Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management

Christopher M. Raymond a, b, *, Ioan Fazey c, Mark S. Reed d, e, Lindsay C. Stringer f,
Guy M. Robinson g, Anna C. Evely h
a
Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Australia
b
Enviroconnect Pty Ltd, Australia
c
School of Geography and Geosciences, Irvine Building, University of St. Andrews, North Street, St. Andrews, KY16 9AL Fife, UK
d
Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, UK
e
Centre for Planning and Environmental Management, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, St Mary’s, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK
f
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT, UK
g
Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Whyalla Campus, 111 Nicolson Avenue, Whyalla Norrie SA 5608, Australia
h
Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, University of Aberdeen and Macaulay Institute, School of Biological Sciences, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper evaluates the processes and mechanisms available for integrating different types of knowl-
Received 28 September 2009 edge for environmental management. Following a review of the challenges associated with knowledge
Received in revised form integration, we present a series of questions for identifying, engaging, evaluating and applying different
20 March 2010
knowledges during project design and delivery. These questions are used as a basis to compare three
Accepted 27 March 2010
Available online 22 April 2010
environmental management projects that aimed to integrate knowledge from different sources in the
United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. Comparative results indicate that integrating different
types of knowledge is inherently complex e classification of knowledge is arbitrary and knowledge
Keywords:
Local knowledge
integration perspectives are qualitatively very different. We argue that there is no single optimum
Scientific knowledge approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the
Social learning development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge
Knowledge integration integration processes. These processes need to be systematic, reflexive and cyclic so that multiple views
Participatory research and multiple methods are considered in relation to an environmental management problem. The results
Environmental management have implications for the way in which researchers and environmental managers undertake and evaluate
knowledge integration projects.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction local knowledge is considered alongside scientific knowledge

(Pullin and Knight, 2001; Reed et al., 2007; Reed 2008; Cowling
To manage the scope, complexity and uncertainty of global et al., 2008).
environmental problems, it is important to take account of different In response to these challenges, there has been a considerable
types and sources of knowledge (Olsson and Folke, 2001; Cash shift in approaches to environmental management, moving from
et al., 2003; Reid et al., 2006; Fabricius et al., 2006). Some scien- management informed by reductionist ideas (e.g., the modeling of
tists interested in the interface between social and ecological single species) to a post-normal science associated with the
systems argue that western paradigms and systems of knowledge erosion of boundaries between different forms of knowledge and
are currently not able to deal with the full complexity of environ- rationality (Scoones, 1999; Nowotny et al., 2001) and the coupling
mental management (Johannes, 1998; Ludwig et al., 2001), nor of social and ecological systems (Berkes, 2004; Folke et al., 2005).
sufficiently able to integrate local stakeholder perspectives in the This view is reflected in the approaches of adaptive co-manage-
development of environmental management strategies (Olsson and ment (Folke et al., 2005; Armitage et al., 2007, 2008, 2009; Berkes,
Folke, 2001). The current challenge for researchers is to develop 2009), trans-disciplinary planning (Tress et al., 2006), commu-
‘user-inspired’ and ‘user-useful’ management approaches whereby nity-based natural resource management (e.g., Kellert et al., 2000;
Blaikie, 2006; Robinson, 2006a,b), transitions management (e.g.,
Geels, 2002, 2005); sustainability science (e.g., Kates et al., 2001;
* Corresponding author. PO Box 190, Stirling, SA 5152, Australia. Tel.: þ61 423 299
Clark and Dickson, 2003) and sustainability education (Fazey, in
986; fax: þ61 8 8647 6082. press). Such approaches share a number of similar principles.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Raymond). They:

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1767

1) Recognise the need to integrate knowledge held by academic researchers affect knowledge integration (epistemological chal-
researchers (often across traditional academic disciplinary lenges); and (3) the difficulties of applying integrated knowledge
boundaries) and non-academic participants, such as land for environmental management (application challenges).
managers and the public;
2) Highlight the need to build on different (and sometimes 2.1. Different ways knowledge has been categorised (ontological
disparate) knowledges to address a research or applied ques- challenges)
tion by developing shared theory, methods and new knowl-
edge to promote common understanding of environmental Many different forms of knowledge are discussed in the envi-
management problems; ronmental management literature (Table 1). These range from
3) Often utilise participatory research methods and seek to facil- those of a more personal nature, such as personal, lay, tacit or
itate participatory, multi-level governance processes to both implicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958, 1997; Fazey et al., 2005, 2006a,
enhance the validity of knowledge elicited in research and to b), to those that are embedded in and interact with traditional
increase inclusiveness of stakeholders in decision-making; cultural rules and norms (Berkes, 1993; Healey, 1993; Becker and
4) Follow iterative processes of knowledge creation, application, Ghimire, 2003). Knowledge may also be generated through more
reflection, learning and feedback to science or decision- formalised processes such as through research and/or applying
making; and scientific methods (Gunderson et al., 1995; Turnbull, 1997; Pullin
5) Attempt to integrate knowledge across a variety of spatial and and Knight, 2001; Fazey et al., 2004). Water management is
temporal scales. a good case for the comparison of knowledge types. Environmental
managers may have implicit or deeper tacit knowledge about the
Despite this shift in thinking, little attention has been paid to flooding and drying cycles of a wetland but may either have not yet
how different ontological perspectives (views about the definition articulated this knowledge or may have found it difficult to
and classes of entities) and philosophical or epistemological explicitly explain why they know what they know. In contrast,
perspectives (a set of values concerning truth and validity) influ- explicit knowledge of the managers is that which has been artic-
ence the integration of different types of knowledge for environ- ulated (e.g. in the form of verbal, written, or scientific reports e see
mental management. Often knowledge integration studies are Fazey et al., 2006a).
undertaken with little consideration of what forms of knowing are Knowledge can also be compared on local and traditional
being used and privileged, and how the epistemological beliefs grounds. Olsson and Folke (2001) suggest a local fishing association
(beliefs about the nature of knowledge or how individuals come to in a Swedish community displayed management practices that
know something) of researchers constrain or support the engage- enabled the protection of crayfish beyond the local population to
ment of multiple interest groups within environmental planning the ecosystem, an example of local ecological knowledge. In
and management. This tension is reflected in the multiple and often contrast, traditional ecological knowledge implies a historical and
overlapping ways of categorising ‘knowledge’, the variety of cultural context to knowledge generation and dissemination. For
approaches and methods used to integrate knowledges, and example, the Turkwel Riverine Forest in Kenya has been managed
ongoing debates about the relative merits of engaging citizens in for many years by an indigenous system known as ekwar which
science (see Agrawal, 1995, 2002; Sillitoe, 1998; Nygren, 1999; refers to a parcel of riverine forests whereby the owner and family
Bruckmeier and Tovey, 2008, 2009 for critiques). For example, has exclusive rights to collect building materials, firewood and
Huntington et al. (2002) explored the role of workshops in over- edible fruits. Outsiders require permission from the ekwar owner to
coming divisions between participants holding local and scientific graze their livestock in the area (Stave et al., 2007).
knowledge, which highlights the importance of further research Researchers have usually compared knowledge types along
into the role of deliberate and facilitative methods for integrating different continua. This includes those that represent the extent to
multiple knowledge types. which knowledge is: (1) locally specific or generalised across
In this paper, we develop and apply a conceptual framework regions; (2) formalised; (3) expresses expertise; (4) is articulated in
(also referred to as a process) which may assist project teams to ways accessible to others; and (5) is embedded in traditional cultural
consider and address the challenges associated with integrating rules and norms derived from longstanding association and feed-
different types of knowledge for environmental management. back with ecological processes (Fig. 1). Examining knowledge in this
Firstly, we discuss the ontological, epistemological and applied way highlights that the criteria used to compare knowledge types
challenges associated with integrating different types of knowledge are often not distinct and that many knowledge types overlap
and then outline four factors and seven questions that should be different continua. For example, tacit or local knowledge can be
considered by project teams. We then use this framework to either informal/lay or expert knowledge, and both informal and
compare three knowledge integration case studies: the United scientific knowledge can be explicit. Other categories of knowledge
Kingdom Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) funded Sustainable are also broad and encompass a number of dimensions, such as
Uplands Project, the Solomon Islands Livelihoods and Change ‘personal knowledge’ (Polanyi, 1958) which represents various
project and the Otways Region (Victoria, Australia) social values degrees of localised, expert, tacit and implicit knowledge which may
mapping project. have been derived through formalised or informal processes.
The variety of ways in which knowledge has been categorised
2. The challenges of integrating local and scientific means there is considerable potential for confusion about the
knowledge meaning of the terms and their relevance for environmental
management (Fazey et al., 2006a). To this end, categories have often
There are many different perspectives of what constitutes been simplified and expressed under three broad headings:
knowledge or how someone comes to know something. This ‘localised, experiential or indigenous’ knowledge (referred to
creates confusion and misunderstanding when attempting to herein as ‘local knowledge’); more formalised ‘scientific’ knowl-
integrate different forms of knowledge. This section therefore edge, and; ‘hybrid’ knowledge. ‘Local knowledge’ usually refers to
reviews: (1) the different ways knowledge has been categorised the informal, lay, personal, often implicit or tacit, but possibly
(ontological challenges to integration); (2) the ways in which expert, knowledge held by land managers involved in environ-
different philosophical or epistemological perspectives held by mental decision-making. ‘Scientific knowledge’ usually refers to the
1768 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

Table 1
Different definitions of knowledge within the environmental management literature.

Knowledge Generated Type of Definition References in

class through knowledge environmental literature
Experiential/ Traditional Indigenous Local knowledge held by indigenous peoples, Howden, 2001; Davis, 1999,
local cultural or local knowledge unique to a given culture 2006; Becker and Ghimire, 2003
rules and or society (Warren et al., 1995).
norms Traditional Subset of indigenous knowledge that includes knowledge Berkes, 1989; Johannes, 1989;
ecological and beliefs handed down through generations by cultural Berkes, 1993; Healey, 1993;
(TEK) transmission and which is related to humaneenvironment Hunn, 1993; Lewis, 1993;
interactions (Berkes, 1993, p. 282). Berkes, 1999; Berkes et al.,
2000; Olsson and Folke, 2001;
Becker and Ghimire, 2003;
More recent Local Knowledge held by a specific group of people about their Olsson and Folke, 2001;
humane ecological local ecosystems. This includes the interplay between organisms Berkes and Folke, 2002;
environment and their environment (Olsson and Folke, 2001, p. 87). ‘Local’ Gadgil et al., 2003;
interactions differs from ‘traditional’ ecological knowledge in the sense that Brosius, 2006; Cleveland and
the former has been derived from more recent humane Soleri, 2007; Brosius, 2006;
environment interactions (e.g. a few generations) rather than Reid et al., 2006
being embedded in deeper cultural practices.
Personal Personal Personal knowledge people hold about something. This is a broad Polanyi, 1958;
experience concept that can include tacit, implicit, expert or non-expert Fazey et al., 2006b
knowledge derived through various experiential processes.
Lay Usually refers to some form of non-expert, localised or informal Jones, 1995; Halfacree, 1995
knowledge reflecting people’s everyday interpretation of a
situation, in contrast to expert knowledge or knowledge
derived using a formalised process.
Local or Knowledge that reflects understanding of local phenomena. Robertson and McGee, 2003
situated Often used as a term that reflects some level of expertise of a
local site or issue (e.g. knowing land managers, their opinions
and beliefs, or the ecological aspects, such as location of species
and their habitat). Often used to make a distinction between
the knowledge of external experts who have technical
expertise but lack appreciation of the local nuances.
Tacit Unconscious knowledge which is often hidden, abstract, and Boiral, 2002; Polanyi,
difficult to articulate but has a significant influence on thinking 1958, 1997; Fazey et al., 2006b
and behaviour. It cannot be made explicit, such as recognising
someone’s face but not being able to explain why or how the
face was recognised. Often deep, unconscious, and closely
tied to worldview, values, personal experience and expertise.
Implicit Knowledge that an individual is aware of but which they may Fazey et al., 2006b
not have yet articulated in a form accessible to others (orally
or in written form). Implicit knowledge is distinct from tacit
because it can be articulated.
Informal Similar to personal, tacit or lay knowledge. Usually refers Pasquini and Alexander,
to knowledge that is derived from experiencing different 2005; Fernandez-Gimenez
phenomena, but which lacks structured processes that et al., 2006; Abay et al., 2008
regulate the way those experiences affect understanding.
Non-expert, Knowledge that does not reflect the depth of experience and Fazey et al., 2005, 2006a,b
Novices characteristics of expertise demonstrated by experts.
Personal Expert Reflects a depth of experience, which may or may not have Fazey et al., 2005, 2006a,b;
experience been derived through structured and formalised processes (e.g. Martin et al., 2005
research or explicit use of reflection in practice). Typically,
experts have many years of experience and practice. Much of
this is tacit knowledge, and some can be made explicit. Experts
can often recognise patterns and issues that are not easily
recognised by novices, do not necessarily need to consciously
think about what they are doing, and can vary in their ability
to respond flexibly to new circumstances (adaptive expertise).
Considered to be qualitatively very different from ‘scientific’
knowledge.

Scientific Formalised Science is from Latin ‘scientia’, meaning knowledge. In its broad Gunderson et al., 1995;
processes sense science refers to any systematic recorded knowledge or Turnbull, 1997; Fazey et al.,
practice. This gives rise to the scientific method which focuses on 2004; Pullin and Knight, 2001
agreed principles or process of study, including reliability and validity.
What counts as ‘evidence’ depends on a person’s philosophical and
epistemological standpoint. It can also depend on the way in which
the knowledge is determined. For example, in an ‘evidence-based’
approach from clinical medicine and public health, greater value is
given to randomised, controlled double blind experiments than non-
randomised or natural experiments (see Fazey et al., 2004) and
informal forms of knowledge are given very little credibility.
Explicit Knowledge that exists in a written (i.e., codified, including numeric Fazey et al., 2006a;
or graphical) and categorical form that is widely accessible. Fabricius et al., 2006
Formal Passed through a strict and universally accepted set of rules Fabricius et al., 2006
qualifying it for a particular use
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1769

Table 1 (continued )

Knowledge Generated Type of Definition References in

class through knowledge environmental literature
‘Hybrid’ A social Knowledge types that have, in some way been integrated. The Long and Long, 1992;
knowledge learning level of integration can occur to different degrees. For example, Murdoch and Clark, 1994; Romig et al., 1995;
process distinctions are made between multi-disciplinary and Clark and Murdoch, 1997;
interdisciplinary research. In the former, studies from different Kleine, 1995; Evely et al., 2008; Fazey et al., 2006a;
disciplines are conducted and most knowledge exchange or Tress et al., 2005; Ingram 2008
integration occurs after results of the separate studies become
apparent. In the latter, research approaches and methods are
more fully integrated from the outset creating new knowledge
in ways that are not possible through less integrative methods
using mutli-disciplinary approaches. Trans-disciplinary approaches
go even further by involving or embedding non-academic
participants, such as the public. Some argue that all knowledge
comprises a heterogeneous blend of knowledges from different
sources as this knowledge is developed through personal
experience, interpretation and interaction (even if it is with
‘scientific’ evidence).

often explicit knowledge that has been derived from applying more values of the society in which a person is embedded (Harré, 1981;
formal methods that aim to increase rigour in relation to different Longino, 1990; Nygren, 1999). These factors influence, for
positions on validity and reliability. This includes natural science example, how research is practiced, which questions are asked or
and social science research. Finally, ‘hybrid’ knowledge is often ignored, the selection of the phenomena to be investigated, how
referred to as the new understandings which emerge through the data are described, and which research frameworks are accepted
integration of different types of knowledge (such as local and or rejected (see Evely et al., 2008).
scientific) and/or through multi-, inter-, or trans-disciplinary Categorising knowledge as ‘local’, ‘scientific’ or ‘hybrid’ is
research (see Romig et al., 1995; Walter et al., 1997; Ingram, 2008). therefore overly simplistic and does not sufficiently take into
The three broad categories roughly encompass the more specific account the way individuals learn, make sense of new information,
types of knowledge (Table 1). or the social contexts that influence how people understand
While these broader categories can be useful, they can still be something. When attempting to integrate knowledge types much
difficult to separate. For example, while scientific knowledge is greater focus is therefore required in the early stages of the process
often presented in an explicit form (through written reports or to identify and evaluate the different knowledges involved and how
presentations), the information presented is always interpreted they might be relevant. This might involve ensuring that experts
by individuals (including researchers) who make sense of that engaging in the process have sufficient depth of experience directly
information in relation to their existing personal knowledge relevant to the problem to be addressed (Fazey et al., 2006b). It may
derived from past experiences (Longino, 1990; Fazey et al., 2006b). also require determining the type of knowledge different stake-
This implies that knowledge is inherently personal with different holders can bring to the integration table (e.g. indigenous or
people interpreting the same information in different ways. In scientific perspectives), as well as the type of content they have to
addition to interpretation of knowledge, the production of offer (e.g. whether they have particular expertise, such as ecological
knowledge is also heavily influenced by personal perspectives and or economic that can help to improve understanding of the inter-
ideologies, which are in turn shaped by contextual factors and the related human and social aspects of a system or problem).

Fig. 1. Dimensions of knowledge types derived from the environmental literature. Some knowledge types may cross different dimensions and others include broader concepts that
express multiple aspects (e.g. personal knowledge and lay knowledge might be tacit or implicit, expert or non-expert, but are usually considered to be informal). Note that the types
on the left or right do not necessarily group together, so knowledge might be ‘expert’ and ‘tacit’ or ‘traditional’ and ‘local’.
1770 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

2.2. Engaging different knowledges (epistemological challenges) these earlier steps, project teams need to establish acceptable ways
of evaluating the validity and reliability of different forms of
Identifying knowledge types using categorisations such as those knowledge.
in Table 1 is an important first step of knowledge integration. But
most of the important challenges associated with integration of 2.3. Applying integrated knowledges (challenges to application)
knowledge are the result of fundamental differences in the way
people perceive the nature of knowledge or how they come to know This section reviews factors which should be considered during
something. These different perceptions influence opinions of the the application of mechanisms to promote knowledge integration.
extent to which there is a ‘universal truth’, what counts as evidence, Knowledge integration processes can be influenced by: (1) differ-
and ultimately which forms of knowledge are believed to be valid ences in world views of project participants and external experts; (2)
(Kuhn, 1977; Firestone, 1987; Crane, 1999; Dyson and Brown, 2006). differences in institutional power or control over access to and
For example, different epistemological or philosophical positions management of local resources, and; (3) changes in perception about
lead to different types of research, that in turn have different the benefits generated by the project (Johnson, 2004). Kothari (2001)
implications for informing practice (Dyson and Brown, 2006; Evely argues that knowledge integration processes can promote the inter-
et al., 2008). Examples of how different perspectives influence ests of local elites if attention is not paid to how the outputs will be
research are provided in Online Supporting Material 1. While in- applied or used by different stakeholders (cf. Stringer et al., 2007).
depth integration of the knowledge from some of these disciplinary Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) has been offered
perspectives is sometimes possible, many of the fundamental as a way of managing differences in world views and power (see
differences in perspectives preclude meaningful consensus on how Estrella and Gaventa, 2000 for a review). A key function of PM&E is to
integration of the knowledge outputs generated by the research create a learning process to strengthen organisational and institu-
might occur (Norton, 2005; Miller et al., 2008). Early involvement of tional learning. Stakeholders, including external experts, community
researchers from different epistemological or philosophical stand- members, project staff and facilitators, need to evaluate the objec-
points is therefore essential in an interdisciplinary research process. tives and outputs of the project themselves in terms of whether they
However, interdisciplinary research can be time consuming, and reflected the needs of stakeholders. This evaluation needs to occur
may still result in the dominance of one perspective over another, throughout the project cycle, not just at mid-and-end-terms or after
very rarely addressing the fundamental epistemological differences the project has been completed (Phillipson and Liddon, 2007).
in perspectives held by researchers from different disciplines (Miller Failure to effectively evaluate the objectives and outputs can lead to
et al., 2008). To work towards a more integrated form of research, the ‘intellectual robbery’ (the taking of local knowledge without
broad approach of epistemological pluralism is advocated, which providing a benefit in return), and a subsequent loss of trust in the
recognises that there may be several valuable ways of knowing, engagement process. Reflections on a recent multi-disciplinary
focuses on the social processes and values involved in the produc- project (Meagher and Lyall, 2007) suggest the importance of taking
tion of knowledge and employs a continuous process of negotiation the time necessary to capture and share the lessons learned from the
between researchers (Miller et al., 2008). knowledge integration project across researchers, external actors (e.
Any attempt at knowledge integration must therefore provide g., funding bodies) and local participants. Multiple stakeholders are
mechanisms to support mutual learning and deliberation of those more likely to use the products if they understand the participatory
examining existing, or providing new knowledge in the integra- processes involved and how the different forms of knowledge were
tion process. Crucially, these processes need also to actively integrated and can be applied within an environmental manage-
promote discussion and continual negotiation of the different ment context (Reed and Dougill, 2010). A key indicator of project
epistemological beliefs held by participants and their implications success is the extent to which the knowledge integration outputs are
for knowledge integration and decision-making (Miller et al., used by those who input their knowledge.
2008). As such, knowledge claims should be evaluated together, Finally, the knowledge integration process needs to be suffi-
in a structured and decision-oriented environment of collabora- ciently flexible to take into account changes in perceptions
tive inquiry (Failing et al., 2007). This process allows debate on the emerging during the project and to deal with new information
basis of knowledge claims, exploration of the reasons for con- arising after application. The adaptive co-management literature
flicting claims, and an evaluation of their implications for the emphasises the need for environmental management to be
decision being made. For example, communities affected by land embedded in institutions which are flexible to deal with multiple
degradation can systematically and critically evaluate both local forms of knowledge, across multiple scales and time horizons (e.g.,
and scientific knowledges about degradation indicators, using Armitage et al., 2008; Berkes, 2009). Explicit in this approach is that
participatory decision-support tools such as multi-attribute eval- local and scientific knowledge can support learning through dia-
uation methods (see Keeney and Raiffa (1993) for details) or multi- logue and deliberation (Cook et al., 2004). The approach also
criteria evaluation (c.f. Ferrarini et al., 2001; Reed et al., 2008). stresses the need to draw attention to both slow and fast variables
Hence, the question of how was the validity and reliability of that structure complex socialeecological systems (Gunderson and
different knowledges evaluated is an important question for Holling, 2002). Climate change knowledge and information, for
project teams to ask. example, is being rapidly updated across different spatial scales.
Overall, to address the epistemological challenges, participants Researchers and local environmental managers will have different
need to be much more aware of their own and others’ philosophical perceptions about the validity of the information being presented
and epistemological positions, how these positions impact knowl- (Miller et al., 2008). Knowledge integration processes need to be
edge integration, and that their views are unlikely to be the same as able to reflect upon the validity of this new knowledge and infor-
others (Evely et al., 2008). Careful mechanisms need to be developed mation, and where relevant, have processes in place to integrate
to provide space and scope for these issues to be made explicit and to into outputs prepared during the course of the project.
be addressed . Specifically, project teams must identify and discuss
the different perspectives held by participants on what knowledge 3. Comparing the integration of different types of knowledge
is, in addition to the different ways of knowing about the environ-
mental management problem, and the opportunities available for The previous sections highlighted some of the ontological,
participants to learn about the perspectives of others. Following epistemological and application challenges associated with
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1771

knowledge integration. This raises key questions that need to be environmental changes in three UK upland sites: (1) the Dark Peak
addressed when knowledge integration is attempted (Fig. 2). The of the Peak District National Park; (2) Nidderdale Area of
questions can be framed around four areas including: identifying Outstanding Natural Beauty in the Yorkshire Dales, North Pennines;
existing knowledge, engaging different knowledges, evaluating and (3) Cairnsmore of Fleet and the Luce, Bladnoch, Cree, Dee and
different knowledges and applying integrated knowledges. We Ken catchments in Galloway, Scotland. Upland areas are subject to
view the integration of local and scientific knowledge as a cyclic a range of significant environmental, socio-cultural and economic
process of reflection and learning from problem identification to drivers which, on top of historic trends, may affect their capacity to
the applications of integrated knowledges. respond and adapt to future pressures. In light of these challenges,
In this section we conduct a comparative analysis of three case this project recognises that it is vital to better understand and
studies that encountered the challenges and opportunities of prepare for the future of the uplands.
knowledge integration, using the questions presented in Fig. 2 as The project engages different types of knowledges through an
a guide. Case studies include: the Sustainable Uplands Project (UK); iterative combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. To
the sustainable development project in Kahua, Solomon Islands; date, the project has conducted around 45 semi-structured inter-
and the mapping landscape values for conservation and tourism views, 100 structured questionnaires, seven workshops and eight
planning project in the Otways region of Victoria, Australia. These site visits with land managers. Local knowledge was elicited from
projects were chosen because they demonstrate different methods a wide range of land managers in each study site (e.g. farmers, game
for integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental keepers, grouse moor owners, water companies, recreationalists
management. The Sustainable Uplands Project relied on mixed and government officials) elicited via semi-structured interviews
methods to integrate different types of knowledge into the design and site visits, analysed using grounded theory analysis and
and application of decision-support tools; the Solomon Island incorporated into conceptual models of the upland socio-ecological
Project was an exploratory study to promote discussion, reflection system. Scientific knowledge was incorporated from a wide range
and learning for three tiers of community members, local people of relevant disciplines (e.g. ecology, anthropology, sociology,
trained as research assistants, and western researchers, around hydrology, environmental modeling, ecological economics)
environmental problems in their area; and the Otways study is an through a literature review and quantitative socio-ecological
example of an explanatory, Public Participation Geographic Infor- modeling (coupling an agent-based model with physically based
mation System (PPGIS) approach, whereby different types of hydrological, ecological and carbon models) within a participatory
knowledge were identified and integrated using GIS map research design. Most of the local knowledge that informed the
interfaces. work was collected over a series of 10e30 semi-structured inter-
views and 1e3 site visits per site. Although these were then sup-
3.1. Case study 1 e Sustainable Uplands project (UK) plemented with questionnaires to understand people’s interactions
via social networks and their decision rules to inform an agent-
The Sustainable Uplands project is funded by the UK Research based model, these were primarily designed to answer research
Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) program. The aim of questions rather than to collect local knowledge for integration
the project is to better anticipate, monitor and adapt to future with scientific knowledge.

Fig. 2. Questions to be asked when integrating different types of knowledge for environmental management.
1772 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

3.2. Case study 2 e Sustainable Development in Kahua, Solomon assessment, planners can systematically address competing
Islands values and goals for land management.
In 2005, a mail-based sample was administered to a random
The Sustainable Development in Kahua, Solomon Islands, project sample of 1500 Otways region households. After completion of
is a partnership between researchers at St. Andrews University, UK, survey administration and data entry, scientific knowledge about
and the Kahua Association, Solomon Islands. The aim of the project is tourism development and protected area management zones were
to improve the livelihoods and wellbeing of local communities in overlaid with local values and development preferences. The level
ways that do not have negative social and environmental conse- of spatial overlap between local values and expert-derived
quences. The study area consists of 40 communities (4500 people) at conservation zones was illustrated using a series of maps to enable
the eastern end of Makira Island, in the southeastern end of the place-specific management. The project is largely based upon the
Solomon Islands. Land use is characterised by subsistence agricul- experiential knowledge of local residents, with minimal explora-
ture and low income. Communities have traditionally had access to tion or examination of the reasons why particular areas were
sufficient food resources and materials for construction of buildings important to environmental or tourism agency staff.
(Bourke et al., 2006). However, population growth is creating
significant problems, reducing food security and increasing disputes 3.4. Comparative analysis of knowledge integration methods
over land ownership and lack of building materials (Fazey et al.,
2007). In recognition of the need for a more sustainable approach This section compares and contrasts the three different methods
to development, community leaders have established the Kahua for integrating different types of knowledge for environmental
Association (KA) which has a flat hierarchical structure and aims to management using the seven questions (Fig. 2).
provide an overarching governance structure across communities.
This process requires application of both local indigenous knowl- 3.4.1. Identification of existing knowledges
edge and research-led processes that assist decision-making and The first question in the knowledge integration framework
promote adaptive governance. addresses the types of existing knowledge defined and identified
Initial research in 2007 was specifically designed to promote during the project. All three projects considered knowledge based
discussion, reflection and learning for the three tiers of community upon the representation of the participant (e.g., farmer, resident,
members, local people trained as research assistants, and western visitor) rather than the specific forms of knowledge they held or
researchers (Fazey et al., in press). In the initial programme, shared. The fact that individuals do not hold merely one type of
indigenous local knowledge was used to guide question formula- knowledge is one reason for this classification approach. Although
tion and understanding about the complex issues and dynamics the Sustainable Uplands project tried to explicitly differentiate
facing the communities. This has been used to help build under- local and scientific knowledge, some local stakeholders had
standing of the potential drivers of change in the region, and more scientific training. Indeed, Ingram (2008) notes the increasing
recently to identify key research questions that need to be convergence between the local knowledge of farmers and scientific
addressed to improve decision-making. External knowledge, in the knowledge in Western cultures due to formal training and learning
form of the expertise of western researchers, is being used to via extension advice. For other stakeholders in the Sustainable
provide a different epistemological perspective on the problem Uplands project, scientific training was a pre-requisite of the
allowing triangulation of the results. Additional traditional research professional position; for example Natural England Area Officers
projects are now coming online, some of which will include elic- and water company catchment managers. Whilst the Solomon
iting indigenous ecological knowledge and some using more Islands case study did not explicitly define different knowledge
quantitative research of bio-physical processes. Research includes types, processes were established to promote discussion, reflection
remote sensing of vegetation change (Garonna et al., 2009), anal- and learning across multiple stakeholder groups. Continuous
ysis of longer term historical ecological change, understanding local interaction was encouraged between researchers and community
values of biodiversity, projects that will include local monitoring of members. The Otways study focused largely on the values of
marine resource management, and ethnographic approaches to residents and visitors to the Otways region. No attempt was made
understand aspects of early childhood development in the to stratify the resident and visitor samples into different knowl-
communities (Burton, 2008). edges pre-survey. However, both groups were asked about their
perceived knowledge of the Otways region. Moderate positive
3.3. Case study 3 e mapping landscape values for conservation and relationships were found between perceived knowledge of the
tourism planning in Victoria, Australia Otways region and tourism development and protected area
management preferences, such as the number of tourism accom-
The mapping of landscape values for a conservation and modation service preference dots assigned to a map of the region.
tourism planning project was a partnership between the Univer- The knowledge of government representatives was only brought in
sity of South Australia, Parks Victoria, and the Department of after survey administration.
Sustainability and Environment, funded by the Cooperative
Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Australia. The aim of the 3.4.2. Engagement of different knowledge types and
project was to identify, map and compare the landscape values epistemological influences on knowledge integration
and development preferences assigned by local stakeholders The second question asks researchers to evaluate how the
(residents, visitors) and Victorian Government representatives to knowledge integration methods established different ways of
the Otways region of Victoria, Australia (Raymond and Brown, knowing. The Solomon Islands case study was highly effective at
2006, 2007). Part 6 of the survey asked participants to identify engaging different types of knowledge relevant to its purpose. Local
places on a map of the Otways region which they valued for knowledge was used to guide question formulation and build
different reasons, such as places of aesthetic value, biodiversity understanding of potential drivers of change in contrast to the
value and wilderness value. In addition, respondents were asked Otways Study where survey questions were prepared by
to identify places which were acceptable and inappropriate for researchers in partnership with the project funder e the Victorian
tourism accommodation and service development. By adding Government. The goal of the Solomon Islands project was to
place-specific perceptions of landscape values to land-suitability empower local actors to be involved in environmental decision-
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1773

making and land-use change, whereas the goal of the Otways study 3.4.3. Opportunities for participants to evaluate different
was to explain how local values aligned with the land-use desig- knowledges
nations proposed by state government. In this particular context, The fourth question focuses on the extent to which each project
the Solomon Islands project adopted a subjectivist view whereby allowed for evaluation of the validity and reliability of knowledge.
indigenous knowledge was relied on initially as a starting point to Scientific knowledge was integral to the Sustainable Uplands
understand the complex problems occurring in the area. It focused Project; however, there was little formal evaluation of the validity
on social learning and developing a dialogue between indigenous and reliability of the local stakeholder knowledge by the
people, government representatives and researchers and invited researchers. Some informal evaluation was conducted during site
local communities to collect and interpret data and their own local visits, which were professionally facilitated and designed by
knowledge. This was motivated by a need to reverse trends of a steering group of stakeholder representatives who selected the
external experts coming in to tell communities what to do and to issues to be covered and the most appropriate sites to stimulate
increase confidence in the ability of local people to think about and discussion. The steering group suggested the development of
work through their own problems using their own knowledge (as information sheets about each issue to ensure all participants had
there was little else available). Their knowledge was continuously similar levels of information about each issue and could engage in
contested through deliberative and participatory approaches, and debate at a similar level with one another. The scope of each
by the researchers who asked pointed questions about the validity information sheet was decided through discussion with local
of the ideas presented by the local people. Researchers involved in stakeholders, and drafts were peer-reviewed by them prior to
the Otways project adopted a positivistic stance where the goal was distribution. Site visits were designed to bring stakeholders with
to explain the distribution and intensity of social values relative to different interests and backgrounds together with researchers as
government-derived planning boundaries. It focused on residents’ equal partners to discuss the upland management issues that were
map-based knowledge of the Otways region by asking residents to perceived to be most important. The outdoor context and facilita-
map the distribution and intensity of their social values and tion style significantly reduced the discrepancies in power that had
development preferences. been witnessed in previous workshops, as site visits were led by the
In contrast, researchers involved in the Sustainable Uplands land users themselves rather than the researchers. This enabled the
project supported a critical realist perspective e a perspective land users to present the elements they considered important,
which embraces both qualitative and quantitative research helping all participants to feel comfortable engaging in discussion.
methods. Researchers used qualitative enquiry such as interviews In the Solomon Islands project, mechanisms to test the validity
and focus groups to explore and understand different rural futures and reliability of knowledge were a key part of the project. The
preferred by upland farmers. Site visits were conducted by both programme relied on the continual discussion and deliberation
local stakeholders and scientists. This local knowledge was distilled about the validity of the knowledge by engaging local people in the
into scenarios and short films which were presented to scientists process of doing research. Knowledge and data derived from their
and other local stakeholders. After each short film, the workshop research and that of researchers was continually analysed and
facilitator asked a series of questions about the upland futures contested. Researchers also facilitated discussion that included
presented in order to encourage local stakeholders and scientists to asking local participants pointed questions about their assumptions
share their different epistemological beliefs. In addition, there were and understandings. In the Otways case study, there was little
opportunities for local land managers to influence the development opportunity for survey participants and project partners to share
of models prepared by researchers. and evaluate the values and preferences generated through the
The third question addresses the mechanisms and opportunities process. However, the representativeness of the sample frame was
for multiple stakeholders to understand and learn from each other. tested using regional Australian Bureau of Statistics data, and the
In the Sustainable Uplands project, there were repeated calls by external and convergent validities of values and preference results
local stakeholders for the researchers to provide evidence to were tested using comparable findings and methods from the
support different standpoints, suggesting that many of these actors United States. For example, the researchers used factor analysis to
shared a positivist philosophy with the natural scientists on the examine the external validity of a place attachment scale developed
project. However, the natural science components of the work were in the United States (see Brown and Raymond, 2007).
embedded in a social science, participatory research framework.
This framework was more subjectivist, allowing competing 3.4.4. Application of the integrated knowledge to the environmental
knowledge claims to be considered side-by-side and valued for management problem
their different merits in alternative scenarios. In the Otways project, In the next step of the knowledge integration framework,
methods allowed no interaction between land managers and researchers are encouraged to evaluate the extent to which the
researchers and no learning. Contact between researchers and knowledges are being used at different stages of the project. Both
people was not face-to-face and communication was not (for the the Sustainable Uplands and Solomons Island projects integrated
most part) two-way. Methods involved local people but as a result different types of knowledge at multiple stages of the project. The
of a lack of discussion, personal contact and co-learning, the UK Research Councils request that knowledge integration be
methods used showed weak engagement of multiple interest documented in annual reports, but these different stages are also
groups. However, there was opportunity for government to learn implicit within the Solomons Island study. Because traditional
from local values and reorient their policies accordingly. models of report writing and dissemination were unlikely to be
In the Solomon Islands there was much more emphasis on effective (e.g. due to low literacy rates and resources for dissemi-
bottom-up methods that are grounded in the local development nation) the research data collected by local communities and
tradition. This included facilitated processes and structured researchers were analysed, deliberated and interpreted by
method to promote reflective learning for the three tiers of community members themselves. This deliberation then enabled
community members, local people trained as research assistants, better understanding by local stakeholders and ensured that the
and western researchers. The impact of this is reflected into the key outcomes were embedded in the policies of the grass roots orga-
input local people had in shaping the direction of the project and to nisation. In the Sustainable Uplands project, ongoing integration
evaluate each other’s findings at multiple stages of the research and was partly facilitated by regular meetings of a Stakeholder Advisory
development process. Panel, which guided the development of the project. It was also
1774 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

facilitated via seed-corn funding of a scoping study that enabled equality in integration. Since these case study projects all have
researchers to establish relationships with stakeholders early on, external funding (be it scientific or through an NGO) the local
and co-develop the funding proposal for the full project. Further, knowledge framing problem identification largely sits in the hands
funding and project milestones were tied to non-scientific outputs. of the scientific knowledge holders and thus application of the
A variety of extension documents have been developed such as results ultimately rests with them. While varying efforts have been
policy briefs, and education tool-kits for schools and the general made throughout the case studies to address this balance, the
public. In the final phase communication materials will be prepared scientific dominance nevertheless remains in at least the Uplands
for project partners, interview participants and survey participants. and Otways projects.
In the Otways study, local knowledge was integrated with scientific
knowledge after survey administration. 4. Discussion
The final two questions examine the extent to which the
knowledge integration outputs are being used by those who input The aims of this paper were to design a conceptual framework
their knowledge, and the level of flexibility of the knowledge which may assist project teams to consider and address the chal-
integration process in terms of dealing with new information or lenges associated with integrating different types of knowledge for
knowledges that arise after application. Although research is environmental management and then apply this framework to
ongoing, outputs from the Sustainable Uplands project are already three knowledge integration projects. Our review of the literature
being used at high levels within Government. For example, the unearthed a number of knowledge integration challenges. Firstly,
team was commissioned to provide an assessment of the “future of the classification of knowledge is arbitrary and there are multiple,
the uplands” (Reed et al., 2009) by the Government Office for overlapping ways of defining local and scientific knowledge which
Science’s Foresight Land Use Futures project, in which they pre- impede the identification of existing knowledge (Table 1, Fig. 2).
sented scenarios that were a product of integrated knowledges. The Secondly, there are multiple philosophies of social science that
team was also commissioned by the Commission for Rural underpin the personal epistemological beliefs of researchers and
Communities to provide a think-piece for their forthcoming Inquiry stakeholders and their choice of methods for engaging and evalu-
into the Future of England’s Upland Communities, which reports ating different knowledge. Thirdly, there are social and political
directly to the UK’s Prime Minister. This work was based on an challenges associated with the application of integrated knowl-
exploration of ideas that originated from interviews with stake- edges in terms of how the results are used by those who input their
holders and were elaborated through modeling research. The team knowledge. Based on these three arguments we encourage a shift in
has also submitted a number of responses to Government policy science from the development of knowledge integration products
consultations based on a combination of knowledges (sometimes to the development of knowledge integration processes enabling
including quotations from stakeholders). Yorkshire Water funded multiple views and multiple methods to be considered in relation
the team to conduct additional research to apply outputs of the to an environmental management problem.
project to their catchments, and explore the possibility of paying We then presented a framework (Fig. 2) which may assist
land managers to change management practices in order to researchers to improve the integration of multiple knowledge types
improve water quality at source. The team has now employed a full- in an environmental management project. We suggest attention
time knowledge broker who will be further translating project needs to be paid to the identification of existing knowledge, the
outputs into forms that can be disseminated to a wide audience. engagement of different knowledges, the evaluation of different
The project also allowed new knowledge to be incorporated at knowledges and the application of integrated knowledges. Cundill
several stages throughout, and thus can be viewed as flexible to and Fabricius (2009) identify other factors to consider such as the
new knowledge that arises after first application. socio-ecological context of the system (e.g., the system’s parame-
In the Solomon Islands project, the research was effectively ters) and the institutional structure for management, including the
embedded in application through the way it engaged local goals, strategies, ideas and skills of participants. We add to their
communities in the research process and worked with the local process by highlighting the epistemological dimension of social
grass roots organisation. As a result, communities are beginning to learning which needs to be considered alongside the institutional
implement their own programmes which are partly based on the structures for management and the capacities of individuals
results of the ongoing research in the region but which are also involved in the project. Epistemological pluralism must be sup-
a legacy of the way the research process engaged communities in ported as part of these knowledge integration processes. This
thinking about their understanding and building confidence in finding is supported by Eigenbrode et al. (2007) who assert that the
their own knowledge and capacities. Unlike the Sustainable philosophical dimension has largely been overlooked in the
Uplands and Otways studies, the learnings from this project prin- knowledge integration literature.
cipally relate to the process of engaging different knowledges The identification of existing knowledge is one of the first
rather than material outputs (e.g., reports) generated through the factors which needs to be considered in any new knowledge inte-
process. New knowledge and norms continually evolve in this gration project. All three case studies espoused the integration of
project and are expected to endure when the project is over. local and scientific knowledge without systematically identifying
The application of results emerging from the Otways study has the forms of knowledge to be integrated at project commencement.
been more challenging. Results were presented to committees Knowledge was defined based upon the representation of the
responsible for developing the Otways Forest Amendment Act actors involved (e.g., farmer, resident and visitor); researchers did
(2006) and the Otway Hinterland Tourism Plan. However, it is not consider the multiple factors and philosophies that influence
unclear how they informed their decision-making in terms of knowledge claims (see Fig. 1 and Online Supporting Material 1).
identifying priority sites for nature conservation and tourism Without such a check, it is difficult to understand whether different
development. New spatially referenced information can be overlaid ways of knowing are being incorporated into the project, or
with the local values after survey administration, but it is relatively whether actors are being selected to represent the interests of
costly and time consuming to solicit new spatially referenced those responsible for managing or delivering the project.
values and preference data. Secondly, researchers need to pay more attention to engaging
A key application challenge which has emerged through this different knowledges, particularly how the methods established
comparative analysis is addressing the question of power and different ways of knowing, and the level of opportunity for
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1775

participants to learn from one another. We found that those of these methods favour scientific knowledge over local knowledge,
projects which adopted a more positivistic stance selected methods whereas other methods actively encourage the sharing of knowl-
whereby outsiders (usually scientists) had a leading role in edge between local stakeholders and scientists. We argue that
knowledge integration product development. In the Sustainable knowledge integration project teams need to assign more effort to:
Uplands project, predominantly natural science models of the UK 1) the identification of the different epistemological beliefs which
Uplands region were prepared by scientists and then refined based underpin knowledge claims; 2) the engagement of different
upon the knowledge of local stakeholders. In the Otways project, knowledges, including how the knowledge integration methods
the project objectives and methods were led by scientists e there established different ways of knowing, 3) the evaluation of how the
was little opportunity for multiple stakeholders to learn from one knowledge integration mechanisms and processes supported
another. In contrast, the Solomons Island project adopted a more learning and shared understanding, and; 4) the level of application
subjectivist stance and developed knowledge integration processes of knowledge integration outputs by multiple stakeholders during
which were more culturally relevant and more easily applied by the project and after project completion. Based on theoretical
those who shared their knowledge. Indigenous people were guided insights and case study findings, we conclude that there is no single
through an iterative process of identifying shared resource optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge
management futures. Much greater emphasis was placed on and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowl-
a deliberative process whereby the research data collected by local edge integration products to the development of problem-focussed,
communities and researchers were analysed, deliberated and knowledge integration processes.
interpreted by local community members themselves, instead of
external experts. Acknowledgements
A third theme which emerges is that processes need to be
established for examining the validity and reliability of different Christopher Raymond acknowledges the generous financial
knowledge claims. The Sustainable Uplands and Solomon Islands support provided by Jean Pearce.
projects did not have explicit methods for checking validity and The Sustainable Uplands project is funded by the ESRC and the
reliability of different knowledge claims. The Otways study exam- Rural Economy and Land-Use programme, co-sponsored by DEFRA
ined convergent and external validity questions by comparing and SEERAD (RES-227-30-2001). Mark Reed is also funded by:
spatial and survey results to similar studies in the United States. ESRC/BBSRC/MRC Be-Wel Network (RES-355-25-0020); a British
However, one may question who controls what knowledge is valid Academy Research Development Award; EU Framework 6 Desert-
in knowledge integration projects and the procedures for exam- ification Mitigation & Remediation of Land e a Global Approach for
ining it? If the knowledge integration outputs are culturally rele- Local Solutions (DESIRE) project (contract no. 037046); and NERC
vant, as suggested in the Solomons Island study, then is this an and EU Framework 6 Ecocyles Project.
adequate indicator of validity? Again, the answer to these questions The Solomon Islands research was funded by the Aberystwyth
depends upon the epistemological beliefs of the project team, and Research Fund, Livery Guild, and the Makira Fund and ongoing
reiterates the importance of sharing these beliefs early in the work by the grant from the European Union Sustainable Liveli-
project. The methods adopted for examining validity and reliability hoods and Forest Conservation office.
will ultimately depend upon the proposed outcomes of the study, The mapping landscape values for conservation and tourism
and the shared views of the project team. planning project in the Otways region of Victoria project was funded
The fourth theme relates to the application of integrated by the CRC for Sustainable Tourism. Key project partners were the
knowledges during and after project completion. The philosophical University of South Australia and Parks Victoria. Guy Robinson's
perspective chosen by the project team not only influences the contribution is based on work funded by the Leverhulme Foundation.
method of knowledge integration, but the level of uptake of the
results by different audiences. In the Solomons project, the uptake Appendix A. Supporting material
of the knowledge integration products by local communities and
local stakeholders has been more effective in this project to date Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
than the Sustainable Uplands project because it included local the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023.
community members in the whole process of developing questions,
collecting data, preliminary analysis, and feeding this back through
References
workshops in communities and with representatives from devel-
opment NGOs and government representatives (See Fazey et al., in Abay, F., Waters-Bayer, A., Bjornstad, A., 2008. Farmers’ seed management and
press for full details). In contrast, there appears to be much greater innovation in varietal selection: implications for barley breeding in Tigray,
uptake of the knowledge integration products by technical experts northern Ethiopia. Ambio 37 (4), 312e320.
Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and western
and outsiders (e.g., government representatives) in the Sustainable knowledge. Development and Change 26 (3), 413e439.
Uplands project. Agrawal, A., 2002. Indigenous Knowledge and the Politics of Classification. UNESCO,
Oxford, UK.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doublday, N., 2007. Adaptive Co-management: Collabora-
5. Conclusion tion, Learning and Multi-level Governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the
A variety of ontological, epistemological and application chal- paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 86e98.
Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,
lenges exist when integrating multiple knowledge types for envi- Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P.,
ronmental management. This study proposes a framework Pinkerton, E.W., Wollenberg, E.K., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-
comprising of four themes and seven questions which may assist eecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecological Environments 7 (2), 95e102.
Berkes, F., 1989. Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. In: Berkes, F.
researchers and environmental managers consider and address
(Ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable
these challenges. We then show how this framework could be Development. Biddles Ltd, UK, pp. 22e32.
applied to three knowledge integration case studies located in the Berkes, F., 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis, J.T. (Ed.),
United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. A comparative Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Concepts and Cases. Canadian Museum of
Nature/International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 1e9.
analysis of the three case studies indicated that there are multiple Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management
methods available for integrating different knowledge types; some Systems. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia and London, UK.
1776 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777

Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology Fazey, I. Teaching resilience, systems and thinking. Global Environmental Change e
18 (3), 621e630. Human Policy Dimension, in press.
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, Fazey, I., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Maindonald, D., Douglas, R., 2004. Can
bridging organisations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Manage- methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conser-
ment 90, 1692e1702. vation research? Environmental Conservation 31, 190e198.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 2002. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fazey, D.M.A., 2005. Learning more effectively from experience.
knowledge. In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Ecology and Society 10 (2).
Transformation in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, pp. Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Dovers, S., 2006a. The nature
121e146. and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ-
Becker, C.D., Ghimire, K., 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge mental Conservation 33, 1e10.
and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Fazey, I., Proust, K., Newell, B., Johnson, B., Fazey, J., 2006b. Eliciting the implicit
Ecology 8 (1), 1e12. knowledge and perceptions of on-ground conservation managers of the Mac-
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowl- quarie marshes. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 25e52.
edge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10 (5), 1251e1262. Fazey, I., Latham, I., Hagasua, J.E., Wagatora, D., 2007. Livelihoods and Change in
Blaikie, P., 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource Kahua. Solomon Islands, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth.
management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34 (11), 1942e1957. Fazey, I., Evely, A., Latham, I., Kesby, M., Wagatora, D., Hagasua, E., Christie, M., Reed,
Boiral, O., 2002. Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range M.S. Reducing vulnerability: a three-tiered learning approach to research in the
Planning 35, 291e317. Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change e Human and Policy Dimen-
Bourke, R.M., McGregor, A., Allen, M.G., Evans, B.R., Mullen, B.F., Pollard, A.A., sions, in press.
Wairiu, M., Zotalis, S., 2006. Solomon Islands smallholder agriculture study. In: Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Huntington, H.P., Frost, K.J., 2006. Integration or co-
Main Findings and Recommendations, vol. 1. AusAid, Australian Government, optation? Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale
Canberra. Committee. Environmental Conservation 33 (4), 306e315.
Brosius, P., 2006. What counts as local knowledge in global environmental Ferrarini, A., Bodoni, A., Bacchii, M., 2001. Environmental quality and sustainability
assessments and conventions? In: Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T., in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to assess
Capistrano, D. (Eds.), Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and and compare municipal performance. Journal of Environmental Management
Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp. 129e144. 63, 117e131.
Brown, G., Raymond, C.M., 2007. The relationship between place attachment and Firestone, W.A., 1987. Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and quali-
landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27 tative research. Educational Researcher 16, 16e21.
(2), 89e111. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Nordberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
Bruckmeier, K., Tovey, H., 2008. Knowledge in sustainable rural development: from eecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30,
forms of knowledge to knowledge processes. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (3), 441e473.
313e329. Gadgil, M., Olsson, P., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 2003. Exploring the role of local ecological
Bruckmeier, K., Tovey, H. (Eds.), 2009. Rural Sustainable Development in the knowledge for ecosystem management: three case studies. In: Berkes, F.,
Knowledge Society. Ashgate, UK. Codling, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Socialeecological Systems: Building
Burton, L., 2008. Early Childhood Development in the Solomon Islands: an Ethno- Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
graphic Exploration in Kahua. Department of Education. University of Oxford, UK, pp. 189e209.
Oxford. Garonna, I., Fazey, I., Brown, M.E., Pettorelli, N., 2009. Rapid primary productivity
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., changes in one of the last coastal rainforests: the case of Kahua, Solomon
Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Islands. Environmental Conservation 36 (3), 253e260.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100 (14), 8086e8091. Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration
Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31 (8/9),
program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100 (14), 8059e8061. 1257e1274.
Clark, J., Murdoch, J., 1997. Local knowledge and the precarious extension of Geels, F.W., 2005. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-
scientific networks: a reflection on three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1), level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to auto-
38e60. mobiles (1860e1930). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 17 (4),
Cleveland, D.A., Soleri, D., 2007. Farmer knowledge and scientist knowledge in 445e476.
sustainable agricultural development: ontology, epistemology and praxis. In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Sillitoe, P (Ed.), Local Science versus Global Science. Approaches To Indigenous Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Knowledge in International Development, Oxford, UK, pp. 211e229. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Light, S.S., 1995. Barriers and Bridges to Renewal of
Cook, W., Casagrande, D., Hope, D., Groffman, P.M., Collins, S.L., 2004. Learning to Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York.
roll with the punches: adaptive experimentation in human-dominated systems. Halfacree, K.H., 1995. Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural as
Frontiers in Ecological Environments 2 (9), 467e474. expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (1),
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., 1e20.
Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming Harré, R., 1981. Philosophical aspects of the microemacro problem. In: Knorr-
ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy Cetina, K., Cicourel, A.V. (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology:
of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 9455e9456. Towards an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies. Routledge and Kegan
Crane, A., 1999. Are you ethical? Please tick yes or no on researching ethics in Paul, Boston, MA, pp. 139e160.
business organisations. Business Ethics 20, 237e248. Healey, C., 1993. The significance and application of TEK. In: Williams, N.M.,
Cundill, G., Fabricius, C., 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward Baines, G. (Eds.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable
a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental management 90, Development. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian
3205e3211. National University, Canberra, pp. 21e26.
Davis, 1999. Indigenous rights in traditional knowledge and biological diversity: Howden, K., 2001. Indigenous traditional knowledge and Native Title. University of.
approaches to protection. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 4 (4), 1e32. New South Wales Law Journal 12, 60e84.
Davis, M., 2006. Bridging the gap or crossing a bridge? Indigenous knowledge and Hunn, E., 1993. What is traditional ecological knowledge? In: Williams, N.,
the language of law and policy. In: Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T., Baines, G. (Eds.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable
Capistrano, D. (Eds.), Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Development. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian
Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp. 145e164. National University, Canberra, pp. 13e15.
Dyson, S., Brown, B., 2006. Social Theory and Applied Health Research. Open Huntington, H.P., Brown-Schwalenberg, P.K., Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Frost, K.J.,
University Press, McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, U.K. Norton, D.W., Rosenberg, D.H., 2002. Observations on the workshop as a means
Eigenbrode, S.D., O’Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J.D., Althoff, D.M., Goldberg, C.S., of improving communication between holders of traditional and scientific
Merrill, K., Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Stephens, J., Winowiecki, L., Bosque- knowledge. Environmental Management 30 (6), 778e792.
Pérez, N.A., 2007. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Ingram, J., 2008. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge
Bioscience 57, 55e64. of sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views.
Estrella, M., Gaventa, J., 2000. Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and Journal of Environmental Management 86, 214e228.
evaluation: a literature review. IDS Working Paper 70. Unpublished Report. Johannes, R.E. (Ed.), 1989. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: a Collection of Essays.
Evely, A.C., Fazey, I., Pinard, M., Lambin, X., 2008. The influence of philosophical Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK IUCN.
perspectives in integrative research: a conservation case study in the cairn- Johannes, R.E., 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples
gorms national park. Ecology and Society 13 (2). from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 243e246.
Fabricius, C., Sholes, R., Cundill, G., 2006. Mobilizing knowledge for integrated Johnson, S., 2004. The Tchumo Tchato project in Mozambique: community-based
ecosystem assessments. In: Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T., Capistrano, D. natural resource management in transition. In: Fabricius, C., Koch, E.,
(Eds.), Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Magome, H., Turner, S. (Eds.), Rights, Resources and Rural Development:
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp. 165e182. Community-based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earth-
Failing, L., Gregory, R., Harstone, M., 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge scan, London, pp. 210e222.
in environmental decisions: a decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics Jones, O., 1995. Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural
64, 47e60. studies. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (1), 35e49.
 C.M. Raymond et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1766e1777 1777

Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2007. A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor
Schnellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable
Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B., O’Riordan, T., Svedin, U., 2001. Tourism 15 (5), 520e540.
Sustainability science. Science 292, 641e642. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management:
Keeney, G., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417e2431.
University Press. Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., 2010. Linking degradation assessment to sustainable land
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A., Lichtenfeld, L.L., 2000. Community natural management: a decision support system for Kalahari pastoralists. Journal of
resource management: promise, rhetoric and reality. Society and Natural Arid Environments 74, 149e155.
Resources 13, 705e715. Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Taylor, M.J., 2007. Integrating local and scientific knowledge
Kleine, S.J., 1995. Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. Stanford for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari Rangeland management options.
University Press, Stanford, USA. Land Degradation and Development 18, 249e268.
Kothari, U., 2001. In: Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (Eds.), Power, Knowledge and Social Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Baker, T., 2008. Participatory indicator development: what
Control in Participatory Development. Zed Books, London, pp. 139e152. can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological
Kuhn, D., 1977. Condition reasoning in children. Developmental Psychology 13 (4), Applications 18, 1253e1269.
342e353. Reed, M.S., Bonn, A., Slee, W., Beharry-Borg, N., Birch, J., Brown, U., Burt, T.P.,
Lewis, H., 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge: some definitions. In: Williams, N., Chapman, D., Chapman, P.J., Clay, G.D., Cornell, S.J., Fraser, E.D.G., Glass, J.H.,
Baines, G. (Eds.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Holdern, J., Hodgson, J.A., Hubackek, K., Irvine, B., Jin, N., Kirby, M.J., Kunin, W.E.,
Development. Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, pp. 8e12. Moore, O., Moseley, D., Prell, C., Price, M.F., Quinn, C.H., Redpath, S., Reid, C.,
Long, N., Long, A. (Eds.), 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: the Interlocking of Theory Stagl, S., Stringer, L.C., Termansen, M., Thorp, S., Towers, W., Worrall, F., 2009.
and Practice in Social Research and Development. Routledge, London. The future of the uplands. Land Use Policy 26S, S204eS216.
Longino, H., 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press, New Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Capistrano, D., 2006. Introduction. In: Reid, W.
Jersey. V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), Bridging Scales and Knowledge
Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., Haddad, B., 2001. Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press,
Annual Review of Ecological Systems 32, 481e571. Washington, pp. 1e20.
Martin, T.G., Kuhnert, P.M., Mengersen, K., Possingham, H.P., 2005. The power of Robertson, H.A., McGee, T.K., 2003. Applying local knowledge: the contribution of
expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: impact of grazing oral history to wetland rehabilitation at Kanyapella Basin, Australia. Journal of
on birds. Ecological Applications 15, 266e280. Environmental Management 69 (3), 275e287.
Meagher, L.R., Lyall, C., 2007. Review of the RELU programme’s seed-corn funding Robinson, G.M., 2006a. Ontario’s environmental farm plan: evaluation and research
mechanisms. Technology Development Group, RELU Program, Unpublished Report. agenda. Geoforum 37 (5), 859e873.
Miller, T.R., Baird, T.D., Littlefield, C.M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F.S., Redman, C.L., Robinson, G.M., 2006b. Canada’s environmental farm plans: trans-Atlantic perspec-
2008. Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. tives on agri-environmental schemes. Geographical Journal 172 (3), 206e218.
Ecology and Society 13 (2), 46e62. Romig, D.E., Garlynd, M.J., Harris, R.F., McSweeney, K., 1995. How farmers assess soil
Murdoch, J., Clark, J., 1994. Sustainable knowledge. Geoforum 25 (2), 115e132. health and quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50 (3), 229e236.
Norton, B.G., 2005. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Manage- Scoones, I., 1999. New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful
ment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 479e507.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Sillitoe, P., 1998. The development of indigenous knowledge. Current Anthropology
Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 39 (2), 223e252.
Nygren, A., 1999. Local knowledge in the environment-development discourse. Stave, J., Oba, G., Nordal, I., Stenseth, N.C., 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge of
Critique of Anthropology 19 (3), 267e288. a riverine forest in Turkana, Kenya: implications for research and management.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for Biodiversity Conservation 16, 1471e1489.
ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosys- Stringer, L.C., Twyman, C., Thomas, D.S.G., 2007. Combating land degradation
tems 4, 85e104. through participatory means: the case of Swaziland. Ambio 36 (5), 387e393.
Pasquini, M.W., Alexander, M.J., 2005. Soil fertility management strategies on the Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., 2005. Clarifying integrative research concepts in land-
Jos Plateau: the need for integrating ‘empirical’ and ‘scientific’ knowledge in scape ecology. Landscape Ecology 20 (4), 479e493.
agricultural development. Geographical Journal 171 (2), 112e124. Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., 2006. Defining concepts and the process of knowledge
Phillipson, J., Liddon, A., 2007. Common Knowledge? An Exploration of Knowledge production in integrative research. In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P.
Transfer. Rural Economic and Land Use Programme, University of Newcastle, UK. (Eds.), From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning. Springer, The
Polanyi, M., 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. Rout- Netherlands, pp. 13e26.
ledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. Turnbull, D., 1997. Reframing science and other local knowledge traditions. Futures
Polanyi, M., 1997. Tacit knowledge. In: Prusak, L. (Ed.), Knowledge in Organisations. 29 (6), 551e562.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, USA. Walter, G., Wander, M., Bollero, G., 1997. A farmer-centered approach to developing
Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., 2001. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from information for soil resource management: the Illinois soil quality initiative.
medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15 (1), 50e54. America Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12 (2), 64e72.
Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2006. A method for assessing protected area allocations Warren, M.D., Slikkerveer, L.J., Brokensha, D. (Eds.), 1995. The cultural dimension of
using a typology of landscape values. Journal of Environmental Planning and development: Indigenous knowledge systems. Intermediate Technology
Management 49 (6), 797e812. Publications, London.