Rooted in reciprocity: the fundamentals of Indigenous environmental stewardship

Scientific interest in Indigenous environmental management practices has increased globally, often claiming to recognize and uphold these systems.

However, critics question who ultimately benefits from the incorporation or assimilation of Indigenous knowledge and practices in mainstream scientific and regulatory frameworks.

Historically, efforts to integrate Indigenous and western knowledge systems have favoured certain forms of Indigenous knowledge while silencing others, particularly relational/spiritual relationships to land and long‑standing principles of reciprocity and respect. Governance structures, laws and oral traditions, central to many Indigenous land-based knowledge systems, are also frequently dismissed within western scientific frameworks.

Working with longtime ethnoecologists, Leslie Main Johnson and Nancy J. Turner, Gitxsan researcher Jennifer Zyp-Loring, and Nlaka’pamux researchers Jennifer Grenz and Jade LaFontaine, the team focused on the role of reciprocity as a driver and function in successful governance laws and environmental stewardship in Gitxsan and Nlaka’pamux contexts. This paper was one of the top 20 cited papers from SFU in 2025, according to Scopus’ field-weighted citation index.

The study draws on half a century of ethnoecological research, environmental data, and personal experiences to explore the misconceptions of integrating of Indigenous and western knowledge in environmental stewardship research, and the ethical, historical, and cultural challenges that come with it. This paper was also part of an international special issue for People and Nature, a publication of the British Ecological Society.      

We spoke to Professor Armstrong about her research

Tell us more about the concept of “reciprocity” as it relates to environmental stewardship.

Reciprocity is often considered a cultural phenomenon that doesn’t fit within the paradigm of western science, specifically ideas of resource management and conservation. Yet, for decades, ethnoecologists and Indigenous researchers have made clear that it is the fundamental element that underpins land tenure and acts to promote conservation in highly localized ways. We have to re-think what it means to be in reciprocal relation with lands and waters, not just as a moral construct, but as a legal responsibility.

For example, the tenets and foundations of reciprocity in environmental management are clearly expressed within Gitxsan legal governance structures, where decentralized social and economic units known as Huwilp (House groups) function to limit overharvesting and resource exploitation while incentivizing those who are able to maintain or enhance forests, fisheries, and other biota. Built into the governance model are laws (adawx) and social norms on how to behave in relation to lands, waters, and animal/plant relations.

What is western science getting wrong about the way it approaches Indigenous knowledge?

It is a good question. Concepts like reciprocity are foreign—or worse, actively downplayed—in western management and regulatory systems, especially when they try to integrate “traditional ecological knowledge” or TEK. Bureaucracies and state institutions want Indigenous knowledge to help inform resource management strategies, but they don’t want the governance structures and worldviews that underpin those systems.

On top of that, Indigenous histories and epistemologies remain virtually absent in the disciplines that define ecosystem management and restoration. Despite current movements to “braid” or “blend” Indigenous science into mainstream scientific traditions, we have observed that these efforts are usually approached uncritically and are ambiguously designed, resulting in the co-opting and misuse of “snippets” of Indigenous scientific traditions, and thus downplaying their full interpretive power. Reciprocity is one of those elements that gets muted, and it misses the whole point of Indigenous scientific traditions.

Researchers and international organizations increasingly acknowledge that traditional Indigenous land use is superior to that of western societies. Can you share some examples?

I want to be careful with the idea of “superiority.” However, for example, in 2009, Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her work showing how local communities successfully manage shared resources like forests and fisheries. So, this is not a new idea in mainstream science.

But, in many cases the social or cultural scaffolding that holds up local management systems are downplayed. A good example of that is weir technology, which was used for thousands of years across the Pacific Northwest (and many parts of the world) but was made illegal in Canada under the Indian Act in the late nineteenth century because they were seen as wasteful. Today, weirs are being reintroduced and promoted as tools for improved fisheries management and collaboration between regulators, researchers, and Indigenous Nations.

However, it is not about the physical weir. The success of Gitxsan or Nlaka’pamux fisheries management lies in the larger social institutions, governance structures, and worldviews. Worldviews include things like reciprocity, not taking more than you need, letting larger fish or female spawners continue their journey upriver. It’s cliché for a reason: it works. Western ideologies like maximum sustainable yields, equilibrium thinking, and viewing fish as a stock instead of a relation, are what harms more lateral thinking and problem solving.

Is there a way to re-establish Indigenous reciprocity in caring for the lands of the Pacific Northwest? How do can we revitalize this deep knowledge?

Our study concluded that fundamental elements of reciprocity might not be adequately blended or braided into western environmental management frameworks. But these knowledge and worldview gaps represent a major scientific and societal challenge: without robust frameworks that centre Indigenous epistemologies and priorities into sciences, non-Indigenous scientists, land managers, and policymakers lack the tools needed to address today’s mega-intersecting crises like climate change, species extinctions, and cultural genocide. So, the alternative is simple, acknowledge sole proprietary and self-determining rights for Indigenous Peoples to govern and steward lands outside of western infrastructures and value systems.

For more:

• Genetic study of native hazelnut challenges misconceptions about how ancient Indigenous peoples used the land
• Chelsey Geralda Armstrong’s faculty web page and Research Expertise Engine profile
• chelseygeralda.com