Research

INTRODUCTION

Western science has only recently begun to theorize what Indigenous Peoples have known since time immemorial—natural and social systems are tightly interwoven through complex interactions and feedback loops (Liu et al. 2007, Schoon and Van Der Leeuw 2015, Chisholm Hatfield et al. 2018). Social-ecological systems thinking has emerged as an interdisciplinary approach to understand the ways in which social systems and their environments interact, and the resulting levels of sustainability and resilience of these linked systems. Its foundational frameworks have proven useful as the basis of social-ecological systems thinking in a Western context, but do not adequately explain cultural-ecological systems, such as environmental relationships stewarded by Indigenous communities globally.

Where many social-ecological systems frameworks fall short is in their consideration of governance, which does not include discussion of sovereignty and the plurality of governance systems that interact within settler states, or address questions around power, justice, and equity (Fabinyi et al. 2014). Second, many of these frameworks draw a clear line of distinction between social and ecological systems with less attention paid to bi-directional interactions between the two (Binder et al. 2013). The dualistic thinking in which many social-ecological system frameworks are situated also does not provide a comprehensive way to include cultural and spiritual dimensions of peoples’ relationships with their environment and non-human entities that hold non-utilitarian relationships with people. This approach only emphasizes one side of human-nature interactions, in which humans benefit from services nature provides, and does not account for the responsibilities and reciprocal relationships Indigenous Peoples maintain with their Lands (Hessami et al. 2021, Martinez et al. 2023).

One example of a framework that does consider these elements is Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework that breaks down social-ecological system characteristics into resource users (humans), resource units (individual resources), and the resource system (the environment in which these other components are situated) (Ostrom 2009). This framework radically transformed thinking about environmental governance by stressing the importance of social systems and their links to ecology, specifically in the context of community-based management. Ostrom’s framework remains a foundational tool in the study of social-ecological systems, but there are opportunities to build upon these foundations by addressing its implementation, which often reflects Western, utilitarian perspectives of nature and relies on reductionist, quantitative data analysis (Cote and Nightingale 2012, Fabinyi et al. 2014).

Resilience is another characteristic of social-ecological systems that has been given much attention in the literature. First understood in ecological theory as the ability of systems to absorb disturbance and maintain stable equilibria (Holling 1973), resilience theories have evolved to fit within social-ecological systems thinking. This integration of social and ecological theories of resilience is difficult, however, from a Western perspective that is deeply rooted in nature-culture dualistic thinking that is not compatible with differing worldviews. Many resilience studies incorporate quantitative measurements of ecological resilience with only minimal inclusion of social resilience, which is often reduced to socioeconomic variables (Carpenter et al. 2001, Cretney 2014, Masselink and Lazarus 2019, Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2023). There is little place for cultural relationships with the ecosystem, spiritual relationships, or other non-tangible features of social-ecological systems. Non-quantitative factors of social resilience have been identified elsewhere to include the following: agency in decision making, assets people can draw on, flexibility, the ability to organize and act collectively, learning to recognize and respond to change, and socio-cognitive constructs that inform perceptions, biases, and behavior (Cinner and Barnes 2019).

Social scientists have also critiqued this definition of resilience and have poignantly noted that the question of “resilience of what and for whom?” is rarely given serious consideration (Cote and Nightingale 2012). One framework that has been proposed to address the shortcomings of the resilience concept is the Vulnerability Framework, which seeks to analyze vulnerabilities to environmental change. A shortcoming of this framework is that it emphasizes communities’ deficits by defining resilience through vulnerabilities, and its approach to vulnerability analysis does not easily allow for the inclusion of non-measurable attributes of communities that may be disturbed by change, such as culture and spirituality. Another shortcoming of the Vulnerability Framework and others like it is that it is not grounded in historical context, meaning the long-term effects of settler colonialism and oppression are not considered in the analysis of a communities’ vulnerability or resilience. Therefore, they are most often used in short-term disaster response or preparedness that is not suitable for Indigenous communities that have experienced chronic disturbance because of settler colonialism (Cretney 2014).

Here, I present cultural-ecological resilience as a more appropriate lens through which interrelationships between cultural groups and their environments can be better represented. “Cultural-ecological resilience” has been used elsewhere in the context of Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (Lyver et al. 2009, Persaud 2022), but has not gained momentum within social-ecological systems thinking. It is not well defined thus far, but cultural-ecological resilience offers the opportunity to broaden our understanding of societal interactions with nature in non-utilitarian relationships that cannot be captured through political or economic measures. The key features of cultural-ecological resilience that I will explore in this paper are conceptions of cultural sovereignty that expand beyond externally defined political sovereignty to include cultural rights and responsibilities; holistic views on health and wellness that integrate individuals, communities, and nature; and intergenerational sustainability. These characteristics address many of the aforementioned critiques of existing resilience frameworks and situate cultural resilience within the historical context of settler colonial and environmental injustice. The focus of this paper will be Indigenous communities within the United States but could be relevant to Indigenous Peoples globally, as well as other communities that maintain cultural connections with the environment, including Black communities and other cultural groups that experience systemic racism within settler states.

Defining sovereign food systems

Food systems are an ideal social-ecological system to conceptualize cultural-ecological resilience. Food is deeply embedded in environmental relationships, and yet industrialized food systems and environmental injustice disrupt these environmental relationships, thus creating disturbance within cultural food systems. When thinking about resilient food systems, it is important to contextualize the history of those systems because the past, present, and desired future of those systems will vary greatly. Resilient to what and for whom? This discussion will focus on food systems of sovereign Indigenous nations that have been fundamentally transformed through the external influences of settler colonialism and environmental change. In this section I will define the concepts and histories of food security, food sovereignty, and cultural sovereignty, which play key roles in the concept of cultural-ecological resilience (Fig. 1).

Indigenous communities experience the highest rates of food insecurity and water insecurity in the United States and Canada (Cidro et al. 2015, Coté 2016). Characteristics of food security are identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as availability, access, utilization, and stability (Food and Agriculture Organization 2008). These terms mean food sources must be stable and available, accessible to consumers, and safe to meet nutritional needs through its use. However, the disruption of Indigenous foodways cannot be fully understood through these pillars of food security because of its utilitarian, one-dimensional view of food systems (Cidro et al. 2015, Sowerwine et al. 2019). Settler colonialism has imposed political and economic structures on Indigenous communities, disrupting food systems that had traditionally been based on interactions of reciprocity and traditional modes of environmental stewardship (Chisholm Hatfield et al. 2018). Simultaneously, assimilationist polices of the settler state, such as boarding schools, imposed Western ways of being and suppressed Indigenous languages, spirituality, knowledge systems, and cultures (Adams 1995). These led to a loss of traditional ecological knowledge and embodied practice of harvesting and preparing traditional foods, greatly impacting Indigenous communities’ resilience and capacity to self-determine their own cultural foodways (Turner and Turner 2007, Atlas et al. 2021). Although food security is a critical component of settler colonialism’s impact on Indigenous communities, it does not fully consider tribal sovereignty and the right to self-determine food systems.

Food sovereignty and cultural sovereignty move beyond externally defined rights-based frameworks of food security to consider cultural relationships supported through traditional food systems (Coffey and Tsosie 2001). The Declaration of Nyéléni, which was composed by a group of 500 delegates representing more than 80 nations at the World Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali, defines food sovereignty as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” (Nyéléni Village 2007). Food sovereignty frameworks provide a path toward Indigenous self-determination through their recognition of injustices produced through settler colonial suppression of traditional food systems (Whyte 2015). Food sovereignty also addresses the multi-dimensional components of food systems and well-being that are not included through food security frameworks, such as community building, social cohesion, knowledge transmission, storytelling, songs, and spirituality that are supported through sovereign Indigenous food systems and lend themselves to social-ecological resilience (Todd 2014, Blanchet et al. 2021, Phillipps et al. 2021, Miltenburg et al. 2022).

Cultural sovereignty in the ways it relates to Indigenous food systems provides a greater, holistic understanding of individual, community, and cultural well-being to address the health disparities that have resulted from neoliberal food systems (Wittman 2011, Blanchet et al. 2021). Although cultural sovereignty is a colossal topic that will vary between communities and contexts, I have represented cultural sovereignty here through features of community well-being as defined by Donatuto et al. (2011). This framework of community wellness is linked to the cultural aspects of traditional food systems that have been marginalized through settler colonialism, such as community cohesion, knowledge and language transmission, and ceremonial use of traditional resources (Donatuto et al. 2011, Cidro et al. 2015, Sowerwine et al. 2019). It also builds upon an existing framework for resilience that centers the social processes underpinning community well-being by bringing it into dialogue with Indigenous theory that connects well-being with the upholding sustainable cultural-ecological relationships (Armitage et al. 2012).

LINKING CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE TO SOVEREIGN FOOD SYSTEMS

Resilient and sovereign Indigenous food systems are about more than simply access to food or returning to a pre-colonial state. Resilience involves the revitalization of culturally appropriate foodways, languages, and ceremonies within contemporary contexts. Tradition is not a “stable state”—cultures and traditions are dynamic and in a constant state of change. Rather, resilience demands the resurgence of self-defined environmental relationships and responsibilities. As depicted in Figure 2, there are layers of food system features that build upon each other to form sovereign food systems that honor the multi-dimensionality of cultural foodways; as Indigenous sovereignty over food systems and environmental relationships expand outwards, each new layer lends itself to the expansion of social-ecological resilience (Fig. 2).

Sovereign food systems and the social-ecological systems they are entwined in are also grounded in the specific historical context of the tribal nation or social group that holds cultural relationships with their environments. Therefore, the vulnerabilities and resiliencies of diverse communities within the United States and globally will vary depending on the historical context in which they are situated and the unique environmental relationships maintained by individual communities (Bargh 2020). For example, external recognition of tribal sovereignty by the United States’ governments will vary between federally recognized tribes, state-recognized tribes, and unrecognized tribes; therefore, the resources made available to Indigenous communities and the rights that are upheld by these external governance systems will also vary. This impacts communities’ adaptive capacities to use the resources available to them to respond to environmental change while still maintaining their livelihoods, food systems, and cultures. Indigenous Peoples’ experiences with displacement from their traditional lands and current land tenure regimes pose another constraint to the cultural-ecological resilience of Indigenous food systems, but not necessarily a limitation.

Additionally, certain communities, such as those in the Arctic and low-lying coastal lands, are disproportionately exposed to the impacts of climate change, which places greater pressure on the cultural-ecological resilience of those cultural systems (Panikkar and Lemmond 2020, Bethel et al. 2022). Melting permafrost and sea-level rise threaten the infrastructure of coastal Alaska Native villages, such as Newtok and Nepakiak, and could force communities to relocate. Changing sea ice patterns pose another threat to Alaska Native food systems, as it alters navigation routes, reduces hunting opportunities, and can make travel more dangerous. This can lead to a loss of traditional knowledge, disruption of cultural practices related to hunting and harvesting traditional foods, and food insecurity (Romero et al. 2018). The resilience of these cultural-ecological systems is dependent upon the capacity of communities to adapt to change, their autonomy to engage political and economic sovereignty, and traditional ecological knowledge in responding to these joint ecological and cultural changes.

In linking the layered definitions of social-ecological resilience and cultural sovereignty in the context of foodways, I have developed the following three components of cultural-ecological resilience corresponding to the layers depicted in Figure 2: (1) food system stability, (2) adaptive capacity, and (3) community resilience. The features of each component of cultural-ecological resilience are listed in Figure 3 and will be explored in greater detail in the following sections.

Food system stability

The pillars of food security as defined by the FAO are stability, access, availability, and utilization. The resilience of food systems under this framing is dependent on ecosystem stability in the face of perturbation; food sources must be available for consumption, accessible to consumers, meet nutritional needs through “utilizing” food, and stable at all times. In a neoliberal globalized food system, features such as supply chain length and fragility are key determinants of food system resilience (Toth et al. 2016). System features that lend themselves to ecosystem and food system stability are functional diversity and response diversity (Fig. 3; Hodbod and Eakin 2015). Heterogeneity and species diversity can support ecosystem stability by creating multiple equilibria that a system can maintain within its stable state (Hodbod and Eakin 2015). The same is true for food systems. Functional diversity entails food systems that are dependent on diverse food sources, and therefore are able to restructure themselves in response to acute disturbances to maintain food security. The possible pathways for systems to restructure themselves is response diversity. Simply put, stable food systems require complexity and flexibility to restructure themselves in the wake of disturbance.

Indigenous communities’ food security is often made vulnerable by the historical context of settler colonialism disrupting environmental and social relationships. Economic disparities on rural reservations can lead to communities lacking access to nutritious and affordable foods, and environmental contamination from extractive industries can make water unsafe to drink (McGinnis and Davis 2001, Tanana et al. 2021). One such example is the Navajo Nation, where excessive water diversions, poor groundwater quality, and contamination from abandoned uranium, copper, and gold mines have led to many communities not having access to a safe and reliable source of drinking water (Chief et al. 2016). Enhancing the functional diversity and response diversity of food systems by addressing the pillars of food security defined by the FAO within Indigenous communities can build resilience to future disturbances such as climate change or natural disasters.

One example of building resilience through addressing food security is the use of community gardens and greenhouses to supply Indigenous communities in the Arctic with produce. Arctic communities have experienced disruptions to their traditional foodways as a result of settler colonialism, which has resulted in increased reliance on expensive, imported foods. Greenhouses and gardens provide a way for communities to meet their nutritional needs through fresh, locally grown crops. The garden and greenhouse initiatives alleviate the financial cost of purchasing imported foods, and make communities more self-sufficient and resilient in their foodways (Chen and Natcher 2019).

Adaptive capacity

One limitation to this framing of resilience, however, is that it does not include desirability or agency in self-defining food systems within the power dynamics of a settler state like the United States or Canada. For example, industrial agricultural fields could be maintained as a stable environment that meets a community’s nutritional needs, but that may not be a traditional or desired food source or mode of food production. Traditional agricultural practices may provide more culturally grounded and ecologically sustainable food production methods that enhance community resilience. For example, the Three Sisters method of growing corn, beans, and squash together has ecological benefits for the soil and nutritional benefits in their complementary nutrient profiles, and is a culturally appropriate method for growing crops within many Indigenous communities (Kimmerer 2013, Kapayou et al. 2023).

Food sovereignty and social resilience can be reframed to account for the cultural rights of tribes to self-determine their own food systems and self-define what sustainability means within the context of their community. The previously identified characteristics of social resilience were learning, self-organization, and flexibility (Cinner and Barnes 2019). These can be reframed to account for the unique cultural relationships Indigenous Peoples have with their traditional lands and food sources that carry multi-dimensional meanings beyond basic nutrition. Indigenous communities’ adaptive capacity to maintain resilient and sovereign food systems is dependent on the following: (1) embodied learning through practice, (2) flexible and collective social organization, and (3) reciprocity.

Embodied learning through practice

Neoliberal food systems have disconnected communities from the foods that they eat. Food sovereignty is a rejection of that disconnection and strengthens physical connection to foods through traditional harvesting, gathering, and planting practices. This embodied learning through practice and relating to the physical environment is an asset that enhances the resilience of a community and its foodways. Non-industrial food systems that are sustained through culturally relevant harvest practices are important for building cultural identity and sustainable in that many traditional harvest practices are selective and adaptive to environmental conditions, which enhances ecosystem resilience (Mathews and Turner 2017, Atlas et al. 2021, Kishigami 2021). One example of where this has been restored is on the Elwha River, where after the removal of two major dams, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe was able to re-institute a subsistence fishery on the undammed Elwha River for the first time in several generations. The fishery allowed for the harvest of 400 coho salmon through a combination of hook and line and traditional fishing techniques to feed the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe community (Mapes 2023).

Flexible and collective self-organization

Collective self-organization also builds community resilience by providing the tools needed to coordinate food systems across spatial and temporal scales within a community and develop a food system that meets the needs and desires of community members (Gautam et al. 2013). Indigenous communities’ adaptive capacities are often limited by economic, legal, and environmental constraints; flexibility and creativity to identify solutions to overcome those institutional barriers build the resilience of food sovereignty movements (Colombi 2012, Gautam et al. 2013).

One example of how collective self-organization has contributed to community resilience is the revitalization of clam gardens in the northwest coast of North America. Clam gardens have been managed by Indigenous Peoples of this region since time immemorial. However, settler colonialism has led to the suppression of clam gardens and subsequently, the loss of knowledge related to these managed ecosystems. Tribal leaders and knowledge carriers of the Kwakwaka’wakw, for example, have self-organized to look to their oral traditions and living knowledge to inform the future of clam garden management (Deur et al. 2015). Today, clam gardens are being revitalized along the Pacific coast to provide healthy, traditional foods for community members. They are a sustainable way of expressing food sovereignty that engages community members in the revitalization of traditional management and harvest practices.

Reciprocity and relationality

Finally, I have added reciprocity to this list. Indigenous Peoples have maintained sustainable and reciprocal relationships with their traditional lands since time immemorial (Gauvreau et al. 2017, Mathews and Turner 2017, Atlas et al. 2021). Upholding relationships and responsibilities to the natural world is an important aspect of cultural and community identity. Miltenburg identifies relationality, reciprocity, and responsibility as core tenets of Indigenous Food Sovereignty because they actively connect people to the land and foodways (2022). Through reciprocity and relationality, Indigenous foodways are stewarded through bi-directional interactions between human and ecological systems with both receiving benefits through their reciprocal care for each other. Thus, the foundation of Indigenous Food Sovereignty is the resurgence of these reciprocal relationships that build ecological resilience and community resilience.

Community resilience

Resilience is intergenerational, which I have attempted to capture through features of cultural sovereignty (Fig. 2): knowledge transmission, ceremonial use, and community cohesion (Donatuto et al. 2011). These characteristics lend themselves to intergenerational relationships within a cultural-ecological system that build long-term sustainability and resilience to disruption. They are features of resilience. Community resilience is the ability of Indigenous Peoples, or any community, to maintain their cultural, ceremonial, and spiritual traditions despite chronic upheaval by settler colonialism. Community here is defined broadly to incorporate the intertwined societal and ecological relationships maintained through the survivance of cultural food systems. Armitage et al. (2012) discussed three dimensions of community well-being: material, relational, and subjective. This definition of community resilience builds from those foundations to explore what community wellness might mean in building the cultural-ecological resilience of Indigenous communities. Three aspects of community resilience that I have identified are (1) sustainable and innovative knowledge systems, (2) holistic understandings of health across individual and community scales, and (3) resurgence of cultural practices, language, and ceremony.

Sustainable and innovative knowledge systems

Knowledge transmission lends itself to cultural-ecological resilience when it is sustainable across multiple generations and is innovative; this builds situated resilience that is relevant to local contexts and is responsive to change rather than being reactive (Raymond-Yakoubian et al. 2017). Revitalizing pathways of intergenerational knowledge transmission that have been impacted by settler colonial assimilationist processes is important to building cultural resilience (Turner and Turner 2008, Donatuto et al. 2011).

Holistic perceptions of health and wellness

Social-ecological resilience frameworks have many shortcomings in understanding resilience within a cultural context because it frames “health” through quantitative metrics of primarily physical or mental health. Many communities may define physical and mental health differently than Western perceptions of health, such as through spiritual, community, or cultural measures of health. Ecological health indicators used by Western scientists, such as contaminant concentration, may not be culturally relevant or appropriate, either (Roe 2003). For example, pollutant levels deemed “safe” by Western scientists might not be acceptable to Indigenous communities. On the other hand, pollutant levels deemed “unsafe” for consuming foods such as shellfish might not be culturally appropriate to communities that consider the spiritual or emotional wellness benefits of consuming those foods to be more important than the risk to physical health that may occur (Satterfield et al. 2017). Diverse communities have their own perceptions of what “healthy” means to individuals, communities, and the ecosystems they engage with, and so taking an individualized and integrated approach to measuring health in culturally relevant ways is important for understanding cultural-ecological resilience.

Resurgence of culture, language, and ceremony

Finally, resurgence of Indigenous languages, cultures, ceremonies is another feature of community resilience that lends itself to cultural-ecosystem resilience so that cultural-ecological relationships may be maintained in perpetuity. Indigenous cultures, ceremonies, and languages were gravely impacted by settler colonial forces that sought to eliminate them. Their resurgence lends themselves to cultural-ecological resilience through the ways in which they interconnect Indigenous cultural systems to ecological systems through culturally specific and sustainable interactions.

Community efforts to restore Indigenous cultural stewardship have led to increased ecosystem resilience that are complementary to the benefits Indigenous communities experience through cultural resurgence (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina 2016, Wilder et al. 2016, Mathews and Turner 2017, Copes-Gerbitz et al. 2021). Through the resurgence of language, culture, and ceremony, Indigenous communities can build cultural-ecological resilience by reclaiming traditional knowledge and ways of being.

CONCLUSION

Resilience is a concept well understood by Indigenous communities whose lifeways have been fundamentally disrupted by settler colonialism. This strongly applies to Black communities, as well, and other communities that have been affected by the structures of settler colonialism. Resilience definitions provided by social-ecological systems thinking do not match the conceptualization of resilience that is held by communities and activists that engage in resilience work. Social-ecological systems define resilience based on how much disturbance a system can withstand before it reaches a critical threshold, or a tipping point. This deficit-based framework frames resilience as a product of external drivers influencing a system. It does not frame resilience as a feature coming from within the agency of actors within a system to self-define desirable social-ecological relationships that adapt with change. Simultaneous environmental and social catastrophes have already upended tribal communities’ social-ecological relationships. Tribal communities have already been pushed to their limits, and yet they are resilient because resilience comes from within. Community resilience in the wake of large-scale disturbance brought about by settler colonialism has not been centered on absorbing disturbance, but rather re-building, reviving, and resurgence. What opportunities does this framing of resilience open in community-centered work? It is my belief that this framing of resilience would make it imperative for researchers to situate their research in a community and its specific historical context.

Applying this framework to food systems would require researchers to interrogate the specific needs and desires of individual communities that already have their own conception of what resilience means and are in the process of resisting the enduring impacts of political, economic, social, and environmental injustice. This process will look different for each community, and there is no one-size fits all solution. Rather, this framework connects broad themes that are commonly pertinent to sovereign nations that maintain unique cultural, environmental, and political relationships within a settler state.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, D. W. 1995. Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875-1928. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Armitage, D., C. Béné, A. T. Charles, D. Johnson, and E.H. Allison. 2012. Interplay of well-being and resilience in applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society 17(4):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415

Arnaiz-Schmitz, C., P. A. Aguilera, R. F. Ropero, and M. F. Schmitz. 2023. Detecting social-ecological resilience thresholds of cultural landscapes along an urban-rural gradient: a methodological approach based on Bayesian Networks. Landscape Ecology 38:3589-3604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01732-9

Atlas, W. I., N. C. Ban, J. W. Moore, A. M. Tuohy, S. Greening, A. J. Reid, N. Morven, E. White, W. G. Housty, J. A. Housty, et al. 2021. Indigenous systems of management for culturally and ecologically resilient Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) fisheries. BioScience 71(2):186-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa144

​Bargh, M. 2020. Diverse Indigenous environmental identities: Mâori resource management innovations. Pages 420-430 in B. Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, and S. Larkin, editors. Routledge handbook of critical Indigenous studies. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440229-36

​Bethel, M. B., D. H. Braud, T. Lambeth, D. S. Dardar, and P. Ferguson-Bohnee. 2022. Mapping risk factors to climate change impacts using traditional ecological knowledge to support adaptation planning with a Native American Tribe in Louisiana. Journal of Environmental Management 301:113801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113801

​Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426

​Blanchet, R., M. Batal, L. Johnson-Down, S. Johnson, Okanagan Nation Salmon Reproduction Initiatives, and N. Willows. 2021. An Indigenous food sovereignty initiative is positively associated with well-being and cultural connectedness in a survey of Syilx Okanagan adults in British Columbia, Canada. BMC Public Health 21:1405. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11229-2

​Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9

​Chen, A., and D. Natcher. 2019. Greening Canada’s Arctic food system: local food procurement strategies for combating food insecurity. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation 6(1):140-154. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v6i1.301

Chief, K., A. Meadow, and K. Whyte. 2016. Engaging southwestern tribes in sustainable water resources topics and management. Water (Switzerland) 8(8):350. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080350

​Chisholm Hatfield, S., E. Marino, K. P. Whyte, K. D. Dello, and P. W. Mote. 2018. Indian time: time, seasonality, and culture in Traditional Ecological Knowledge of climate change. Ecological Processes 7:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0136-6

Cidro, J., B. Adekunle, E. Peters, and T. Martens. 2015. Beyond food security: understanding access to cultural food for urban Indigenous people in Winnipeg as Indigenous food sovereignty. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 24(1):24-43.

​Cinner, J. E., and M. L. Barnes. 2019. Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth 1(1):51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.003

Coffey, W., and R. Tsosie. 2001. Rethinking the Tribal sovereignty doctrine: cultural sovereignty and the collective future of Indian Nations. Stanford Law and Policy Review 12(2):191-222.

​Colombi, B. J. 2012. Salmon and the adaptive capacity of Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) culture to cope with change. American Indian Quarterly 36(1):75-97. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2012.a464480

​Copes-Gerbitz, K., S. M. Hagerman, and L. D. Daniels. 2021. Situating Indigenous knowledge for resilience in fire-dependent social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 26(4):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12757-260425

​Coté, C. 2016. “Indigenizing” food sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities 5(3):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/h5030057

​Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708

​Cretney, R. 2014. Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience. Geography Compass 8(9):627-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12154

Deur, D., A. Dick, K. Recalma-Clutesi, and N. J. Turner. 2015. Kwakwaka’wakw “clam gardens”: motive and agency in traditional Northwest Coast mariculture. Human Ecology 43:201-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9743-3

Donatuto, J. L., T. A. Satterfield, and R. Gregory. 2011. Poisoning the body to nourish the soul: prioritising health risks and impacts in a Native American community. Health, Risk & Society 13(2):103-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2011.556186

​Fabinyi, M., L. Evans, and S. J. Foale. 2014. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecology and Society 19(4):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07029-190428

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2008. An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. https://www.fao.org/agrifood-economics/publications/detail/en/c/122386/

​Gautam, M. R., K. Chief, and W. J. Smith, Jr. 2013. Climate change in arid lands and Native American socioeconomic vulnerability: the case of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Pages 77-91 in J. K. Maldonado, B. Colombi, and R. Pandya, editors. Climate change and Indigenous peoples in the United States. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05266-3_7

​Gauvreau, A. M., D. Lepofsky, M. Rutherford, and M. Reid. 2017. “Everything revolves around the herring”: the Heiltsuk-herring relationship through time. Ecology and Society 22(2):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09201-220210

Hessami, M. A., E. Bowles, J. N. Popp, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Indigenizing the North American model of wildlife conservation. Facets 6:1285-1306. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0088

​Hodbod, J., and H. Eakin. 2015. Adapting a social-ecological resilience framework for food systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5:474-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0280-6

​Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Reviews 4:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

​Kapayou, D. G., E. M. Herrighty, C. G. Hill, V. C. Camacho, A. Nair, D. M. Winham, and M. D. McDaniel. 2023. Reuniting the Three Sisters: collaborative science with Native growers to improve soil and community health. Agriculture and Human Values 40:65-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10336-z

​Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., and C. P. Giardina. 2016. Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11:57-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3

Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

​Kishigami, N. 2021. Food security, food sovereignty, and Bowhead Whale hunts among the Iñupiat in Utqiaġvik, Alaska, USA. Senri Ethnological Studies 104:93-112.

​Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513-1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004

​Lyver, P. O’B., C. J. Jones, and J. Doherty. 2009. Flavor or forethought: Tuhoe traditional management strategies for the conservation of Kereru (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae) in New Zealand. Ecology and Society 14(1):40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02793-140140

Mapes, L. V. 2023. Tribe catches coho salmon on free-flowing Elwha River, a first since dam removals. 10 October. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/tribe-catches-coho-salmon-on-free-flowing-elwha-river-a-first-since-dam-removal/

Martinez, D. J., C. E. B. Cannon, A. McInturff, P. S. Alagona, and D. N. Pellow. 2023. Back to the future: Indigenous relationality, kincentricity and the North American Model of wildlife management. Environmental Science & Policy 140:202-207.​ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.12.010

Masselink, G., and E. D. Lazarus. 2019. Defining coastal resilience. Water 11(12):2587. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122587

​Mathews, D. L., and N. J. Turner. 2017. Ocean cultures: Northwest Coast ecosystems and Indigenous management systems. Pages 169-206 in P. S. Levin and M. R. Poe, editors. Conservation for the Anthropocene ocean: interdisciplinary science in support of nature and people. Academic Press, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00009-X

​McGinnis, S., and R. K. Davis. 2001. Domestic well water quality within tribal lands of eastern Nebraska. Environmental Geology 41(3-4):321-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540100389

​Miltenburg, E., H. T. Neufeld, and K. Anderson. 2022. Relationality, responsibility and reciprocity: cultivating Indigenous food sovereignty within urban environments. Nutrients 14(9):1737. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14091737

​Nyéléni Village. 2007. Declaration of Nyéléni.

​Ostrom, E. 2009. A generalized framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):416-419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

​Panikkar, B., and B. Lemmond. 2020. Being on land and sea in troubled times: climate change and food sovereignty in Nunavut. Land 9(12):508. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120508

​Persaud, A. W. 2022. Deepening counter institutions: property, lands, relations, and the economic future of the Tŝilhqot’in. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 40(1):175-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758211063496

​Phillipps, B., K. Skinner, B. Parker, and H. T. Neufeld. 2021. An intersectionality-based policy analysis examining the complexities of access to wild game and fish for urban Indigenous women in northwestern Ontario. Frontiers in Communication 6:762083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.762083

​Raymond-Yakoubian, J., B. Raymond-Yakoubian, and C. Moncrieff. 2017. The incorporation of traditional knowledge into Alaska federal fisheries management. Marine Policy 78:132-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.024

​Roe, A. 2003. Fishing for identity: mercury contamination and fish consumption among Indigenous groups in the United States. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 23(5):368-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467603259787

​Satterfield, T., L. Robertson, N. Vadeboncoeur, and A. Pitts. 2017. Implications of a changing climate for food sovereignty in coastal British Columbia. Pages 399-421 in P. S. Levin and M. R. Poe, editors. Conservation for the Anthropocene ocean: interdisciplinary science in support of nature and people. Academic Press, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00019-2

​Schoon, M., and S. Van Der Leeuw. 2015. The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives: insights into the human-nature relationship. Natures Sciences Sociétés 23(2):166-174. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015034

​Sowerwine, J., M. Mucioki, D. Sarna-Wojcicki, and L. Hillman. 2019. Reframing food security by and for Native American communities: a case study among tribes in the Klamath River basin of Oregon and California. Food Security 11:579-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00925-y

​Tanana, H., J. Combs, and A. Hoss. 2021. Water Is life: law, systemic racism, and water security in Indian Country. Health Security 19(S1):S78-S82. https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2021.0034

​Todd, Z. 2014. Fish pluralities: human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada. Études Inuit Studies 38(1-2):217-238. https://doi.org/10.7202/1028861ar

​Toth, A., S. Rendall, and F. Reitsma. 2016. Resilient food systems: a qualitative tool for measuring food resilience. Urban Ecosystems 19:19-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0489-x

Turner, N. J., and K. L. Turner. 2007. Traditional food systems, erosion and renewal in Northwestern North America. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 6(1):57-68.

​Turner, N. J., and K. L. Turner. 2008. “Where our women used to get the food”: cumulative effects and loss of ethnobotanical knowledge and practice; case study from coastal British Columbia. Botany 86(2):103-115. https://doi.org/10.1139/B07-020

Whyte, K. P. 2015. Indigenous food systems, environmental justice, and settler-industrial states. Pages 143-156 in M. Rawlinson and C. Ward, editors. Global food, global justice: essays on eating under globalization. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

​Wilder, B. T., C. O’Meara, L. Monti, and G. P. Nabhan. 2016. The importance of Indigenous knowledge in curbing the loss of language and biodiversity. BioScience 66(6):499-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw026

​Wittman, H. 2011. Food sovereignty: a new rights framework for food and nature? Environment and Society 2(1):87-105. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2011.020106