INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN BC
WILDFIRE MGMT

1

Integrating Indigenous-Led Recovery in BC Wildfire Management

Shahin Hardy
J0504177
Post Baccalaureate Diploma in Disaster Management, Justice Institute of British Columbia

Author Note
This literature search and review was completed for ESMS-4900 Capstone Research Project,
taught by Firoz Verjee
This research proposal is 7722 words and was submitted on April 02, 2025.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

2
Abstract

Over the past ten years, British Columbia has experienced increasingly severe wildfires due to climate
change factors such as warmer-than-average temperatures, decreased snowpack, and low soil moisture.
While Canadian emergency management practices are highly regarded, there exists a critical gap in
integrating local Indigenous knowledge into wildfire recovery strategies. Indigenous communities in BC
have long practiced land stewardship and fire management through traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK), providing profound understanding of sustainable wildfire mitigation and recovery. However,
centralized management structures and limited partnerships with Indigenous groups impede the
adoption of these practices into mainstream disaster risk reduction. This capstone research paper
examines how emergency management in BC can incorporate Indigenous knowledge to enhance their
wildfire recovery strategies. By employing a pragmatic research approach, the study employs a
qualitative, secondary research methodology analyzing case studies, policy documents, and expert
insights from Indigenous-led fire management initiatives in BC, Australia, and North America to identify
adaptable and culturally respectful solutions that foster long-term resilience and sustainability. The key
findings reveal systemic challenges such as worldview conflicts, governance fragmentation, and a lack of
Indigenous-authored literature. On the contrary, successful models like Australia’s WALFA project and
the Tsilhqot’in Fire Management Program demonstrate effective collaborations. Further, the
recommendations include co-governance frameworks, legislative reforms, and Indigenous-led research
initiatives. Thus, by centering Indigenous sovereignty and knowledge, this research advocates for a
paradigm shift from suppression to stewardship, fostering resilience and reconciliation.
Keywords: Indigenous knowledge, wildfire recovery, British Columbia, cultural burning, cogovernance

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

3
Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 7
Transition from Colonial to Inclusive Fire Governance ............................................ 7
The Role of Traditional Ecological Indicators in Fire and Disaster Management ..... 8
Challenges in Implementing Indigenous-Led Governance ....................................... 9
Need for Proactive and Adaptive Fire Management ................................................ 10
Research Design and Methodology ...................................................................................... 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................. 13
Lack of Literature on Indigenous Knowledge ............................................................ 13
Worldview Conflicts between Indigenous and Western Knowledge ........................ 14
Barriers to Implementation ....................................................................................... 15
Global Best Practices ................................................................................................ 16
Strengths and Weaknesses of Research ................................................................... 18
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 19
Reconceptualizing Fire Management: From Suppression to Stewardship ............... 19
Addressing Barriers by Policy & Governance Reforms ............................................. 20
Learning from Global Best Practices: A Path Forward for British Columbia ............. 20
Bridging the Knowledge Gap ..................................................................................... 20
Current Efforts to Integrate Indigenous Knowledge ................................................. 21
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 22
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 25

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT
References ............................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 31
Table A- Search Methodology and Literature Review Process ................................ 31

4

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

5
Introduction

In the span of last ten years, it is evident how British Columbia has been detrimentally affected
by wildfires majorly due to warmer-than-average temperatures, decreased levels of snowpack and low
soil moisture indicating signs of climate change. Copes-Gerbitz et al. (2022a, p. 3) for their article for
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, highlight the devastating impact of wildfires in British Columbia
between 1998 and 2021, noting that they “forced the evacuation of over 125,000 people, burned over
5.7 million hectares, and cost more than $5 billion (CAD; adjusted for inflation to 2020) in direct
suppression alone”. The wildfire seasons of 2017, 2018, and 2021 were particularly destructive, causing
lasting environmental and social impacts (Abbott & Chapman, 2018, as cited in, Copes-Gerbitz et al.,
2022b). These extreme fires typically occur on the hottest, driest, and windiest days, making them
difficult to control (Hanes et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017, 2023). The impact of climate change has made
these conditions more frequent, as seen during BC’s severe 2023 wildfire season.
The Canadian emergency management system is regarded as highly effective, assuming their
integration of advanced technology and adherence to internationally recognized best practices in
disaster mitigation and suppression. However, there still remains significant scope to promote and
integrate local indigenous knowledge into wildfire recovery strategies, considering the impact wildfires
have on the large number of Indigenous and First Nation groups in British Columbia. Historically, the
colonial mindset and policies has sidelined Indigenous fire stewardship, leading to a decline in
traditional practices that once were crucial in managing fire adapted landscapes (Christianson, 2015, p.
191). Since the inception of the Bush Fire Act in 1874, British Columbia became the first Canadian
province to criminalize the cultural burning practices and levied fines against the Indigenous
practitioners of traditional fire stewardship (Government of British Columbia, 2022). Further,
Christianson (2015) notes that this colonial policy framework not only marginalized Indigenous fire

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

6

stewardship but also reshaped the society’s notions of fire, framing it solely as a destructive force rather
than a regenerative tool (p. 191).
However, lately, the researchers in North America and around the world agree that Indigenous
knowledge plays a crucial role in managing wildfires sustainably and highlight that the modern fire
management often overlooks traditional methods like regenerative burning and seasonal fire cycles
(Christianson et al., 2022, p. 258). Even Nikolakis and Roberts (2022, p. 2) mention about “a paradigm
shift” that is happening towards proactive, localized methods like controlled burns and thinning out
vegetation. The colonial approach of solely suppressing fires has shown its limits in areas prone to
wildfires because, although the total global area burned has decreased over the past twenty years, there
have been more instances of highly destructive fires recently (Nikolakis and Roberts, 2022, p. 2). Hence,
integration of Indigenous knowledge with Western techniques can immensely contribute to disaster risk
reduction methodologies as Indigenous communities, who have historically practiced land stewardship
and fire management through Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), offer valuable insights into
sustainable wildfire mitigation and recovery.
Although there are many potential benefits of incorporating Indigenous-led wildfire recovery
into mainstream emergency management, there still remains a gap due to BC’s centralized wildfire
governance structure which has historically concentrated the decision-making authority in federal or
provincial government agencies, consequently limiting collaboration with Indigenous communities
(Nikolakis and Roberts, 2022, p. 3). This lack of integration hampers efforts to create effective,
sustainable disaster risk reduction strategies. Therefore, the research problem centers on the need to
increase integration of Indigenous knowledge into BC's emergency management system to enhance
Disaster Risk Reduction and support Indigenous-led wildfire recovery strategies.
The central research question guiding this study is – “How can emergency management in
British Columbia support and integrate Indigenous knowledge to enhance wildfire recovery strategies?”

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

7

To address this overarching question, the research explores the following sub-questions:
-

How Indigenous knowledge and practices in BC are relevant to wildfire management and
recovery?

-

What are the barriers in implementing the Indigenous knowledge and practices in BC’s wildfire
management?

-

What best practices from global Indigenous-government collaborations (e.g., North America,
Australia) can be applied to BC?
This study adopts a pragmatic research approach, emphasizing practical, adaptable, and

culturally respectful solutions. It examines the colonial perspective on Indigenous fire management, the
challenges in integrating Indigenous knowledge and practices into BC's wildfire management, and
successful Indigenous-led fire management strategies and policy collaborations in BC and
internationally, particularly in Australia and North America. Therefore, by analyzing case studies, policy
documents, and expert insights, the research aims to promote long-term resilience and sustainability
and supports the growing effort of advocating for Indigenous leadership in disaster management. It
explores practical ways to include Indigenous knowledge in BC’s emergency response system and offers
recommendations for policymakers, emergency planners, and Indigenous communities.
Literature Review
Several themes emerged from the analysis of the literature providing insight on the indigenous
fire management, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and ways to integrate Indigenous and Western
scientific approaches in wildfire resilience and environmental management in Canada, USA and
Australia. The key themes include but are not limited to, the transition from colonial to inclusive fire
governance, the role of indigenous knowledge in fire and disaster management, challenges in
implementing indigenous-led governance and necessity for proactive and adaptive fire management.
Transition from Colonial to Inclusive Fire Governance

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

8

Some of the selected articles emphasize the historical evolution of fire governance in British
Columbia, particularly the shift from colonial, reactive policies to more inclusive, proactive approaches
that incorporate Indigenous knowledge. For instance, Copes-Gerbitz et al. (2022b) outline five phases of
fire governance in BC, emphasizing a major shift since 2017 towards a model of “coexisting with fire.”
Similarly, Daniels et al. (2024) reinforce this idea, arguing that fire governance must evolve toward
Indigenous-led wildfire stewardship. Again, Copes-Gerbitz et al. (2023) in their other article titled- ‘The
contribution of Indigenous stewardship to a historical mixed-severity fire regime in British Columbia,
Canada’, provide historical evidence showing that Indigenous fire stewardship previously played a
critical role in managing BC’s forests, but was disrupted by colonial fire suppression policies.
The Role of Traditional Ecological Indicators in Fire and Disaster Management
Another major theme is the recognition of the Traditional Ecological Indicators, such as seasonal
changes, animal migrations, and blooming of plants, which are deeply rooted in Indigenous fire
management practices. The understanding of such indicators can contribute in disaster risk reduction,
particularly in fire management. Christianson et al. (2022, p. 263) in their article titled, “Centering
Indigenous Voices: The Role of Fire in the Boreal Forest of North America” describe how Indigenous
communities in the boreal forest region use these indicators to determine the best times for controlled
burns, reducing fuel loads and preventing high-severity wildfires. While citing Henry Lewis’s 1984 study
and Theresa Ferguson’s studies in the 1970s on fire use by the Dene and Woodland Cree in northern
Alberta, Christianson et al. (2022, p. 262-263) highlight how these communities were highly
knowledgeable about seasonality, timing, fuel conditions, relative humidity, wind, other general
weather conditions, slope steepness, and natural fire breaks as they related to burning. For instance, the
meadow burning with low-intensity burns every few years was best conducted in the spring season
while the snow still covered the forest edge.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

9

Armatas et al. (2016, p. 16) in their article for the journal, Ecology and Society, argue that
traditional phenological knowledge (TPK) offers valuable insights into adaptive management for climate
and can be integrated with the prescribed fire, similar to indigenous burning, which can maintain species
abundance and habitat diversity at a community scale. Similarly, Eisenberg et al. (2019) provide
empirical evidence from Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, showing that prescribed burning
informed by Indigenous ecological indicators contribute to greater ecosystem resilience by diminishing
the number of invasive species in the area contributing to climate change (p. 5).
Challenges in Implementing Indigenous-Led Governance
Although integrating indigenous fire management into modern wildfire strategies have benefits,
the concept faces major barriers. The practical and institutional challenges are discussed by Nikolakis
and Roberts (2022, p. 6) in their article titled, “Wildfire Governance in a Changing World: Insights for
Policy Learning and Policy Transfer”, as they point out that wildfire governance in BC is fragmented
among federal, provincial, local, and Indigenous governments, making it difficult to collaborate due to
such power dynamics. Likewise, Copes-Gerbitz et al. (2022b), Nikolakis and Roberts (2022, p. 7) and
Christianson, A. (2015, p. 191) acknowledge that while government policies now recognize Indigenous
perspectives, implementation remains slow due to bureaucratic barriers, including colonial policies of
European settlers that historically criminalized and prohibited Indigenous burning practices as fires were
considered destructive to the timber supply and dangerous to communities, leading to the loss of critical
knowledge.
Moreover, with respect to accreditation and training, Hoffman et al. (2022, p. 472) emphasize
the fact that Canada does not have ample applied wildfire science programs at all educational levels and
none of them adequately addresses ‘cultural burning’. They also present the view of Indigenous Peoples
who reject the need for certification from colonial institutions to fulfill their traditional fire stewardship
roles. Hoffman et al. further illustrates this problem with the case of British Columbia where the

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

10

provincial wildfire management agency certifies burn bosses but restricts eligibility to its own personnel.
Such policies indicate how the government authorities maintain their authority by restricting
certification processes instead of aiming to foster Indigenous leadership in wildfire management.
Similarly, Armatas et al. (2016, p. 16) talks about the implantation challenges of adaptive fire
management including institutional and legal constraints that leads to reluctant and timid decisionmaking, insufficient collaboration between scientists, stakeholders, and policymakers, as well as limited
financial resources and time for proper execution. Lastly, observing the Aboriginal fire techniques in
Kakadu National Park, Australia, Mazzocchi et al. (2018, p. 29) reminds about the philosophical and
practical barriers that must be addressed to ensure successful intercultural collaboration.
Need for Proactive and Adaptive Fire Management
Collectively, these studies argue that fire management should be proactive and informed by
both scientific and Indigenous approaches to reduce risks and enhance ecological resilience. Daniels et
al. (2024) emphasize that BC must transition toward a paradigm of coexisting with wildfire, rather than
attempting to eliminate it. To achieve this, Daniels et al. (2024, p. 13) in their article for Canadian
Journal for Forest Research, outlined six strategies aiming to transform wildfire management in British
Columbia by shifting from reactive suppression approaches to proactive and sustainable approaches
that enhance community resilience and ecosystem’s health. The six strategies include, diversified
wildfire management and indigenous fire stewardship, enhancing local capacity for wildfire response
and mitigation, proactive wildfire risk reduction at multiple scales, ecosystem-based landscape fire
management, transforming wildfire governance and strengthening partnerships and expanding
expertise, education, and capacity building.
Also, Copes-Gerbitz et al. (2023) show that Indigenous fire stewardship historically maintained
ecological balance and reduced wildfire severity. Similarly, Nikolakis and Roberts (2022, p. 7) discusses

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

11

about the “wildfire paradox,” in which the fire suppression approaches have led to more destructive
outcome. Nikolakis and Roberts also highlighted how the “wildfire paradox” brings awareness:
This “wildfire paradox,” where fire suppression has led to more destructive wildfires, brings
awareness to the fact that Indigenous peoples across North America (and in many parts of the
world) burned the landscape at strategic times and for a variety of purposes, like reducing dead
biomass and promoting new vegetation growth (Lepofsky & Lertzman, 2008). These practices
created good grazing for ungulates, promoted hunting and gathering, cleaned the landscape,
and reduced wild fire risk (Clarkson et al., 2017; Lake & Christianson, 2019; Lewis et al., 2018;
Mistry et al., 2016; Yibarbuk et al., 2001).
Lastly, Armatas et al. (2016, p. 16) suggest that adaptive management strategies incorporating
Indigenous knowledge can help communities respond more effectively to changing climate and wildfire
patterns.
Research Design and Methodology
This research employed a qualitative research approach by examining secondary research
methods. The primary techniques include- literature review of academic publications, government
reports, and policy documents along with case study analysis of successful collaborations between
Indigenous communities and government agencies in emergency management in North America and
Australia.
The rationale behind opting for a qualitative approach is that it allows for a deeper
understanding of Indigenous perspectives, which are often underrepresented in statistical data. Further,
analyzing international case studies ensures that the lessons are systematically reviewed and
contextualized for wildfire-prone areas of BC. Further, since it is secondary research, it eliminates major
ethical concerns linked with primary data collection. However, during the course of this research, careful
consideration was be given to the respectful representation of Indigenous knowledge and practices.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

12

Moving on, the research for the relevant literature commenced by searching the following key
terms and their synonyms like- "Indigenous knowledge" AND "wildfire management", "Traditional
ecological knowledge" AND "indigenous wildfire response" and "Cultural burning" AND "fire
stewardship".
Since these searches produced a large number of results, so to narrow the focus to the primary
research question, additional filters and keywords were applied, such as "BC First Nations" AND
"prescribed burning" AND "Canada", "Indigenous-led fire management" AND "wildfire resilience BC” and
"Indigenous wildfire knowledge application" AND “BC wildfire management”.
Searches were conducted using the JIBC Library system and Google Scholar, resulting in an initial
pool of over 20,000 articles related to the research topic, on both the platforms. The search was then
refined using inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The inclusion criteria focused on the articles published in the last 10 years (2014–2024) to
ensure recent developments. These articles reflect upon Indigenous communities in British Columbia
affected by wildfires, as well as emergency management professionals and government officials involved
in wildfire management and recovery efforts. Second, the studies concentrated on Indigenous
knowledge and wildfire management in North America and Australia, with particular emphasis on
Canada and British Columbia. Third, the search was narrowed down to the peer-reviewed journal
articles and case studies discussing cultural burning, application of Indigenous-led wildfire response, and
BC’s wildfire management frameworks. Lastly, studies employing qualitative, quantitative, or mixedmethod approaches to analyze Indigenous fire stewardship and wildfire resilience were included.
The exclusion criteria eliminated the studies outside of North America and Australia. Next, the
articles published before 2014 were ruled out, unless they were foundational to the topic. Lastly,
removal of studies focusing more on climate change rather than indigenous-led wildfire management
while scanning through the research titles.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

13

The initial search returned approximately 21,000 results on Google Scholar and nearly 272
results on JIBC Library, which were further refined by adjusting keywords and applying
inclusion/exclusion criteria mentioned in Table A2 in Appendix A. The refined research helped in
narrowing down the focus on nearly 45 articles. From the 45 articles, 15–20 articles were selected for
further review and analysis based on their abstract and relevance to the research question.
Moreover, to assess the reliability, accuracy, and validity of the sources used in this research,
priority was given in selecting peer-reviewed journals such as the International Journal of Wildland Fire,
Ecology and Society, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, and Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, etc.
Additionally, the research includes works authored by established scholars and practitioners relating to
the fields of indigenous wildfire stewardship, environmental resilience, forest disturbance, climate
change, and fire ecology.
Therefore, by applying the above criteria, efforts are made to ensure that the findings in the
research are credible while being relevant to the research topic and problem.
Findings
The findings from the analysis of the selected articles and literature have identifies some
common yet critical concerns which obstructs the integration of Indigenous knowledge into
contemporary wildfire management:
Lack of Literature on Indigenous Knowledge
One of the recurring issue noticeable among the literature is the scarcity of documented
Indigenous knowledge about the burning regimes. In their article titled, ‘Opportunities to utilize
traditional phenological knowledge to support adaptive management of social-ecological systems
vulnerable to changes in climate and fire regimes’, Armatas et al. (2016) explores the Traditional
Phenological Knowledge (TPK) and highlight that it is a relatively new term, and its documentation is

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

14

sparse in scholarly literature. They note that TPK is often provided in Indigenous stories, myths, and
cultural practices, making it difficult to extract and analyze using Western scientific frameworks (p. 7).
Moreover, Nikolakis and Roberts (2020, p. 3) discuss how the majority of the available literature
analyzed in their study by utilizing peer review and the use of the English language, are framed through
a Western lens. This perspective often shapes the way research is conducted and presented, potentially
marginalizing Indigenous knowledge and approaches.
Similarly, Christianson et al. (2015, p. 191) notices that even though 80% of Indigenous
communities in Canada are located in wildfire-prone forested areas, there are significantly low number
of social science studies and research on contemporary application of Indigenous wildfire approaches in
Canada. This research gap is not only evident in Canada but also extends to the United States and
Australia, where studies on Indigenous fire stewardship have remained limited since 2000.
However, Christianson et al. (2015, p. 194) also points out that this scarcity is not due to any
disinterest but rather the ethical and logistic challenges the researchers face while conducting primary
research with the Indigenous communities. They further mention that “many Indigenous communities
have developed strict ethical guidelines for researchers who want to conduct research in their
community because of a history of inappropriate and insensitive research being conducted ‘on’
Indigenous people (Smith 1999)”. Christianson et al. (2015) concludes that while these approaches can
be time-consuming and resource-intensive for a researcher or government institutes, they are essential
for building trust and ensuring that the research is culturally appropriate and beneficial to the
community.
Worldview Conflicts between Indigenous and Western Knowledge
Another major challenge that hampers the integration of Indigenous knowledge into modern
wildfire management is the underlying conflict between the Indigenous and Western worldviews. Many
articles mention how the Western wildfire managers view their knowledge as superior as it follows a

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

15

scientific criterion and perceive Indigenous practices as ‘primitive’ or less scientific (Mazzocchi, 2018, p.
24).
Similarly, it has been observed that many colonial views have wrongly established Indigenous
people being careless with fire, leaving campfires unattended or burning land recklessly. These
misconceptions have been used to justify excluding Indigenous practices from modern fire management
(Christianson et al., 2022, p. 263). Further, the Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) is frequently
perceived as supplementary information rather than a legitimate and technical approach to fire
management. This perception reinforces the marginalization of Indigenous fire practitioners, whose
expertise is often dismissed in favor of agency-credentialed personnel (Hoffman et al., 2022, p. 466).
However, in reality the Indigenous knowledge is deeply connected to the land, culture, and
spirituality. Indigenous communities see fire as a tool for maintaining balance in ecosystems, not just as
a threat to be controlled. They use controlled burns to reduce wildfire risks, promote biodiversity and
maintain healthy ecosystems by eliminating the invasive species. While discussing whether the 2017
Kenow wildfire in Waterton Lakes National Park, AB, can be described as "catastrophic," Eisenberg et al.
(2019, p. 10) acknowledge that they may not necessarily be catastrophic from a plant community as
prescribed burns can help maintain native plant communities adapted to the full range of fire effects.
They further indicate that prescribed burns, combined with wildfire, can help sustain native grasses,
particularly in landscapes prone to extreme fire, and that high-severity burns are necessary for effective
grassland restoration.
Barriers to Implementation
The findings from Hoffman et al. (2022) research titled as “The right to burn: barriers and
opportunities for Indigenous-led fire stewardship in Canada” revealed major significant barriers which
comes in way of implementation of Indigenous fire stewardship in British Columbia and Canada. The
first barrier deals with perceptions, authority and jurisdiction. The second barrier involves governance

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

16

and laws related to fire management processes due to which the Indigenous fire practitioners face a
power imbalance their knowledge is seen less legitimate than that of government-certified personnel,
leading to the exclusion of Indigenous voices in decision-making. The third barrier relates to accessing
the necessary accreditation and training to conduct cultural burns. The fourth barrier talks about
liabilities and insurance because in many regions of Canada, the cultural burning is considered to
increase legal and financial risks due to historical and ongoing colonial policies. As a result of such onedimensional policies, the Indigenous communities have often been criminalized, fined, and jailed for
burning within their territories, creating a legacy of fear and mistrust. To avoid this, the Indigenous
communities have to secure liability insurance to practice conducting cultural burns. Lastly, the fifth
barrier deals with financial capacity and resources.
Global Best Practices
Another key finding from the research which covers one of the sub-questions related to
research problem are the successful Indigenous-led fire management strategies learned from case
studies from Australia and North America. For instance, Mazzocchi et al. (2018) cites Australia’s
‘Collaborative Fire Management Programs’, where Indigenous fire stewardship reduced wildfire risks.,
hinting how BC could adapt similar co-governance models.
Another global example from northern Australia is provided by the research of Russell-Smith et
al. (2013) which is about the ‘community savanna-burning methodology’, resulting out of a successful
collaboration between multinational companies, Australian Government and the Aboriginal
communities. The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project (WALFA), launched in 2005, is an example
of Indigenous-led fire management. Operating entirely on Aboriginal lands, the WALFA combines
traditional Indigenous fire practices, like controlled burning early in the dry season, to prevent big
wildfires, simultaneously, tracking down how much greenhouse gas is reduced. WALFA works as a

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

17

voluntary program but was able to secure a 17-year agreement with a multinational energy corporation
and received formal endorsement from the Australian Government for its accounting methodology.
Within seven years of its inception, the project was able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
37.7% compared to the average emissions recorded in the past 10 years before the project started. In
addition, the project also delivers social, biodiversity, and long-term biomass sequestration benefits.
This project shows that when Indigenous knowledge is combined with Western science and strong
partnerships, fire management can be more effective and sustainable. By learning from WALFA, British
Columbia could to create similar programs, and harness the Indigenous knowledge of wildfire
prevention efforts while also creating jobs and protecting nature.
Similar to Australia’s WALFA project, Nikolakis and Roberts (2022, p. 13-15) talks about the
Tsilhqot'in Fire Management (IFM) Pilot Program is a successful collaboration between the Yunesit'in
and Xeni Gwet'in First Nations (members of the Tsilhqot'in National Government) and the Gathering
Voices Society. This Pilot Program was Initiated after the devastating 2017 and 2018 wildfires,
revitalizing traditional Indigenous fire practices to mitigate wildfire risk, like studying phenological
indicators, such as the blooming of saskatoon berries, with modern fire management practices, resulting
in a reduction of 40% high-severity fires in managed areas from 2018–2020. This program also helped in
restoring ecosystems and addressing climate threats in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of British Columbia.
The research by Butler and Goldstein (2010), discusses about the U.S. Fire Learning Network
(FLN) has also played a key role in shaping specific fire management objectives, such as the
establishment of prescribed burn targets. For example, in one forest management plan informed by the
FLN, the objective was set to burn an average of 120,000 acres annually across all community types
within the forest. Notably, the plan emphasized that one-third of these burns should occur during the
growing season. This approach reflects a shift towards more proactive and ecologically informed fire
management, aiming to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfires.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

18

By setting clear, science-based targets and incorporating seasonal burning strategies, the FLN
demonstrates how collaborative networks can drive innovative and adaptive fire management practices.
Therefore, British Columbia could adopt similar strategies, integrating Indigenous knowledge and
seasonal burning practices to enhance ecosystem resilience and reduce wildfire risks.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Research
The strengths includes that the research successfully identified and analyzed a wide range of
academic articles, providing basis for understanding the integration of Indigenous knowledge into
wildfire management. The inclusion of case studies from North America and Australia added valuable
global perspectives. The research effectively identified key barriers to integration which are critical for
understanding the complexities of implementing Indigenous-led strategies in Western wildfire
management.
As for the weaknesses, a major aspect was that the research primarily relied on academic and
government sources, which may not fully represent the perspectives of Indigenous communities and
possibly increasing the risk of portrayal of traditional Indigenous knowledge from a Western lens. Even
the analysis of the literature review suggested about the underrepresentation of Indigenous-authored
research in this cause.
The use of peer-reviewed journals and case studies provided credible and relevant data. The
inclusion of recent studies (2014–2024) worked well for the research as it ensured that the research was
up-to-date with current trends and developments in wildfire management. However, the reliance on
secondary data limited the depth of the research. Additionally, the exclusion of literature focusing on
climate change to narrow the focus, may have omitted valuable insights into how Indigenous fire
management practices impact climate change. Thus, future research should prioritize the inclusion of
Indigenous voices, ensuring that their perspectives are central to the study and not just a tool within the
Western research framework. In future a more detailed discussion on ethical research practices,

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

19

including engagement of Indigenous communities and their consent, should be conducted to ensure
that the research is culturally appropriate and beneficial to Indigenous communities.
Discussion
The results highlight both the potential and the challenges of integrating Indigenous knowledge
into contemporary wildfire management in British Columbia. By synthesizing the results, several original
insights and conclusions emerge, offering a pathway for more inclusive and effective wildfire recovery
strategies.
Reconceptualizing Fire Management: From Suppression to Stewardship
The Indigenous communities consider fire sacred due to its life-giving force (Christianson et
al.,2022). They believe that fire can “clean” the land and later that land is used to promote agricultural
and subsistence practices However, after colonialization, the European settlers’ government
criminalized and prohibited Indigenous burning practices as they considered that fires were destructive
to the timber supply and dangerous to communities. The settler government and the Europeans were
skeptical about the ‘carefree’ burning practices of the Indigenous communities and instead invested in
fire suppression which causes more harm to the forests by allowing fuel loads (vegetation or dead
organic matter) to accumulate, resulting in wildfire. Hoffman et al. (2022) discusses how nearly a
century of fire suppression and timber-focused forest management has led to the accumulation of
flammable fuels in the forest area, making it difficult for economically struggling Indigenous
communities to re-engage in cultural burning (p. 475). Based on the results, it is important to note that
the Indigenous knowledge works and is effective, but it is often ignored or misunderstood because it
doesn’t fit into the Western standards of scientific knowledge. Overcoming this barrier is the key to
create better, more inclusive wildfire management strategies.
The BC wildfire management should embrace the Indigenous worldview by adopting practices
such as Traditional Phenological Knowledge (TPK) and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) which

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

20

utilizes seasonal indicators from the environment to mitigate destructive wildfires. This insight directly
addresses the first sub-question by identifying the specific Indigenous practices relevant to BC, such as
cultural burning and phenological indicators, and emphasizing their potential to enhance wildfire
recovery and resilience.
Addressing Barriers by Policy & Governance Reforms
The research resulted in the identification of significant barriers to implementing Indigenous
knowledge in BC’s wildfire management, including worldview conflicts, governance issues, and systemic
marginalization. Moving forward, policy reforms must acknowledge Indigenous rights to selfdetermination in land and fire management. British Columbia, for instance, could establish legal
frameworks that recognize Indigenous-led burning as an authorized and protected practice, reducing
bureaucratic and legal obstacles. Co-management models, where Indigenous fire practitioners hold
equal authority alongside government agencies, should be developed to ensure that Indigenous
leadership is embedded within wildfire governance structures (Hoffman et al. 2022, p. 472).
Learning from Global Best Practices: A Path Forward for British Columbia
The case studies from Australia’s West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project (WALFA) and the
Tsilhqot'in Fire Management Pilot Program provide powerful examples of how Indigenous-led fire
stewardship can be successfully implemented. A key takeaway is that long-term collaboration, financial
investment, and mutual respect between Indigenous communities, government agencies, and private
stakeholders are necessary for sustainable wildfire management.
Bridging the Knowledge Gap
One of the most crucial findings of this research is the lack of extensive academic
documentation on Indigenous fire knowledge. This highlights a critical need for decolonizing research
methodologies to ensure that Indigenous perspectives are not only included but also lead the discourse.
Moreover, future research must prioritize Indigenous-authored scholarship and direct engagement with

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

21

Indigenous fire practitioners as this traditional knowledge is not just an alternative for Western sciences
but is time-tested, ecological solution that is essential in the face of increasing wildfire risks due to
climate change.
Current Efforts to Integrate Indigenous Knowledge
The BC government has recently taken steps to recognize and support cultural burning through
initiatives such as the Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program, which partners with Indigenous
communities and the First Nations Emergency Services Society (FNESS) to revitalize traditional fire
practices (BC Wildfire Service, 2022). Cultural burning, as described by the BC Wildfire Service, is a
traditional land management practice that has been used by Indigenous peoples for millennia. It serves
multiple purposes, including ecological restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement, and the promotion of
traditional foods and medicinal plants (BC Wildfire Service, 2022). Similarly, a significant milestone in
2024 was the inaugural of Kootenay ?a-kinguku Prescribed Fire Training Exchange (TREX), co-hosted
with the Ktunaxa Nation’s ?aqam community and the FNESS. This program trained 33 practitioners
across 13 agencies, emphasizing Indigenous-led fire management and cross-cultural knowledge sharing
(Government of British Columbia, 2024, p. 8). Later, to address wildfire risk and to combine community
safety goals with hands-on training, the Moir Park Prescribed Burn in Cranbrook utilized TREX
participants (p. 10). Additionally, in 2024, 23 of 48 projects of each of B.C.’s six regional Fire Centres
were delivered with First Nations, and 21 burn plans were co-developed, reflecting growing partnerships
(Government of Canada, 2024, p. 11).
George Campbell, a Wildfire Technician and member of the Lytton First Nation, emphasizes that
cultural burning is not just about fuel reduction but about enhancing the landscape and reconnecting
with cultural heritage (BC Wildfire Service, 2022). Campbell describes when he participated in cultural
burns aimed at increasing habitat for elk, whose numbers were dwindling in the area. After burning 80
hectares, the forest rejuvenated, grasses grew back, and the elk population increased (BC Wildfire

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

22

Service, 2022). This example demonstrates the ecological benefits of cultural burning and its potential to
restore ecosystems while supporting wildlife.
However, the challenges remain, including the need to address historical barriers, such as the
Bush Fire Act of 1874, which criminalized cultural burning and contributed to the loss of traditional fire
keeping knowledge (BC Wildfire Service, 2022). Moving forward, it is essential for the BC government to
further build on these initiatives by fostering partnerships between Indigenous communities,
government agencies, and academic institutions to create a more inclusive and effective wildfire
management framework.
Recommendations
The study reveals substantial gaps in disaster resilience and wildfire management, particularly
concerning the erasure of Indigenous fire stewardship from academic, policy, and operational
frameworks. To address these gaps, the BC Wildfire Services and the Government of BC should consider
the following recommendations:
Expanding Indigenous-Led Fire Management Initiatives
Nikolakis and Roberts (2022) observes that Indigenous Fire Management (IMF) is being
advocated as a method to restore fire to the landscape and rightly mentions that “IFM mitigates
destructive wildfire by bringing the right fire, to the right place at the right time" (p. 2). Unlike the
Western suppression-centric or reactive approaches, IMF prioritize landscape resilience through lowintensity burns that mimic natural fire cycles, reducing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires (BC
Wildfire Service, 2022).
Therefore, to yield the benefits of proactive fire and decentralized fire management, the BC
government should continue to support initiatives like the Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program and
should expand TREX programs, which builds partnership with Indigenous communities to revitalize
traditional fire practices (BC Wildfire Service, 2022 and Government of British Columbia, 2024). This

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

23

includes providing funding for training programs and resources for Indigenous fire practitioners.
Additionally, the BC government should create advisory boards or committees that include Indigenous
leaders, firekeepers, and elders to guide wildfire management policies and practices. Moreover, the
success of partnerships between the BC Wildfire Service and Indigenous communities, such as the
Lytton First Nation and the Tsilhqot'in Fire Management (IFM) Pilot Program, demonstrates the
potential for such collaborations.
Promoting Global Knowledge-Sharing and Decentralized Fire Governance
The BC wildfire management can explore the potential for knowledge-sharing partnerships
between Indigenous communities in the province and other regions, such as Australia and the United
States, where Indigenous fire management has been successfully integrated. For instance, the comanagement model of Australia’s Kakadu National Park partnership, illustrates how equitable powersharing between Indigenous communities and government agencies can foster sustainable fire
management (Mazzocchi et al., 2018).
Further in BC, initiatives towards decentralizing fire governance should be promoted as
demonstrated by the amendments made to the Wildfire Act (2004) in 2023 which empower the First
Nations to lead burns without bureaucratic delays, centering Indigenous sovereignty in land
management (BC Wildfire Service, 2024, p. 3). These legislative changes align with on-the-ground
projects like the Flat Rock Prescribed Burn, where the Elders of the Williams Lake First Nation guided site
assessments to preserve culturally significant archaeological sites (e.g., pit houses) while simultaneously
reducing ladder fuels and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems (Government of Canada, 2024, p. 6). Such
initiatives focus on establishing co-governance boards with equal Indigenous representation, ensuring
that Indigenous voices shape wildfire strategies while integrating knowledge-sharing.
Indigenous Voices in Research Framework

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

24

Based on the research, one of the most significant barriers to advance integration efforts is the
lack of academic documentation on IFM from Indigenous perspectives. However, this gap is not due to
disinterest but stems from ethical and logistical challenges, such as Indigenous communities’ justified
skepticism toward extractive research practices (Christianson et al., 2015, p. 194).
To address this, decolonizing research methodologies must be prioritized, centering Indigenousauthored scholarship and direct partnerships with fire practitioners. Furthermore, dedicated grants and
Indigenous-led research funding must be established to lead studies on fire stewardship. Funding should
prioritize projects co-designed with Indigenous communities, ensuring alignment with their cultural
protocols, priorities, and intellectual property rights. Moreover, academic journals and institutions
should recognize and publish Indigenous knowledge systems (e.g., oral histories, seasonal fire calendars,
place-based practices) as valid forms of scholarship. Indigenous fire practitioners should be supported to
publish on their terms, using storytelling, maps, or multimedia. Moreover, a curriculum reform must be
established to integrate Indigenous fire ecology into university programs, wildfire training courses, and
certification curricula. The academic institutions should partner with Indigenous elders and practitioners
as co-instructors to teach regenerative burning techniques and historical fire regimes. Also, the
academic journals should promote success stories, such as the Flat Rock Prescribed Burn, to
demonstrate the efficacy of Indigenous-led approaches.
Beyond Integration
The current integration efforts taken by the Government of BC and the BC Wildfire Services
often confine the Indigenous involvement as a reconciliation initiative of inclusion within the existing
Western frameworks. In other words, the collaboration remains a gesture of reconciliation rather than a
fundamental shift in governance. True equity requires decentralizing decision-making authority to
Indigenous communities. If the goal is true co-governance and sovereignty in wildfire management, then
efforts must move beyond mere "integration" and toward equitable partnerships where Indigenous

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

25

communities have decision-making power, not just an advisory role. For instance, the 2023 Wildfire Act
amendments which enables First Nations to bypass bureaucratic burn approvals are a step towards the
right direction, but they must be paired with Indigenous-led oversight bodies that govern fire
management at regional and provincial levels. Without redistributing power, Indigenous knowledge
remains a tool within a colonial framework, not a sovereign practice.
Conclusion
The journey toward integrating Indigenous knowledge into British Columbia’s wildfire recovery
strategies is not merely a technical patch for a colonial-legacy system but a golden opportunity to
advance reconciliation and reimagine land stewardship through inclusivity. For decades, colonial policies
have silenced Indigenous voices, dismissed native knowledge and practices like Traditional Ecological
Knowledge cultural burning, which sustained ecosystems for millennia. Yet, as the devastation by
wildfire intensifies due to environmental changes, the wisdom of Indigenous fire stewardship which is
deeply rooted in reciprocity, observation, and respect for natural cycles and land, offers a sustainable
alternative which fire suppression alone is unable to provide.
This research highlights that successful integration requires more than mere token inclusion or
participation. It demands dismantling colonial structures that perpetuate power imbalances and
embracing Indigenous sovereignty over land and fire. Success stories like Australia’s WALFA project and
the Tsilhqot’in Fire Management Program prove that when Indigenous communities lead, ecosystems
thrive, risks diminish, and cultural heritage is revitalized. These models remind us that wildfire resilience
is not just about managing flames but restoring relationships between people, policies, and the land.
Moving forward, British Columbia must prioritize actionable approach in future research by
incorporating required legislative reforms, co-governance frameworks, and funding for Indigenous-led
research. Similarly, it is crucial to center Indigenous voices in academics, policy, and on-the-ground fire
management.

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

26
References

Armatas, C. A., Venn, T. J., McBride, B. B., Watson, A. E., & Carver, S. J. (2016). Opportunities to
utilize traditional phenological knowledge to support adaptive management of socialecological systems vulnerable to changes in climate and fire regimes. Ecology and
Society, 21(1), 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07905-210116
BC Wildfire Service. (2022, May 5). How cultural burning enhances landscapes and lives.
Government of British Columbia. https://blog.gov.bc.ca/bcwildfire/how-culturalburning-enhances-landscapes-and-lives/
Butler, W. H. & Goldstein, B. E. (2010). The US Fire Learning Network: Springing a rigidity trap
through multiscalar collaborative networks. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 21.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03470-150321
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. (2024). Canadian wildland fire prevention and mitigation
strategy. https://www.ccfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CWFPM-Strategy-EN2024-06-05-FINAL-_V09.pdf
Christianson, A. (2015). Social science research on Indigenous wildfire management in the 21st
century and future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(2), 190–
200. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13048
Christianson, A. C., Sutherland, C. R., Moola, F., Young, D., MacDonald, H., & Bautista, N. G.
(2022). Centering Indigenous voices: The role of fire in the boreal forest of North
America. Current Forestry Reports, 8, 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-02200168-9
Copes-Gerbitz, K., Daniels, L. D., & Hagerman, S. M. (2023). The contribution of Indigenous
stewardship to a historical mixed-severity fire regime in British Columbia, Canada.
Ecological Applications, 33(1), e2736. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2736

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

27

Copes-Gerbitz, K., Dickson-Hoyle, S., Ravensbergen, S. L., Hagerman, S. M., Daniels, L. D., & Coutu,
J. (2022a). Community engagement with proactive wildfire management in British
Columbia, Canada: Perceptions, preferences, and barriers to action. Frontiers in Forests
and Global Change, 5, 829125. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.829125
Copes-Gerbitz, K., Hagerman, S. M., & Daniels, L. D. (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
Copes-Gerbitz, K., Hagerman, S. M., & Daniels, L. D. (2022b). Transforming fire governance in
British Columbia, Canada: An emerging vision for coexisting with fire. Regional
Environmental Change, 22(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01895-2
Daniels, L. D., Dickson-Hoyle, S., Baron, J. N., Copes-Gerbitz, K., Flannigan, M. D., CastellanosAcuna, D., Hoffman, K. M., Bourbonnais, M., & Gray, R. W. (2024). The 2023 wildfires in
British Columbia, Canada: Impacts, drivers, and transformations to coexist with wildfire.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2024-0092
Eisenberg, C., Anderson, C. L., Collingwood, A., Sissons, R., Dunn, C. J., Meigs, G. W., Hibbs, D. E.,
Murphy, S., Kuiper, S. D., Spear Chief-Morris, J., Little Bear, L., Johnston, B., & Edson, C.
B. (2019). Out of the ashes: Ecological resilience to extreme wildfire, prescribed burns,
and Indigenous burning in ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 436.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00436
First Nations' Emergency Services Society of British Columbia. (2024, April 10). Indigenous fire
stewardship and co-existing with wildfire. https://www.fness.bc.ca/indigenous-firestewardship-co-existing-with-wildfire
Government of British Columbia. (2022, May 5). How cultural burning enhances landscapes and
lives. BC Wildfire. https://blog.gov.bc.ca/bcwildfire/how-cultural-burning-enhances-

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

28

landscapes-andlives/#:~:text=B.C.%20was%20the%20first%20province,and%20landscape%20we%20se
e%20today.
Government of British Columbia. (2024). 2024 Cultural & Prescribed Fire Annual Summary Report.
Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/your-specific-report-url
Hanes, C., Wang, X., Jain, P., Parisien, M.-A., Little, J., & Flannigan, M. (2019). Fire-regime changes
in Canada over the last half century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(3), 256–
269. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0293
Hoffman, K. M., Christianson, A. C., Dickson-Hoyle, S., Copes-Gerbitz, K., Nikolakis, W., Diabo, D.
A., & Daniels, L. D. (2022). The right to burn: Barriers and opportunities for Indigenousled fire stewardship in Canada. FACETS, 7(1), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets2021-0062
Kadykalo, A. N., Cooke, S. J., & Young, N. (2021). The role of Western-based scientific, Indigenous,
and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People and Nature, 3(3),
610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10194
Mazzocchi, F., Simandan, D., Demneh, M. T., Morgan, D. R., Ghazinoory, S., Saghafi, F., & Mirzaei,
M. (2018). Why ‘integrating’ Western science and Indigenous knowledge is not an easy
task: What lessons could be learned for the future of knowledge. Journal of Futures
Studies, 22(3), 19–34.
Nicholson, G. (2024). Incorporating Indigenous knowledge into disaster policies. Association of
Caribbean States. http://www.acs-aec.org/index.php?q=disaster-riskreduction/incorporating-indigenous-knowledge-into-disaster-policies

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

29

Nikolakis, W. & Roberts, E. (2022). Wildfire governance in a changing world: Insights for policy
learning and policy transfer. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 13(2), 144–164.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12224
Nikolakis, W. D. & Roberts, E. (2020). Indigenous fire management: A conceptual model from
literature. Ecology and Society, 25(4), 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11945-250411
Russell-Smith, J., Cook, G. D., Cooke, P. M., Edwards, A. C., Lendrum, M., Meyer, C., & Whitehead,
P. J. (2013). Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: Applying Aboriginal
approaches to contemporary global problems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
11(S1), e55–e63. https://doi.org/10.1890/120251
Wang, X., Oliver, J., Swystun, T., Hanes, C. C., Erni, S., & Flannigan, M. D. (2023). Critical fire
weather conditions during active fire spread days in Canada. Science of the Total
Environment, 869, 161831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161831
Wang, X., Parisien, M., Taylor, S. W., Candau, J., Stralberg, D., Marshall, G. A., Little, J. M., &
Flannigan, M. D. (2017). Projected changes in daily fire spread across Canada over the
next century. Environmental Research Letters, 12(2), 025005.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5835

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

30
Appendix A

Table ASearch Methodology and Literature Review Process
Database/Source

Search Terms

Initial

Revised

Revised

Reason for

Search

Search Terms

Search

Revision

Results
JIBC Library –

Results

"Indigenous knowledge

277

"Indigenous

12 revised

- Focused on fire-

or traditional

results

fire

results

specific Indigenous

knowledge or

management"

practices

indigenous ways of

AND "cultural

- Selected article

knowing" AND "wildfire

burning" AND

titles targeted at

management or wildfire

"British

North American

prevention" AND

Columbia

and Australian case

"British Columbia"

wildfire

studies

management"

- Research
published in the
last 10 years
(2014–2024)
- Added the limit to
full text availability
and Scholarly (Peer
Reviewed) Journals

INDIGENOUS-LED RECOVERY IN
BC WILDFIRE MGMT

31

Google

"Indigenous fire

22,100

"Indigenous

Scholar

stewardship" AND

results

wildfire

Canadian,

"wildfire mitigation"

knowledge"

North American

AND “integrating

AND

and Australian

indigenous knowledge”

"prescribed

case studies

AND “indigenous fire

burning" AND

management”

"British

published in the

Columbia

last 10 years

Wildfire

(2014–2024)

Practices"

33

-

-

-

Targeted

Research

Eliminated case
studies focusing
on climate
change