@article {843,
	title = {Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability},
	year = {1993},
	note = {<p>Later published as:</p><p>Berkes F., Folke C., Gadgil M. (1994) Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability. In: Perrings C.A., M{\"a}ler KG., Folke C., Holling C.S., Jansson BO. (eds) Biodiversity Conservation. Ecology, Economy \&amp; Environment, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1006-8_15</p>},
	month = {1993},
	institution = {Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics},
	address = {Stockholm, Sweden},
	abstract = {Traditional peoples who depended on their local ecosystems for their essential needs, have accumulated by trial-and-error a rich body of local environmental knowledge, and in several cases elaborated resource management systems, and developed institutions appropriate for implementing these systems. Biodiversity conservation appears to be integral to many traditional management systems from tropical forests to coastal fisheries. For example, some groups manipulate the local landscape to augment its heterogeneity, use conservation "rules of thumb" to help use species-rich communities sustainable, and intergrate the production of several multispecies systems. Thus, self-interest of traditional peoples has been key to biodiversity maintenance. As traditional peoples are integrated into the global economy and come under various pressures, they often lose their resource base, and in the long run, their knowledge systems, social institutions, and their world view which shapes their relations with the environment. The process of decoupling of traditional peoples from their resource base is likely to reduce the resilience of their social systems, as well as their local ecosystems through biodiversity loss. We make the argument in this chapter that the two are related, and the reduction of resilience will make both social and ecological systems more fragile. One challenge for biodiversity conservation is to learn from the knowledge-practice-belief complex of traditional peoples. But a perhaps more important challenge is to implement elements of it in "new TEK" systems which allow feedbacks from the environment, and respond to them in a more resilient way than do current day management practices. (author)},
	author = {Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke and Madhav Gadgil}
}
@conference {805,
	title = {Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective},
	booktitle = {Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases},
	year = {1993},
	month = {March 1993},
	pages = {1-10},
	publisher = {Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada},
	organization = {Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada},
	address = {International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge/IDRC},
	abstract = {This paper deals with the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). It outlines a definition of TEK and the spread of the idea. Included is a section on the similarities and differences between indigenous science and Western Science. Also included is a section on the practical applications/importance of TEK.},
	keywords = {ecology, indigenous knowledge},
	url = {https://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b10756577a.pdf},
	author = {Fikret Berkes},
	editor = {Julian T. Inglis}
}
@inbook {929,
	title = {Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective},
	year = {1992},
	note = {Draft introductory chapter for volume based on Common Property Conference, Winnipeg, September 1992},
	month = {September 1992},
	abstract = {This document discusses different facets of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK): background, definitions, comparisons to "western science," and the practical significance of TEK. An overview of the book that this is an introduction to is also given.},
	author = {Fikret Berkes}
}
@article {698,
	title = {The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later},
	journal = {Human Ecology},
	volume = {18},
	year = {1990},
	month = {March 1990},
	pages = {1-19},
	abstract = {Hardin{\textquoteright}s Tragedy of the Commons model predicts the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. Given this unambiguous prediction, a surprising number of cases exist in which users have been able to restrict access to the resource and establish rules among themselves for its sustainable use. To assess the evidence, we first define common-property resources and present a taxonomy of property-rights regimes in which such resources may be held. Evidence accumulated over the last twenty-two years indicates that private, state, andcommunal property are all potentially viable resource management options. A more complete theory than Hardin{\textquoteright}s should incorporate institutional arrangements and cultural factors to provide for better analysis and prediction. (author)},
	keywords = {co-management, common property, fisheries, forestry, grazing lands, sustainable development, water resources , wildlife },
	doi = {10.1007/BF00889070},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070},
	author = {David Feeny and Fikret Berkes and Bonnie J. McCay and James M. Acheson}
}
