A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research

Abstract

For millennia Indigenous communities worldwide have maintained diverse knowledge systems informed through careful observation of dynamics of environmental changes. Although Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems are recognized as critical resources for understanding and adapting to climate change, no comprehensive, evidence-based analysis has been conducted into how environmental studies engage Indigenous communities. Here we provide the first global systematic review of levels of Indigenous community participation and decision-making in all stages of the research process (initiation, design, implementation, analysis, dissemination) in climate field studies that access Indigenous knowledge. We develop indicators for assessing responsible community engagement in research practice and identify patterns in levels of Indigenous community engagement. We find that the vast majority of climate studies (87%) practice an extractive model in which outside researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems with minimal participation or decision-making authority from communities who hold them. Few studies report on outputs that directly serve Indigenous communities, ethical guidelines for research practice, or providing Indigenous community access to findings. Further, studies initiated with (in mutual agreement between outside researchers and Indigenous communities) and by Indigenous community members report significantly more indicators for responsible community engagement when accessing Indigenous knowledges than studies initiated by outside researchers alone. This global assessment provides an evidence base to inform our understanding of broader social impacts related to research design and concludes with a series of guiding questions and methods to support responsible research practice with Indigenous and local communities.

Full text

Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300
TOPICAL REVIEW
A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in
climate research
Dominique M David-Chavez
1
and Michael C Gavin
1,2
1
Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1408, United States of America
2
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany
E-mail: dmari@rams.colostate.edu
Keywords: indigenous knowledge systems, climate research, community-based participatory research, indigenous research methods,
research ethics, traditional ecological knowledge, transdisciplinary research
Supplementary material for this article is available online
Abstract
For millennia Indigenous communities worldwide have maintained diverse knowledge systems
informed through careful observation of dynamics of environmental changes. Although Indigenous
communities and their knowledge systems are recognized as critical resources for understanding and
adapting to climate change, no comprehensive, evidence-based analysis has been conducted into how
environmental studies engage Indigenous communities. Here we provide the first global systematic
review of levels of Indigenous community participation and decision-making in all stages of the
research process (initiation, design, implementation, analysis, dissemination)in climate field studies
that access Indigenous knowledge. We develop indicators for assessing responsible community
engagement in research practice and identify patterns in levels of Indigenous community engagement.
We find that the vast majority of climate studies (87%)practice an extractive model in which outside
researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems with minimal participation or decision-making
authority from communities who hold them. Few studies report on outputs that directly serve
Indigenous communities, ethical guidelines for research practice, or providing Indigenous commu-
nity access to findings. Further, studies initiated with (in mutual agreement between outside
researchers and Indigenous communities)and by Indigenous community members report
significantly more indicators for responsible community engagement when accessing Indigenous
knowledges than studies initiated by outside researchers alone. This global assessment provides an
evidence base to inform our understanding of broader social impacts related to research design and
concludes with a series of guiding questions and methods to support responsible research practice
with Indigenous and local communities.
1. Background
1.1. Indigenous knowledge systems and
environmental science research
Indigenous communities around the world continue to
cultivate and sustain Indigenous knowledge systems
developed from long-term careful observation of envir-
onmental processes. Calls for inclusion of Indigenous
knowledge systems in climate research come fromboth
Indigenous communities and collaborative scientific
forums, including for example, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Working Group II,
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
US National Climate Assessment, and the Indigenous
Environmental Network (Nakashima et al 2012, Adger
et al 2014,Maynard2014,Maldonadoet al 2015).
Reasons behind this call include improvements both in
the effectiveness of research and in the standards of
ethical research (Pearce et al 2009). Indigenous com-
munities whose knowledge and subsistence systems
remain tightly woven with ancestral lands often suffer
disproportionate impacts from accelerating climate-
related biological disruptions and land-loss, as well as
from political, social and ideological marginalization
and persecution (United Nations 2009,Fordet al
2016a). Currently, we have neither a standard set of
OPEN ACCESS
RECEIVED
17 January 2018
REVISED
1 November 2018
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
22 November 2018
PUBLISHED
13 December 2018
Original content from this
work may be used under
the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0
licence.
Any further distribution of
this work must maintain
attribution to the
author(s)and the title of
the work, journal citation
and DOI.
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

indicators for responsible inclusion of Indigenous
knowledge and communities in environmental sciences,
nor an understanding of the degree to which research
projects follow responsible research practices. This study
fills these two research gaps and develops an analytical
framework that can be applied for assessing Indigenous
community engagement across a wide range of research
fields.
1.2. Answering the global call for inclusion
Within the past decade, global networks of scientists
and practitioners have formally recognized the
immense value of Indigenous knowledge systems for
the adaptive capacity of humankind in times of
extreme climate variability. Both the fourth and fifth
assessment reports of the IPCC’s Working Groups
emphasize Indigenous knowledge systems as critical
resources for effectively adapting to climate change.
Regarding human security, the latter report found
‘high agreement among researchers that involvement
of local people and their local, traditional, or indigen-
ous forms of knowledge in decision making is critical
for ensuring their security’(Adger et al 2014, p 765).In
the United Nations publication titled Weathering
uncertainty: traditional knowledge for climate change
assessment and adaptation, an emphasis on collabora-
tion, co-production of knowledge, and cross-cultural
methods reflect the call to shift to more inclusive
methods in scientific research (Nakashima et al 2012).
Similarly, in the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s(NASA)most recent Native People
Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop Report
several regional working groups identified community
involvement and utilizing diverse ways of knowing
as important action strategies and as areas needed
to implement coping and adaptation strategies
(Maynard 2014). Most recently, the Climate and
Traditional Knowledge Workgroup published guide-
lines for US tribes, agencies, and organizations in an
effort to inform culturally ethical, tribally-led partner-
ships that weave multiple knowledge sources for
climate initiatives (CTKW 2014). As the number of
climate research studies engaging Indigenous knowl-
edge systems continues to increase, Indigenous com-
munities from across the globe are simultaneously
coordinating efforts to reclaim authority over their
knowledge systems, languages and practices. One of
the most formative efforts, the United Nations Declara-
tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),
directly addresses concerns regarding Indigenous
peoples’authority over their knowledge systems in
Article 31:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, con-
trol, protect and develop theirKtraditional knowledge-
Kas well as the manifestations of their sciences,
technologies and cultures KThey also have the right to
maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual
property (UN General Assembly 2007, p 10).
A decade since this declaration was established, there
remains little evidence of action in the climate science
research community for addressing these concerns in
practice. In this time of increasing climate variability and
ongoing socio-political vulnerability, the need persists to
ask how the scientific processes for engaging Indigenous
knowledge systems support or neglect the rights and
capacities of the communities maintaining these knowl-
edge systems (United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change 2013,Whyte2017). This study docu-
ments a systematic analytical exploration of climate
research studies that draw from Indigenous knowledge
systems to provide the first comprehensive global assess-
ment on how Indigenous knowledge systems and the
communities who hold them are engaged in scientific
studies. We first develop an analytical framework syn-
thesizing theory of effective practices for responsible
community engagement in research and then apply this
framework to examine the degree to which these prac-
tices are followed in climate research with Indigenous
communities.
2. Methods for assessing community
engagement in climate studies
2.1. Conceptualizing indigenous communities and
knowledge systems
For the context of this interdisciplinary study, we
recognize the need to build a shared conceptual
understanding of terms such as ‘Indigenous commu-
nities’and ‘Indigenous knowledge systems’. When the
United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peo-
ples developed the Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (2007), they emphasized the need to
retain autonomy within each respective community
for defining Indigenous communities and peoples.
For the context of this study, ‘Indigenous’should be
understood to reference a community of peoples
sharing intergenerational ancestry and cultural aspects
with original (pre-colonial)occupants of ancestral
lands in a specific region of the world. Within this
definition, membership to an Indigenous community
should be understood as a sovereign right established
both through self-determination and community
acceptance (Anaya 2004). Following this understand-
ing, the concept of ‘Indigenous knowledge systems’is
included in this study to mean dynamic systems of
knowledge collectively held by Indigenous community
members that draw from intergenerational, place-
based, culturally-embedded relationships and experi-
ences. Shared terms also used in academia and policy
that reflect these unique systems of knowledge include:
‘Indigenous environmental knowledge’,‘indigenous
knowledge’,‘indigenous ways of knowing’,‘Native
science’,‘traditional ecological knowledge’, and ‘tradi-
tional knowledge’(Cajete 2000, International Council
for Science 2002, Nakashima and Roué 2002, Berkes
2008,2009, Burkett 2013).
2
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

2.2. Developing an analytical framework
The following section describes our development of an
analytical framework for examining community
engagement in research practice, including two main
components: a scale of levels of community participa-
tion and a set of indicators for responsible research
practice with Indigenous communities. Recent calls
for improvements in inclusion and collaboration with
Indigenous communities in climate science research
(Smith and Sharp 2012, Ford et al 2016a)guided us
towards developing a relevant framework grounded in
Indigenous and community-based participatory
research guidelines and ethical standards. We also
recognized that beyond levels of engagement, consis-
tency and quality of engagement for community
members also require consideration for effective
research practice (Israel et al 1998, Reed 2008, Pearce
et al 2009).
2.2.1. Scaling levels of community participation
Within participatory research we commonly find scales
and typologies for assessing participation in environ-
mental science related literature (Arnstein 1969,Biggs
1989,LiljaandAshby1999, Rodriguez-Izquierdo et al
2010,Shirket al 2012). We adapted these scales for our
analytical framework while also drawing from Indigen-
ous, community-based and participatory action
research theory. An ever-growing number of Indigen-
ous researchers and communities continue to develop
and implement research frameworks reflective of their
own cultural values and systems through Indigenous
epistemologies and research models (e.g. Weber-Pill-
wax 1999,Estrada2005,Wilson2008, LaFrance and
Nichols 2009,McGregoret al 2010,Smith2012). These
frameworks share considerations outlined in participa-
tory action and community-based research, such as
who retains authority over research design and whose
interests are served (Chilisa 2012).Indigenousresearch
frameworks are also distinct in their explicit emphasis
on self-determination and relational accountability to
one’s own community, including non-human commu-
nities (Weber-Pillwax 1999,Wilson2001).Another
common theme among Indigenous research frame-
works is that the research process is centred on values,
definitions and protocols developed within the Indigen-
ous community engaged in the research (LaFrance and
Nichols 2009). These research models recognize and
account for colonial, historical and socio-cultural con-
texts in which research takes place, and the unique
challenges and strengths inherent in Indigenous com-
munities (Kovach 2010).
When implemented within a culturally-relevant,
community-based framework, research should reflect
the value-centred approach of Indigenous research
methodologies (Cochran et al 2008, LaVeaux and Chris-
topher 2009,Smith2012). Participatory action research
closely reflects this value-centred process (Kindon et al
2007). However, the interpretation and applied practice
of community-based and participatory research varies
considerably from study to study (Cornwall and Jew-
kes 1995).Inanefforttoidentifybestpracticesinpartici-
pation, Reed’s(2008)review of stakeholder participation
in environmental management finds that the quality of
participation is highly dependent on the quality of the
process it builds from, and furthermore the philosophy
upon which that process is built. Philosophical qualities
identified in Reed’s review include participants’ability to
engage effectively in decision-making, recognizing and
limiting pre-existing power inequalities, and supporting
ongoing two-way learning between participants and
researchers.
For our adapted scale, we assess levels of commu-
nity participation ordered along a continuum ranging
from contractual (employment-related)participation
in which community members have at most a con-
tracted role in the study with no decision-making
authority, up to an Indigenous process in which all
aspects of a study are contextualized and decided upon
within the community (figure 1). Each level in the
scale varies according to what degree community
members engage in the process and who holds pri-
mary decision-making authority in the research.
One key feature emphasized in best practices for
community participation, is continuity in community
engagement throughout all stages of the research pro-
cess (Fisher and Ball 2003, Johnson et al 2003, Sims
and Kuhnlein 2003, Reed 2008). Likewise, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
technical paper on best practices for use of Indigenous
and traditional knowledge calls for ‘involving indigen-
ous and local knowledge in all assessment phases, from
conception through to outputs’, and that a pre-
requisite to including Indigenous knowledge is ‘full
and effective participation of (knowledge)holders’
(2013,p24). Each stage in the research process holds a
unique purpose and impact for the participating com-
munity members. Following these recommendations,
we apply this scale to various stages along the research
process of field studies identified for this review,
including: design (proposal development, defining
goals and objectives, defining research questions etc),
implementation (fieldwork, sampling, data collection,
monitoring etc), and analysis (data interpretation, eva-
luation etc).
2.2.2. Identifying indicators for responsible community
engagement
In addition to levels of engagement, we developed
indicators for responsible research standards to assess
quality of engagement undertaken by field studies.
Withstanding centuries of challenges to their rights to
maintain their own knowledge systems and practices,
Indigenous peoples continually speak to a need for
quality standards for research in their communities.
Numerous Indigenous peoples’and collaborative
science working group reports and codes of conduct
present ethical guidelines and recommendations for
responsible research partnerships (ISE 2006, United
3
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

Nations General Assembly 2007, Convention on
Biological Diversity 2011, Thaman et al 2013, United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
2013, CTKW 2014). For the purpose of this study, we
identified best practices from literature on commu-
nity-based, participatory and Indigenous research
methods, and Indigenous community concerns iden-
tified in working group reports to develop indicators
for responsible community engagement. Indicators
reflect both foundational standards for responsible
research (e.g. free prior and informed consent)and
benefits for local communities (e.g. accessibility to
findings). We include six indicators for responsible
research practice in our assessment of reported data
from climate field studies that speak to these concerns:
2.2.2.1. Indicator 1—Access: are findings accessible to
Indigenous community members?
Access indicates whether field studies address commu-
nity access to findings (e.g. local presentations and
distribution of publications regarding findings from
study; data available to or stored with community
members; materials from study produced in local
languages). Mechanisms for community access should
be addressed from the outset of the study design
(CIDA 2002). This indicator reflects the ‘principle of
reciprocity’, often lacking in existing academic
research ethics protocols, for disseminating study
results back to contributing community members in
an accessible language and format (Smith 2012,p16).
Reciprocity in knowledge sharing is also identified as
a method for ‘promoting inter-cultural exchanges,
knowledge and technology transfer’(Convention on
Biological Diversity 2011).
2.2.2.2. Indicator 2—Relevance: are findings reported in
the context of concerns, issues or interests defined by
Indigenous community members?
Relevance is defined by the degree to which reported
findings are explicitly relevant to concerns and inter-
ests pre-identified by members of the community. The
UN DRIP (2007),Kaupapa Māori principles
(Smith 2015), and the International Society of Ethno-
biology (ISE) Code of Ethics (2006), all reflect this
philosophy towards looking critically at how develop-
ments and research designs support communities
within their existing cultural and organizational needs
and concerns.
2.2.2.3. Indicator 3—Credit: how were Indigenous
community members credited for their knowledge
contributions and efforts (acknowledgement, co-
authorship)?
Credit is defined by the degree to which research credits
knowledge holders for their contributions (i.e. no
acknowledgement, acknowledgement only, co-author-
ship).Thisindicatorreflects the Climate and Traditional
Knowledges Workgroup call for ensuring that ‘contribu-
tions of tribal partners are recognized in final products,
publications, and efforts to publicize projects’(2014,
p8).TheISE Code of Ethics’‘Principle of Acknowl-
edgement and Due Credit’also emphasizes the impor-
tance of crediting knowledge contributions: ‘researchers
will act in good faith to ensure the connections to original
Figure 1. Scale for assessing levels of Indigenous community participation based on who has authority over the research process
(adapted primarily from Biggs 1989, Johnson et al 2003).
4
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

sources of knowledge and resources are maintained in
thepublicrecord’(2006,p8).
2.2.2.4. Indicator 4—Ethics: did the study report ethical
guidelines followed, such as Free Prior and Informed
Consent?
Fundamental ethical principles that have long been
recognized in medical and legal practice, such as ‘free,
prior and informed consent’(FPIC), now form basic
requirements for academic and institutional research
with human communities. Ethics indicates whether
studies reported ethical guidelines followed in the
research process (e.g. FPIC, approval from Indigenous
ethics group, reference to applied code of ethics).
Ethical responsibilities researchers hold to Indigenous
communities require careful consideration in order to
promote benefit for community members and reduce
harm (Piquemal 2001, Williams and Hardison 2013).
As one example of ethical guidelines, the principle of
FPIC works to ensure that knowledge holders within
Indigenous communities retain informed decision-
making authority regarding their participation in the
research process. Numerous ethics guidelines empha-
size the importance of providing knowledge of and
receiving prior approval for research that impacts
Indigenous communities (ISE 2006, United Nations
General Assembly 2007, Convention on Biological
Diversity 2011, CTKW 2014).
2.2.2.5. Indicator 5—Cause no harm: did the study
address intellectual property rights or risks for Indigenous
communities?
The principle of cause no harm or do no harm
represents another fundamental ethical standard rele-
vant to climate research practice with Indigenous
communities (CTKW 2014).Cause no harm indicates
whether studies address concerns regarding the Indi-
genous intellectual property (e.g. community review
and/or ownership of data, sensitive data identified and
protected). The principle of cause no harm denotes a
critical step in assessing risk and potential harm, both
socio-cultural (e.g. appropriation of cultural and
intellectual property)and material (e.g. resource
exploitation), for Indigenous communities in the
research process. The Mataatua Declaration on Cul-
tural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, calls for state, national and international
agencies to ‘recognise that indigenous peoples are the
guardians of their customary knowledge and have the
right to protect and control dissemination of that
knowledge’(1993,p3). In addition, guides for best
practices in international project planning with Indi-
genous peoples call for safeguards that increase
Indigenous peoples’decision-making authority pro-
portional to higher levels of risk associated with
sharing of Indigenous traditional knowledge
(CIDA 2002). This consideration also reflects issues
reported by Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and
Pacific Islanders disproportionally impacted by
climate change regarding the issue of intellectual
property, in which they emphasized Indigenous com-
munities as the best resources for ensuring that
protocols for integrating diverse knowledge systems
include cultural protections (Maynard 2014).
2.2.2.6. Indicator 6—Outputs: did the study report any
outputs or outcomes for the Indigenous community?
Outputs and outcomes that indicate quality practices
include: whether projects lead to any actions or
changes within the community (e.g. capacity-building,
adaptation plans), or whether any products developed
from a given study directly benefit the community
(e.g. maps, curriculum materials). Much like access,
this indicator also links back to the foundational
principle of reciprocity centred in Indigenous research
methodologies and codes of ethics. For example, the
ISE Code of Ethics recognizes the right for community
members to benefit from outcomes and results
produced by research that accesses Indigenous knowl-
edge systems (ISE 2006). Further, in their study on
integrating local and scientific knowledge for environ-
mental management, Raymond et al state that an
indication of project success is ‘the extent to which the
knowledge integration outputs are used by those who
input their knowledge’(2010, p 1770).
The scale and indicators described in detail above
served as analytical tools for assessing the degree of
Indigenous community engagement in climate stu-
dies. The following section further describes how we
identified studies and specific criteria for justifying
inclusion in our global review.
2.3. Protocol development and expert review panel
We adapted methods for this review from existing
systematic review frameworks (Pullin and Stew-
art 2006, Grant and Booth 2009, Munroe et al 2012).
The process included developing a review protocol in
consultation with a panel of experts, a comprehensive
search of peer-reviewed and grey literature, qualitative
synthesis and a quantitative analysis. The supplemen-
tary materials associated with this article include full
details of the search and screening results, description
of attributes and codes, data analysis results, and a
bibliography for all articles included in the review.
Based on systematic review guidelines adapted
from health services research for environmental sci-
ences (Pullin and Stewart 2006), we invited subject
experts early in the process to ensure a more robust
protocol that is relevant to research practice and pol-
icy. In addition to the two authors, eight additional
panel members (see credit and acknowledgements
section)whose work focuses on Indigenous knowl-
edge systems and environmental sciences provided
feedback to help refine the research questions and
search terms and to identify relevant field studies. Five
of the panel members are Indigenous community
members currently working on climate research,
5
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

including the lead author David-Chavez. The five
remaining members maintain expertise in working
collaboratively with Indigenous communities and
knowledge systems.
2.4. Screening and inclusion criteria
2.4.1. Search terms
Search terms developed and refined with the expert
panel represent three unique overlaying concepts—
one identifying the appropriate populations and two
defining thematic content:
1. Indigenous populations: (indigenous OR native
OR tribal OR aborigin
*
OR ‘first nation
*
’OR ‘local
communit
*
’OR indian) AND
2. Indigenous knowledge systems: (‘traditional eco-
logical knowledge
*
’OR ‘traditional knowledge
*
’OR
‘traditional environmental knowledge
*
’OR ‘native
science
*
’OR ‘oral histor
*
’OR ‘indigenous knowl-
edge
*
’OR ‘indigenous ecological knowledge
*
’)AND
3. Climate science: (‘climat
*
change’OR ‘climat
*
science’OR phenolog
*
OR ‘weather forecast
*
’OR
‘envir
*
change
*
’OR ‘envir
*
observation
*
’OR
‘climat
*
adaptation
*
’).
The final list of search terms presented here repre-
sent results from several scoping searches through the
Web of Science database in which we identified terms
that most accurately and comprehensively located the-
matically relevant climate field studies. We also
checked database results for field studies pre-identi-
fied by the expert review panel as indicators for whe-
ther search terms were reaching the necessary scope to
capture all relevant case studies. Final results from the
Web of Science database search (n=311)included
publications from all past years up to 8 April 2016. To
reduce potential publication bias (Conn et al 2003),we
identified additional literature (n=228), including
grey literature identified through manual hand-
searching of reference lists and by using a modified
search string in Google Scholar conducted 25 April
2016 (first 200 results, sorted by relevance). Although
we included results from all years, the earliest article
meeting inclusion criteria for the final review dates to
1996 (figure 2).
2.4.2. Criteria for selection for full review
Screening criteria for titles and abstracts included
three main criteria for inclusion. Firstly, we required
original field studies containing climate-related envir-
onmental research. ‘Climate-related environmental
research’includes knowledge systems and biocultural
relationships humans hold in regard to long term
weather patterns, their environmental impacts, and
environmental adaptation in a particular place. Sec-
ondly, we required studies to include Indigenous
knowledge system(s)(e.g. traditional ecological
knowledge, Native science)from specific Indigenous
community(ies). Thirdly, we required studies to be
published in English (due to reviewers’language
fluency limitations). Publications meeting these cri-
teria, or those we could not clearly determine based on
title and abstract alone, were included for full-text
review (n=232). Publications meeting all criteria that
also contained enough methodological and contextual
information regarding the research process were
included in the final analysis (n=140; figure 3).
2.5. Data collection, coding and analysis
We recorded data obtained from full-review articles
meeting all inclusion criteria in a spreadsheet for
cross-case qualitative and quantitative content analysis
(Stemler 2001). For multiple articles containing con-
tent from the same field study (n=15), we aggregated
notes and coded data as a singular case under the most
Figure 2. Number of publications meeting review criteria by year (excluding 2016 data for partial year).
6
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

current publication year to allow for a balanced
comparison in quantitative analyses of research
practices across field studies. Attributes recorded for
each field study included demographic data, disci-
plines of study authors, levels and methods of
Indigenous community engagement in all stages in
the research process (initiation, design, implementa-
tion, analysis, dissemination), and quality indicators
for responsible research practice. This process for data
collection allowed for an inclusive analysis of a diverse
range of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
studies. We developed categorical codes to indicate
the levels of Indigenous community participation at
the initiation phase of field studies: A-outside aca-
demic researchers, M-mutual agreement between
outside researchers and Indigenous community
members, C-community initiated, O-other, NR-not
reported. For the design, implementation, and analy-
sis stages of the research we applied the ordinal
scale developed in our analytical framework to
record levels of Indigenous community participation:
0-Contractual/No participation, 1-Consultative,
2-Collaborative, 3-Collegial, 4-Indigenous. Although
at the time of this review no studies met criteria for
Indigenous level on scale, we retained this code for
future analyses. We also coded reported data for each
indicator of responsible community engagement as
follows: access (0-not reported, 1-accessibility is
directly addressed);relevance (0-not reported,
1-relevance for community is directly addressed);
credit (0-not reported, 1-acknowledgement only,
2-co-authorship);ethics (0-not reported, 1-some
form of ethical guidelines/consent process reported);
cause no harm (0-not reported, 1-intellectual property
rights/risks addressed);outputs (0-not reported,
1-proposed, 2-actual). Upon completion, the final
spreadsheet comprised a case-based matrix with
coded values visually linked with qualitative notes
Figure 3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA)search results flowchart (Moher et al 2009).
*
Reasons for exclusion: secondary research (not an original field study), Research content (not focused on climate-related
environmental research), Population (does not include specific Indigenous community), Methods unavailable (not enough context
reported on research methods), Multiple studies (included several individual case studies separated for individual analysis), and Non-
English.
7
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

referencing evidentiary criteria used for identifying
patterns of association (Bazeley 2013). After excluding
aggregated studies, a secondary reviewer unfamiliar
with the study beyond the specific coding criteria
analysed and coded a random sample of field studies
(n=29). We included an inter-rater reliability test
(kappa=0.907)using Cohen’s weighted kappa to
assess for consistency in coded values (Cohen 1968).
In our analyses we searched for patterns across
space, patterns across disciplines, patterns across time,
and patterns in responsible community engagement
in climate field studies. These included geospatial and
statistical analyses using R Studio software (version
3.4.2). To view patterns across time, we compared
levels of community participation within the design,
implementation and analysis research stages. Different
research stages represent unique components in terms
of the research processes and we recognize that active
participation may vary across the length of a study.
Further, in the ISE Code of Ethics ‘Principle of Active
Participation’, community participation is stressed
within these distinct stages (2006,p6). We also com-
pared levels of participation based on who initiated
each study (i.e. outside researchers, mutual collabora-
tions between researchers and community, or com-
munity initiated). Practical guidelines outlined in the
ISE Code of Ethics recognize that ‘objectives, condi-
tions and mutually agreed terms should be totally
revealed and agreed to by all parties prior to the initia-
tion of research activities’(2006,p11). To test for evi-
dence whether proportions for each indicator of
responsible community engagement reported in stu-
dies varied by who initiated the studies we used
descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test of indepen-
dence with Holm’s correction. Due to limitations in
language fluency and time, we acknowledge some
potential underestimation in values for relevant case
studies published in languages other than English and
for grassroots-driven climate studies occurring yet not
represented in any publications.
3. Findings and discussion
3.1. Patterns across space
On a global scale we find that the vast majority of
climate studies (87%)practice an extractive model in
which researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems
with minimal participation or decision-making
authority from communities who hold them (figure 4).
Several geographic clusters denote where Indigenous
knowledge systems have most often been accessed for
climate research, with the most prominent groupings
in the North American Arctic, Sub-Saharan East Africa
and the Tibetan Plateau.
Average levels of participation vary considerably
between these three geographic regions, with the high-
est levels of Indigenous community participation con-
centrated in northern Canada and Alaska. In their
study on community-level climate vulnerability
assessments McDowell et al (2016)also note a higher
than average concentration in participatory approa-
ches in the North American Arctic, including stake-
holder consultation in developing research objectives
and Indigenous evaluation of quality of results.
Although the limited scope of our study did not
explore drivers for these geographic patterns in detail,
we note that these similarities invite further research
into why these regional variations in Indigenous com-
munity participation occur. Many different factors
may influence the variation in geographical distribu-
tion, including differences in research policies across
countries regarding engagement and documentation
of involvement with Indigenous communities. For
example, in response to non-Indigenous research
priorities and over-researched communities, Cana-
dian First Nations standardized new ethical guidelines
on data ownership, data sharing and self-determina-
tion (Schnarch 2004). Further, within the US Arctic,
principles regarding ethical responsibilities towards
Indigenous communities guide some federally-funded
research initiatives (National Science Founda-
tion 1990). Observing global distribution of field
Figure 4. Patterns across space: global distribution of field sites classified by levels of Indigenous community participation.
8
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

studies also reveals extensive geographic gaps repre-
senting areas where Indigenous knowledge systems
and communities may not yet be included in climate
research. These include areas, such as low-lying
islands, drought and flood-prone regions, and coastal
regions where changes in hydrological, marine, terres-
trial and food systems attributed to climate impacts
continue to raise increasing concern (Field and
Barros 2014).
3.2. Patterns across disciplines
Climate research studies inherently span a broad reach
of disciplines and approaches. We found that within
climate research that engages Indigenous knowledge
systems, patterns in authorship reflect an ongoing shift
in scientific knowledge production from intradisci-
plinary approaches (drawing from a single field of
theory and methods), towards application-oriented
research achieved through interdisciplinary (integra-
tion of theory and methods from two or more
disciplines), multidisciplinary (collaborations between
people working within different disciplines), and
transdisciplinary (reaching beyond disciplines to
include stakeholders and practitioners)methods
(figure 5).
The highest proportions of climate studies enga-
ging Indigenous knowledge systems include studies
authored by interdisciplinary (18%), multidisciplinary
natural and social sciences (25%), and transdisci-
plinary researchers (50%). We observed the highest
levels of engagement (collaborative and collegial)in
studies authored by teams that include Indigenous sci-
entists and community members and/or local practi-
tioners. Studies that included only non-Indigenous
practitioners and non-Indigenous authors from
multiple disciplines remain heavily weighted towards
contractual participation. Analysis of distributions of
disciplines within these climate studies demonstrate
an ongoing shift beyond only traditional scientific dis-
ciplines, towards the inclusion of application-oriented
and integrated disciplinary approaches that address
usability and social relevance of knowledge (Van den
Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001). We consider these
findings in parallel with ongoing emphases in global
environmental change research for collaborative
and transdisciplinary research—harnessing strengths
from natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and
community knowledge alike, to address complex chal-
lenges (Mauser et al 2013, Palsson et al 2013, Belmont
Forum 2016).
3.3. Patterns across time
We also sought to understand variations in levels of
Indigenous community participation across different
stages in the research process. Among studies report-
ing methods in the design, implementation, and
analysis phases of research, we find that a substantial
number of studies (39% in design, 48% in implemen-
tation, 56% in analysis)practice no or contractual
(employment-related)levels of Indigenous commu-
nity participation (figure 6).
Participation in all stages of research varied con-
siderably depending on who initiated the project.
Research initiated with (n=21)or by (n=10)Indi-
genous communities had higher levels of engagement
and inclusion throughout all stages of the research
process (figure 7). However, studies initiated in
mutual collaboration between outside researchers and
community members vary more widely in levels of
Figure 5. Patterns across disciplines: variation in levels of participation by discipline(s)of study author(s).‘Interdisciplinary’signifies
an author/authors from one interdisciplinary field, while ‘multidisciplinary’signifies multiple-authored studies applying more than
one discipline, and ‘transdisciplinary’signifies inclusion of community practitioners/stakeholders.
*
Outliers represented two
Indigenous scientists from the community working within these disciplines.
9
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

participation, especially in the analysis phase of the
research.
By contrast, studies initiated solely by outside
researchers (n=89)tend to maintain lower levels of
participation across all stages of the research process.
The greatest variation in participation levels across
study groups occurred in the analysis stage. These
results may speak to needs and challenges identified
in similar studies on community engagement in
research, including local employment and training
(Fisher and Ball 2003, Pearce et al 2009), and adapting
research for analyses that can draw on more diverse
knowledge systems by allowing for knowledge co-pro-
duction (Harvey et al 2017). Likewise, increasing levels
of participation across various stages of research
may call for additional capacity building among
researchers towards understanding rights, risks, cul-
tural protocols and methods for respectful inclusion of
diverse ways of knowing in climate research (Cochran
et al 2013, CTKW 2014). Overall, many studies that
verbally referenced community inclusion and engage-
ment (e.g. ‘participatory research’), lacked evidence to
demonstrate community engagement beyond con-
tractual tasks. This parallels McDowell et al (2016)and
Pearce et al’s(2009)observations that although local
knowledges are recognized for their importance in cli-
mate research, participatory design remains lacking in
applied practice. This observation also reflects chal-
lenges with how the idea of participation is applied in
research. While terminology such as ‘community-
based’and ‘participatory’are used in a variety of ways,
they may not be consistently applied in practice.
Figure 6. Patterns across time: variation in levels of participation by research stage, including design (n=92),implementation
(n=124), analysis (n=106). Crossbar indicates mean.
Figure 7. Patterns across time: Variation in levels of participation by research stage (n=120; 5 studies coded ‘other’or ‘not reported’
for project initiator excluded). Portion above dotted line represents decision-making authority held with community knowledge
holders.
10
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

3.4. Patterns in responsible community engagement
The majority of studies did not report the presence of 5
of the 6 indicators of responsible community engage-
ment (figure 8). The lone exception was with credit for
community contributions in the form of an acknowl-
edgement. However, although most studies included a
formal acknowledgement for Indigenous knowledge
contributions to field studies, less than a quarter of all
studies included co-authorship for Indigenous knowl-
edge contributors.
Engaging Indigenous community members from
the beginning of the research process does not neces-
sarily guarantee sustained responsible research
engagement throughout the length of the research,
however we found statistically significant differences
in all six indicators for responsible community
engagement depending upon who conducted climate
studies (pvalues: Initiated by versus Access 3.30549e-
11; Initiated by versus Relevance 6.457925e-10; Initi-
ated by versus Credit 2.186311e-11; Initiated by versus
Ethics/FPIC 0.005697953; Initiated by versus Cause
No Harm 1.194242e-07; Initiated by versus Outputs/
Outcomes 1.405891e-06).
Overall, studies that engaged Indigenous commu-
nity members from the beginning of the research pro-
cess (those initiated by community members or in
mutual agreement between outside researchers and
community members)consistently reported higher
proportions of indicators for responsible community
engagement (figure 9). Some of these indicators (i.e.
ethics/FPIC,cause no harm)represent foundational
research principals recommended in ethical research
conduct with all human communities. Other quality
indicators (i.e. accessibility,relevance,credit,outputs/
outcomes)also speak to best practices in community-
based and participatory research practices.
Just under 15% of studies initiated by outside
researchers reported community access to research
findings, compared to 80%–90% for those that inclu-
ded Indigenous community members from the initial
stages of the research process. Similarly, 18% of stu-
dies initiated by outside researchers, 81% of studies
initiated in mutual agreement between outside
researchers and community members, and 90% of
community-initiated studies reported findings within
the context of concerns, issues or interests relevant to
Indigenous community members.
Although all the studies in our analyses accessed
and included Indigenous knowledge systems in the
research, 22 of the 24 studies that attributed co-
authorship to Indigenous knowledge holders or tribal
communities were initiated in mutual agreement with
or by Indigenous community members from the out-
set. When considering Indigenous knowledges in
climate research studies we must also consider intel-
lectual property rights and potential problematic risks
to communities. Findings from this study infer that for
most climate studies (n=101, 81%), researchers
from outside the community will inevitably be cited in
connection with Indigenous knowledge reported in
the research findings. As Williams and Hardison
(2013)point out, few social or political governing
principles exist in practice regarding obligations
towards Indigenous knowledge holders for outside
researchers who share Indigenous knowledge with
third parties and secondary users.
Among climate studies initiated by outside
researchers alone, 27% report any indication of
including ethical guidelines in the research process,
including free, prior, and informed consent, and only
7% report any indication regarding intellectual prop-
erty rights and risks for participating communities.
Figure 8. Patterns in quality: variation in proportions of indicators for responsible research engagement in reported data from climate
studies.
*
denotes statistically significant difference in results for indicator according to who conducted research.
11
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

However, substantially more studies that include Indi-
genous community members from the beginning of
the research process (52% mutually-initiated studies,
80% community-initiated)reported the use of ethical
protocols and exercising the principle to cause no harm
(43% mutually-initiated studies, 90% community-
initiated).
Just under 16% of studies initiated by outside
researchers reported actual outputs or outcomes for
Indigenous communities in their studies. Alternately,
62% of mutually-initiated studies and 80% of studies
initiated by community members reported outputs or
outcomes relevant to the communities, including:
capacity building, climate adaptation plans, educa-
tional curriculum, maps, and digital media resources
for the study community.
We developed each of these indicators of respon-
sible engagement based on research standards identi-
fied within both Indigenous communities and
professional scientific forums. The fact that the major-
ity of studies do not report evidence of adhering to
these indicators of responsible engagement raises con-
cerns. When considering broader impacts such
as public understanding and support of scientific
research, these patterns identify areas in need of
improvement. These findings also represent an imbal-
anced exchange between outside academic researchers
and Indigenous knowledge holders. The large propor-
tion of studies reporting lack of community access to
findings, relevance, credit, ethical considerations, or
benefit to Indigenous communities indicate a defi-
ciency in long-term accountability and reciprocity
towards Indigenous knowledge holders. Most of the
studies assessed here demonstrate an extractive pro-
cess in their interaction with Indigenous communities
and their knowledge systems.
Several pathways should be explored to encourage
more responsible research engagement in the future.
For one, publication journals and funding agencies
could hold an important role in improving research
standards by requiring reporting on these indicators.
For example, AlterNative: An International Journal of
Indigenous Peoples, founded by New Zealand’sMāori
Centre of Research Excellence, requires that authors
have approval from Indigenous knowledge holders
through research agreements, approval from ethics
committees, and that they ‘design a study with partici-
patory research and give the community and indivi-
dual participants say in the anonymity and use of data’
(NgāPae o te Māramatanga 2016). Additionally, the
Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup
Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges
(TKs)in Climate Change Initiatives document calls to,
‘develop guidelines for review of grant proposals that
recognize the value of TKs, while ensuring protections
for TKs, indigenous peoples, and holders of TKs’
(2014,pp21–2).
Increasing access for involvement of Indigenous
communities in research should also be supported.
Mauro and Hardison (2000)call for scientific institu-
tions and societies to support Indigenous community
rights and development in managing their own data.
In their study on traditional knowledge and science,
Fernandez-Gimenez et al found that studies doc-
umenting traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)
were ‘less useful for the integration and application of
knowledge than direct involvement by TEK holders
(in this case hunters)in research and management’
(2006, p 313). Agrawal (1995)also underscores the
need to remain intent on who knowledge is useful for.
Several studies included in our assessment claimed a
need to extract and catalogue Indigenous knowledges
due to the risk of the host cultures dying out. However,
Agrawal warns against some of the risks in ex situ con-
servation of Indigenous knowledges, looking to in situ
preservation as a new direction in research. This form
Figure 9. Patterns in quality: Variation in proportions of indicators for responsible research engagement present in reported data from
climate studies grouped by who initiated studies: O, outside researchers (n=89); M, mutual agreement between outside researchers
and community members (n=21); and C, Indigenous community members (n=10).
12
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

of preservation, he states, requires that Indigenous
communities ‘possess the right to decide on how to
save their knowledge, how to use it, and who shall use
it’(1995, p 432). Likewise, Tang and Gavin (2016)
emphasize community-based initiatives and commu-
nity engagement as a primary factor in preventing fur-
ther loss and degradation of traditional ecological
knowledge in Indigenous communities. Indigenous
scholars such as Whyte (2018), further deepen this dis-
cussion by looking beyond the commonly referenced
‘supplemental-value’(value as added input to supple-
ment gaps in scientific data)of Indigenous knowledge
systems in climate research, to further understanding
and supporting ‘governance-value’(value for sustain-
able planning initiatives and well-being in Indigenous
communities), embedded within these knowledge sys-
tems. Future direction in this work will also continue
to be shaped through the rapidly emerging fields of
Indigenous data sovereignty and data governance, as
led by Indigenous scholars and researchers around the
world, which centre the inherent pre-colonial rights of
Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, steward-
ship and dissemination of data regarding their com-
munities (e.g. Kukutai and Taylor 2016, Rainie et al
2017, Robertson 2018).
We also encourage further research assessing levels
of engagement of underrepresented populations
within Indigenous communities, such as marginalized
genders, ethnic, and socio-economic groups. For
example, not all Indigenous community members
may have an interest in or access to higher levels of
engagement in research studies and participating in
various aspects of the research may place dispropor-
tionate burden on community members, especially in
the case of marginalized populations. Areas in the Arc-
tic heavily researched for climate impacts also note
concerns with research fatigue and consultation fati-
gue due to tokenizing or non-reciprocal interactions
with community members (Ford et al 2016b). United
Nations’best practices for use of Indigenous knowl-
edges in climate adaptation emphasizes the need for
further understanding regarding ‘not only how differ-
ent social groups are affected but also how different
groups can bring vital resources to the adaptation pro-
cess’(2013,p5).
4. Conclusion and recommendations
Our primary goal was to develop an analytical frame-
work to assess how Indigenous knowledge systems are
being accessed and identify how current standards in
climate research practice are addressing calls for
increased inclusion and engagement of diverse knowl-
edge holders. In addition to observing temporal
variation in patterns of engagement across studies, we
also identified geospatial patterns, patterns in disci-
plines, and patterns in reported ethical practices and
outcomes. By necessity our review could only examine
details that researchers explicitly reported. However,
researchers may have not have reported all the
procedures they implemented. We encourage future
research projects to recognize the importance of
community engagement and to embrace transparency
in all methods used across the research process.
Similarly, we would suggest that academic journals
require more rigorous reporting of research methods
and the level of engagement with local communities.
Among the handful of studies in this global review
demonstrating quality practices regarding responsible
Indigenous community engagement (see references
highlighted in supplementary data file is available
online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/13/123005/mmedia),
we observed numerous opportunities that could serve
as recommendations for removing barriers between
researchers and Indigenous community members and
increasing scientific engagement. For example, most
high standard studies we observed used some form of
on-site community workshops for opening pathways
for science communication and discussions with
community members (e.g. Nichols et al 2004, Magga
et al 2009, Douglas et al 2014). These forums also
provided a way to develop research topics and define
priorities that could prove useful to local knowledge
users and policymakers (e.g. Ford et al 2007, Doyle et al
2013). Another method we observed at high rates
among quality studies was community review of data
prior to publication as a means of providing what
Kendrick and Manseau refer to as ‘culturally appro-
priate peer review processes’(2008, p 415)(e.g. Lyver
et al 2009, Sanderson et al 2015). Additional recom-
mendations for increasing science communication
and community engagement that we draw from this
sample of high standard studies include: locally
produced and disseminated findings (booklets, videos,
maps, curriculum, posters, etc)(e.g. Kofinas and
Communities of Aklavik, Arctic Village, Old Crow, &
Fort McPherson 2010, Crate and Fedorov 2013,
Turpin et al 2013); opportunities to train and employ
community researchers (e.g. Tremblay et al 2008,
Lemelin et al 2010); youth engagement (e.g. Flint et al
2011, Gill et al 2014); prioritizing Indigenous language
to frame scientific concepts (e.g. Krupnik 2010);
creative and participatory use of multimedia tools
(photography, videography, local illustrators, etc)(e.g.
Peace and Myers 2012); participatory mapping (e.g.
Leon et al 2015); opportunities for cultural exchange
and experiential trips out on the land (e.g. Gearheard
et al 2006); deferring to community advisory groups or
tribal councils for guidance (e.g. Voorhees et al 2014);
compensating participants (e.g. Thorpe et al 2010);
developing research agreements (e.g. memorandum of
understanding, see Cummins et al 2010); and use of
qualitative methods (focus groups, informal and semi-
structured interviews, ethnographic approaches,
transect walks etc)(e.g. Pearce et al 2010, Gadamus
et al 2015).
13
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

When viewed as a whole, our findings provide an
evidence-base for identifying areas for improved stan-
dards in quality research practice. These findings
reveal the variety of ways in which the scientific com-
munity is engaging Indigenous knowledge systems
and communities who hold them in climate research,
from extractive to action-oriented research. For the
scientific community to value Indigenous knowledge
systems, we understand the necessity to also respect
the needs and values of the societies who hold these
knowledge systems and the need for appropriate stan-
dards of responsible engagement within our research
processes. Our current challenge is to develop norma-
tive standards of scientific research practice that sup-
port Indigenous communities in their ongoing efforts
to maintain and practice these knowledge systems.
Shifting research standards and practice will likely
come with challenges such as adapting funding and
timelines for cultural sensitivity and research reflex-
ivity. However, the value that Indigenous knowledge
systems hold for understanding and adapting our
human communities to changes in our natural
environment far outweigh the costs of meeting these
challenges.
Based on these findings, we call for action on the
part of funding and research agencies, publication
outlets, and institutional review boards to identify how
they address responsible research concerns, such as
those identified in the analytical framework presented
here, in current standards for scientific research pro-
posals and protocols. We offer ten guiding questions
for researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, and
policy makers to further reflect on how research prac-
tices address these standards for responsible research
practice with Indigenous communities in every stage
of the process (box 1). These guiding questions also
hold application for local, non-Indigenous commu-
nities. Through the efforts of this publication and glo-
bal assessment, it is our hope that this evidence-base
serves as a reminder and practical guide for cultivating
balanced respectful exchanges of knowledge centuries
overdue within our scientific community. We also
honour and recognize the value of the few shining
examples highlighted in supplementary data that exist
for responsible research with Indigenous commu-
nities as we strive to enhance ethical and intellectual
standards for future research practice.
Credit and Acknowledgments
David-Chavez maintained primary responsibility for
conceptual development, research design, data collec-
tion, data analyses and data interpretation. M C Gavin
contributed with research design, development of
analytical framework, and data interpretation. We
express our gratitude to additional members of the
expert-practitioner panel who reviewed and guided
the research protocol for this review including:
Dr Meena Balgopal, Dr Gregory Cajete, Dr Maria
Fernandez-Gimenez, Dr Kathleen Galvin, Lisa Lone
Fight, Dr Shannon McNeeley, Dr Kyle Powys Whyte,
and Dr Shelly Valdez. Also, thanks to Richard E W Berl
for assisting with the inter-rater testing and R pro-
gramming wizardry. This material is based upon work
supported by the National Science Foundation Grad-
uate Research Fellowship (grant no. DGE-1321845),
and the Center for Collaborative Conservation
Fellowship.
ORCID iDs
Dominique M David-Chavez https://orcid.org/
0000-0001-5393-4331
References
Adger W N, Pulhin J M, Barnett J, Dabelko G D, Hovelsrud G K,
Levy M, Oswald Spring U and Vogel C H 2014 Human
Security Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Box 1. Questions for guiding responsible research practice with
Indigenous communities (also may be applicable to local, non-
Indigenous communities). Adapted primarily from the UN
declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the climate and
traditional knowledges workgroup guidelines for considering
traditional knowledge in climate change initiatives, and the
International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics.
10 Questions for guiding responsible research practice with Indi-
genous communities
Are Indigenous community members included in the decision to
initiate the study?
To what level do Indigenous community members have authority in
the research design (see scale for levels: None or Contractual
(employment-related), Consultative, Collaborative, Collegial,
Indigenous)?
To what level do Indigenous community members have authority
regarding the implementation of the research?
To what level do Indigenous community members have authority
regarding the analysis of the research?
Are findings accessible to Indigenous community members?
Are findings reported in the context of concerns, issues or interests
defined by Indigenous community members?
How were Indigenous community members credited for their
knowledge contributions and efforts (i.e. acknowledgement, co-
authorship)?
Did the study report ethical guidelines followed, such as Free Prior
and Informed Consent?
Did the study address intellectual property rights or risks for Indi-
genous communities?
Did the study report any outputs or outcomes for the Indigenous
community?
14
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Agrawal A 1995 Dismantling the divide between indigenous and
scientific knowledge Dev. Change 26 413–39
Anaya S J 2004 International human rights and indigenous peoples:
the move toward the multicultural state Ariz. J. Int. Comp. L.
21 13
Arnstein S R 1969 A ladder of citizen participation J. Am. Inst. Plann.
35 216–24
Bazeley P 2013 Qualitative data analysis: Practical Strategies
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage)
Belmont Forum 2016 The Belmont challenge: a global, environmental
research mission for sustainability
Berkes F 2008 Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Resource Management (New York: Routledge)
Berkes F 2009 Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of
environmental change J. R. Soc. N.Z. 39 151–6
Biggs S D 1989 Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A
Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural
Research Systems (The Hague: International Service for
National Agricultural Research)
Burkett M 2013 Indigenous environmental knowledge and climate
change adaptation Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples:
The Search for Legal Remedies ed R Abate and E Kronk
(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited)
Cajete G 2000 Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence (Sante
Fe, NM: Clear Light Pub)
Chilisa B 2012 Indigenous Research Methodologies (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage)
CIDA 2002 Handbook of CIDA Project Planning and Indigenous
Traditional Knowledge (Canadian International Development
Agency)
Cochran P, Huntington O H, Pungowiyi C, Tom S, Chapin F S,
Huntington H P, Maynard N G and Trainor S F 2013
Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to
climate change in Alaska Clim. Change 120 557–67
Cochran P A, Marshall C A, Garcia-Downing C, Kendall E, Cook D,
McCubbin L and Gover R M S 2008 Indigenous ways of
knowing: implications for participatory research and
community Am. J. Public Health 98 22
Cohen J 1968 Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement
provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit Psychol.
Bull. 70 213
Commission on Human Rights Subcommission of Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Working Group
on Indigenous Populations 1993 The Mataatua declaration
on cultural and intellectual property rights of Indigenous
peoples 1st Int. Conf. on the Cultural & Intellectual Property
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Aotearoa, New Zealand)
Conn V S, Valentine J C, Cooper H M and Rantz M J 2003 Grey
literature in meta-analyses Nurs. Res. 52 256–61
Convention on Biological Diversity 2011 Tkarihwaié:ri Code of
Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and
Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities
Relevant to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological
Diversity (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity)
Cornwall A and Jewkes R 1995 What is participatory research? Soc.
Sci. Med. 41 1667–76
Crate S A and Fedorov A N 2013 A methodological model for
exchanging local and scientific climate change knowledge in
northeastern Siberia Arctic 338–50
CTKW 2014 Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in
Climate Change Initiatives (Climate and Traditional
Knowledges Workgroup)
Cummins C et al 2010 Community-based participatory research in
indian country: improving health through water quality
research and awareness Fam. Community Health 33 166–74
Douglas V, Chan H M, Wesche S, Dickson C, Kassi N, Netro L and
Williams M 2014 Reconciling traditional knowledge, food
security, and climate change: experience from old Crow, YT,
Canada Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action
821–7
Doyle J T, Redsteer M H and Eggers M J 2013 Exploring effects of
climate change on Northern Plains American Indian health
Clim. Change 120 643–55
Estrada V M J 2005 The Tree of Life as a Research Methodology
Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 34 44–52
Fernandez-Gimenez M E, Huntington H P and Frost K J 2006
Integration or co-optation?Traditional knowledge and
science in the Alaska Beluga whale committee Environ.
Conserv. 33 306
Field C B, Barros V R and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2014 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (New York: Cambridge University Press)
Fisher P A and Ball T J 2003 Tribal participatory research:
mechanisms of a collaborative model Am. J. Community
Psychol. 32 207–16
Flint C G, Robinson E S, Kellogg J, Ferguson G, BouFajreldin L,
Dolan M, Raskin I and Lila M A 2011 Promoting wellness in
Alaskan villages: integrating traditional knowledge and
science of wild berries Ecohealth 8199–209
Ford J, Pearce T, Smit B, Wandel J, Allurut M, Shappa K,
Ittusujurat H and Qrunnut K 2007 Reducing vulnerability to
climate change in the Arctic: the case of Nunavut, Canada
Arctic 60 150–66
Ford J D, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D,
Willox A C and Pearce T 2016a Including indigenous
knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports Nat.
Clim. Change 6349–53
Ford J D et al 2016b Community-based adaptation research in the
Canadian Arctic: community-based adaptation research
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7175–91
Gadamus L, Raymond-Yakoubian J, Ashenfelter R, Ahmasuk A,
Metcalf V and Noongwook G 2015 Building an indigenous
evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies
Mar. Policy 62 116–24
Gearheard S, Matumeak W, Angutikjuaq I, Maslanik J,
Huntington H P, Leavitt J, Kagak D M, Tigullaraq G and
Barry R G 2006 It’s not that simple’: a collaborative
comparison of sea ice environments, their uses, observed
changes, and adaptations in barrow, Alaska, USA, and Clyde
River, Nunavut, Canada AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 35 203–11
Gill H, Lantz T and the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute 2014
A community-based approach to mapping Gwich’in
observations of environmental changes in the lower Peel river
watershed, NT J. Ethnobiol. 34 294–314
Grant M J and Booth A 2009 A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14
review types and associated methodologies: a typology of
reviews Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth Health Inf. Libr. J. 26
91–108
Harvey B, Cochrane L, Van Epp M, Cranston P and Pirani P A 2017
Designing knowledge coproduction for climate and
development CARIAA Working Paper no: 21 International
Development Research Centre (Ottawa, Canada and UK Aid,
London, United Kingdom)
International Council for Science 2002 Science and traditional
knowledge: Report from the ICSU study group on science
and traditional knowledge (International Council for
Science)
ISE 2006 ISE Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). (International
Society of Ethnobiology)
Israel B A, Schulz A J, Parker E A and Becker A B 1998 Review of
community-based research: assessing partnership
approaches to improve public health Annu. Rev. Public
Health 19 173–202
Johnson N L, Lilja N and Ashby J A 2003 Measuring the impact of
user participation in agricultural and natural resource
management research Agric. Syst. 78 287–306
Kendrick A and Manseau M 2008 Representing traditional
knowledge: resource management and inuit knowledge of
barren-ground caribou Soc. Nat. Resour. 21 404–18
15
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

Kindon S, Pain R and Kesby M 2007 Participatory action Research:
Approaches and Methods (New York: Routledge)
Kofinas G and Communities of Aklavik, Arctic Village, Old Crow, &
Fort McPherson 2010 Community contributions to
ecological monitoring: knowledge co-production in the US-
Canada Arctic borderlands The Earth is Faster Now:
Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change
(Fairbanks, AK: Arctic Research Consortium of the United
States)pp 54–91
Kovach M 2010 Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics,
Conversations, and Contexts (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press)
Krupnik I 2010 Watching ice and weather our way: some lessons
from Yupik observations of sea ice and weather on St.
Lawrence Island, Alaska The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous
Observations of Arctic Environmental Change (Fairbanks,
AK: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States)
pp 156–99
Kukutai T and Taylor J 2016 Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an
Agenda (Australia: ANU Press)
LaFrance J and Nichols R 2009 Indigenous Evaluation Framework:
Telling our Story in our Place and Time (Alexandria, VA:
American Indian Higher Education Consortium)
LaVeaux D and Christopher S 2009 Contextualizing CBPR: key
principles of CBPR meet the indigenous research context
Pimatisiwin J. Aborig. Indig. Community Health 71–25
Lemelin H, Matthews D, Mattina C, McIntyre N, Johnston M,
Koster R and Weenusk First Nation at Peawanuck 2010
Climate change, wellbeing and resilience in the Weenusk first
nation at Peawanuck: the moccasin telegraph goes global
Rural Remote Health 10 1333
Leon J X, Hardcastle J, James R, Albert S, Kereseka J and
Woodroffe C D 2015 Supporting local and traditional
knowledge with science for adaptation to climate change:
lessons learned from participatory three-dimensional
modeling in boeboe, solomon islands Coast. Manag. 43
424–38
Lilja N and Ashby J 1999 Types of Participatory Research Based on
Locus of Decision Making (Columbia: Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research)
Lyver P O, Jones C J and Doherty J 2009 Flavor or forethought:
Tuhoe traditional management strategies for the
conservation of kereru (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae
novaeseelandiae)in New Zealand Ecol. Soc. 14 40
Magga O H, Mathiesen S D, Corell R W and Oskal A 2009 Reindeer
Herding, Traditional Knowledge, Adaptation to Climate
Change and Loss of Grazing Land (Alta, NO: EALÁT Project)
Maldonado J, Bennett T M B, Chief K, Cochran P, Cozzetto K,
Gough B, Redsteer M H, Lynn K, Maynard N and
Voggesser G 2015 Engagement with indigenous peoples and
honoring traditional knowledge systems ed K Jacobs,
S Moser and J Buizer Clim. Change 135 111–26
Mauro F and Hardison P D 2000 Traditional knowledge of
indigenous and local communities: international debate and
policy initiatives Ecol. Appl. 10 1263–9
Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer B S, Hackmann H,
Leemans R and Moore H 2013 Transdisciplinary global
change research: the co-creation of knowledge for
sustainability Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5420–31
Maynard N G 2014 Native peoples-Native homelands climate change
workshop II—final report: An Indigenous response to climate
change. (Minnesota)
McDowell G, Ford J and Jones J 2016 Community-level climate
change vulnerability research: trends, progress, and future
directions Environ. Res. Lett. 11 033001
McGregor D, Bayha W and Simmons D 2010 Our responsibility to
keep the land alive’: voices of northern Indigenous
researchers Pimatisiwin J. Aborig. Indig. Community Health 8
101–23
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D G and The PRISMA
Group 2009 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement Ann. Intern. Med.
151 264–9
Munroe R et al 2012 Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-
based approaches for adaptation to climate change Environ.
Evid. 113
Nakashima D and Roué M 2002 Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and
Sustainable Practice (Encyclopedia of Global Environmental
Change)vol 5 (New York: Wiley)314–24
Nakashima D J, McLean K G, Thulstrup H D, Castillo A R and
Rubis J T 2012 Weathering uncertainty: traditional knowledge
for climate change assessment and adaptation (UNESCO Paris)
National Science Foundation 1990 Principles for the Conduct of
Research in the Arctic
NgāPae o te Māramatanga 2016 Publication Ethics and Malpractice
Statement (AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous
Peoples)
Nichols T, Berkes F, Jolly D and Snow N B 2004 Climate change and
sea ice: local observations from the Canadian Western Arctic
Arctic 68–79
Palsson G et al 2013 Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’in the
anthropocene: integrating the social sciences and humanities
in global environmental change research Environ. Sci. Policy
28 3–13
Peace D M and Myers E 2012 Community-based participatory
process–climate change and health adaptation program for
Northern First Nations and Inuit in Canada Int. J.
Circumpolar Health 71 18412
Pearce T, Smit B, Duerden F, Ford J D, Goose A and Kataoyak F
2010 Inuit vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate
change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada Polar
Rec. 46 157–77
Pearce T D et al 2009 Community collaboration and climate change
research in the Canadian Arctic Polar Res. 28 10–27
Piquemal N 2001 Free and informed consent in research involving
native American communities Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 25
65–79
Pullin A S and Stewart G B 2006 Guidelines for systematic review in
conservation and environmental management Conserv. Biol.
20 1647–56
Rainie S C, Rodriguez-Lonebear D and Martinez A 2017 Policy Brief:
Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the United States (Tucson:
Native Nations Institute)
Raymond C M, Fazey I, Reed M S, Stringer L C, Robinson G M and
Evely A C 2010 Integrating local and scientific knowledge for
environmental management J. Environ. Manage. 91 1766–77
Reed M S 2008 Stakeholder participation for environmental
management: a literature review Biol. Conserv. 141 2417–31
Robertson J C 2018 The impact of data sovereignty on American
Indian self-determination: a framework proof of concept
using data science Doctoral Dissertation South Dakota State
University
Rodriguez-Izquierdo E, Gavin M C and Macedo-Bravo M O 2010
Barriers and triggers to community participation across
different stages of conservation management Environ.
Conserv. 37 239–49
Sanderson D, Picketts I M, Déry S J, Fell B, Baker S,
Lee-Johnson E and Auger M 2015 Climate change and water
at Stellat’en first nation, british columbia, canada: insights
from western science and traditional knowledge: climate
change and water at stellat’en first nation Can. Geogr.
Géographe Can. 59 136–50
Schnarch B 2004 Ownership, control, access, and possession
(OCAP)or self-determination applied to research: A critical
analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some
options for First Nations communities J. Aborig. Health 1
80–95
Shirk J L et al 2012 Public participation in scientific research: a
framework for deliberate design Ecol. Soc. 17 29
Sims J and Kuhnlein H V 2003 Indigenous peoples and Participatory
Health Research: Planning and Management/Preparing
Research Agreements (Geneva: World Health Organization
Centre for Indigenous Peoples’Nutrition and Environment)
Smith H A and Sharp K 2012 Indigenous climate knowledges:
indigenous climate knowledges Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change 3467–76
16
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin

Smith L T 2012 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples (London: Zed Books)
Smith L T 2015 Kaupapa māori research: some kaupapa māori
principles Kaupapa Rangahau: A Reader—A collection of
readings from the Kapapa Rangahau Workshop Series
(Hamilton: Te Kotahi Research Institute)
Stemler S 2001 An overview of content analysis Pract. Assess. Res.
Eval. 717
Tang R and Gavin M 2016 A classification of threats to traditional
ecological knowledge and conservation responses Conserv.
Soc. 14 57
Thaman R, Lyver P, Mpande R, Perez E, Cariño J and Takeuchi K
2013 The contribution of Indigenous and local knowledge
systems to IPBES: building synergies with science IPBES
Expert Meeting Report (Paris: UNESCO/UNU)
Thorpe N, Eyegetok S, Hakongak N and Elders K 2010 Nowadays it
is not the same: Inuit Quajimajatuqangit, climate and caribou
in the Kitikmeot Region of Nunavut, Canada The Earth is
Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental
Change (Fairbanks, AK: Arctic Research Consortium of the
United States)pp 200–39
Tremblay M, Furgal C, Larrivée C, Annanack T, Tookalook P,
Qiisik M, Angiyou E, Swappie N, Savard J-P and Barrett M
2008 Climate change in northern Quebec: adaptation
strategies from community-based research Arctic 61 27–34
Turpin M, Ross A, Dobson V and Turner M K 2013 The spotted
nightjar calls when dingo pups are born: ecological and social
indicators in central Australia J. Ethnobiol. 33 7–32
United Nations 2009 State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples vol 9
(New York: United Nations)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2013
Best practices and available tools for the use of indigenous
and traditional knowledge and practices for adaptation, and
the application of gender-sensitive approaches and tools for
understanding and assessing impacts, vulnerability and
adaptation to climate change (United Nations)
United Nations General Assembly 2007 United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General
Assembly)
Van den Besselaar P and Heimeriks G 2001 Disciplinary,
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators
8th Int. Conf. of the Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics
(Sydney, Australia) pp 705–16
Voorhees H, Sparks R, Huntington H P and Rode K D 2014
Traditional knowledge about polar bears (ursus maritimus)
in northwestern Alaska ARCTIC 67 523
Weber-Pillwax C 1999 Indigenous research methodology:
exploratory discussion of an elusive subject J. Educ. Thought
JET Rev. PenséeÉducative 33 31–45
Whyte K 2017 Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing
futures, decolonizing the anthropocene Engl. Lang. Notes 55
153–62
Whyte K 2018 What do indigenous knowledges do for indigenous
peoples Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from
Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability ed
M Nelson and D Shilling (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
Williams T and Hardison P 2013 Culture, law, risk and governance:
contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change
adaptation Clim. Change 120 531–44
Wilson S 2001 What is an indigenous research methodology? Can. J.
Native Educ. 25 175–9
Wilson S 2008 Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods
(Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishers)
17
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018)123005 D M David-Chavez and M C Gavin