Recent studies hypothesize that the integration of indigenous and western scientific knowledge systems in decision-making processes can lead to more sustainable and just conservation outcomes. We use a comparative case study research design to analyse governance processes of two protected areas – Bears Ears National Monument (Utah) and a buffer zone around Chaco Culture National Historical Park (New Mexico) in the US – as critical cases in this regard. Both cases encompass an ecologically intact desert, thousands of archaeological sites left by the ancestors of Native American tribes, and abundant energy resources (oil, gas, uranium) resulting in long-lasting conflicts between resource extraction and cultural and environmental conservation. Bears Ears is co-managed by the federal government and a five-member commission consisting of five sovereign Native American tribes, whereas Chaco is solely managed by the federal government.
The research questions of our study are:
- Which conditions enable/disable the co-management of a protected area?
- Does (co-)management lead to high institutional fit?
We could identify four conditions, which enabled co-management in the Bears Ears case and no co-management in Chaco Canyon. Further, we found that Bears Ears has good ecological and cultural institutional fit, but low social institutional fit. Chaco Canyon has a good social and cultural institutional fit, but a low ecological institutional fit. We conclude that co-management between indigenous communities and the government is more likely if (i) indigenous communities have no internal conflicts, and (ii) there is a willingness to accept different knowledge systems. However, co-management does not necessarily lead to higher institutional fit, in particular to higher cultural institutional fit.
This study is conducted together with Tai Koester, University of Arizona, and will be published soon.
‘House on Fire’, Bears Ears National Monument, Utah, US (Photo: E. Kellner)