Search for: All records

Abstract In this paper, we reflect on our collective experiences engaging with Anishinaabe Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to support Tribal sovereignty in decision‐making for food, energy, and water (FEW) systems. In these diverse experiences, we find common lessons. The first set of lessons contributes new empirical knowledge regarding the challenges and opportunities that rural Great Lakes Tribal Nations navigate for enacting sovereignty in decision‐making. Our experiences illustrate that while Tribal Nations benefit from a broad and deep commitment to sovereignty and many cultural strengths, they are often challenged by shortages in administrative capacity; technical support; and embeddedness in economic, socio‐cultural, and institutional dynamics that must be further negotiated for Tribes to enact the sovereignty to which they are inherently (and legally) entitled. Productive partnerships struggle when university partners fail to acknowledge these realities. The second set of lessons addresses the potential for, and challenges of, effective engagement processes. We find that engagement with university professionals is often mismatched with the priorities and needs of Tribal Nations. Effective engagement with Tribal Nations requires practical knowledge, applied assistance, and grounded, genuine relationships; these requirements often run counter to the institutional structures and priorities imposed by universities, federal funding agencies, and student recruitment. These findings, associated with both empirical knowledge and lessons on process, highlight shared insights on formidable barriers to effective engagement. Based on our firsthand experience working with rural Tribal Nations on FEW decision‐making, we share these reflections with particular focus on lessons learned for professionals who engage, or hope to engage, with Tribal Nations in rural settings and offer opportunities to transform engagement processes to better support the immediate, practical needs of rural Tribal Nations. 

The sovereignty of federally recognized Tribal Nations in the United States is codified in the US Constitution, federal law, and myriad treaty agreements, but the realities of sovereignty are complex. Federal law has obfuscated Tribal sovereignty, complicating and restricting Tribally owned or managed energy development on Tribal land. This paper discusses the divergence of Western and Indigenous concepts of sovereignty and analyzes federal Tribal law and policy and its implications for Tribal energy development, making two contributions. The first is to explore whether past federal laws and policies have supported or impeded the ability of Tribal Nations to develop energy projects and utilize energy resources on Tribals lands in the US. The second is to explore how the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) altered US federal energy policy in the context of Tribal energy sovereignty, assessing the impacts of US federal Tribal policy on Tribal sovereignty in terms of de recto (by right), de facto (in fact), or de jure (by law). This research reveals that the IRA encouraged de facto Tribal energy sovereignty, advancing Tribal self-determination by reducing dependence, increasing benefits, and empowering decision making for Tribal Nations in the US. 

In recent years, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has gained prominence in ecosystem science and governance, enhancing understanding of landscape conditions, systems dynamics, and ethical restoration practices. However, Indigenous community engagement in science and practice remains limited. In this paper, we investigate TEK’s contribution to forest ecosystem research for resilient livelihoods, methods for bridging TEK with Western science, and share insights from Ojibwa perspectives on ecological restoration and wellbeing. A systematic review of TEK literature from 2001 to 2022 was conducted using Web of Science, with bibliometric analysis and narrative review using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. Our findings suggest that while TEK is prevalent in social-ecological resilience and climate change mitigation research, forest ecosystem restoration receives less attention. Most literature considers Indigenous peoples as research participants rather than collaborative research partners. Differences in ontologies and sociological barriers between Indigenous peoples and government agencies may hinder TEK’s inclusion in restoration practices. Reflecting on the wild rice restoration efforts of Ojibwa in the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, we discuss timescale dimensions of research partnerships and restoration projects with Indigenous communities. Guided by Indigenous knowledge systems, we conclude that restoration activities have the potential to strengthen humanecosystem livelihoods in our shared landscapes and futures. 

This paper proposes two contributions to the literature on the social acceptance (SA) of energy systems and public perceptions of renewable energy (RE) transitions. The first contribution is methodological, recognizing more effective and inclusive forms of engagement begin with building reciprocal relationships and collaborative research partnerships operationalizing the tenets of energy justice. Employing these methodological recommendations, we conducted a collaborative, inclusive, and equitable research design and engagement practice by collaborating with Tribal members on research with expressly mutual benefits. In this work, a years-long collaboration of Tribal members and non-Tribal researchers developed a methodology to survey respondents at an accessible and culturally relevant community event to learn about preferences and perceived barriers to transitioning to RE. A second contribution is empirical. The results suggest shared priorities for energy solutions that enhance energy sovereignty, i.e., community control and ownership of energy services provisioning. They also demonstrate widespread awareness regarding barriers to a RE transition and simultaneously, some potential misperceptions about the challenges to transition. This study reinforces the need for SA research to move beyond asking what technologies receive public support and where those technologies should be sited to consider how access and transparency in planning processes, collaboration, engagement, development, ownership, and benefits are organized and can be radically reconfigured to enable the just transition to a decarbonized energy system. 

Abstract Scientific study of issues at the nexus of food–energy–water systems (FEWS) requires grappling with multifaceted, “wicked” problems. FEWS involve interactions occurring directly and indirectly across complex and overlapping spatial and temporal scales; they are also imbued with diverse and sometimes conflicting meanings for the human and more-than-human beings that live within them. In this paper, we consider the role of language in the dynamics of boundary work, recognizing that the language often used in stakeholder and community engagement intended to address FEWS science and decision-making constructs boundaries and limits diverse and inclusive participation. In contrast, some language systems provide opportunities to build bridges rather than boundaries in engagement. Based on our experiences with engagement in FEWS science and with Indigenous knowledges and languages, we consider examples of the role of language in reflecting worldviews, values, practices, and interactions in FEWS science and engagement. We particularly focus on Indigenous knowledges from Anishinaabe and the language of Anishinaabemowin, contrasting languages of boundaries and bridges through concrete examples. These examples are used to unpack the argument of this work, which is that scientific research aiming to engage FEWS issues in working landscapes requires grappling with embedded, practical understandings. This perspective demonstrates the importance of grappling with the role of language in creating boundaries or bridges, while recognizing that training in engagement may not critically reflect on the role of language in limiting diversity and inclusivity in engagement efforts. Leaving this reflexive consideration of language unexamined may unknowingly perpetuate boundaries rather than building bridges, thus limiting the effectiveness of engagement that is intended to address wicked problems in working landscapes. 

Scholars bridging the fields of science and technology studies (STS) and energy research in social sciences (ERSS) offer a rich and integrated conceptualization of how energy systems are imbued in social systems, including cultures, social structures, institutions, and social relations of power. Yet as fields of study, STS and ERSS are dominated by approaches to understanding nature, culture, and relationships among them with origins in western European Enlightenment thinking. In this article, we argue that the language of “imaginaries” provides an understanding of culturally organized normative commitments but may obscure attention to what are actually diverse and sometimes incommensurable yet legitimate plural ontologies. Tribal Nations, Indigenous communities, and other non-Western worldviews are not simply imagined; they offer different teachings regarding the relational and embedded realities governing relations among human and more-than-human beings across time and space. The field of STS has a rich history of exploring ontological controversies and provides insight into understanding diverse and competing perspectives in science and technology, yet without articulating the connection between this conceptual terrain and the lived realities of socio-technological system entrenchment or change. ERSS recognizes participation, energy system democratization, and even co-production as components of a just energy transition, while most typically thinking about participation as a methodology or research approach rather than as requiring consideration and even wholesale reconceptualization of ontological foundations. To advance convergent, transdisciplinary social science research in socio technological transitions requires grappling with plural ontologies regarding the reality of relations in the world. Here, we explore diverse ontologies shaping the realities of energy systems through the lens of Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region in the United States. Ontologies that recognize reciprocal relationships among human and more-than-human beings as well as the sovereignty of these beings and their collective kinships suggest fundamentally different priorities for energy systems transitions. Moving beyond the language of imagination to recognize that cultures can involve diverse and sometimes incommensurable pluralistic ontologies is essential for developing inclusive and just frameworks for socio-technological system transitions.