmitted are diverse. Much learning is experiential: learning by doing. Traditionally, from a young age, children were, and in many families still are, encouraged to participate in activities of food gathering and processing, often through accompanying parents, grandparents, and other elders as they undertake daily chores or travel to harvest sites (Ingold 2000, Davidson-Hunt and Berkes 2003, Gitga’at Nation and CUS 2003, Turner 2003, 2006). Even with the hugely disruptive effects of residential schooling, many indigenous peoples in B.C. have managed to continue this tradition of experiential learning. In recent years, innovative programs have been developed in First Nations schools to reconnect children with their language and knowledge systems of the natural world and their place within it (Turner and Thompson 2006). Such practices provide opportunities for guidance and instruction from experts in their communities, sometimes one-on-one in apprenticeship arrangements, or sometimes within small groups through storytelling, and other culturally mediated means, about local flora, fauna and habitats, weather, tides, and other environmental features (George 2003, Turner et al. 2003, Thompson 2012). Providing indigenous narratives of ancestors adapting to storms, changing sea-levels, and resource shortages, and elders’ teachings on self-reliance and innovation, serves to link past victories over uncertain and catastrophic changes with community resilience (George 2003, Ommer and CUS 2007, Salick and Ross 2009).

Increasingly, the TEK of the First Nations of coastal B.C. is communicated through books, maps, and academic journals. Adaptations of traditional knowledge dissemination through publications, geographic information systems, films, and other media, as well as through public speaking, university classes, and conferences provide opportunities for wider knowledge transmission, applications, and acceptance of TEK. Although nontraditional media can serve as an efficient and powerful format for exchanging knowledge with those outside of these cultures, it can lead to information and key concepts being taken out of context and possibly misinterpreted (Berkes 2012). It is essential to keep the indigenous TEK experts involved throughout the planning process to help interpret how their knowledge is applied to new circumstances and communicated through new media. See examples of indigenous TEK experts in broadcast media in: APTN programming Down2Earth (,1287056), Gitga’ata spring harvest film (Gitga’at Nation and CUS 2003), and Inuit knowledge of climate change (Krupnik and Jolly 2002, Kunuk and Mauro 2010).

Inclusion of indigenous experts in predictive modeling

A logical application of TEK climate change adaptation is for traditional knowledge holders to assist with the development of predictive models for coping with climate change. Adapting successfully to climate change is a new area for all Canadians. Having an intimate knowledge of the local environment plus a history of responding to unexpected environmental events makes TEK experts excellent partners in generating options and solutions for this task. Concurrently, just as climate change scientists will benefit from TEK, indigenous peoples, particularly those in remote, sea-level communities, need the knowledge and technology gathered by climate change scientists and others to begin planning the future infrastructure and location of their communities. The synthesis of strong local knowledge with the powerful tools of climate science, e.g., computer modeling and mapping, wildlife and plant inventories, etc., can provide interesting analyses and scenarios for planning for the unknown. This form of collaboration has not yet been attempted in B.C., but is being introduced in the Canadian Arctic (see Berkes 2012).

Changing societal attitudes toward greater sustainability with the natural world

All knowledge systems arise from culturally prescribed values and beliefs, variously known as worldview or philosophy (Davis 2009, Berkes 2012). Along with our practical needs for food, water, and shelter, our perceptions of the world and our place within it determine humans’ day-to-day decisions and actions, our priorities, and how we live our lives. Traditional ecological knowledge systems tend to be holistic, recognizing the connections and interdependence of everything. In Northwest Coast cultures, a widely held perception of the human place in the world is characterized as kincentricity, the understanding that all of the other life-forms on Earth, from bears to salmon, from cedar trees to berry bushes, as well as even rivers, mountains, and other geographic features, are sentient beings who are relatives, or kin, of humans, related to us both practically and spiritually (Salmón 2000, Turner 2005, Martinez 2008). Many indigenous stories and ceremonies reflect these kincentric beliefs. Along with this perspective is recognition that all of these elements are worthy of respect, and that they have powers to contribute to human life or thwart humans, depending on our treatment toward them. Reciprocity is an important concept in traditional knowledge systems, not only between humans and within and across human communities, but also between humans and all other entities. This concept is expressed in various ways, but often, as Atleo (2011) states, as a way of achieving balance and harmony with diverse life-forms by integrating human behavior with the Earth’s behavior. An example of a practical application of kincentric thinking can be found in the “contingent proprietorship” model, in which rights of individuals and leaders to lands and resources is balanced by responsibility for sustaining resources and communities within their influence for future generations (Turner 2005, Brown et al. 2009, Trosper 2009). By recognizing the importance of other species and parts of the earth, humans can take responsibility for using them with care and attention, to ensure that they continue into the future and that balance is maintained (Atleo 2004, 2011, Turner 2005).


The indigenous societies of coastal B.C. have endured over millennia, in relatively dense populations, without seriously depleting the abundance or productivity of their resources (Turner 2014). Precisely because of the remoteness of many of these communities, their strong history of coping with environmental variability, their deep knowledge of local species and habitats, their supportive social relationships, and their instructive oral traditions, these peoples seem well situated to participate in building a strategy for survival on the Pacific Northwest Coast in the face of ongoing climate change (Trosper 1998, 2009, Turner and Berkes 2006, Atleo 2011).

However, although it seems that there are great opportunities for incorporating TEK into climate change planning in B.C., there are still many barriers to synthesizing multiple knowledge systems into the single planning goal of developing resilience and adaptation strategies. A central question requiring more research beyond the scope of this paper is whether knowledge systems that develop and adapt to environmental variability over thousands of years can adjust in today’s socio-ecological context to relatively sudden and sometimes violent changes in the earth’s climate and ecosystems (Egeru 2012). Also, in terms of more institutional settings, there are methodological challenges in sharing traditional knowledge for the purpose of climate change planning. Much of the existing research about TEK is to be found in ethnoecological and archaeological research and resource-based land-use and occupancy studies. Although this information is applicable, it should be understood that there are limits and issues in applying it within the context of climate change planning.

First, the information is largely site and species specific, identifying physical areas or remains of occupation and use. Any information about coping with and adapting to cataclysmic or adverse cumulative events is rarely captured in detail in such research; therefore, we have few documented alternative models of social resilience and adaptation. Second, traditional resource use research sorts and interprets indigenous uses according to standard categories, developed largely in the field of ethnography, and designed to make indigenous land uses and approaches comprehensible to professional land managers in the public land and resource management system (Spalding 1998, Usher 2000, Ellis 2005). In the past two decades, because of the expansion of TEK research both in indigenous communities and in the academic world, there is a much greater indigenous ecological knowledge base to draw upon (see Turner 2014). There are still disputes, however, about how to use this knowledge for decision making because of concerns about the standards of research employed to collect the information; the ownership and intellectual property rights of the information; and the challenge of transposing decontextualized indigenous information into a foreign epistemological framework (Tobias 2010).

In attempting to incorporate indigenous knowledge into climate change planning, we may find some useful lessons from attempts to use TEK in land-use planning and environmental assessment over the past two decades. Although TEK research has been useful in identifying explicit indigenous land practices and their locations, and indigenous groups in B.C. have developed expertise in maintaining and presenting this information when appropriate, the interpretation and use of TEK in the context of decision- making, such as proposed development activities or environmental assessment, has been less successful (Deloitte and Touche 1997, Spalding 1998, Usher 2000, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2003, Stevenson 2006, Houde 2007). In fact, the legal context for requesting TEK in B.C. may be the major stumbling block for trust and free exchange of information in the context of climate change planning. For almost 200 years, indigenous peoples’ knowledge, rights, and worldviews were largely ignored by the colonizing governments in B.C., causing extreme hardship and loss amongst First Nations, where cultural information was kept secret as a way to safeguard it from the colonizing society (Recalma-Clutesi et al. 2007, Turner and Hebda 2012). The relatively recent requirements for the public governments to include indigenous perspectives in planning and decision making came only after decades of legal battles initiated by First Nations (see Tennant 1990). In this toxic environment of fundamental legal disputes over the ownership of their lands and resources, sharing information and perspectives with government officials is challenging, particularly when worldviews or analyses of a problem are approached differently according to cultural norms.

Certainly, in this legal and political context, indigenous TEK experts are understandably more reluctant to freely supply information to government planning processes. This brings us to an important distinction: an indigenous knowledge expert may be able to participate in the information gathering and modeling stages of a planning process, but it is unlikely they would feel comfortable representing the political or legal interests of their community at the same planning table. Hence, incorporating TEK into decision making around unexpected events and climate change is part of a different process involving a formal government-to-government relationship between First Nations and the Province of B.C. or the Government of Canada. Ideally, such engagement will incorporate indigenous institutions, such as clan-based structures, as vehicles to monitor and advise on local and regional issues related to climate change. For example, the work of the Clayoquot Scientific Panel (1995) was effectively facilitated through Nuu-chah-nulth protocols for planning and decision making around forest practices (cf. also Atleo 2004, 2011, Lertzman 2010, Berkes 2012). More recently, the Wit’suwit’en Territorial Stewardship Plan, along with policy and protocol agreements with private and government entities, facilitated greater Wit’suwit’en involvement in decisions regarding the management of their cultural resources (Budhwa 2005). An additional outcome of the outstanding Aboriginal rights and title questions in B.C. is that First Nations’ governments are overwhelmed with requests by public governments for input on whether proposed land and resource development requests within their traditional territories will impact their Aboriginal rights and title (Weinstein 1999). Resultantly, coastal First Nations’ governments will not have the staff or financial capacity to participate in climate change planning initiatives with the federal and provincial governments, unless they are specifically funded to do so.

There are many potential misunderstandings in trying to synchronize two or more knowledge systems with respect to environmental planning in B.C. (Nadasdy 2003, Parlee et al. 2004, Ellis 2005, Butler 2006, Stevenson 2006). Even explicit policies to include TEK in environmental monitoring and decision making have fallen short because of communication barriers, political barriers, and, perhaps most significant, lack of capacity and funding (Spalding 1998, Budhwa 2005, Ellis 2005, Turner and Bitonti 2011). It is one thing to establish a top-down policy to include First Nations’ perspectives and TEK in planning and decision making, and quite another to provide bottom-up support in the form of funding and other services for individuals to meaningfully participate in the same. There is a tension between the need for indigenous groups to express their cultural views and resource practices within their own knowledge and communication contexts, on the one hand, and the need for those from public governments to reconcile indigenous views within a politically and legally defined resource management framework on the other (Usher 2000). In North America, public land and resource management legislation and policy are based upon knowledge grounded in scientific and western economic values and methods. Often, information gathered by scientists is suggested to be objective, value-free, and impartial. The more western scholars understand other systems of knowing, however, the more commonly accepted is the idea that all knowledge, whether within a scientific paradigm or held by an indigenous cultural group, is based on beliefs and values that are always adapting and evolving to new circumstances.


Decisions around climate change adaptation and mitigation made by local, regional, and national governments will require the involvement of many groups, whose values and priorities will not always synchronize harmoniously (Dabelko et al. 2013). Managing this disharmony will be one of the many challenges associated with establishing systems to respond and adapt to climate change. The complex problems associated with climate change will certainly require that we consider multiple ideas and diverse, even sometimes conflicting, perspectives to synthesize new strategies. As noted earlier, however, in B.C. recognition of TEK beyond using decontextualized empirical knowledge as background for academic research or legal title cases is rare. Involving TEK knowledge holders in planning and decision making, education and communication, choosing priorities, and incorporating values and attitudes in fostering greater stewardship and responsibility toward other peoples and life-forms could become common practice. The importance of indigenous peoples’ knowledge and perspectives in climate change planning is not well recognized, however, and is often overlooked in mainstream society where rights of individuals, free enterprise, commodification of resources, and reliance on global markets are stressed. However, these last approaches, and the scientific technology supporting them, have led, in large part, to the current unsustainable practices of the majority of humans in developed and industrializing countries. On the other hand, First Nations are reluctant to agree to participation in planning processes, when they: (1) have limited infrastructural capacity to participate effectively; and (2) are unsure how their TEK will be used and whether their involvement will prejudice outstanding legal claims or other Aboriginal rights.

Although including indigenous TEK of B.C.’s coastal region in climate change planning and decision making is fraught with many potential barriers, it makes abundant sense to work to eradicate these so that the path of resilience and adaptation that lies ahead is informed by as many wise voices as possible. Some initial first steps might be to establish case studies in one or two communities where their TEK is assessed and assembled through the lens of climate change planning and how this information will be used on a local and regional planning scale.

We need to embed ourselves more firmly into the biosphere, to live as one life-form among many, to understand our relationships with, our responsibilities to, and our absolute dependence on each other and on all other species. There are models of conserving behavior, models of effective decision making, and models of achieving resilience to be found not just in our universities and in mainstream society but in the knowledge and wisdom of indigenous societies (Turner and Berkes 2006, Brown et al. 2009, Trosper 2009, Atleo 2011, Berkes 2012). We must find more effective ways of communicating and motivating each other toward this understanding, and of educating those who have become disconnected with the natural world (Brown 2011, Larson 2011). Traditional ecological knowledge of First Nations along coastal B.C. and of indigenous peoples throughout the world can contribute significantly toward this essential goal.


Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.


We are grateful to Drs. Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Victoria Reyes-García, and Esteve Corbera for including us in their symposium, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resilience in the context of Global Environmental Change” at the International Society of Ethnobiology meetings in Montpellier, France in May, 2012. Our deepest thanks to the many knowledgeable environmental specialists of British Columbia First Nations communities for sharing their knowledge and insights with us, especially Clan Chief Adam Dick (Kwaxsistalla) and Dr. Daisy Sewid-Smith (Mayanilth) of the Kwakwaka’wakw Nation, Dr. Richard Atleo of the Ahousaht (Nuu-chah-nulth) Nation, and Chief Ernie Hill Jr., Helen Clifton, and Tina Robinson of the Gitga’at Nation. We also acknowledge Dr. Fikret Berkes, Dr. Iain-Davidson-Hunt, Dr. Charles Menzies, and Dr. Jan Salick for their work and insights in this area, as well as two unidentified peer reviewers of an earlier version of this manuscript. Finally, we acknowledge with deep thanks the ongoing support of Dr. Eric Peterson and Christina Munck of the Tula Foundation and Hakai Institute. This work was also supported through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Grant to NT (# 410-2010-0877), and a travel grant from the University of Victoria.


Adger, N. W., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737):1036-1039.

Ames, K. M. 2005. Intensification of food production on the northwest coast and elsewhere. Pages 67-100 in D. Deur and N. J. Turner, editors. “Keeping it living”: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the northwest coast of North America. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA and University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Atleo, E. R. 2004. Tsawalk: a Nuu-chah-nulth worldview. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Atleo, E. R. 2011. Principles of Tsawalk. An indigenous approach to global crisis. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2003. Guide to using traditional use study information. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Terrestrial Information Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. [online] URL:!publish/Stewardship/SIFD_Objectives_Matrix/7_Cultural_Heritage/Guidelines/Guide_to_Using_Traditional_Use_Study_Information.pdf

B.C. Treaty Commission. 2012. Treaty negotiations in British Columbia Map. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. [online] URL:

Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Pages 1-9 in J. T. Inglis, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology. Third edition. Taylor & Francis, New York, New York, USA.

Boas, F. 2002. (orig. 1895). Indian Myths & Legends from the North Pacific Coast of America. R. Bouchard and D. Kennedy, editors. (A Translation of Franz Boas’ 1895 Edition of Indianische Sagen von der Nord Pacifischen Küste Amerikas.) Translated by D. Bertz, Talonbooks, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Boesch, D. F., J. C. Field, and D. Scavia, editors. 2000. The potential consequences of climate variability and change on coastal areas and marine resources. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 21. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Brown, F., and K. Brown, with B. Wilson, P. Waterfall, G. Cranmer Webster. 2009. Staying the course, staying alive. Coastal First Nations fundamental truths. Biodiversity BC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Brown, L. R. 2011. World on the edge: how to prevent environmental and economic collapse. Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

Budhwa, R. 2005. An alternate model of First Nations involvement in resource management archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archeologie 29:2-45.

Burroughs, W. J. 2005. Climate change in prehistory. The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Butler, C. 2006. Historicizing indigenous knowledge. Pages 107-126 in C. Menzies, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Clayoquot Scientific Panel. 1995. First Nations’ perspectives relating to forest practices standards in Clayoquot Sound. Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound, Report 3. Cortex Consulting, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Cove, J. J., and G. F. MacDonald, editors. 1987. Tsimshian Narratives I. Tricksters, shamans and heroes, collected by Marius Barbeau and William Beynon. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series Directorate Paper No. 3. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Dabelko, G. D., L. Herzer, S. Null, M. Parker, and R. Sticklor, editors. 2013. Backdraft: the conflict potential of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Change & Security Program Report Vol. 14(2). Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., USA.

Davidson-Hunt, I., and F. Berkes. 2003. Learning as you journey: Anishinaabe perception of social-ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conservation Biology 8(1): 5. [online] URL:

Davis, W. 2009. The wayfinders. Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. CBC Massey Lectures, The House of Anansi Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Deloitte and Touche. 1997. Evaluation of the traditional use study program. Aboriginal Affairs Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Egeru, A. 2012. Role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation: a case study of the Teso sub-region, Eastern Uganda. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 11(2):217-224.

Ellis, S. 2005. Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic 58(1):66-77.

Failing, L., R. Gregory, and M. Harstone. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental decisions: a decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics 64:47-60.

Ford, J., and D. R. Martinez, editors. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem science, and environmental management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1249-1250.[1249:TEKESA]2.0.CO;2

Gedalof, Z., M. Pellatt, and D. J. Smith. 2006. From prairie to forest: three centuries of environmental change at Rocky Point, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Northwest Science 80(1):34-46.

George, E. M. 2003. Living on the edge: Nuu-Chah-Nulth history from an Ahousaht Chief’s perspective. Sono Nis Press, Winlaw, British Columbia, Canada.

Gitga’at Nation and Coasts Under Stress (CUS). 2003. Gitga’ata spring harvest - traditional knowledge of Kiel. Gitga’at Nation, Hartley Bay, British Columbia, CUS, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, and Sierra Club of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia. McNabb Connolly, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Hennon, P. E., D. V. D'Amore, P. G. Schaberg, D. T. Wittwer, and C. S. Shanley. 2012. Shifting climate, altered niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in the North Pacific coastal rainforest. BioScience 62:147-158.

Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34. [online] URL:

Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1997. The regional impacts of climate change: an assessment of vulnerability. R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera, R. H. Moss, and D. D. Dokken, editors. A special report of IPCC Working Group II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [online] URL:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, editors. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [online] URL:

King, L. 2004. Competing knowledge systems in the management of fish and forests in the Pacific Northwest. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4:161-177.

Kirk, R., and R. D. Daugherty. 2007. Archaeology in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Krupnik, I., and D. Jolly. 2002. The Earth is faster now: indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks, Alaska, and The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA.

Kunuk, Z., and I. Mauro. 2010. Qapirangajuq: Inuit knowledge and climate change. Igloolik Isuma Productions, Montréal, Québec, Canada. [online] URL:

Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for environmental sustainability: redefining our relationship with nature. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Lantz, T., and N. J. Turner. 2003. Traditional phenological knowledge (TPK) of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Journal of Ethnobiology 23(2):263-286.

Lertzman, D. A. 2010. Best of two worlds: traditional ecological knowledge and western science in ecosystem-based management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):104-126.

Lertzman, K., D. Gavin, D. Hallett, L. Brubaker, D. Lepofsky, and R. Mathewes. 2002. Long-term fire regime estimated from soil charcoal in coastal temperate rainforests. Conservation Ecology 6(2): 5. [online] URL:

Martinez, D. 2008. Indigenous integrity. Resurgence & Ecologist 250:September/October. [online] URL:

Meinshausen, M., N. Meinshausen, W. Hare, S. C. B. Raper, K. Frieler, R. Knutti, D. J. Frame, and M. R. Allen. 2009. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158-1162.

Menzies, C., editor. 2006. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

MPA Monitoring Enterprise. 2012. Monitoring climate effects in temperate marine ecosystems: a test case using California’s MPAs. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, California, USA.

Nadasdy, P. 2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and Aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Nadasdy, P. 2006. The case of the missing sheep: time, space, and the politics of “trust” in co-management practice. Pages 142-172 in C. Menzies, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Neis, B., and M. Morris. 2002. Fishers’ ecological knowledge and stock assessment: understanding the Capelin (Maillotus villosus) and Capelin fisheries in the Bonavista Region of Newfoundland. Pages 205-240 in R. E. Ommer, editor. The resilient outport: ecology, economy and society in rural Newfoundland. ISER Books, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.

Ommer, R., and Coasts Under Stress (CUS) Research Team. 2007. Coasts under stress. Restructuring and social-ecological health. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montréal, Québec and Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Parlee, B., M. Manseau, and Lutsel K’e Enee First Nation. 2005. Using traditional knowledge to adapt to ecological change: Denesoline monitoring of caribou movements. Arctic 58(1):26-37.

Pauly, D. 2000. Global change, fisheries and the integrity of marine ecosystems: the future has already begun. Pages 227-239 in D. Pimentel, L. Westra, and R. F. Ross, editors. Ecological integrity: integrating environment, conservation and health. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Peacock, S. 1998. Putting down roots: the emergence of wild plant food production on the Canadian Plateau. Dissertation, Interdisciplinary, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Pojar, J. 2010. A new climate for conservation. Nature, carbon and climate change in British Columbia. Working Group on Biodiversity, Forests and Climate. B.C. Spaces for Nature, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, The Land Trust Alliance of B.C., West Coast Environmental Law and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canada.

Recalma-Clutesi, K., with A. Szimanski, W. White, and D. Woods. 2007. Smoke from his fire. [Video]. APTN/Knowledge Network, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Salick, J., and N. Ross, editors. 2009. Traditional peoples and climate change. Special Issue. Global Environmental Change 19(2):137-139.

Salmón, E. 2000. Kincentric ecology: indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecological Applications 10(5):1327-1332.

Sayles, J. S., and M. E. Mulrennan. 2010. Securing a future: Cree hunters’ resistance and flexibility to environmental changes, Wemindji, James Bay. Ecology and Society 15(4): 22. [online] URL:

Spalding, P. R. 1998. Representation, authority and relevance of anthropology: a case study of cultural representation in public land and resource management in British Columbia. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Stevenson, M. G. 2006. The possibility of difference: rethinking co-management. Human Organization 65: 167-180.

Tebtebba Foundation. 2010. Towards an alternative development paradigm: indigenous peoples’ self-determined development. Tebtebba. Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education, Baguio City, Philippines.

Tennant, P. 1990. Aboriginal peoples and politics: the Indian land question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Thompson, J. C. (Edôsdi). 2012. Hede Kehe’ Hotzi’ Kahidi – “Our Ancestors Are In Us”: Strengthening our Voices Through Language Revitalization From a Tahltan Worldview. Dissertation, Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Tobias, T. 2010. Living proof: the essential data-collection guide for indigenous use-and-occupancy map surveys. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Trosper, R. L. 1998. Incentive systems that support sustainability: a first nations example. Conservation Ecology 2(2): 11. [online] URL:

Trosper, R. L. 2009. Resilience, reciprocity and ecological economics: northwest coast sustainability. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Turner, K. L., and C. P. H. Bitonti. 2011. Conservancies in British Columbia, Canada: bringing together protected areas and First Nations’ interests. International Indigenous Policy Journal 2(2). [online] URL:

Turner, N. J. 2003. Passing on the news: women’s work, traditional knowledge and plant resource management in indigenous societies of north-western North America. Pages 133-149 in P. L. Howard, editor. Women and plants: gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. Zed Books, London, UK.

Turner, N. J. 2005. The Earth’s blanket. Traditional teachings for sustainable living. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Turner, N. J. 2006. Lessons From the grandmothers: women’s roles in traditional botanical knowledge and wisdom in northwestern North America. Pages 27-38 in Z. Fusün Ertug, editor. Conference Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Ethnobotany (ICEB 2005). Ethnobotany: At the Junction of the Continents and Disciplines. Yeditepe University, Yayinlari, Istanbul, Turkey.

Turner, N. J. 2014. Ancient pathways, ancestral knowledge: ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous peoples of northwestern North America. McGill-Queens’ University Press, Montréal, Québec, Canada, in press.

Turner, N. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Coming to understanding: developing conservation through incremental learning. Human Ecology 34(4):495-513.

Turner, N. J., and H. Clifton. 2009. “It’s so different today”: climate change and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 19(2009):180-190.

Turner, N. J., I. J. Davidson-Hunt, and M. O’Flaherty. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology 31(3):439-463.

Turner, N. J., and A. Davis. 1993. When everything was scarce: the role of plants as famine foods in northwestern North America. Journal of Ethnobiology 13(2):1-28.

Turner, N. J., and R. J. Hebda. 2012. Saanich ethnobotany: culturally important plants of the WSÁNEC People. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287.[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2

Turner, N. J., C. Robinson, G. Robinson, and B. Eaton. 2012. “To feed all the people”: Lucille Clifton’s fall feasts for the Gitga’at community of Hartley Bay, British Columbia. Pages 324-363 in M. Quinlan and D. Lepofsky, editors. Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea. Society of Ethnobiology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA. [online] URL:

Turner, N. J., and R. K. Singh. 2011. Traditional knowledge in disaster prediction/forecasting, management and climate change. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 10(1):3-8.

Turner, N. J., and J. C. Thompson, editors. 2006. Plants of the Gitga’at People. ‘Nwana’a lax Yuup. Gitga’at Nation, Hartley Bay, British Columbia, CUS Research Project, and Cortex Consulting, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Usher, P. J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53(2):183-193.

Weinstein, M. 1999. Implementing Delgamuuk’w. Presentation from Implementing Delgamuuk’w Conference Transcripts, March 1999. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1988. Our common future. Gro Haarlem Brundtland (Chair). Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Address of Correspondent:
Nancy Turner
School of Environmental Studies,
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia
V8W 2Y2
Jump to top