Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter Six - Mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge as a source of useable evidence for conservation partnerships

  • from Part I - Identifying priorities and collating the evidence
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of Cambridge, Peter N. M. Brotherton, Zoe G. Davies, Nancy Ockendon, University of Cambridge, Nathalie Pettorelli, Zoological Society of London, Juliet A. Vickery, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Bedfordshire
  • Book:
    Conservation Research, Policy and Practice
    Published online:
    18 April 2020
    Print publication:
    16 April 2020, pp 82-113
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    Mobilising indigenous and local knowledge systems has the potential to make their critical knowledge about landscapes and biodiversity meaningful as evidence in conservation and governance. Collaborative approaches to conservation must be equitable and just to be effective in the long term. The Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) is an inclusive approach to combining diverse sources of evidence. We review uptake of the MEB approach and its application in science and policy–practice processes and present three cases using this approach. These demonstrate synergies between indigenous and local knowledge and conservation science and how cross-fertilisation leads to stronger partnerships and better outcomes. However, this depends on recognition of the complementarity and respect for the integrity of diverse knowledge systems. The cases also illustrate ways to create conditions for dialogue and navigating power inequalities and cultural differences in knowledge partnerships. Ultimately, the MEB approach contributes to a conceptual mindshift to mobilise all useful knowledge for maintaining the life-supporting ecosystems on Earth.