BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM WITH LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS OF ULAAN TAIGA SPECIAL PROTECTED AREA IN MONGOLIA by Badamgarav Dovchin A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Independent Interdisciplinary Program MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2022 ©COPYRIGHT by Badamgarav Dovchin 2022 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my greatest appreciation to my Darhad Valley advisory board members and my doctoral committee chair Dr. Christine Stanton for her priceless advice and technical and emotional support throughout this project. Also, I thank my doctoral committee members Dr. Paul Lachapelle, Dr. Kristin Ruppel, Dr. Suzanne Held, Dr. Elizabeth Rink, and William Kleindl, for contributing their time, heartfelt advice, instructions, and thoughts, Donna Neegard at Graduate School of MSU and Deborah Chiolero at Office of International Programs for their continued support. I am truly thankful to my field assistants Florence Miller, Taylor Simpson, and my Herder User Groups participant experts for their help, patience, and friendship. Most importantly I thank people of Ulaan-Uul, Bayanzurkh, Renchinlhumbe and Tsagaannuur counties, my friends at Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area employees, rangers, and director Tumursukh Jal. I am especially thankful to the Fulbright Science and Technology Award and MSU for funding this project and BioRegions International (BRI), Open Society Award of Soros Foundation for providing fieldwork opportunities. Finally, I thank my dear husband Bat-Erdene Zorigtbaatar and my family and friends for being patient and for all your moral and emotional support throughout the process of making this work happen. May the eternal blue sky of Mongolia and the big sky of Montana bless everyone who contributed to this work. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................... 1 Research Problems Addressed by the Dissertation Manuscripts ................................................ 3 The Statement of Purpose ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives and Structure of The Dissertation ............................................................................. 4 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................ 6 Positionality Statement ............................................................................................................... 7 Work Cited ................................................................................................................................ 12 2. TWIN RIDE: INTEGRATING WSEK AND TEK IN MONGOLIA (LITERATURE REVIEW) 39 Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors ................................................................................. 39 Manuscript Information ............................................................................................................ 40 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 41 Epistemological differences between WSEK and TEK ........................................................... 42 Historical Milestones shaping Mongolian Land Managemen The Broader Historical Context (Mongolia before 1921) ........................................................ 45 Communist Revolution (1921-1990) First Wave of Western Epistemology ............................................................................ 46 Democratic Revolution (1990-present) and Major Waves of Resource Exploitation and Second Wave of Western Epistemology ........................................................................ 47 Building a Fire in Water: Successes and Failures of Land Management Initiatives in Mongolia ............................................................... 49 The Tragedy of the Commons and Attempts to Privatize the Land of Mongolia ................................................................................. 49 Community-Based Natural Resource Management ....................................................... 50 Initiatives Still Using WSEK as Main Tool ................................................................... 50 Recommendations: Toward a “Twin Ride” for Mongolian Land Management ............................................................................................ 52 Applying Ostrom’s Principles to the Mongolian Context ............................................. 52 CBPR as a Tool for Land Management Decision-Making in Mongolia .................................................................................................. 55 Ecosystem Service and Ecosystem Service Flow in Mongolia ................................................ 57 Informal Education and the Future of Mongolian Land Management ................................................................................... 58 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 59 Works Cited .............................................................................................................................. 61 3. COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ACTION: LESSONS FROM COMMUNITIES IN THE ULAAN TAIGA SPECIAL PROTECTED AREA BUFFERZONE COMMUNITIES 82 Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors ................................................................................. 82 Manuscript Information ............................................................................................................ 83 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 84 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 84 Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) ............................. 85 The Darhad Valley: Following the Flow for CBPR ...................................................... 86 CBPR in the Darhad Valley: Five Phases of Practice .............................................................. 89 Phase#1: Establish, Maintain, and Reflect Upon a Relationship with the Community ............................................................................................................... 89 Phase#2: The Research Questions Come from the Community .................................... 91 Phase#3: Data Collection in Partnership with Critical Informants ................................ 92 Phase#4: Data Analysis that is Inclusive, Transparent, and Collaborative .................... 93 Phase#5: Dissemination Plans ....................................................................................... 95 Herders: Visual Posters, Storytelling, and Community Meetings .................................... 95 Local Government/Policymakers: Organization Feedback Reports Scientists/Researchers: Scientific Publications ................................................................. 96 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 97 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 98 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 100 4. BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM FOR BUFFER ZONE LAND MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF ULAAN TAIGA SPECIAL PROTECTED AREA .......................................................... 121 Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors ............................................................................... 121 Manuscript Information .......................................................................................................... 122 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 123 Study Area and Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 126 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 127 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 137 Absence of inclusive land assessment and management tools ....................................... 137 The establishment of the new SPA created unbalanced decision-making ...................... 141 Climate change and land degradation observations ........................................................ 142 v TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Benefits of SPAs ............................................................................................................. 142 Recommendations for policy changes ............................................................................ 143 Recommendations for continued collaboration .............................................................. 144 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 145 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 148 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 149 5. REFLECTION/SYNTHESIS ................................................................................................. 157 Lessons Related to the Use of CBPR for Land Management Research and Practice .............................................................................. 159 Lessons Related to the Integration of WSEK and TEK ................................................................................................................. 162 Lessons Related to Working with Indigenous Communities and Western Institutions ................................................................................... 163 Lessons Related to Mentoring Graduate Students in CBPR Research .................................................................................................... 169 Conclusion and Future Directions .......................................................................................... 170 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 174 REFERENCES CITED…………………………………………………………………………201 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………. 229 APPENDIX A: Government Tool for Soil and Pasture Assessment ...................................... 230 APPENDIX B: IRB from Montana State University ............................................................. 288 APPENDIX C: General Survey .............................................................................................. 290 APPENDIX D: Key Participant Experts’ Interviews ............................................................. 292 APPENDIX E: IRB from MSU and Consent Form for Key Participant Experts ................... 294 APPENDIX F: Data Analysis ProtocoL ................................................................................. 296 APPENDIX G: Herder Notebooks ......................................................................................... 301 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 The Inclusive Land Assessment Tool Chart ................................................................... 135 2 Codes for each stakeholder in columns address the stakeholders in the rows. ............... 139 3 Herders' Suggestion of collaborations with the other stakeholders ................................ 144 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The historical Development of TEK and WSEK and the Disconnect .............................. 43 2 The worldview of Mongolians VS Western worldview ................................................... 44 3 Traditional Circle of Mongolian communities and CBPR framework ............................. 56 4 The fundament of Ecosystem Service and its sustainable flow ........................................ 57 5 Epistemological Triangle of Mongolian TEK .................................................................. 59 6 Mountain and River Metaphor .......................................................................................... 87 7 Map of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Areas (SPAs) that consists of one National Park and two Strictly Protected Areas ............................................................... 88 8 Research matrix ................................................................................................................ 89 9 Initial community meetings BZ and RL L-R .................................................................... 91 10 The changes of major factors in the last 100 years of Mongolia .................................... 91 11 TEK and WEK evolutions and disconnect. .................................................................. 124 12 Map of Darhad Valley and Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area ................................. 126 13 Research matrix ............................................................................................................ 129 14 Bayanzurkh and Renchinlhumbe county HUG and other stakeholder meetings L-R ................................................................................................................. 131 15 Hand-drawn maps and GIS maps of the two HUGs in the buffer zone ........................ 131 16 Western science-based land assessment method being introduced to herders ............. 133 17 Herders' interpretation of topsoil quality poster ............................................................ 133 18 Herder's evaluation method is being introduced to other stakeholder groups. ............. 134 19 The least and the most degraded pastureland photos L-R used as reference sites. ....... 134 viii LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED Figure Page 20 Stakeholder preferred system of land assessment and decision-making. ..................... 137 21 Waterfall on Hög River during the Gold Rush 2011 and after UTSPA protection 2013 and 2020. ............................................................................................. 143 22 Circle of Mongolian community and CBPR overlap .................................................... 146 ix ABSTRACT Environmental degradation and its management are pressing issues worldwide, especially in developing countries. Mongolia is a nomadic culture country with publicly owned land grazed by privately owned herds of domestic animals experiencing intense land degradation (Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia, 2018). The Eurocentric system (Koobak et al., 2021) Western Science-Based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) (Studley, 1998) was introduced first by communism, then global North aid programs. Mongolian government fully adopted WSEK methods despite the reality that people of Mongolia still utilize Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Berkes, 2012; Jamsranjav et al., 2019). Gradually the disconnect between the stakeholders increased over the last 100 years. Climate change, socioeconomic pressures on publicly owned land, and multiple stakeholders who practice different decision-making systems call for collaborative facilitation and interventions. The purpose of this study is to examine the following two major points: 1. The possibility of addressing the land degradation issues by integrating TEK and WSEK through Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) facilitations in the Darhad Valley, Mongolia (2014-2020). 2. The perceptions of buffer zone communities of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area (UTSPA) regarding their ability to manage their land and the ecosystem services it provides. Guidance and participation of locals and advisory board across all steps in the research process (Hallett et al., 2017; Stanton, 2014), and application of a CBPR framework help rebalance the power dynamics among the stakeholders (Coombe et al., 2020a) and bring shared ownership (D'Alonzo, 2010) and trust (P. R. Lachapelle & McCool, 2012) to decision-making. Our team concluded that integrated epistemologies offer added strength and innovation in addressing some of the complex challenges. We found that the "twin ride" (integration) of WSEK and TEK complement each other (Maweu, 2011). CBPR provides a framework to facilitate collaboration, apply theory to practice in culturally and epistemologically appropriate ways specific to the host community (Stanton et al., 2020), and help overcome various barriers such as loss of trust, institutional differences, and give time to collectively develop shared goals (P. R. Lachapelle et al., 2003). CBPR is a complicated but rewarding, potentially healing process (Stanton, 2014a; Waddell et al., 2020). 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Introduction This chapter provides definitions of terms and a brief introduction to the work followed by a positionality statement of the researcher (Badamgarav Dovchin), which covers the background of my education, the area of interest, and how this research has evolved. This work is prepared in partial fulfillment of an Individual Interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree that covers land management combined with cultural studies and education specific to a herder community in Darhad Valley, Mongolia. The dissertation is structured in a five-chapter format with three manuscripts, rather than a traditional dissertation format. The manuscript format allows us to present the socioeconomic and political background of the unique study destination and the methodological and empirical implications of this interdisciplinary research project in three independent central manuscripts. The final chapter synthesizes the lessons learned and the recommendations for future studies and researchers. Definitions of Terms For a better understanding of this work, the following terms are defined in the context of this research. CBPR. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to research in which community and university partners work as equal partners in all stages of a research project (Israel et al., 2005). 2 Herder User Group. Group of herder families (10-15) who share adjacent pastures and initiate the community organization called “nuhurlul” (kinship), which is translated as a herder user group. Stakeholders. Community groups with similar needs and roles in terms of land use (in this case study). Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Form of rational and reliable knowledge developed through generations of intimate contact by Native peoples with their lands, which has equal status with scientific knowledge (Berkes, 2012b) and emphasizes the mutual dependency of human and nonhumans (Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000a) Western Science-based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK). Western science lays claims to truthful representations of the world and positions “Nature” as the universal object of management (Ayre & Mackenzie, 2012; Studley, 1998). WSEK externalizes the natural world by isolating the parts (Harman, 1996) of the world from their holistic, contextual interrelationships in an effort to examine and control those parts (Elliott, 2009). Local Advisory Board. Group of representatives of the participant community consisting of elders, youth, women, men, government officials, herders, and other representatives from local organizations. In the study described in the following chapters and consistent with CBPR protocols, this group is also referred to as a Community Advisory Board (CAB). Local Government. Soum (county) level government organizations and policymakers. Strictly Protected Area (SPA). The highest level of national protection of land in Mongolia. No activities are allowed within the boundary of the strictly protected area except research and a certain type of tourism in designated areas. 3 Buffer zone. Piece of land that falls within the 10km of the actual boundary of the SPA where local community members are allowed to practice their daily life. Research Problems Addressed by the Dissertation Manuscripts Environmental degradation and its management are pressing issues worldwide, especially in developing countries. Mongolia is one of those countries where herder communities, government, and scientists have all recognized these issues and have struggled to manage environmental degradation for more than a decade (Byambaa & de Vries, 2020; Fernández- Giménez, 2002; Fernandez-Gimenez & Allen-Diaz, 1999; Ulambayar & Fernández-Giménez, 2019; Upton, 2005a). Mongolia is home to traditionally nomadic cultures with publicly owned land grazed by privately owned herds of domestic animals. Eurocentric (Koobak et al., 2021) Western Science- Based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) (Studley, 1998) was introduced first through Russian communism, then by international aid organizations and reform efforts from the global North. Mongolian national decision-making systems fully adopted WSEK tools and methods despite the reality that most Mongolians still practice their nomadic lifeways based on their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Berkes, 2012; Jamsranjav et al., 2019). National government education and policy systems never implemented any measures connecting the WSEK systems to the land users who practice deep TEK (“deep ecology” (Devall et al., 1985) values nature for its intrinsic value rather than monetary value). On the contrary, the decision-making system based on WSEK has excluded and been forced upon users while neglecting their TEK but solely focus on material value and benefits of land. Gradually the 4 disconnect between user stakeholders and national decision-makers has increased over the last 100 years. Climate change and socioeconomic pressures on publicly owned land with multiple stakeholders that practice different decision-making systems call for collaborative facilitation and interventions. Guidance of local community members, participation of an advisory board across all steps in the research process (Hallett et al., 2017; Stanton, 2014), and application of a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework can help rebalance the power dynamics among the stakeholders (Coombe et al., 2020a) and bring shared ownership (D'Alonzo, 2010) and trust (P. R. Lachapelle & McCool, 2012) to decision-making. The Statement of Purpose The purpose of this qualitative case study is to examine the following two major points: 1. The possibility of addressing the land degradation issues by integrating TEK and WSEK through CBPR facilitations in the Darhad Valley, Mongolia (2014-2020). 2. The perceptions of buffer zone communities of Ulaan Taiga SPA regarding their ability to manage their land and the ecosystem services it provides. Objectives and Structure of The Dissertation In order to understand Mongolian environmental degradation issues and search for possible solutions, it is critical to work with the community affected by the issues and co- examine the perceptions of rural community herders' ability to manage their land and ecosystem services (Schröter et al., 2019). In response to the land management and research-related 5 challenges, this dissertation seeks to address multiple, integrated paths of solutions and to outline those paths for diverse, interdisciplinary audiences. Chapter 2: Manuscript #1—This literature review will provide relevant definitions and a broad historical background with major events and factors that shaped Mongolia’s current land management situation. Then, the chapter overviews the specific background of the Darhad Valley—the research location—and the regional land management history, focusing on epistemological differences in land management directions and recommendations for future research. This manuscript will be submitted to a land resources management journal such as Land Degradation and Development. Chapter 3: Manuscript #2—This methodological article situates the potential for CBPR within land management research, especially when tensions arise between TEK and WSEK. The chapter offers a condensed background section to describe the context and related disparities surrounding land management decisions. Then, it introduces CBPR as a methodological orientation and describes the detailed steps and examples to illustrate how the CBPR framework can be applied. The chapter concludes with emerging methodological implications, such as lessons and considerations for future research and recommendations to other researchers wanting to do CBPR and/or research with/in communities in Mongolia. This manuscript will be submitted to an interdisciplinary methodological journal such as Qualitative Inquiry. Chapter 4: Manuscript #3—This empirical article provides a detailed description of the specific study, including an abbreviated literature review and methods section, a detailed results section, and a discussion section that connects the overall results to the existing scholarship, advances in theory, practice, and methodology, and provides recommendations for future 6 research specific to land management and education in Mongolia. This manuscript will be submitted to an interdisciplinary land conservation journal, such as, IK: Other Ways of Knowing. Chapter 5: Reflection/Synthesis—The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the manuscript chapters and highlight lessons learned as a doctoral student at a Western university while prioritizing the implementation of research in culturally responsible and community- centered ways. Finally, the chapter offers recommendations for faculty members, researchers, and others, in terms of supporting this type of work. Ethical Considerations This project raised several sensitive issues related to participant experts and data that was collected, including the following: 1. How to protect access to Traditional Ecological Knowledge that is the intellectual property of rural Mongolian cultures and communities; 2. How to confront and mitigate conflicts between the decision-makers and stakeholders surrounding land management and resource extraction; and, 3. How to manage human subject data while adhering to cultural protocols, particularly within publications. I addressed these potential areas of sensitivity in several ways. First, I followed the regulations of the IRB of Montana State University (Appendix E), which ensured data management and security. Second, I helped form a Community Advisory Board (CAB) in the Darhad Valley to support adherence to the local people's intellectual and spiritual values. In every stage of this research project, I followed the CAB's advice, sought review of plans and 7 analysis by its members, and collaborated with CAB members to develop careful plans for dissemination to ensure the safety of participants and the data. Due to the CAB’s and local participants' concerns of possible knowledge loss, exploitation of the TEK, and the misuse of interview data, the translations/interpretations of all raw data to English were not allowed. Under the CAB's careful reviews and guidelines, the data preparation, transcribing, initial coding, and secondary analysis were completed in Darhad and Dukha Mongolian dialects only. The final analysis of the qualitative survey data was translated into English for NVivo analysis after the previous steps were completed and initial analysis released by the CAB. However, full general survey and the results of the in-depth interview data were translated to English and some data will only be released with special permission from the CAB as its members may request further analysis or follow-up studies. The lawful owner of all the data obtained and created during this research will be the Darhad and Dukha participants and the communities of Bayanzurkh, Renchinlhumbe, Tsagaannuur, and Ulaan-Uul counties of Hovsgol province in Mongolia. Positionality Statement I identify as a female Indigenous Mongolian. My whole family are Halh (one of the 37 ethnic groups of Mongolia that live in Central and Northwestern Mongolia). I grew up in a small timber-making town in northwestern Mongolia. Although my native language is Mongolian, I went to a Russian high school where the whole school curriculum was taught in Russian only, which forced me to learn Russian. Later, in college, I learned English. My last two graduate degrees were completed in English. I display an Asian phenotype and speak English with heavy Mongolian and Russian language accents. For most of my 8 fieldwork for this degree, I worked with non-English speaking Darhad Mongolian and reindeer herding community members of my field location, the Darhad Valley of Northern Mongolia. I learned the Darhad and Dukha dialects of the Mongolian language, conducted my field research for my master's and doctoral work while communicating with my supervisors and doctoral committee in English, and completed my coursework at Montana State University in the USA. Prior to my graduate research here in the USA, I completed my undergraduate degree in Education and an Applied Linguistics Master's degree at the University of the Humanities of Mongolia, as well as Master's coursework in the Ecology degree program at the Biology and Biotechnology School of the National University of Mongolia. I first set foot in the Darhad Valley after my freshman year of college when I worked as a backcountry tour guide. I was fascinated by the region's geographic, biological, and cultural beauty. The context is rich and complex, yet a gentle host to its guests, through its welcoming and caring people, mysterious and sacred mountains surrounded by the water lily blooming lakes and lush green Valley, and melodic languages that tell/sing stories and songs about mountains and rivers. Тhe Blue Valley (Darhad is referred to as Blue Valley by Mongolians) shares its official title as the coldest place of Mongolia with my hometown for its freezing -50C (-58F) weather. My first visit to Darhad felt like returning to my home. However, I did not understand a word from the conversations. It sounded like the speakers were just singing songs with an occasional peppering of people's names. I stayed as a tour guide for all my college years, learning the language and culture, sharing them with tourists, shooting documentaries of the longest migration over the mountains while riding horses and reindeer, and hiking and swimming with my dear Darhad and Dukha friends and mentors. Then, as a graduate researcher on language preservation and policy issues, I recorded over 500 songs and legends, visited powerful shamans, and participated in ceremonies of sacred mountains and rivers. I served ten more years as 9 interpreter/community development coordinator for a project from Montana State University organizing cultural festivals; facilitating human, animal, and environmental health projects; interpreting health screenings; and sampling 300 trees at 80 random plots around the Valley while learning about climate change, soil erosion, and loss of deep yet practical Traditional Ecological Knowledge. After a total of 12 years of learning in the Valley, I applied for an environmental science graduate degree and Fulbright Science and Technology Awards scholarship to formally learn from the people of the Darhad Valley. This dissertation project results from that work and is a step toward a commitment to contribute back to the community. I owe my learning to this Valley and its people, who raised me equally as my parents. The breathtaking ecosystems of Darhad Valley, the deep forests of the Red Taiga, and the 300 lakes and 100 rivers that feed the eastern Siberian region are vital for the sustainability of rare and fragile wildlife like snow leopards and six-foot-long freshwater salmon. The resilient yet endangered Valley supports sacred blooms of snow lotus sustained by the thin crust of precious soil on the prehistoric lake sediment and sharp glacial mountainsides. Conservation in these places calls for gentle care from people based on diverse ways of knowing. These include deep place-based millennium-old Traditional Ecological Knowledge and cutting-edge western science advances. As a famous anthropologist, Wade Davis, eloquently described, "Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thoughts, an ecosystem of spiritual and social possibilities" (Davis, 2014, p. 1). The ethnosphere (Davis, 2009) is a blanket of local knowledge and fabric of a culture that covers the biophysical landscape in the form of names, songs, and legends. This knowledge helps sustain both the biosphere and ethnosphere. The ongoing journey of my learning has made me realize that the damage in the ethnosphere layer gets translated into the biosphere like a hole in the ozone layer. Our mother earth is screaming for us to mend the damage, and such mending is possible only by working holistically in unity. 10 I think it is most appropriate to define my role as a research facilitator, a learner, an interpreter, and a friend. In these roles, I centered the local community members as co-researchers while investigating the stakeholders' environmental degradations and social conflicts. Reflective journaling and daily interactions with my co-researchers and colleagues helped me bracket and reflect upon my own biases in this research. Despite my multiple overlapping roles in this research, I worked hard to maintain transparency of the position and intentions that I have held with my research participants and partners throughout the research process. Although I speak a different dialect of Mongolian and am from another region of Mongolia from my research community, I grew up in a similar nomadic culture. My home town is geographically adjacent to the Darhad Valley. I learned the Darhad and Dukha dialects with the community's help, and I endeavored to receive that help with respect. The previous positions I held and projects I worked on were community- initiated projects that focused on solving the pressing community development challenges. Over the years, I have learned that the Darhad community people are rightfully capable of diagnosing their community's issues and initiating projects to solve them. Therefore, I accepted the invitation to complete the research described in the following chapters as a learner, a facilitator, and a participant with the Darhad Valley community. To further ensure responsible representation and meet the community's expectations, I triangulated data for accuracy by checking current government regulations, scientific literature, and oral history accounts. During this project, I have observed and participated in conversations, experienced conflicts, witnessed misunderstandings, and facilitated consensus-building among stakeholders. In some cases, I experienced discrimination based on gender, culture, worldview/epistemology, and race, as did other participants. From the position I held in this 11 study, I worked hard to portray the institutional integrity of my research without biases. However, I would advise future researchers to be aware of overlapping intersectionality and possible complications due to the inseparable quality of the research completed with the people while unpacking real-world problems. It is this focus on collective sense-making that shaped the products stemming from the dissertation project. While this first chapter (and the fifth chapter) focuses on my individual story in relationship to the research, the three central manuscripts were possible only because of the guidance and support of community partners. Therefore, much of the rest of the writing in this dissertation will use the plural first person ("we") to refer to research decisions, processes, and interpretations. We, the team of participants and researchers of this Community-Based Participatory (CBPR) work, hope these collective stories will reflect the genuine efforts of our research team at MSU and in the Darhad Valley. Finally, while the research described throughout the following chapters is specific to the Darhad Valley, we hope our readers thaw these written words "frozen-in-time" (Windchief & Cummins, 2021) with their bright minds and "keep [research] sacred" (Stanton et al., 2020) by planting the general lessons we learned in their rich ecosystems of mind and land. 12 Work Cited Addison, J., Davies, J., Friedel, M., & Brown, C. (2013). Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? Journal of Arid Environments, 94, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.02.009 Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert: not as straight forward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Afifi, R. A., Abdulrahim, S., Betancourt, T., Btedinni, D., Berent, J., Dellos, L., Farrar, J., Nakkash, R., Osman, R., Saravanan, M., Story, W. T., Zombo, M., & Parker, E. (2020). Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12453 Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. S. (2011). Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38(02), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000925 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Allen, M. L., Culhane-Pera, K. A., Pergament, S., & Call, K. T. (2011). A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00362.x Allington, G. R. H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Chen, J., & Brown, D. G. (2018). Combining participatory scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the Mongolian Plateau. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209 Anna, & Drugge. (2016). Ethics in Indigenous Research. In Past experiences–future challenges. Umeå: Vaartoe– …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra_Juutilainen/publication/311593254_Moving_forwar d_with_Sami_research_ethics_how_the_dialogical_process_to_policy_development_in_Canada _supports_the_course_of_action_for_the_Nordic_countries_In_Drugge_AL_ed_Ethics 13 Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.011 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non-indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 Ayre, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). “Unwritten, unsaid, just known”: the role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environment, 18(January 2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665864 Baabar, B.-E. (1999). History of Mongolia. Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. In Alaska Native Knowledge Network (Vol. 23). http://search.ebscohost.com.cyber.usask.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44047668&sit e=ehost-live Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knolwedge Systems and the Alaskan Native Ways of Knowing.pdf. In Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 8–23). Barnhardt, R., & Kirkness, V. J. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R’s - Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–17. Bathishig Baival, Fernandez-Gimenez, & Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E, R. R. (2012). Community- Based Range Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities. In Vasa. Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2010). Fenced in: Common property struggles in the management of communal rangelands in central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.006 14 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Biran, M. (2004). The Mongol transformation: From the steppe to Eurasian Empire. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570067043077869 Boslaugh, S. (2016). Anthropocentrism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Issue January 2016). Bradsher, H. S. (1972). The Sovietization of Mongolia. Foreign Affairs, 50(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.2307/20037928 Brondizio, E. S., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Wilson, S. J., Reyes-García, V., Öllerer, K., & Fernández- Llamazares, Á. (2018). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., Pérez, C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins : A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-39 Bruegger, R. A., Jigjsuren, O., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2014). Herder Observations of Rangeland Change in Mongolia: Indicators, Causes, and Application to Community-Based Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00124.1 15 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 Bumochir, D. (2017). Mongolia. In Routledge handbook of civil society in Asia (pp. 95–109). Routledge. Bumochir, D., & Munkherdene, G. (2019). Revitalisation of Cultural Heritage in Mongolia. Inner Asia, 21(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340117 Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, S. A. (2005). Lessons learned from community- based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 12 Suppl 2(November), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274805012004s10 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty : 34(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.127.American Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression, Mongolia , during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012a). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012b). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4 16 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020a). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020b). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community- based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christmann, S., Aw-Hassan, A., Rajabov, T., & Rabbimov, A. (2015). Collective Action for Common Rangelands Improvement: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in Uzbekistan. Society and Natural Resources, 28(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933927 Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships ‘Walk Softly and L Carefully’ isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757 Circle of Tribal Advisers. (2003). Enough Good People. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). (2014). Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. (Issue September). http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ 17 Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Espinosa, P. R., Nicasio, A. v., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wylliede Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020a). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020b). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 13). Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28. https://doi.org/38 Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716 Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010a). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010b). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x 18 Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing Health Research: Community-Based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22– 36. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v15i3.155 Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. House of Anansi. Davis, W. (2014). Keynote Speech: The Ethnosphere and the Academy. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Calvo-Boyero, D., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante-Semerena, R. I., & Corbera, E. (2018). Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & others. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage. Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2005). Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press. Devall, B., Sessions, G., & others. (1985). Deep ecology. Pojman. Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 19 Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local Understandings of the Land: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_4 Dunbar, T., & Scrimgeour, M. (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9018-1 Dunn, C. P. (2017). Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies. In Plant Diversity (Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 396–401). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.003 E. Tumur. (2021). Institutional arrangements for community-based rangeland management in Mongolia. Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Lancet, 367(9528), 2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68925-3 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elands, B. H. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elliott, F. (2009). Science, metaphoric meaning, and Indigenous knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 284–297. Endicott, E. (2012). A history of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). Enkhjargal Adiya. (2010). GENDER EQUITY IN ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONGOLIA. In Thesis (Issue May). Ericksen, A. (2014). Depend on Each Other and Don’t Just Sit: The Socialist Legacy, Responsibility, and Winter Risk among Mongolian Herders. 73(1). Ericksen, A. (2020). The Limitations of Wintering Away From Customary Pastures in Relation to Dzud in Mongolia’s Gobi Region. Nomadic Peoples, 24(1), 86–110. 20 Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 Fassnacht, S. R., Sukh, T., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Batbuyan, B., Venable, N. B. H., Laituri, M., & Adyabadam, G. (2011). Local understanding of hydro-climatic changes in Mongolia. IAHS-AISH Publication, 346(July), 120–129. Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070 Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Community-based Natural Resource Management: State of the Science—Global Perspectives. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(Caughley 1979), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00447.x Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Batkhishig, B., Batbuyan, B., & Ulambayar, T. (2015). Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters. World Development, 68, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015 Fernandez-gimenez, M. E., & Fassnacht, S. R. (2015). Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands : A Trans- disciplinary Research Conference – Preface. 9–15. Flanagan, C., & Laituri, M. (2004). Local Cultural Knowledge and Water Resource Management: The Wind River Indian Reservation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McMcgrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2008). “If you could change one thing⋯” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 21 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 Fratkin, E., & Mearns, R. (2003). Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Human Organization, 62(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.2.am1qpp36eqgxh3h1 Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Konagaya, Y., Maekawa, A., Tsogtbaatar, J., Batjargal, Z., Enkhjargal, B., Tuvshintogtokh, I., Ariungerel, D., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Yamamura, N., Satoh, T., Sugita, M., Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, M., Ishii, R., … Jargalsaikhan, L. (2013). The Mongolian Ecosystem Network. 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431- 54052-6 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Gantuya, B., Avar, Babai, D., Molnár, & Molnár, Z. (2019). “a herder’s duty is to think”: Landscape partitioning and folk habitats of Mongolian herders in a mountain forest steppe (Khuvsugul- Murun region). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0328-x Goulden, C. E., Mead, J., Horwitz, R., Mccormick, S., Boldgiv, B., & Petraitis, P. S. (2016). Interviews of Mongolian herders and high resolution precipitation data reveal an increase in short heavy rains and thunderstorm activity in semi-arid Mongolia. Climate Change, First onli, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1614-4 Goyal, H. D. (1999). A Development Perspective on Mongolia. Asian Survey, 39(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/3021242 Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance \& Development, 34(003). Grayson, R. (2007). Anatomy of the People’s Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia. World Placer Journal, 7, 1–66. http://www.mine.mn/WPJ7_1_Peoples_Gold_Rush.pdf 22 Grayson, R., Delgertsoo, T., Murray, W., Tumenbayar, B., Batbayar, M., Urtnasan, T., Dashzeveg, B., & Chimed, E.-B. (2004). The People’s Gold Rush in Mongolia – the Rise of the ‘Ninja’ Phenomenon. World Placer Journal, 4. Special (November), 1–112. Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. idrc. Guta, A., Flicker, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Governing through community allegiance: A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.761675 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200105 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Heuschert, D. (1998). Legal pluralism in the qing empire: Manchu legislation for the mongols. In International History Review (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 310–324). https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640825 Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s 23 linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a native american community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002 Hosen, N., & Nakamura, H. (2020). Local Knowledge for Global Actions: The role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change adaptation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(13), 37. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2059 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 Humphrey, C. (1992). The Moral Authority of the Past in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Religion, State & Society, 20(3–4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499208431566 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “Wilderness” park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf IMF. (2019). Selected issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3821-5_16 Inikori, J. E. (2020). Atlantic slavery and the rise of the capitalist global economy. Current Anthropology, 61(S22), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/709818 Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community- Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 24 Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kakinuma, K., Ozaki, T., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). VEGETATION CHANGES CAUSED BY GRAZING. 12(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120205 Kakinuma, K., & Takatsuki, S. (2012). Applying local knowledge to rangeland management in northern Mongolia: do ‘narrow plants’ reflect the carrying capacity of the land? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-23 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Karnieli, A., & Bayarjargal, Y. (2013). Do vegetation indices provide a reliable indication of vegetation degradation? A case study in the Mongolian pastures. … Journal of Remote …. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2013.793865 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 25 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (2018). Addressing climate change at the community level in the United States. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727 Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning. Society and Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855 Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F., & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources, 16(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309151 Lachapelle, P. R., Smith, P. D., & McCool, S. F. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review, 11(1), 1–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory—What it is Not! Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 12669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for Indigenous Survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ba4oDwAAQBAJ Lander, J. (2019). Transnational Law and State Transformation: The Case of Extractive Development in Mongolia. Routledge. Lattimore, O. (2008). Religion and Revolution in Mongolia. Modern Asian Studies, 1(01), 81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00000081 Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articler ender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 26 Lee Peluso, N. (2011). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch55 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia : data analysis and game estimation. Liu, Y. Y., Evans, J. P., Mccabe, M. F., Jeu, R. A. M. de, Dijk, A. I. J. M. van, Dolman, A. J., & Saizen, I. (2013). Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. 8(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057599 Lkhagvadorj, D., Hauck, M., Dulamsuren, C., & Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013). Twenty Years After Decollectivization: Mobile Livestock Husbandry and Its Ecological Impact in the Mongolian Forest-Steppe. Human Ecology, 41(5), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9599-3 Llp, A. (2017). Land law of Mongolia | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司 │Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК. 2017. http://www.anallp.com/land-law-of-mongolia/ Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 Luvsanjamts, L., & Söderberg, M. (2005). Mongolia – Heaven for Foreign Consultants. June. http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0215.pdf Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 MARCC. (2009). Mongolia: Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009. Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Development Programme. 27 Marin, A. (2010). Riders under storms : Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010a). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010b). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Martinez, L. S. S., Zamore, W., Finley, A., Reisner, E., Lowe, L., & Brugge, D. (2020). Cbpr partnerships and near‐roadway pollution: A promising strategy to influence the translation of research into practice. Environments - MDPI, 7(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7060044 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(October 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Maweu, J. M. (2011). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Modern Western Ecological Knowledge: Complementary, not Contradictory. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2 Mbizvo, C., Duraiappah, A., Koetz, T., Brondizio, E., Bartus, G., Roué, M., Asah, S. T., Lonsdale, M., Fischer, M., Moller, H., Darnaedi, D., Smith, P., Mikissa, J. B., Lyver, P., Allahverdiyev, R., Mooney, H. A., Pacheco, D., Hashimoto, S., Tallis, H., … Chan, K. M. (2014). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). “We Don’t Take Things Apart”: Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGonegal, J. (2009). The great Canadian (and Australian) secret: The limits of non-indigenous knowledge and representation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 67–83. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 28 Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy, 53(July), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 Mendee, J. (2015). a “Let’S Change It” Syndrome – Why Does Policy Fail in Mongolia? 1–18. http://sites.socialsciences.manoa.hawaii.edu/css/demr2015/_papers/mendee-jargalsaikhan.pdf Mijiddorj, T. N., Ahearn, A., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2019). Gobi Herders’ Decision-Making and Risk Management under Changing Climate. Human Ecology, 47(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00112-9 Mijiddorj, T. N., Alexander, J. S., Samelius, G., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2020). Traditional livelihoods under a changing climate: herder perceptions of climate change and its consequences in South Gobi, Mongolia. Climatic Change, 162(3), 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02851-x Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl, S81-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720 Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M., & Tamir, H. (2003). Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health, 93(8), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1210 Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025 Murphy, D. (2018). Disaster, mobility, and the moral economy of exchange in Mongolian pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220207 29 Myagmarjav, T. (2019). TRADITIONAL PASTORALISM OR MINING ? CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ACCESS TO NATURAL PASTURES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 4(4), 56–68. Naidansuren, E. (2012). A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MONGOLIA AUTHOR : ERDENESAIKHAN NAIDANSUREN Table of Contents. National Statistics Office. (2021). Малын тоо 1989-2020. Nelson, M. P., Cullman, G., Chan, K., Durbin, T. J., Teel, T. L., Roth, R., Epstein, G., Stedman, R., Christie, P., Wyborn, C., Thomas, R., Sandlos, J., Greenberg, A., Klain, S. C., Bennett, N. J., Veríssimo, D., Curran, D., & Clark, D. A. (2016). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Vol. null (null, Ed.). Ostrom, E. (1999a). Coping With Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1968), 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 Ostrom, E. (1999b). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Ostrom, E. (2000). PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS. INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/common property.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Padgham, J. O. N., Mtilatila, L., & Agyemang-yeboah, F. (2013). Building Shared Understanding and Capacity for Action : Insights on Climate Risk Communication from India, Ghana Malawi , and Mongolia. International Journal of Communication, 7, 970–983. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pérez, A., Santamaria, E. K., Operario, D., Tarkang, E. E., Zotor, F. B., Cardoso, S. R. de S. N., Autor, S. E. U., De, I., Dos, A., Vendas, O. D. E., Empresas, D. A. S., Atividades, P. O., Artigo, N., Gest, G. N. R. M. D. E., Para, D. E. F., Miranda, S. F. da R., Ferreira, F. A. A., Oliver, J., 30 Dario, M., … Volk, J. E. (2017). Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 5(1), 1–8. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000a). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2 Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000b). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). Plumb, M., Price, W., & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. (2004). Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820400011792 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014a). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014b). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Principe, L. (2006). Science and Religion. Teaching Company Limited Partnership. https://books.google.com/books?id=19xoPQAACAAJ Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Rai, S. C. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0248-4 Raymond, C. M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A Tool and Process that Facilitate Community Capacity Building and. 18(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7 31 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Rink, E., Knight, K., Ellis, C., McCormick, A., FireMoon, P., Held, S., Webber, E., & Adams, A. (2020). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200099 Rink, E., Law, D. G., Montgomery-andersen, R., Mulvad, G., & Koch, A. (2009). The Practical Application of Community-based Participatory Research in Greenland: Initial Experiences of the Greenland Sexual Health Study. Circumpolar Voices, 68(4), 405–413. Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., & Wiesmann, U. (2004). From epistemic monoculture to cooperation between epistemic communities – development research and sustainability. International Conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies”. Millennium Assessment, 17–20. Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Economic Geography, 76(4), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/144393 Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage 32 Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021- 01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sablin, I. (2016). Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911-1924: Buddhism, Socialism and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building. Routledge. Said, S. (2019). Knowing through being known: reflections on Indigenous epistemology and participatory consciousness. Interventions, 21(8), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558091 Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Schröter, M., Bonn, A., & Klotz, S. (2019). Atlas of Ecosystem Services. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Schulze, A. (2009). Land Legislation and the Possibilities for Pastoral Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – The Example of Mongolia by Land. October, 52. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019a). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 33 Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019b). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Sneath, D. (2003a). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2003b). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author (s): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. Soma, T., & Schlecht, E. (2018). The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0108-y Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014c). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & Carjuzaa, J. (2019). The Digital Storywork Partnership: Community- centered social studies to revitalize Indigenous histories and cultural knowledges. Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.08.001 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & DeCrane, V. W. (2020). “Keep it sacred!”: Indigenous youth-led filmmaking to advance critical race media literacy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2245 34 Stépanoff, C., Marchina, C., Fossier, C., & Bureau, N. (2017). Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Current Anthropology, 58(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/690120 Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1294–1304. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196307003503 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge. Mountain Forum, April. Sukhbaatar, T. (2020). AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Opportunities for Reducing Human-Wolf Conflicts in Mongolia. Suzanne Christopher, PhD, Robin Saha, PhD, Paul Lachapelle, PhD, Derek Jennings, MEd, Yoshiko Colclough, PhD, Clarice Cooper, BSN, RN, Crescentia Cummins, BS, Margaret J. Eggers, MS, MA, Kris FourStar, Kari Harris, PhD, Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, PHCNS-BC, Vic, B. (2011). Applying Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Principles to Partnership Development in Health Disparities Research. Fam Community Health., 34 (3), 246–255. Szalontai, B. (2013). Tsedenbal’s Mongolia and Communist Aid Donors: A Reappraisal. Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, 12, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v0i12.97 Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Terentyev, V. I. (2019). The Specifics of Teaching History in Russian Schools in Mongolia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 444, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/444/27 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tremblay, M. C., Martin, D. H., McComber, A. M., McGregor, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2018). Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: A case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y Tumenbayar, N. (2000). Land privatization option for Mongolia. … : Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New …, 1–32. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/133 35 Ulambayar, T., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2019). How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Land Use Policy, 82, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.008 Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., & Batjav, B. (2016). Social Outcomes of Community-based Rangeland Management in Mongolian Steppe Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 00(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267 Undargaa, S. (2016a). Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2016b). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co- management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005a). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2005b). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007- 9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia’s Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). socialist Mongolia Social Capital , Collective Action and Group Formation : Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x 36 Venable, N. B. H., Fassnacht, S. R., Adyabadam, G., Tumenjargal, S., Fernández-Giménez, M., & Batbuyan, B. (2012). Does the length of station record influence the warming trend that is perceived by Mongolian Herders near the Khangai Mountains? Pirineos, 167(167), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3989/Pirineos.2012.167004 Vetter, D. (2021). David Attenborough’s Powerful Speech To COP26 Leaders: ‘The World Is Looking To You.’ Forbes, 1–6. Vol, I. D. S. B. (2002). Drought and Zud but No Famine (Yet) in the Mongolian Herding Economy H an n a Siu ru a an d. 33(4), 88–97. Vollan, B., Prediger, S., & Frölich, M. (2013). Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms? Ecological Economics, 95, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010 Waddell, C. M., Herron, R. v., Gobeil, J., Tacan, F., de Jager, M., Allan, J. A., & Roger, K. (2020). Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14), 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320960050 Wagner, J. R., & Davis, A. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. In Human Ecology (Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 463–489). Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., Dickson, E., Kastelic, S., Koegel, P., Lucero, J. E., Magarati, M., Ortiz, K., Parker, M., Peña, J., Richmond, A., & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075 Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent-based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 White, B. T. (2009). Rotten to the Core: Project Capture and the Failure of Judicial Reform in Mongolia. East Asia Law Review, 4(209), 209–275. 37 Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Health Research, 104973231769072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166–174. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indig enous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Windchief, S., & Pedro, T. S. (2019). Applying Indigenous Research Methods. In Applying Indigenous Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169811 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Xie, Y., & Li, W. (2008). WHY DO HERDERS INSIST ON OTOR ? MAINTAINING MOBILITY IN INNER. 12(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zahler, P., Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R. P., Wingard, J. R., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N., Onon, Y., Society, W. C., & Box, P. O. (2004). Illegal and Unsustainable Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2004.02.14 38 Zhao, G. (2006). Reinventing China: Imperial Qing ideology and the rise of modern Chinese national identity in the early twentieth century. Modern China, 32(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282349 Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 19(March 2015), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051 А. Очир, Ч. Далай, Д. Ц. (2004). МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ТҮҮХ 1. Байгаль Орчны Яам. (2015). Биологийн олон янз байдлын үндэсний хөтөлбөр. Далай, Ч. (1999). Монгол улсын түүх 4 (Vol. 4). Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, У. Б. (2018). Монгол Орны Бэлчээрийн Төлөв Байдлын Үндэсний Тайлан. II, 66. http://greenmongolia.mn/upload/news_files/5946e6e365eb3b52d748af9db89dcc30.pdf Лиштованный Е.И. (2006). ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В МОНГОЛИИ В КОНЦЕ XX ВЕКА: НАЧАЛО МОНГОЛЬСКОЙ ПЕРЕСТРОЙКИ. Иркутский Государственный Университет Науч, Конф, 55–76. МЗГ. (2018). Иргэдэд зориулсан гарын авлага 1. Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ. (2018). http://www.unece.org Пэрлээ, Х. (1976). Монголын Түүх Судлах Нэгэн Үндэс нь Пайз Мѳн. С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга. (2017). ХХ ЗУУНЫ МОНГОЛ : ТҮҮХ, СОЁЛ, ГЕОПОЛИТИК, ГАДААД ХАРИЛЦААНЫ ТУЛГАМДСАН АСУУДЛУУД. Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж. (1983). Түүхийн Судлал. 39 CHAPTER TWO TWIN RIDE: INTEGRATING WSEK AND TEK IN MONGOLIA (LITERATURE REVIEW) Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors Manuscript in Chapter 2 Author: Badamgarav Dovchin Contributions: Conceived the study, translated, transcribed, performed the analyses, interpreted results, and wrote the manuscript. Co-Author: Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle Contributions: Taught the methods of the study, discussed results and implications, and edited manuscripts. Co-Author: Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board of this study Contributions: Participated advised the study data collections and analysis, discussed and approved results and implications. 40 Manuscript Information Badamgarav Dovchin, Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle, Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board members The Other Ways of Knowing Status of Manuscript: [Put an x in one of the options below, delete this] __x_ Prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Officially submitted to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Accepted by a peer-reviewed journal ____ Published in a peer-reviewed journal Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Libraries [Type date of submission here (submitted manuscript – otherwise leave blank)] [Type date the manuscript will appear here (accepted work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type issue in which manuscript appears here (published work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type DOI, if available] 41 Introduction Among Mongolians, the “twin ride” is a widely used metaphor originating from the 13th- century Mongolian army and its messengers. Each soldier or messenger had two or more horses in order to switch to the spare horses when their ride was exhausted, even though it was more difficult to take care of two or more horses than one. As a result of the “twin ride,” the Mongol army and the postal system were the most efficient and covered more land than any other. Today, the “twin ride” metaphor is apt when considering land degradation issues in Mongolia, where both Western Science-Based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) inform decision-making. However, to this point, most such decision-making has emphasized a single approach—or “horse”—instead of considering the value of an integrated approach. To demonstrate the importance of an epistemological “twin ride” in terms of land management in Mongolia, the purpose of this chapter is to examine significant environmental management initiatives during the post-communist timeframe (1991-2020), describe how these initiatives were/are shaped by WSEK and TEK, and provide recommendations for future research and practice. The land degradation issues in developing countries are a global problem that endangers the ecosystem structure and the functions that produce essential human survival services (Schröter et al., 2019). Mongolian environmental degradation is an urgent challenge, and its management is highly complicated. Almost 80 percent of the territory of Mongolia consists of rangeland; it ranks first in the world in terms of its share of rangeland ecosystems (E. Tumur, 2021). The country's economy depends on domestic livestock herding, with roughly one in four Mongolians employed in this sector (IMF, 2019). Yet, over 76.5 percent of Mongolia's total pastureland is overgrazed and at-risk (National Statistical Report of Mongolian Pasture Management Association, 2019). Two potentially contradicting yet accepted by the stakeholders when properly introduced and used, management approaches are at the root of this urgent problem: Western Science-Based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) (Studley, 1998), which the Mongolian government uses at the primary decision-making level for the constitutionally declared public land, and place-specific Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Berkes, 2012), which the local herders use in the daily grazing decisions of private livestock. These sometimes-disconnected approaches result in land management conflicts and failures to address the pressing nationwide land degradation issues effectively. WSEK is specifically designed for privatized lands where one can control the inputs of grazing pressures and management actions (J. Bennett et al., 2010; Ostrom, 2000). On the contrary, herders use their contextualized TEK to make daily pasture assessments and decide how their private herds will graze the publicly-owned and shared pastureland. These decisions are made using a complex interaction of traditional family relationships and multigenerational knowledge fabric specific to the location and the collective wellbeing of livestock, humans, and land. These unique but parallel resource use/management systems are rooted in distinct worldviews and epistemologies. The western worldview of “nature is there for human wellbeing,” as suggested in the Book of Genesis is juxtaposed with the traditional Mongolian “ертѳнцийг үзэх үзэл,” which could be translated as “universe-view.” In the Mongolian view, 42 our world does not exist separate from the universe, and humans are in a relationship with the “хишиг/gifts” provided by mother nature. In this view, the gifts have to be shared with other beings and reciprocated. A lack of communication and collaboration among the stakeholders that practice these distinct worldviews leads to non-inclusive decision-making (Allington et al., 2018; Jamsranjav et al., 2019; Marin et al., 2010a; Mijiddorj et al., 2019; Soma & Schlecht, 2018) and compound factors such as climate change (Batsuuri & Wang, 2017; Mijiddorj et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2015) and overgrazing (Addison et al., n.d.; Hilker et al., 2014; Kakinuma & Takatsuki, 2012; Liu et al., 2013; Lkhagvadorj et al., 2013; Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mongolia, 2018) in terms of land degradation. While numerous environmental degradation studies seek herders' participation (Ericksen, 2014; Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015; Gantuya et al., 2019; Goulden et al., 2016), there is a particular gap in the literature regarding the “twin ride” of integrating TEK systems with the national land assessment and management initiatives based on WSEK. As a result, the literature leaves the power dynamic and widely abundant conflicts among stakeholders unexamined, even within existing participatory management initiatives, especially in natural resource-rich communities adjacent to protected areas, mining extractions, or generally overstocked pastures. This chapter provides a review of both academic literature and traditional knowledge surrounding land resource management in Mongolia to address these gaps. First, it overviews the foundational elements of WSEK and TEK. Second, current environmental issues are described, including how those issues have been shaped throughout Mongolia's historical, political, and socio-economic transitions. Third, the possible gaps of Mongolian environmental management initiatives and the critical questions that are not addressed will be highlighted. The chapter concludes with Mongolian-specific applications and recommendations surrounding contemporary trends in land management. Epistemological differences between WSEK and TEK Both Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science-based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) have played a role in land management decision-making within Mongolia. TEK can be defined as rational and reliable knowledge developed through generations of intimate contact by Native peoples with their lands (UNEP 1998). WSEK lays claim to truthful representations of the world and the universal object of management, otherwise known as "nature" (Ayre & Mackenzie, 2012). While these definitions offer foundational understandings of TEK and WSEK, to effectively discuss epistemology, we need to consider how knowledge is acquired and shared and how TEK and WSEK are created and used in different cultures. These two systems of knowledge are on different scales of the knowledge spectrum and shared in very distinct ways. TEK is a finer-scale, place-based knowledge system. For generations, Indigenous peoples have shared knowledge in community-centered and place- conscious ways (Stanton et al., 2020), and WSEK is widely accepted and applicable to bigger- scale systems (see Figure 1) However, WSEK and TEK do not have to replace one another but complement each other at appropriate scales and users with culturally and conditionally appropriate facilitations. 43 Figure 1 The historical Development of TEK and WSEK and the Disconnect TEK records the specific ecosystem and its services, and its flow is precisely observed and has been used in daily and seasonal decisions of local communities for centuries. Since TEK applies knowledge in local ecosystem structure functions by local people, it is locally focused. It is not distributed and tested in wider ecoregions or other ecosystems in other locations. Therefore, the use and acceptance rate of the TEK is limited versus WSEK, and it is not expected to be applied widely. Still, it is a vital source of knowledge based on long-term observational data that serves local people and places. TEK, and nomadic life, requires people to stay in intimate relationships with the natural environment and fit into its dynamic fluctuations. Specifically, the Mongolian worldview is formed from the nomadic lifestyle, creating a close-knit culture sphere that fits into the geophysical environment. The origin story and other cultural elements (А. Очир, Ч. Далай, 2004; Далай, 1999) create the fabric of life that Mongolians lead. In this philosophy, humans are counted at an equal level as other beings because Mongolians believe they are descended from wolf and elk marriage. In the nomadic worldview, the earth is the mother, and the sky is the father to all beings. Mongolian herders “read”/observe the father sky and mother earth and fit in the blessings of both by adapting to the world around them (Avarzed & Sodnoi, 2008). This view is the foundation of their life and is abundantly expressed through stories, legends, and ceremonies. Even in modern days, this philosophy guides the everyday life decisions of ordinary Mongolians (Bum-Ochir.D 2002). 44 On the other hand, the western worldview is quite contrary to the eastern worldview, which are the bases of the WSEK. Western philosophy, abundant across religions and different paradigms, place human beings in higher levels and power than any other species (Nelson et al., 2016). The anthropocentric worldview, rooted in biblical texts, implies that the human being is superior to nature. It suggests everything in the world exists for the wellbeing of humans (Boslaugh, 2016). Therefore, humans have the right to use and alter everything to their benefit. This view is represented across philosophy examples, including works by Francis Bacon, Gordon Childe, and John Wesley Powel. The two worldviews are regularly encountered by Mongolian herder communities who experience the differences in their lives with political and socio-economic changes (Figure 2). Figure 2 The worldview of Mongolians VS Western worldview a sketch from community meetings of Darhad Valley, 2015) The western worldview in this sketch matches the environmental assessment and management methods that are dominantly used in multinational environmental management efforts and international aid programs and mostly directed to developing countries that are home to Indigenous people and their TEK. These agendas and their failures are referred to as “first world solutions for third world problems” or the “white man’s burden” (Easterly, 2006) in works of literature. In other words, the developing nations does not have participation in the solution of their issues instead the solutions are made for them by the developed nations, thus they do not apply well to the real life. Another group of studies looks at the ecosystem and its services through Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) lenses. TEK researchers usually look at the relationship between humans and the ecosystem that they live. These communities hold different values regarding the ecosystem than the monetary or the regulatory values. Over the past few decades, there has been increased attention to the potential for TEK to inform WSEK (Berkes, 2012b; Climate and 45 Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW), 2014; Dudgeon & Berkes, 2003; Hosen et al., 2020; Hosen & Nakamura, 2020; ILO, 2019; Kimmerer, 2002; Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000b; Polfus et al., 2014a; Rai, 2007; Robbins & Berkes, 2000; Sukhbaatar, 2020; Vollan et al., 2013), policymaking, and practice (Kimmerer, 2013). Global and local shifts from the western worldview of seeing the human being separate from the rest of the world—or the human as the manager and nature as the provider—is slowly being realized by diverse researchers and their works in the fields of interdisciplinary, participatory research and interventions. Revisions of the environmental assessment and management methods result in its evolution towards the Indigenous/holistic ways of addressing environmental issues. Structural diversity is important to maintain a robust ecological function (Liu et al., 2013). The structure refers to physical, biological, and epistemological diversity. Diverse biophysical structures provide the necessary resilience to different disturbances that can affect one system, but not without the epistemological diversity to utilize all. In some literature, the physical structure diversity is called geodiversity (Hjort, Gordon, Gray, & Hunter, 2015), and biological structure diversity is widely accepted as biodiversity. Additionally, human beings have to be addressed, and there is a field of research that takes the matter from the human point of view. This research group has generally discussed the system as "biocultural" diversity (Comberti et al., 2015; Dunn, 2017; B. H. M. Elands et al., 2019; Maffi, 2005; Mauerhofer et al., 2018; Seele et al., 2019a). In my opinion, biocultural diversity is married by the epistemological diversity that allows the relationship between the human community and their bio-goe-environment. Throughout the next section, these shifts will be elaborated upon by describing historical context and milestones shaping land management in Mongolia. Historical Milestones shaping Mongolian Land Management The Broader Historical Context (Mongolia before 1921) The few and earliest traces of Mongolians' written history confirm that they initiated monetary, postal, immigration, trade, and many more of the major systems that we still utilize in today's world (Пэрлээ, 1976; Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж, 1983). By incorporating the best of all different ways of knowing, regardless of the differences in culture, religion, or nations, Mongolians managed to create those advanced systems(Biran, 2004). These systems allowed Mongolians to establish the world's largest contiguous empire in the 13th century. The arid and cold central Asian climate and landlocked location suited Mongolians to develop the classic survival system, the lifestyle that migrates to sustain both land and livestock (Endicott, 2012). The nomadic ways fit nature with loose human interventions (Stépanoff et al., 2017). This type of lifestyle worked for centuries in its social and economic conditions before the 1900s. As the world developed and the human population grew, Mongolians could not pursue subsistence pastoralism as they did before, due to economic and political pressures from the other nations. The major Western nations expanded their boundaries and were financially 46 advanced by international trade and extraction of natural resources using cheap labor and slavery (Inikori, 2020). On the other hand, smaller nations started to lag in terms of technological advances, leading to rapid colonization and expansionism (Upton, 2012). Since Mongolia was not viewed as geographically and agriculturally important or attractive, powerful nations generally exerted their colonizing strength in other places (Lattimore, 2008). However, the strong empire in the east, the Qing dynasty, took over Mongolia's control from 1600-1920 in a relatively mild series of occupations (Heuschert, 1998). While Mongolians fought for their freedom, the Qing dynasty collapsed and dissolved into the Chinese empire (G. Zhao, 2006). Eventually, the rest of the world noticed Mongolia—the "empty", while every inch of it is known and used by the locals similar to an Indigenous saying of North America “everything was already loved” (Circle of Tribal Advisers, 2003) open land with few people living in the central Asian plateau. The western world became interested in Mongolia by the early 1900s (Baabar, 1999). The great expeditions of Roy Chapman Andrews and other westerners' visits made Mongolia even more enticing to westerners (Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж, 1983). At the same time, Mongolia struggled to establish a stable ally and assert its independence. Mongolian political leaders of that time made the most beneficial decision for Mongolia to stay independent (Sablin, 2016) by choosing Russia as its ally and sought to maintain independence (Bradsher, 1972) by joining the UN. Communist Revolution (1921-1990) First Wave of Western Epistemology The 1921 communist revolution changed nomadic ways of life in Mongolia (Endicott, 2012; Terentyev, 2019). The communist leaders of Mongolia and Soviet Union specialists brought European education, health systems, and social norms to nomadic pastoralist Mongolians (Szalontai, 2013). Over the consequent 70 years (until 1990), Mongolia's land was organized into 18 provinces and over 300 soums (counties) (С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга, 2017). The communist agenda was implemented by the centrally planned social, economic, and political rules and regulations (Endicott, 2012; Undargaa, 2016a). Each county was provided with government services such as a boarding school, a hospital, and a veterinarian, and these services reached every herder family via “negdel”/collective. The centralized system of communism controlled everything from education to life decisions such as seasonal migrations, camp locations, and the duration of the stay in the particular campsite—decisions which formerly had been made in response to careful observations of land and climate using centuries-old TEK (Byambaa & de Vries, 2020; Sneath, 2018). The communist leaders forced the herders to abandon the so-called “…the backward way of nomadic lifestyle” and follow the “civilized” ways framed by centrally planned decisions and the accompanying rules of European-educated communist leaders and specialists. The basic philosophy underlying communist education based on Marxism and Leninism was heavily influenced by Morgan Lewis Henry's cultural evolution theory of 1922 and American scientist John Wesley Powel’s human community classification. This theory classifies people of the world into: ● Savages 47 ● Barbarians ● Civilized people. Mongolians were classified as barbarians. This classification stated that only civilized societies have cultures and religions, which meant that adherents of cultural evolution theory believed that Mongolians did not have culture, were not capable of knowing things other than superstitions and mythical ceremonies and rituals, and thus needed to be "educated" and "civilized" (Bumochir, 2019). Former communist leader of Renchinlhumbe county of Hosvgol province, Mishig Jigjidsuren, recalls the national government initiative to "plant civilization seeds in the heads of barbarians and cultivate their virgin land" by sending communist leaders into each newly established 300 counties of Mongolia (personal communication, 2010). Due to 70 years of oppression, Stalinist political purges, and rules pressed upon the activists who practiced the traditional ways of doing and knowing (Humphrey, 1992), Mongolia became a country of herders who would work for the communist collectives and allow the government to manage both their land and mind (Rinchin interview, 1962 ) The western epistemological system and set rules at the national level were there to stay as communism settled into the Mongolian political and social structures. However, this oppressive regime mainly worked on the surface but never completely penetrated to change the nomadic people's worldview. Democratic Revolution (1990-present) and Major Waves of Resource Exploitation and Second Wave of Western Epistemology The socialist regime collapsed in Russia in 1989, and so it did in Mongolia. Mongolia underwent significant political, economic, and social changes following the “perestroika” from early 1990s until the 2010s (Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015; Upton, 2020). The national government struggled to rebuild or maintain all the social and physical structures formerly provided by the Soviet Union and its allies. The government privatized the collective livestock and shared other capital of the communist government with the newly unemployed people from the communist system, including herders (Endicott, 2012). Formerly, non-herders received fewer shares of livestock than the herders, and the allocated number of animals for the former non- herders was too small to survive as newly unemployed herders. In addition to the small number of animals, the non-herders, factory workers, welders, and engineers did not have any skills to be herders. They left them to seek survival from other resources (personal communications with former communist workforce members…). The town-dwelling unemployed people survived by exploiting naturally occurring resources like wild plants and animals and, later, mining. The first round of exploitation of Mongolia’s natural resources resulted from the combination of limited wild animal market regulation, high demand for Mongolian animals and plants within Chinese medicine (Zahler et al., 2004), and survival needs of the unemployed. This time period was the first big wave of natural resource exploitations and was called эзэнгүйдэл/no owners (Tumursukh Jal, 2018 personal conversation, 2014), i.e., people were on their own to survive without any support system from the national government. This wave of overharvesting and exploitation impacted most wildlife and plant species throughout Mongolia 48 (Mearns, 1996; Upton, 2008). Each year one or more species were endangered from overharvesting for their particular parts (Dawaajav, personal interview, 2011), such as elk (Cervus Canadensis), velvet, bear (Ursus arctos,) gallbladder, musk deer (Moschus moschiferus) musk, snow lotus (Saussurea dorogostaiskii palib), and Taimen (Hucho taimen). As one example, in 1983, Mongolia counted over 300,000 elk, but by 2012, the number had dropped to less than 300 head (National Statistic office Report, 2012). In 2008, a "gold rush" and “boom” of other mineral resources (Grayson, 2007; Myagmarjav, 2019) created the second wave to decimate Mongolia’s natural resources. Artisanal mining of gold became a new version of environmental disruption and social disorder. Mining sites were discovered throughout Mongolia, and many unemployed people moved from one place to another, looking for abundant gold nuggets they could find in remote headwaters of rugged mountains. As they used green plastic pans to wash the gold and traveled with the green pans on their back, these artisanal miners were called "ninja" miners, named after "The Teenage Mutant Turtle Ninja" cartoon (Grayson et al., 2004) Meanwhile, while these two waves of resource exploitation were in process, an exponential increase in livestock numbers caused Mongolia's third significant environmental disruption wave. Privately-owned livestock increased from less than 25 million in 1989 to 70 million in 2020 (National Statistics Office, 2021) within 30 years of careful herding by private owners. This sudden increase of livestock grazing pressure on semi-arid land led to unprecedented environmental degradation (Addison et al., 2013; Bruegger et al., 2014; Fujita et al., 2013; Kakinuma et al., 2008; Marin et al., 2010; Sternberg, 2008). Climate change is the overarching factor that has compounded all of the above waves (Meesters & Behagel, 2017). The irregular patterns and intensity of precipitation and unpredictable temperature fluctuations in seasonal changes contribute to overall degradation (Endicott, 2012; Gantuya et al., 2019; Ulambayar et al., 2016). Fortunately, climate change is widely acknowledged as real in Mongolia (Fassnacht et al., 2011; Mijiddorj et al., 2020; Venable et al., 2012), and in some cases, climate change is being blamed for irresponsible land-use practices (Ericksen, 2020; Meesters & Behagel, 2017) and visa versa. Around the early 2010s, the national government stabilized, finished passing the essential laws that fit the new constitution, and established the appropriate ministers and agencies for the new system of democratic Mongolia (Bumochir, 2017; Gray, 1997; Lander, 2019). At this time, environmental issues were elevated to the top of the list of urgent matters (Байгаль Орчны Яам, 2015). By 2014, over 65% of Mongolian pasture was degraded (Fernandez-gimenez & Fassnacht, 2015), and over 60 rivers and creeks had dried up due to non-managed mining activities in headwaters. The overgrazing and overharvesting of pasture and wildlife had exploded out of control, and both the heavy equipment and artisanal mining damages accelerated the overall degradation rate. The national statistics of pasture evaluation reports in 2018 show that over 76.5 % of Mongolia's total pastureland is overgrazed and continuously degrading (Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ, 2018). Fortunately, during this era, the Mongolian government decided to increase the national protection of wildlife and wildland up to at least 30% of the total territory. The model, which took after the Russian system called "zapovednik"(meaning nature sanctuary in Russian), is implemented in four tiers of protection from the strictest to the lowest, respectively: Special Protected Area, National Park, Nature Reserve, and Historic Monument (Reading et al., 2006). 49 Mongolia pursued assistance from international aid organizations such as USAID, World Bank, The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, Swiss Development Agency, Millennium Assessment Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and the International Monetary Fund (Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, 2018) for special protections with conservation purposes and general land management efforts. The generous collaborations of new allies resulted in many projects and initiatives that established the systems to assess and manage the urgent response of the Mongolian environmental problems(MARCC, 2009; Mendee, 2015). Building a Fire in Water: Successes and Failures of Land Management Initiatives in Mongolia As a post-socialist developing country, Mongolia has been transitioning politically, economically, and, most importantly, socially for the last three decades, and Mongolian environmental problems have accelerated due to these transitions (Bruun & Odgaard, 2013; Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015; Sneath, 2003a; Upton, 2012b; Zahler et al., 2004). After 70 years (1920-1990), Mongolia experienced “shock therapy” as it was suddenly being cut off from communist allies after the collapse of the socialist regime (Buyandelgeriyn, 2007). A transition (1990- the 2010s) to a free-market economy and the mining boom (2010s-present) further shaped the current Mongolian social and environmental system. These sharp episodic transitions introduced new Western approaches and practices, which have gained popularity in systemic decision-making. These Western approaches interacted with Mongolia's existing social, economic, and traditional lifestyle, resulting in profound changes, especially within the social and environmental systems. Environmental degradation assessment and management are among the most complicated issues, especially in rural Mongolia, where the land is public and the livestock is private. Managing the common pool resources (CPR) in the free-market economic system is as hard as "building a fire in the water" for the stakeholders and environmental managers (personal interview, Nyamdelger, vise governor of Bayanzurkh county, Hovsgol, 2015). The Tragedy of the Commons and Attempts to Privatize the Land of Mongolia In the last quarter of the 20th century, blaming nomadic people for environmental degradation of Central Asia and African pasturelands increased significantly. A false explanation of "open access" to public land and the "tragedy of commons" (Hardin, 1968) phenomena added more negative perceptions of nomadic practices. The simple and now largely debunked (Araral, 2014; S. J. B. Cox, 1985; Feeny et al., 1990; Ostrom, 1999a) conclusions that Hardin suggested in this work were if the land is commonly owned and has "open access" without any rules, the overexploitation of the public land would lead to a tragic end for the collectively held resources. Everyone would use the resources as much as possible while the supply lasts and would overexploit the resources. Therefore, the solution to avoid "the tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the land, let lawful owners manage the land resources, or apply strict government rules and maintain the system (Hardin, 1968). 50 Like most post-socialist countries, Mongolia welcomed foreign assistance programs in Central Asia, such as the World Bank's Structural Adjustment Program (SAP). These programs intended to shift the economy of indebted countries from state-controlled to a market-based economy (Endicott, 2012; Sneath, 2003b) through privatizing land management (Undargaa, 2016a) and elevating attention to WSEK systems (Endicott, 2012). Unarguably, those approaches had worked in developed countries, so they were often framed as best practices and the most up-to-date knowledge. However, there is a distinct power dynamic of the western world in developing countries, which muffles the actual causes of the problem and uses the aid as Band-Aid (Erdene, Emt bag/sub-county governor, 2016). To compound these challenges, some corrupt politicians, leaders, and higher-level decision-makers are the people who direct the foreign aid programs, which often results in funds being applied towards their political interests (Fritz, 2007; White, 2009). In Mongolia, reformers who misdiagnosed the problem as "open access" introduced property rights instead of addressing the underlying issues causing disputes and overgrazing. However, Mongolian pastureland was not "open access." On the contrary, pastureland access was, and is, regulated by coexisting formal and informal social-economical rules and norms (Klein et al., 2012; Upton, 2005). This misleading application of the "tragedy of commons" towards nomadic people in Africa and Inner Asia assumes herders manage the land inefficiently; thus, mobile approaches were believed to cause land degradation (Undargaa, 2016a). Related to this misunderstanding are assumptions about expertise in determining need and aid. Until the early 2000s, most international assistance programs were advised and initiated (Szalontai, 2013; Лиштованный Е.И, 2006)by high-level policymakers of Mongolia (Goyal, 1999), rather than by experts and leaders from the rural communities. Generally, Mongolian communities that needed the aid never had a chance to express their needs and practices to the aid organizations. Instead, specialists in the local offices of the aid organizations proposed what they believed the community needed. In the process, the decision-makers excluded marginalized people like nomadic herders in rural Mongolia (Luvsanjamts & Söderberg, 2005). Despite all the reform programs and Mongolian politicians' efforts, land privatization initiatives encountered significant resistance and criticism from Mongolian people, especially herders (Endicott, 2012; Schulze, 2009). The herders' fundamental principles and land use philosophy stood, and stands, on frequent migrations required to sustain the arid land ecosystem. Thus, the privatization initiatives were against the traditional livelihood and Mongolian people's constitutional rights to have the land be public (Batsuuri & Wang, 2017; Murphy, 2018). The management failures that fragmented the land were confirmed in studies such as Sneath et al., 2008, which compared normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), or green coverage of pastures as detected by remote sensing technology (Wang et al., 2001), of Inner Mongolia and Mongolian pastures across the border (Sneath, 2003a, 2008). Mongolian pastures showed significantly higher NDVI than the privatized lands in Inner Mongolian pastures inside Chinese border (Karnieli & Bayarjargal, 2013; Sneath, 2003b). Community-Based Natural Resource Management Initiatives Still Using WSEK as Main Tool 51 After the pastureland privatization efforts conflicted with Mongolian herders' constitutional rights, management attempts for public pastureland evolved into new initiatives involving the herder participants (Agrawal & Benson, 2011). Since working with individual herders is impossible, due to public land with no distinct boundaries between the neighbors’ pastures (Kakinuma & Takatsuki, 2012; Tumenbayar, 2000; Upton, 2012), international aid projects decided to organize the herders as herder groups. Beginning in the mid-2000s, these proposals were the start of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)(M. Cox et al., 2010; Fernandez-Gimenez, 2008). The major CBNRM projects include a central Mongolian herder community project headed by Maria Fernández Gimenez, Bathishig Baival's "Nutag Initiatives" NGO, and many more. Within many CBNRM projects, groups of 10-15 herder families who share adjacent pastures, initiated community organizations called “нѳхѳрлѳл” (nuhurlul/kinship), which is translated (not interpreted) as a Herder User Group (HUG). HUGs are defined as a new initiative that helps restore and improve the historical self- governing community institutions based on the common pool resource (CPR) approach (Undargaa, 2016a). Numerous studies of Mongolia's natural resource management issues suggest practical ways of involving herders' informal monitoring (Bathishig Baival et al., 2012; Fernandez-gimenez & Fassnacht, 2015; Fratkin & Mearns, 2003; Pérez et al., 2017). The local and Indigenous people's participation has shown significant improvements in implementing international agreements such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, calling for local people and Indigenous/traditional knowledge (Jamsranjav et al., 2019). Many scientists and specialists agreed with the participatory management principles and applied them to their work. Allington and Chen et al. (2019) suggested that while recognizing the future sustainability of dynamic social-ecological systems, such as the Mongolian Plateau, will require cross-disciplinary dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders and researchers from the social and natural sciences, and it will also require empowerment and engagement of stakeholders who are part of these systems. Within the frame of the CBNRM initiatives for the Mongolian government, international aid organizations such as Asian Development Bank (ADB) have started forming more HUGs to manage the land. Despite the steps to include local stakeholders, CBNRM initiatives could not be sustained (Addison et al., 2013; Christmann et al., 2015; Undargaa, 2017). Most failed after their funding ended (Gantuya et al., 2019). The trend of mismatched aid was confirmed by Undargaa (2016), one of the most recognized pasture quality researchers who studied the social and historical side of land use. Undargaa (2016) concluded in her book: ...Many developing countries dismantled their historical institutions and mended or designed new self-governing institutions under the community-based natural resource management approach. Similarly, national and international organizations in Mongolia have recognized the potential of herder groups for this purpose. However, "co-management" reinvented the wheel, in Mongolia, historically pasture was co-managed, and the norms and rules were tested and socially embedded in everyday life of nomadic lifestyle… (pp. 239-240). Broadly, the pre-planned agendas, measurement methods, management plans, and implementation practices developed by the foreign organizations were overly prescriptive and 52 based in WSEK. For example, even a simple word introduced by these projects, such as "sustainability" (there is no equivalent word in Mongolian), was not interpreted and established in Mongolian conditions. These borrowed foreign terms were situated within entire foreign epistemologies and cultures, regardless of whether or not these phenomena fit and met the receiving culture (Bumochir & Munkherdene, 2019). Another example, the Pasture Assessment Association pasture evaluation tool (Appendix A), was funded by the Swiss Development Agency project. Herders were expected to use and perform pasture assessment and management plans within this tool's framework despite no efforts to introduce the basics of the WSEK tool to the users/herders or incorporate the herders’ ways of knowing. Such foreign philosophical injections, without much-needed interpretations or cultural adjustments, in turn, broke down a historically proven nomadic pastoral system that provided legitimate secure access to pasture and water for herders in all living conditions (Undargaa & McCarthy, 2016). As a result, Mongolian land management's national and international efforts stagnated, resulting in failures (Undargaa, 2017). Recommendations: Toward a “Twin Ride” for Mongolian Land Management The environmental degradation issues in Mongolia, combined with power imbalance among the participating stakeholders with different management methods, calls for future land management initiatives that hold the stakeholders accountable and flexible enough to fit into the unique cultural and environmental situations. Broadly, purposeful integration of WSEK and TEK is needed. Four contemporary frameworks offer potential to support this integration in Mongolia, either as applied independently or in combination: Ostrom’s Principles for Common Land Management, Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), Ecosystem Service Flow (ESF), and Informal Education. Applying Ostrom’s Principles to the Mongolian Context Eleanor Ostrom is one of many scientists who has suggested ways to manage common land without fencing, privatizing, and having strict government regimes. Ostrom’s work in Nepal and African countries offer insights into the importance of community involvement in decision- making using rules and practices the community chooses, holding potential application in other non-western contexts, such as Mongolia. Generally, Ostrom’s (1990) eight design principles center on the local people, who know the land, apply the rules and maintain the self-organized systems specific to the place. Within the Mongolian context, Ostrom's eight design principles hold significant potential for framing effective community management of common-pool resources (CPR) compared to previous initiatives. However, those principles may still be too prescriptive and require more adjustment in CPR management, especially in Mongolian situations. Each of the regulations is described below and analyzed within the contemporary Mongolian context. Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries. Ostrom (1990, 1999a, 2007) explains that effective management of commonly held land requires defined and recognizable boundaries. 53 As mentioned before, the pastureland of Mongolia is public, and there are no clear boundaries. Even if the herder user groups have some boundaries in certain seasonal pastures, especially in winter camps, they are impossible to have in summer pastures (Llp, 2017). Therefore, this principle appears to only be applicable in the framing management of winter pastures. Rules should fit local circumstances. Ostrom (1999a, 1999b) suggests that dual systems that recognize both local community and government rules should apply. However, the dual system is complicated in the Mongolian context because local land-use rules are not necessarily written and clear or accessible to everyone. The government rules may not be fully reinforced if they do not fit the rural community of common land and their unwritten rules. Future land management initiatives from government or international aids will need to ensure communication between the stakeholders and build a policy that fits both government and local rules. Decision-making is vital. Ostrom (1990, 1999b) notes that successful management of common and requires regular decision-making and that such decision-making processes should include local stakeholders. In the past in Mongolia, decisions have mostly been made for the herders, not by them. There was no system to facilitate herders' participation in the decision- making. In moving forward, land management initiatives will need to consistently and purposefully engage local people in decision-making processes. Commons must be monitored. Ostrom (1990) argues that common land must be monitored to ensure the success of management initiatives. In Mongolia, the government monitoring method has been, and remains, WSEK-focused while herders practice TEK. For example, the government set dates and locations for haymaking and hayfields solely based on the green foliage biomass. On the contrary, herders’ haymaking time differs depending on hayfield species and their unique life cycle such as flowering and seeding time and where certain plants’ “essence” or “power of medicine” is located. In some cases, the preferred location of hayfield can be completely different from the government designated fields according to their TEK. The amount of biomass is not the deciding factor, but the composition of the hayfield species is more important to herders. As Basbish the herder and medicine man from Ulaan-Uul county shared: …some hayfield grass is just like plain water you could prepare so much hay from there, but not much nutrition is in it for animals, but some hayfields can provide a small stack of hay but like potent medicine that small amount of hay gathers and provides the power of strongest essences of the mother earth to the tired mother animals or their offsprings in harsh springtime. Despite the disconnect, the government requires everyone to use WSEK. Monitoring methods should be developed collaboratively with HUGs to ensure the effective integration of WSEK and TEK to advance future effectiveness. Sanctions for those who abuse the commons should be graduated. Ostrom (1990) observed that the commons that worked did not simply expel people who broke the rules. Instead, they had systems of warnings and fines, as well as additional consequences in the community. This principle aligns well with TEK in Mongolia, where herder communities have elaborate systems for managing the abusers. The survival of the nomadic herder depends upon collaboration with neighbors and reciprocity. When a person violates the rules, the punishment is usually in the form of exclusions (Ericksen, 2014; Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015). These 54 exclusions can be in many forms, such as not being invited to annual winter preparation that requires group labor like haymaking, timber making, and preparations for seasonal migration. Such exclusion would lead to serious issues for a nomadic herder’s quality of life and survival due to the very essence of nomadic life that requires constant collaborations and reciprocity among the community members. First-time violators have a chance to be pardoned during traditional ceremonies. The lunar new year celebration is called “цагаан сарын баяр” which translated as “white moon ceremony.” One of the dedicated purposes of this ceremony aside from celebrating the survival of the harsh winter is to “become clean” or in Mongolian “цaгаалах, цайлган цагаан сэтгэлээр мэндлэн золгох цаг” which means “meeting with the intentions of pure white milk [milk or white color represents sacredness or purity] that wash the dark past or wrongdoings.” This ceremony serves as the time for people who have committed violations of rules or offended someone to apologize by paying a visit to the elders (where everyone is also gathered), discussing the issue, and getting advice for future peace and friendship. But the repeated violators get ostracized, which seriously affects their ability to lead and sustain a herder lifestyle. The already existing set of rules for reciprocity and responsibility systems to reach consensus can be used as one of the main foundations to facilitate collaborations and common land management in Mongolia. Conflict resolution should be easily accessible. As Ostrom (1999b) suggests, resolving them should be informal and straightforward when conflicts arise. Anyone should be able to take their problems for mediation, and nobody should be excluded. This principle is somewhat ambiguous for newcomers in different parts of the Mongolian system because it is not written but mutually understood by all neighbors. The community monitors every step of the land use, and the consequences are abundant. However, because of not being written, confusion can occur, especially among the newer non-herder stakeholders. Resolution comes down to equal participation and communication that helps the stakeholders' collaborations. Commons need the right to organize. Ostrom’s (Ostrom, 1999b) principle acknowledges the importance of local agency and voice in the effective management of common land. In Mongolia, the HUG system offers some conditions to make this principle available. However, the voice and representation of these community organizations, and their TEK, remain limited and inequitable. HUGs often fail to gain management rights since their pasture management plans—while supporting TEK—do not meet government requirements that such plans support measurement, monitoring, and reporting using WSEK (Ganzorig. P, personal communication, RL county land officer). To expand community involvement and organization, local herder groups and their TEK system need to be reflected in standardized land management plans, and non-herder stakeholders need to facilitate and share their power over this process. Commons work best when nested within more extensive networks. Ostrom’s (Ostrom, 1999b, 2007) final principle recognizes the importance of context and broader support. This principle works in the Mongolian situation. Mongolian HUGs are nested within a bigger network that includes government and international organization land management initiatives. Sometimes, the larger network does not exactly overlap governmental and political boundaries, such as counties and provinces, which complicates the application of management practices. For example, disasters such as dzud (winter disaster conditions due to snow, ice, or lack of snow combined with extreme cold temperature)(Ericksen, 2014; Vol, 2002) and drought can cause herders to migrate into different provinces or even larger regions (Xie & Li, 2008). The political 55 structures work on supporting those adjustments(Soma & Schlecht, 2018) only if micro-scale agreements at the herder level are embedded in the mutual support agreements at the provincial government level(Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015; Gantuya et al., 2019; Jamsranjav et al., 2019; Marin, 2010; Soma & Schlecht, 2018). Therefore, the success of future land management initiatives depends upon communication and shared power and decision-making processes that utilize the diverse but deep knowledge that herder and non-herder stakeholders hold collectively. CBPR as a Tool for Land Management Decision-Making in Mongolia Ostrom's eight principles of CPR management are a valuable tool to frame discussions between stakeholders involved in common land management. However, the actual process of enacting these discussions and negotiations requires carefully planned facilitation and means of communication. To guide such processes, Mongolians might look to tools that were initially created for similar community-based decision-making work. CBPR (Community Based Participatory Research) is one such tool that has been successfully used to evaluate various complex issues such as rural health and environmental problems in different, predominantly Indigenous communities around the world (Burhansstipanov et al., 2005; Castleden et al., 2012a; Chen et al., 2010; Christopher, 2012; Christopher et al., 2008; Hallett et al., 2017; P. Lachapelle & Albrecht, 2018; Laveaux & Christopher, 2009; Love, 2004; Minkler et al., 2003, 2008; Rink et al., 2009; Simonds & Christopher, 2013; 2011). The central premise of CBPR involves questioning power relationships (Flicker et al., 2008; P. R. Lachapelle et al., 2004) that are inherently embedded within western knowledge production (Chávez et al., 2015; Darroch, F., & Giles, 2014; Waddell et al., 2020). Instead of a hierarchical power structure, CBPR advocates for power to be shared between the researcher (the decision-maker) and the researched (the person affected by the decision) (Chávez et al., 2015). This system of equal participation model is deep set in the round setting of traditional Mongolian dwelling called гэр/ger and general Mongolian community relationship. 56 Figure 3 Traditional Circle of Mongolian communities and CBPR framework Importantly, CBPR acknowledges the legitimacy of experiential and locally relevant knowledge such as TEK instead of classifying such knowledge as informal (Tremblay et al., 2018). In addition, CBPR is often solution- and action-oriented, as opposed to theoretical. CBPR is not a set of prescriptive practices, principles, or methodologies. Instead, it offers an overarching orientation to research and practice that applies specific methodologies and methods as determined to be appropriate and effective by/with community partners ((Israel et al., 2013; Stanton, 2014a). While CBPR processes are unique to each context, there are common aspects that offer the potential for application in Mongolia. For example, most CBPR efforts involve establishing a Community Advisory Board, and this board helps guide decision-making throughout the change and research processes. In Mongolia, if HUGs were viewed as Community Advisory Boards, with decision-making power, instead of being regarded as passive recipients of decisions, meaningful integration of WSEK and TEK might be possible. 57 Ecosystem Service and Ecosystem Service Flow in Mongolia On a global scale, environmental management has been trending toward approaches that use the Ecosystem Service (ES) and Ecosystem Service Flow (ESF) models. The ES and ESF models are the main approaches adopted by the Millennium Ecosystem Challenge (MEA) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiatives. Furthermore, the ES and ESF models are widely used in international conservation efforts such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) (Naidansuren, 2012), which works closely with the Mongolian government. Both WSEK and TEK are reflected in ESF, particularly in understanding that creating a sustainable flow of services relies on all the other fundamental structures and functions of natural and human capital. ES refers to various forms of natural and human capital that contribute to ecosystem diversity and sustainability. The ESF is the pinnacle and the tip of the iceberg (Figure 4). TEK becomes the glue between the triangle layers, and we must utilize as much local knowledge as possible before such knowledge goes extinct (Figure 5). In other words, the future of ESF work demands integrative biophysical-social research that characterizes ES change. It acknowledges multi-metric, qualitative valuation and context-appropriate decision-making (Chan & Satterfield, 2020b). Figure 4 The fundament of Ecosystem Service and its sustainable flow While ES and ESF models incorporate elements that are recognized within both WSEK and TEK, they have been primarily based on economical values of provisional ecosystem 58 services such as natural resources, freshwater, fiber, etc. (de Groot et al., 2010), reflecting the resource extraction and management models valued by Western systems. For example, even the word “service” in both ES and ESF is problematic from a Mongolian perspective, since it positions the earth and her хишиг/gift as a “service” to humans. Furthermore, since the models assign a monetary value to plants and animal species such as snow leopard (Panthera uncia) (USD 5,000) and snow lotus (Saussurea drogotski) (USD 20) (МЗГ, 2018), the focus on economic values does not sit well with local people. Traditionally, Mongolian environmental management was founded on a reciprocal relationship, not a transactional or monetized relationship suggested in Western ES theory. Mongolian pastoral lifestyle fits into its climate and geographical location of the land. It results from a long adaptation period to the Central Asian Plateau (Dong et al., 2011). However, the simple idea that ecosystems provide benefits to people and that conservation of ecosystems may prevent the risk of loss of ecosystem services is rather old (Schröter et al., 2019). Plato and Aristotle, for instance, observed that degraded forests were linked to higher soil erosion in ancient Greece (Schröter et al., 2019). In Mongolia, this idea was regarded even earlier than Aristotle and Plato's observations. Within ES and ESF models, non-economic values, classified as cultural ES, have typically been used as supplementary factors in assessments and management decisions (Chan et al., 2012; Chan & Satterfield, 2020a; Klain et al., 2017; Satterfield et al., 2013). However, a group of scientists from Canada and the USA has started emphasizing the importance of the non- economic ES, such as spiritual and intellectual benefits that the given ecosystem provides to human beings, which they have termed as “relational values” (Chan & Satterfield, 2020a). Unfortunately, this non-economic ES is still not weighed significantly in most governments and decision-makers of the world (Mbizvo et al., 2014; Pascual et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2013; Satz et al., 2013). The use of ES and its flow model could be an effective tool for engaging local herders in Mongolia and integrating TEK with WSEK, but only when the focus of the ES and ESF models—and the governments and organizations that apply them—shifts from monetary emphases to the local people’s value and needs. This work requires careful facilitation and participatory examinations of the herders' belief systems, environmental values, social and economic needs, and power dynamics among the stakeholders. Informal Education and the Future of Mongolian Land Management Mongolia’s nomadic culture did not accumulate knowledge in written forms of books. Instead, nomadic Mongolians held their wisdom in songs, names of the places, and stories and legends passed down over generations and around fires during the long winter nights of the northern hemisphere. For instance, the name "toom" in Darhad Mongolian means “an elk trail” (Davaajav, personal interview, 2007), and a place with this name implies that it is a habitat for elk containing elk trails that humans can use to navigate mountainous areas. Informal education in Mongolia demonstrates that the knowledge has existed long before the land management initiatives and various models mentioned earlier in this chapter. Much of this knowledge remains unwritten and unstudied, therefore creating a gap in the formal academic literature. Some of the 59 knowledge shared in this section cannot be found in articles or books. Instead, it was accumulated through the author’s personal experience as a Native Mongolian, interactions with community members and herders, and traditional stories. Mongolian informal education's epistemological triangle consists of (Figure 5) languages that house the philosophy and the ceremonies that keep the action for both. The wisdom is practiced and enriched, cycling through the triangle of knowledge. Figure 5 Epistemological Triangle of Mongolian TEK L anguage/Communication Ceremonies/Action Ph ylosophy/World View In nomadic Mongolian culture, the earth “Mother” and the sky “Father” are the parents of the human “children.” This view of the world is integrated into every story, legend, and song. Other things in the world have very significant roles that align with the word's meaning. For example, "mountain" means the “origin” or “root,” and "river" means the “most important” or “essence.” Herders draw upon daily, seasonal, and yearly ceremonies to assess the ecosystem and continuously position the world and land on a superior level to human beings. The earliest written recordings of Mongolians' perceived and legalized conservation efforts are in the first state law called "Ih Zasag" in 1206. This law begins with, "This law will be enforced under the blessings of eternal blue sky," and that exact wording remains on the current national seal of Mongolia. The 33rd part of the law is specifically about responsible treatment of the land and prohibitions of misuses. The pasture-related rules are listed as, "…Any damage to pastureland is punished heavily, read the land before you move into the new place…" (Dalai, History of the Mongolian States, 1993). Mongolians award aristocratic titles and ranks for rivers and mountains and allocate salaries and protections for them using state funds. The first nationally protected land in the world was the Bogd Khaan mountain, which was put under national protection in 1754. In 1784, the Orkhon river in central Mongolia was awarded the title of "state minister" (Dalai, History of the Mongolian States, 1993). While, according to the world's written history, Yellowstone National Park became the first protected area of the world in 1872. The practice of treating mountains and rivers as a legal entity was evident from the 13th century of Mongolia. Conclusion Diversity of ways of knowing is one of the fundamental aspects of understanding that researchers and decision-makers have neglected due to the monoculture within formal education 60 systems that utilize Western ways of knowing. The “other” ways of knowing are as endangered as endangered species we are losing every day. Environmental degradation and climate change adaptations require both high technology and high TEK (Ausubel, 2012). Within the Mongolian context, we need to apply the “twin rides” ideology that integrates WSEK and TEK for informed land decisions. Through this integrated model, accuracy of the data can be tested, triangulated, and cross-examined in both directions of WSEK and TEK flow, which is part of “maintaining” the twin rides. This process should be or only be accomplished with local people’s participation and collaboration of stakeholders and researchers. 61 Works Cited Addison, J., Davies, J., Friedel, M., & Brown, C. (2013). Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? Journal of Arid Environments, 94, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.02.009 Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert: not as straight forward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Afifi, R. A., Abdulrahim, S., Betancourt, T., Btedinni, D., Berent, J., Dellos, L., Farrar, J., Nakkash, R., Osman, R., Saravanan, M., Story, W. T., Zombo, M., & Parker, E. (2020). Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12453 Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. S. (2011). Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38(02), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000925 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Allen, M. L., Culhane-Pera, K. A., Pergament, S., & Call, K. T. (2011). A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00362.x Allington, G. R. H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Chen, J., & Brown, D. G. (2018). Combining participatory scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the Mongolian Plateau. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209 Anna, & Drugge. (2016). Ethics in Indigenous Research. In Past experiences–future challenges. Umeå: Vaartoe– …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra_Juutilainen/publication/311593254_Moving_forwar d_with_Sami_research_ethics_how_the_dialogical_process_to_policy_development_in_Canada _supports_the_course_of_action_for_the_Nordic_countries_In_Drugge_AL_ed_Ethics Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.011 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non-indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 62 Ayre, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). “Unwritten, unsaid, just known”: the role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environment, 18(January 2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665864 Baabar, B.-E. (1999). History of Mongolia. Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. In Alaska Native Knowledge Network (Vol. 23). http://search.ebscohost.com.cyber.usask.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44047668&sit e=ehost-live Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knolwedge Systems and the Alaskan Native Ways of Knowing.pdf. In Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 8–23). Barnhardt, R., & Kirkness, V. J. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R ’ s - Respect, Relevance , Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–17. Bathishig Baival, Fernandez-Gimenez, & Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E, R. R. (2012). Community- Based Range Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities. In Vasa. Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2010). Fenced in: Common property struggles in the management of communal rangelands in central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.006 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Biran, M. (2004). The Mongol transformation: From the steppe to Eurasian Empire. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570067043077869 Boslaugh, S. (2016). Anthropocentrism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Issue January 2016). Bradsher, H. S. (1972). The Sovietization of Mongolia. Foreign Affairs, 50(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.2307/20037928 63 Brondizio, E. S., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Wilson, S. J., Reyes-García, V., Öllerer, K., & Fernández- Llamazares, Á. (2018). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., Pérez, C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins : A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-39 Bruegger, R. A., Jigjsuren, O., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2014). Herder Observations of Rangeland Change in Mongolia: Indicators, Causes, and Application to Community-Based Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00124.1 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 Bumochir, D. (2017). Mongolia. In Routledge handbook of civil society in Asia (pp. 95–109). Routledge. Bumochir, D., & Munkherdene, G. (2019). Revitalisation of Cultural Heritage in Mongolia. Inner Asia, 21(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340117 Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, S. A. (2005). Lessons learned from community- based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 12 Suppl 2(November), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274805012004s10 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty : 34(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.127.American Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression , Mongolia , during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012a). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012b). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4 64 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020a). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020b). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community- based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christmann, S., Aw-Hassan, A., Rajabov, T., & Rabbimov, A. (2015). Collective Action for Common Rangelands Improvement: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in Uzbekistan. Society and Natural Resources, 28(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933927 Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships ‘Walk Softly and L Carefully’ isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757 Circle of Tribal Advisers. (2003). Enough Good People. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). (2014). Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. (Issue September). http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Espinosa, P. R., Nicasio, A. v., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wylliede Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020a). A Participatory, Mixed Methods 65 Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020b). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 13). Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28. https://doi.org/38 Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716 Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010a). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010b). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing Health Research: Community-Based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22– 36. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v15i3.155 Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. House of Anansi. Davis, W. (2014). Keynote Speech: The Ethnosphere and the Academy. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Calvo-Boyero, D., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante-Semerena, R. I., & Corbera, E. (2018). Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & others. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage. Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2005). Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press. Devall, B., Sessions, G., & others. (1985). Deep ecology. Pojman. 66 Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local Understandings of the Land: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_4 Dunbar, T., & Scrimgeour, M. (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9018-1 Dunn, C. P. (2017). Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies. In Plant Diversity (Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 396–401). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.003 E. Tumur. (2021). Institutional arrangements for community-based rangeland management in Mongolia. Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Lancet, 367(9528), 2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68925-3 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elands, B. H. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elliott, F. (2009). Science, metaphoric meaning, and Indigenous knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 284–297. Endicott, E. (2012). A history of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). Enkhjargal Adiya. (2010). GENDER EQUITY IN ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONGOLIA. In Thesis (Issue May). Ericksen, A. (2014). Depend on Each Other and Don’t Just Sit: The Socialist Legacy, Responsibility, and Winter Risk among Mongolian Herders. 73(1). Ericksen, A. (2020). The Limitations of Wintering Away From Customary Pastures in Relation to Dzud in Mongolia’s Gobi Region. Nomadic Peoples, 24(1), 86–110. Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 Fassnacht, S. R., Sukh, T., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Batbuyan, B., Venable, N. B. H., Laituri, M., & Adyabadam, G. (2011). Local understanding of hydro-climatic changes in Mongolia. IAHS-AISH Publication, 346(July), 120–129. 67 Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070 Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Community-based Natural Resource Management: State of the Science—Global Perspectives. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(Caughley 1979), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00447.x Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Batkhishig, B., Batbuyan, B., & Ulambayar, T. (2015). Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters. World Development, 68, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015 Fernandez-gimenez, M. E., & Fassnacht, S. R. (2015). Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands : A Trans- disciplinary Research Conference – Preface. 9–15. Flanagan, C., & Laituri, M. (2004). Local Cultural Knowledge and Water Resource Management: The Wind River Indian Reservation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McMcgrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2008). “If you could change one thing⋯” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 Fratkin, E., & Mearns, R. (2003). Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Human Organization, 62(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.2.am1qpp36eqgxh3h1 Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Konagaya, Y., Maekawa, A., Tsogtbaatar, J., Batjargal, Z., Enkhjargal, B., Tuvshintogtokh, I., Ariungerel, D., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Yamamura, N., Satoh, T., Sugita, M., Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, M., Ishii, R., … Jargalsaikhan, L. (2013). The Mongolian Ecosystem Network. 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431- 54052-6 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 68 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Gantuya, B., Avar, Babai, D., Molnár, & Molnár, Z. (2019). “a herder’s duty is to think”: Landscape partitioning and folk habitats of Mongolian herders in a mountain forest steppe (Khuvsugul- Murun region). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0328-x Goulden, C. E., Mead, J., Horwitz, R., Mccormick, S., Boldgiv, B., & Petraitis, P. S. (2016). Interviews of Mongolian herders and high resolution precipitation data reveal an increase in short heavy rains and thunderstorm activity in semi-arid Mongolia. Climate Change, First onli, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1614-4 Goyal, H. D. (1999). A Development Perspective on Mongolia. Asian Survey, 39(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/3021242 Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance \& Development, 34(003). Grayson, R. (2007). Anatomy of the People’s Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia. World Placer Journal, 7, 1–66. http://www.mine.mn/WPJ7_1_Peoples_Gold_Rush.pdf Grayson, R., Delgertsoo, T., Murray, W., Tumenbayar, B., Batbayar, M., Urtnasan, T., Dashzeveg, B., & Chimed, E.-B. (2004). The People ’ s Gold Rush in Mongolia – the Rise of the ‘ Ninja ’ Phenomenon. World Placer Journal, 4. Special(November), 1–112. Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. idrc. Guta, A., Flicker, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Governing through community allegiance: A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.761675 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science , 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200105 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Heuschert, D. (1998). Legal pluralism in the qing empire: Manchu legislation for the mongols. In International History Review (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 310–324). https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640825 69 Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a native american community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002 Hosen, N., & Nakamura, H. (2020). Local Knowledge for Global Actions: The role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change adaptation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(13), 37. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2059 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR . The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 Humphrey, C. (1992). The Moral Authority of the Past in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Religion, State & Society, 20(3–4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499208431566 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “Wilderness” park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf IMF. (2019). Selected issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3821-5_16 Inikori, J. E. (2020). Atlantic slavery and the rise of the capitalist global economy. Current Anthropology, 61(S22), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/709818 Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community- Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 70 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kakinuma, K., Ozaki, T., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). VEGETATION CHANGES CAUSED BY GRAZING. 12(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120205 Kakinuma, K., & Takatsuki, S. (2012). Applying local knowledge to rangeland management in northern Mongolia: do ‘narrow plants’ reflect the carrying capacity of the land? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-23 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Karnieli, A., & Bayarjargal, Y. (2013). Do vegetation indices provide a reliable indication of vegetation degradation? A case study in the Mongolian pastures. … Journal of Remote …. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2013.793865 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (2018). Addressing climate change at the community level in the United States. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727 Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning. Society and Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855 Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F., & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources, 16(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309151 71 Lachapelle, P. R., Smith, P. D., & McCool, S. F. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review, 11(1), 1–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory—What it is Not! Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 12669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for Indigenous Survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ba4oDwAAQBAJ Lander, J. (2019). Transnational Law and State Transformation: The Case of Extractive Development in Mongolia. Routledge. Lattimore, O. (2008). Religion and Revolution in Mongolia. Modern Asian Studies, 1(01), 81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00000081 Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articler ender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 Lee Peluso, N. (2011). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch55 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia : data analysis and game estimation. Liu, Y. Y., Evans, J. P., Mccabe, M. F., Jeu, R. A. M. de, Dijk, A. I. J. M. van, Dolman, A. J., & Saizen, I. (2013). Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. 8(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057599 Lkhagvadorj, D., Hauck, M., Dulamsuren, C., & Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013). Twenty Years After Decollectivization: Mobile Livestock Husbandry and Its Ecological Impact in the Mongolian Forest-Steppe. Human Ecology, 41(5), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9599-3 Llp, A. (2017). Land law of Mongolia | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司 │Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК. 2017. http://www.anallp.com/land-law-of-mongolia/ Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 Luvsanjamts, L., & Söderberg, M. (2005). Mongolia – Heaven for Foreign Consultants. June. http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0215.pdf 72 Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 MARCC. (2009). Mongolia: Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009. Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Development Programme. Marin, A. (2010). Riders under storms : Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010a). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010b). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Martinez, L. S. S., Zamore, W., Finley, A., Reisner, E., Lowe, L., & Brugge, D. (2020). Cbpr partnerships and near‐roadway pollution: A promising strategy to influence the translation of research into practice. Environments - MDPI, 7(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7060044 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(October 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Maweu, J. M. (2011). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Modern Western Ecological Knowledge: Complementary, not Contradictory. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2 Mbizvo, C., Duraiappah, A., Koetz, T., Brondizio, E., Bartus, G., Roué, M., Asah, S. T., Lonsdale, M., Fischer, M., Moller, H., Darnaedi, D., Smith, P., Mikissa, J. B., Lyver, P., Allahverdiyev, R., Mooney, H. A., Pacheco, D., Hashimoto, S., Tallis, H., … Chan, K. M. (2014). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). “We Don’t Take Things Apart”: Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGonegal, J. (2009). The great Canadian (and Australian) secret: The limits of non-indigenous knowledge and representation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 67–83. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy, 53(July), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 Mendee, J. (2015). a “Let’S Change It” Syndrome – Why Does Policy Fail in Mongolia? 1–18. http://sites.socialsciences.manoa.hawaii.edu/css/demr2015/_papers/mendee-jargalsaikhan.pdf 73 Mijiddorj, T. N., Ahearn, A., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2019). Gobi Herders’ Decision-Making and Risk Management under Changing Climate. Human Ecology, 47(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00112-9 Mijiddorj, T. N., Alexander, J. S., Samelius, G., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2020). Traditional livelihoods under a changing climate: herder perceptions of climate change and its consequences in South Gobi, Mongolia. Climatic Change, 162(3), 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02851-x Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl, S81-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720 Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M., & Tamir, H. (2003). Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health, 93(8), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1210 Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025 Murphy, D. (2018). Disaster, mobility, and the moral economy of exchange in Mongolian pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220207 Myagmarjav, T. (2019). TRADITIONAL PASTORALISM OR MINING ? CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ACCESS TO NATURAL PASTURES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 4(4), 56–68. Naidansuren, E. (2012). A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MONGOLIA AUTHOR : ERDENESAIKHAN NAIDANSUREN Table of Contents. National Statistics Office. (2021). Малын тоо 1989-2020. Nelson, M. P., Cullman, G., Chan, K., Durbin, T. J., Teel, T. L., Roth, R., Epstein, G., Stedman, R., Christie, P., Wyborn, C., Thomas, R., Sandlos, J., Greenberg, A., Klain, S. C., Bennett, N. J., Veríssimo, D., Curran, D., & Clark, D. A. (2016). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Vol. null (null, Ed.). Ostrom, E. (1999a). Coping With Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1968), 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 74 Ostrom, E. (1999b). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Ostrom, E. (2000). PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS. INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/common property.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Padgham, J. O. N., Mtilatila, L., & Agyemang-yeboah, F. (2013). Building Shared Understanding and Capacity for Action : Insights on Climate Risk Communication from India , Ghana , Malawi , and Mongolia. International Journal of Communication, 7, 970–983. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pérez, A., Santamaria, E. K., Operario, D., Tarkang, E. E., Zotor, F. B., Cardoso, S. R. de S. N., Autor, S. E. U., De, I., Dos, A., Vendas, O. D. E., Empresas, D. A. S., Atividades, P. O., Artigo, N., Gest, G. N. R. M. D. E., Para, D. E. F., Miranda, S. F. da R., Ferreira, F. A. A., Oliver, J., Dario, M., … Volk, J. E. (2017). Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 5(1), 1–8. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000a). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2 Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000b). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). Plumb, M., Price, W., & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. (2004). Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820400011792 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014a). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014b). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Principe, L. (2006). Science and Religion. Teaching Company Limited Partnership. https://books.google.com/books?id=19xoPQAACAAJ Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Rai, S. C. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0248-4 Raymond, C. M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A Tool and Process that Facilitate Community Capacity Building and. 18(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 75 Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Rink, E., Knight, K., Ellis, C., McCormick, A., FireMoon, P., Held, S., Webber, E., & Adams, A. (2020). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200099 Rink, E., Law, D. G., Montgomery-andersen, R., Mulvad, G., & Koch, A. (2009). The Practical Application of Community-based Participatory Research in Greenland: Initial Experiences of the Greenland Sexual Health Study. Circumpolar Voices, 68(4), 405–413. Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., & Wiesmann, U. (2004). From epistemic monoculture to cooperation between epistemic communities – development research and sustainability. International Conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies”. Millennium Assessment, 17–20. Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Economic Geography, 76(4), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/144393 Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021- 01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 76 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sablin, I. (2016). Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911-1924: Buddhism, Socialism and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building. Routledge. Said, S. (2019). Knowing through being known: reflections on Indigenous epistemology and participatory consciousness. Interventions, 21(8), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558091 Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Schröter, M., Bonn, A., & Klotz, S. (2019). Atlas of Ecosystem Services. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Schulze, A. (2009). Land Legislation and the Possibilities for Pastoral Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – The Example of Mongolia by Land. October, 52. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019a). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019b). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Sneath, D. (2003a). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2003b). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author ( s ): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. 77 Soma, T., & Schlecht, E. (2018). The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0108-y Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014c). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & Carjuzaa, J. (2019). The Digital Storywork Partnership: Community- centered social studies to revitalize Indigenous histories and cultural knowledges. Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.08.001 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & DeCrane, V. W. (2020). “Keep it sacred!”: Indigenous youth-led filmmaking to advance critical race media literacy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2245 Stépanoff, C., Marchina, C., Fossier, C., & Bureau, N. (2017). Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Current Anthropology, 58(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/690120 Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1294–1304. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196307003503 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge. Mountain Forum, April. Sukhbaatar, T. (2020). AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Opportunities for Reducing Human-Wolf Conflicts in Mongolia. Suzanne Christopher, PhD, Robin Saha, PhD, Paul Lachapelle, PhD, Derek Jennings, MEd, Yoshiko Colclough, PhD, Clarice Cooper, BSN, RN, Crescentia Cummins, BS, Margaret J. Eggers, MS, MA, Kris FourStar, Kari Harris, PhD, Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, PHCNS-BC, Vic, B. (2011). Applying Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Principles to Partnership Development in Health Disparities Research. Fam Community Health., 34 (3), 246–255. Szalontai, B. (2013). Tsedenbal’s Mongolia and Communist Aid Donors: A Reappraisal. Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, 12, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v0i12.97 Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Terentyev, V. I. (2019). The Specifics of Teaching History in Russian Schools in Mongolia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 444, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/444/27 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of 78 Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tremblay, M. C., Martin, D. H., McComber, A. M., McGregor, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2018). Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: A case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y Tumenbayar, N. (2000). Land privatization option for Mongolia. … : Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New …, 1–32. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/133 Ulambayar, T., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2019). How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Land Use Policy, 82, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.008 Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., & Batjav, B. (2016). Social Outcomes of Community-based Rangeland Management in Mongolian Steppe Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 00(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267 Undargaa, S. (2016a). Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2016b). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co- management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005a). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2005b). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007- 9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia’s Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). socialist Mongolia Social Capital , Collective Action and Group Formation : Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x Venable, N. B. H., Fassnacht, S. R., Adyabadam, G., Tumenjargal, S., Fernández-Giménez, M., & Batbuyan, B. (2012). Does the length of station record influence the warming trend that is 79 perceived by Mongolian Herders near the Khangai Mountains? Pirineos, 167(167), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3989/Pirineos.2012.167004 Vetter, D. (2021). David Attenborough’s Powerful Speech To COP26 Leaders: ‘The World Is Looking To You.’ Forbes, 1–6. Vol, I. D. S. B. (2002). Drought and Zud but No Famine ( Yet ) in the Mongolian Herding Economy H an n a Siu ru a an d. 33(4), 88–97. Vollan, B., Prediger, S., & Frölich, M. (2013). Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms? Ecological Economics, 95, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010 Waddell, C. M., Herron, R. v., Gobeil, J., Tacan, F., de Jager, M., Allan, J. A., & Roger, K. (2020). Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14), 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320960050 Wagner, J. R., & Davis, A. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. In Human Ecology (Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 463–489). Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., Dickson, E., Kastelic, S., Koegel, P., Lucero, J. E., Magarati, M., Ortiz, K., Parker, M., Peña, J., Richmond, A., & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075 Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent-based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 White, B. T. (2009). Rotten to the Core: Project Capture and the Failure of Judicial Reform in Mongolia. East Asia Law Review, 4(209), 209–275. Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Health Research, 104973231769072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166–174. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indig enous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. 80 Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Windchief, S., & Pedro, T. S. (2019). Applying Indigenous Research Methods. In Applying Indigenous Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169811 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Xie, Y., & Li, W. (2008). WHY DO HERDERS INSIST ON OTOR ? MAINTAINING MOBILITY IN INNER. 12(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zahler, P., Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R. P., Wingard, J. R., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N., Onon, Y., Society, W. C., & Box, P. O. (2004). Illegal and Unsustainable Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2004.02.14 Zhao, G. (2006). Reinventing China: Imperial Qing ideology and the rise of modern Chinese national identity in the early twentieth century. Modern China, 32(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282349 Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 19(March 2015), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051 А. Очир, Ч. Далай, Д. Ц. (2004). МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ТҮҮХ 1. Байгаль Орчны Яам. (2015). Биологийн олон янз байдлын үндэсний хөтөлбөр. Далай, Ч. (1999). Монгол улсын түүх 4 (Vol. 4). Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, У. Б. (2018). Монгол Орны Бэлчээрийн Төлөв Байдлын Үндэсний Тайлан. II, 66. http://greenmongolia.mn/upload/news_files/5946e6e365eb3b52d748af9db89dcc30.pdf Лиштованный Е.И. (2006). ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В МОНГОЛИИ В КОНЦЕ XX ВЕКА: НАЧАЛО МОНГОЛЬСКОЙ ПЕРЕСТРОЙКИ. Иркутский Государственный Университет Науч, Конф, 55–76. МЗГ. (2018). Иргэдэд зориулсан гарын авлага 1. Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ. (2018). http://www.unece.org 81 Пэрлээ, Х. (1976). Монголын Түүх Судлах Нэгэн Үндэс нь Пайз Мѳн. С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга. (2017). ХХ ЗУУНЫ МОНГОЛ : ТҮҮХ, СОЁЛ, ГЕОПОЛИТИК, ГАДААД ХАРИЛЦААНЫ ТУЛГАМДСАН АСУУДЛУУД. Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж. (1983). Түүхийн Судлал. 82 CHAPTER THREE COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ACTION: LESSONS FROM COMMUNITIES IN THE ULAAN TAIGA SPECIAL PROTECTED AREA BUFFERZONE COMMUNITIES Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors Manuscript in Chapter 3 Author: Badamgarav Dovchin Contributions: Conceived the study, translated, transcribed, performed the analyses, interpreted results, and wrote the manuscript. Co-Author: Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle Contributions: Taught the methods of the study, discussed results and implications, and edited manuscripts. Co-Author: Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board of this study Contributions: Participated advised the study data collections and analysis, discussed and approved results and implications. 83 Manuscript Information Badamgarav Dovchin, Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle, Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board members Journal of Land Management and Appraisal Status of Manuscript: [Put an x in one of the options below, delete this] __x_ Prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Officially submitted to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Accepted by a peer-reviewed journal ____ Published in a peer-reviewed journal Publisher: Creative Commons, University of Nigeria [Type date of submission here (submitted manuscript – otherwise leave blank)] [Type date the manuscript will appear here (accepted work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type issue in which manuscript appears here (published work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type DOI, if available] 84 Abstract This methodological article examines Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as applied to the land management of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area and its buffer zone communities in Mongolia. First, we introduce CBPR as research orientation. Then, we describe how we utilized the five main steps of the CBPR framework to address the unique situation of the Mongolian land degradation issue and its management in action. Finally, we review lessons we have learned and future recommendations for each group of participants of this type of research in similar settings. Introduction In Mongolia, confronting environmental degradation and creating sustainable solutions are pressing challenges. The dominant public land management approach, which has been influenced by major political system transitions of the last 30 years, has separated community stakeholders from government organizations as they diverge on two major epistemological pathways. The government officials have typically followed a western science-based ecological knowledge (WSEK) approach (Studley, 1998), while local herders continued to practice traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) (Robbins & Berkes, 2000). The WSEK system is based on perceptions of the land is there to 'serve' human beings reflected in the works of John Locke, Gifford Pinchot, and John Wesley Powel. As early establishers of scientific society, they built the paradigm of human dominance (Devall et al., 1985)over nature and benefit through modifiication and managing (Deur & Turner, 2005). In contrast, the TEK system is based on perceptions that a "human being is only one part of the universe (Devall et al., 1985), and we fit into mother land's system." (personal interview J. Mishig, 2015). Across fields of inquiry, scholars have identified CBPR as an effective approach for researching with Indigenous communities, especially when tensions exist between epistemological elements informing the research design (Chávez et al., 2015; Coombe et al., 2020; D'Alonzo, 2010; Hallett et al., 2017; Israel et al., 2013; Laveaux & Christopher, 2009; Love, 2004; McCormick & Suzanne, 2017; Minkler, 2010; Rink et al., 2020; Stanton, 2014). Broadly, CBPR offers a possibility to empower communities or groups to address multifaceted disparities socially, culturally (Stanton, 2014; Stanton et al., 2019), and environmentally (Ali et al., 2008; Donaldson et al., 2014; Jankowski, 2009) appropriate manners (Holkup et al., 2004; Zurba & Berkes, 2013). A unique strength of CBPR is that it guides decision-makers in sharing power (Afifi et al., 2020; Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016; Denzongpa et al., 2020; P. R. Lachapelle et al., 2004; Muhammad et al., 2015) and facilitating knowledge exchange with and between all participants (Love, 2004; Israel, 2003). The research described in this article, which applied a CBPR framework (Israel et al., 2013; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006), examined perceptions of local community people in the buffer zone of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Areas (UTSPA) in Darhad Valley, Mongolia, regarding their ability to manage their public land and the ecosystem service. As Millennium 85 Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defined: ecosystem service refers to the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Costanza et al., 1998). This article addresses a methodological question related to the project: How does CBPR advance understanding about stakeholder decision-making and land management issues, particularly in contexts where epistemological orientations such as WSEK and TEK appear to be in tension? In answering this question, this article offers implications not only for land resource management and environmental science but for a wide range of fields that could look to CBPR as a methodological approach. Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) The central premise of CBPR focuses on questioning the power relationships that are inherently embedded in western knowledge production by acknowledging the legitimacy of experiential knowledge and centering participants' ways of knowing (Tremblay et al., 2018). CBPR is directly aimed at improving situations and practices. It has been used to evaluate various complex issues such as rural health and environmental problems in different, predominantly Indigenous communities of the world (Castleden et al., 2012; Chen, Diaz, Lucas, & Rosenthal, 2010; Christopher, Watts, McCormick, & Young, 2008; Love, 2004; M Minkler, Blackwell, Thompson, & Tamir, 2003; M Minkler, Vásquez, Tajik, & Petersen, 2008; Rink, Law, Montgomery-andersen, Mulvad, & Koch, 2009). Unlike the conventional research process in which policymakers and researchers dominate research decision-making without participation from community members, CBPR facilitates sharing and redistribution of power by empowering stakeholders to participate at every stage of the research and the decision-making processes (Castleden et al., 2012; Love, 2004). Often, CBPR includes community meetings and/or advisory boards, where participants can contribute their ideas and consult together before a plan passes as policy or practice. If the research decision-making did not represent all participants, these participatory approaches encourage research teams to make more balanced decisions. By facilitating inclusive participation, CBPR engages those formerly left out of research, decision-making, and knowledge sharing processes (Martinez et al., 2020). CBPR is a suitable method to approach stagnant multi-stakeholder participation on mixed ownership of land and livestock and diverse approaches to environmental assessment in contexts where land degradation is accelerating. For example, when applied to the study of land degradation in the Darhad Valley, CBPR is flexible enough to simultaneously address the shortcomings of common-pool resource management tools that are overly prescriptive and western-oriented, complement Mongolian people's constitutional rights for keeping the pastureland public, and facilitate the participation of herders in decision-making. Since CBPR is more of a methodological orientation than a set of prescriptive methods (Stanton, 2014), CBPR practitioners typically look to a framework to guide planning. While there are various models available, most attend to planning for community participation across five phases of research: 1. Build capacity: Establish, maintain, and reflect upon a relationship with the community; 2. Develop research question: The research question comes from the community; 86 3. Collect data: Form focus groups and identify critical participant experts for conducting detailed surveys and interviews; 4. Interpret results: Analyze data using methods that are inclusive, transparent, and collaborative; and, 5. Dissemination: Create and implement plans to share results with different audiences (Israel et al., 2013). The Darhad Valley: Following the Flow for CBPR Darhad Valley (51.02oN, 99.45oE) is an isolated northern Mongolian pocket that meets the Siberian Taiga ecosystem's south end. It has high alpine, talus, larch forest, taiga, dry steppe, and wetland habitats (Call et al., 2019). The valley comprises four soums (counties) with over 10,000 people and 787.2 thousand livestock (National Statistical Report, 2019). In Darhad Valley, people are famous for their poetic talent and unique communication skills, where people tell stories and compose songs and jokes for everything. There is a saying among Mongolians: If you visit Darhad Valley, people there will have a song about you before you leave. The use of metaphor is a very common means of communication among Mongolians and other Indigenous cultures worldwide (Said, 2019). In Mongolian, the word for mountain means "origin," and the word for river means "the essence/the most important thing" (Figure 6). Together the mountain and river metaphor build the philosophical foundation for nomadic Mongolians: "The wisdom/essence of knowledge comes from the elders/origin like the essence of life/water comes from the mountains/the mother earth." This metaphor is famously used in a well-known poem Bagsh/Teacher, written by a nationally acclaimed poet Sh. Surenjav: "..Teacher; the mountain that stays in place while sending the rivers and creeks to the ocean…." Furthermore, the Mongolian word for research means "follow the flow/cудалгаа". Therefore, through the Mongolian metaphor, doing research is the act of following the flow of knowledge from the elders and mother earth and, by joining as a tributary, contributing to the next generations to come. 87 Figure 6 Mountain and River Metaphor Land management research in the Darhad Valley is of utmost importance, as Mongolians believe that they have a special relationship with their motherland and father sky (Bumochir, 2017) and that everything has a spirit. For people of the Darhad Valley, the quality of life is directly related to the quality of relationship that you maintain with your mother earth, as well as your human and non-human siblings (personal communications, Baldandorj shaman, Tsagaannuur, 2015). In recent decades, the Darhad Valley has gained attention for its gold mining and connections with the greater Asian wildlife trade market. To confront the problems attributed primarily to the mining and wildlife trade, a new park was created covering 1.6 million hectares of land in Darhad Valley. This SPA is called Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Areas (Figure 7). 88 Figure 7 Map of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Areas (SPAs) that consists of one National Park and two Strictly Protected Areas Today, more than 70% of the Darhad Valley territory is under the protection of the Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area administration. The SPA administration completely eliminated illegal mining by 2014, and poaching has been reduced by 95% (Annual Report, UTSPA, 2014). After the park formation, a new problem arose: Conflict between stakeholders regarding laws and regulations that arrived alongside national protection. Different stakeholder groups (e.g., herders, local government officials, park administrators) hold different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, thereby complicating collaborative decision-making and management efforts within the Darhad Valley. Generally, government specialists and policymakers use WSEK, while herders and local communities use different evaluation methods based on their long-accumulated, place-specific TEK. Currently, the decision-making power that specialists and policymakers hold is disproportionately stronger than herders, urgently need facilitation to contribute their voice and ways of knowing to the land-degradation decision- making process. Because of their mismatched worldviews, both sides have largely been unsuccessful at communication. To address the gaps in communication, our community in Darhad Valley chose CBPR to facilitate inclusive participation for the land assessment and management decision-making. 89 CBPR in the Darhad Valley: Five Phases of Practice The CBPR framework provided a feasible structure for participants to collectively diagnose the root of the land degradation issues and contribute to planning suitable solutions while easing the conflict among the stakeholders. The overall research matrix is in the (Figure 8). As with many participatory initiatives, our team learned several lessons, including 1) more time is needed to accomplish each step, 2) support is needed to develop facilitation skills and cultural learning, and 3) planning CBPR work in this context needs to consider multiple languages and overlapping roles. Figure 8 Research matrix Phase#1: Establish, Maintain, and Reflect Upon a Relationship with the Community Spending time in the community building trust and relationships is fundamental to CBPR. CBPR projects provide co-learning and bidirectional learning opportunities and help participants understand the importance of respect, reciprocity, and reflection in the research process of the community, culture, and environment (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Lambert, 2014). Self-sustaining change led by participating stakeholders’ was the most important outcome of the overall CBPR process. For instance, after the first three years of guidance, our local community and CAB took over the CBPR process and continued the work without our research team’s facilitations. Also, these 5 phases are circular in nature and not necessarily a linear process. The changes and sustainability are the key results we aim for each phase and continuously build the capacity throughout the 5 phases of CBPR. 90 To facilitate the implementation of a CBPR framework in the Darhad Valley, a leadership team was formed consisting of graduate and undergraduate students from two universities (one based in the US and one based in Mongolia) joined with the 10-member Darhad Valley Community Advisory Board (CAB), 11 key participant experts, and two focus groups of Herder User Groups (HUG). Throughout this article, the team will be referred to as "we." Even before the initial community meetings and formation of the CAB, we had a group of elders, teachers, community leaders, and local governors of the counties working with us as local advisers. Within CBPR work, members of leadership and research teams often include a combination of local experts and individuals with training in how to conduct academic research. To ensure equitable relationships that recognize both local expertise and academic expertise, CBPR focuses extensively on relationship-building and community-based learning. In the case of this project, I (Badamgarav Dovchin), the lead researcher, am a Khalkh Mongolian woman who is an outsider in the Darhad community. I came to the Darhad Valley in 2001 as a teenaged horseback tour guide and continued working as a community development coordinator for projects facilitated by the US research university and beginning my work as a student. In addition to my other duties, I served as an interpreter between Mongolians (and various Mongolian dialects) and mostly English speakers from the USA, Australia, and the UK, who came from various cultural and professional backgrounds. The interpreter's experience provided me a rare chance to be a relationship-builder, cultural filter, facilitator, moderator, negotiator, and most importantly, a channel to encourage the flow of knowledge between the participants. However, despite my work as an interpreter and my nearly 20 years of friendship and collaborations with local people on various projects from human to environmental health and language preservation, I am still a learner of the Darhad Valley culture within the community and as a CBPR scholar. In summer 2014, the buffer zone community was in a crisis caused by the conflict between the Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area (UTSPA) and local people due to the sudden changes in the land use and management decisions that the new SPA introduced to them. To address the concerns, in July 2014, we called for community meetings and a joint workshop of Yellowstone National Park Service specialists and UTPSA specialists, rangers, and local people. The initial community meetings (Figure 9) (Appendix B) were held in each county of Bayanzurkh and Renchinlhumbe at the county's community cultural centers due to their reputation as a "neutral zone." The meetings encouraged voluntary and active attendance through discussion. Each meeting participants were community representatives. During these meetings, community members and other stakeholders co-created a graph (Figure 10) showing perceived changes over the last 100 years of political and socio-economic transitions within the buffer zone. Lengthy discussions at community meetings also focused on the membership and formation of the official CAB. In determining the CAB membership, we encouraged equal participation in terms of demographic representation and the geographical location of the participants. The minutes of the initial community meetings (in Mongolian) and the form and names of the participants and the CAB members approved by the meeting are in Appendix B with CAB permission. The community meetings concluded with dancing and singing, which are very common events for any social gatherings of Darhad Valley. People expressed their gratitude to 91 our team for organizing the meetings and felt like they were making progress in terms of collaborations with other stakeholders. Figure 9 Initial community meetings BZ and RL L-R Figure 10 The changes of major factors in the last 100 years of Mongolia Phase#2: The Research Questions Come from the Community The second phase of CBPR focuses on developing central and secondary research questions. Unlike conventional, researcher-led studies, which often look to existing literature and/or researcher interests when defining questions, CBPR studies turn to community partners for guidance in developing these questions. In this example, the CBPR project, the initial Darhad Valley community meetings focused on land-use change, the local people's decision-making ability, and how community members felt about these changes. For example, two elderly herders emphasized the changes socialism brought about in their ability to make or participate in their land decisions. One herder 92 explained, "We never had to tell the others what to do with their land, and no one told us what to with our land either until we the "great" (sarcastic way to refer the communist regime) of communist Russians." In understanding this example, additional cultural and historical context is important. This herder views the "great help" as an impediment to traditional land management practices, which had been entrusted to local herders for generations prior to the arrival of the Russians. Similarly, Herder 63 noted: I appreciate the help that Russians and the democratic revolution brought in education, health, and social orders, which made Mongolia into the modern country level. However, I do not understand why the new systems must neglect the old system and why not take the best of both and go further. Sharing the power of decision-making is the hardest thing for all policymakers. They try to isolate themselves from the people who are affected by the results. As these two herders' concerns were highlighted, community members who attended the meetings expressed distrust and discomfort with decision-makers and stakeholders who were community outsiders. Therefore, the overarching local advisors and the CAB asked, Can collaborative decision-making help mitigate stakeholder conflicts? How can our voices be heard in decision-making about land use and management? To learn more about this broad question, the CAB decided to start the research with a general survey (see the complete form in Appendix C, transcription is available with permission of CAB in English and Mongolian). Specifically, this survey consisted of 16 open-ended questions to learn about community members' concerns and interests as related to: ● Current economic, environmental, and social conditions; ● Changes community members would like to see in the next ten years; and, ● Suggestions for ways various stakeholders (i.e., herders, government officials, SPA specialists) can address the issues. During survey analysis the following sub-questions were identified to guide the rest of the CBPR process: a) What do local people perceive as the root issues of the land management stagnation? b) What is each group's preferred method for environmental management? c) What is the power dynamic among the stakeholder groups? d) How do the above three decision-making components affect each stakeholder group's ability to evaluate and manage the land? Phase#3: Data Collection in Partnership with Critical Informants To answer the research questions, diverse data sources were collected and analyzed, including survey responses, interviews, community meeting artifacts, and traditional written and spoken texts (e.g., songs, legends, ceremonies). In the cases of less conventional data sources, we followed the CAB advice to ensure participants were recognized and had granted their spoken permission to share the data. However, the participants wished to keep their confidentiality in some cases, especially when controversial topics and opinions were expressed. In these cases, we used participant numbers for identification. 93 In addition to identifying types of data appropriate to the community, community members also determined the best approaches for the collection of that data. During the initial community meetings, participants collectively agreed to (by the raising of hands) evaluate the overall social, economic, and environmental situations by conducting a general survey in written form. They also decided to use the results from the survey to plan the next steps of the study, including identification of data sources and collection methods. The participants created the general survey questions at the end of the meetings, and these questions were later reviewed and approved by the CAB. After the surveys were administered, we collected the responses, and the CAB and research team conducted the initial analysis to identify common areas of interest and concern. A total of sixty-nine written surveys were completed and returned, and thirty-one surveys were not returned. The reasons for not returning those surveys included transportation difficulties due to the remote locations to which the survey was sent, border patrol office restrictions, and forest fire incidents that occurred over the Russia and Mongolian border during the survey's timeframe. After the initial assessments, the CAB conducted in-depth interviews with eleven key participant experts and two focus groups (Appendix D). The eleven key participant experts included representatives of three main stakeholder groups. The interview process took place mainly in the privacy of the participant experts' homes. The interviews were conducted semi-structured and recorded using a voice recorder (with the participant experts' verbal consent, see Appendix E) or by notetaking (if the participants did not consent to the voice recording). The CAB suggested that I (Badamgarav) perform the interviews, in part because other members of the research team were English speakers and/or did not speak dialects specific to the region. The interviews lasted from approximately one hour to several days of one- to two-hour conversations in Darhad Mongol and Dukha Mongol dialects in Renchinlhumbe (RL), Ulaan-Uul (UU), and Tsagaannuur (TN) counties and central Mongolian dialects Bayanzurkh (BZ) county. In addition, two focus groups were created to interview members of the Herder User Groups (HUG) in Renchinlhumbe (RL) and Bayanzurkh (BZ) counties. Overall, we identified three lessons that affected the success of data identification and gathering specific to this CBPR project, and these lessons hold potential implications for other CBPR efforts. First, working with the CAB requires careful timing to ensure at least 8 to 10 CAB members could participate at the same time. During the Naadam festival (the traditional summer celebration), we had the opportunity to work with everyone. Second, in this particular project and context, the participants identified qualitative data collection methods that allowed travel flexibility. That flexibility made it possible to meet the participants in their preferred locations. Related to this, the participants encouraged noninvasive and natural interview formats. For example, it was often helpful for a longer interview to be divided into multiple parts and times of the day and/or to be completed as participants were accomplishing their daily lives. During the conversations, I helped the participants with their chores, such as collecting the horses, milking their cows, and making dairy products. Finally, the community members emphasized the value of presenting multiple options for obtaining data, such as sharing spoken data through conversation, in a story, and even song and poem forms. Phase#4: Data Analysis that is Inclusive, Transparent, and Collaborative 94 In-depth analysis of the general surveys occurred simultaneously with analysis of the in- depth interviews. Although switching between the data sources and data collection/analysis steps can add complexity to the process, the study's flow required interactive design (Foster et al., 2012). Below, we detail the steps of the analysis, although we note that there was a movement back and forth throughout the process. After the initial analysis of the 69 general surveys, we completed an initial transcription of the eleven key participant experts’ interviews from hand-written documents, voice recorded files, and notes in the Dukha language and various Mongolian dialects. These transcriptions had to be hand-written in some cases since no word processing programs are available for these dialects. Following this initial transcription, the transcripts were reviewed with CAB members and participant experts for clarifications of idioms and cultural interpretations of the interviews' parts with complex meanings. The second round of transcription translated the initial transcripts into Khalkh Mongolian, which is the only version of Mongolian recognized by Microsoft Word. Relatedly, surveys that included responses deemed relevant for in-depth analysis by the CAB were translated from Darhad and Urianhai dialects of Mongolian and Dukha languages into English. To keep the possible variations of data collection and translations at a minimum, I (Badamgarav) completed all the interviews and transcriptions, translations, interpretations, and coding. Additionally, I reviewed each step with the CAB and the community member participants. After preparing the data through transcription, clarification, and translation, we completed multiple rounds of coding using a combination of word processing programs and qualitative analysis software. The first descriptive round was completed using Charmaz's (2004) line-by-line coding technique and Microsoft Word in Khalkh Mongolian (the official language of government). Due to a large amount of cultural and community-specific knowledge encapsulated in the interviews, the initial line-by-line coding/analysis of the survey took place in Darhad. Following the initial descriptive coding, a round of interpretive and presumptive focused coding was completed using NVivo12 (in English). Our general process included a line-by-line review of each data file and the identification of a new code for each significant topic. Sometimes, a segment of text was assigned several different codes. The emerging themes from this round were reviewed with the CAB and participant experts (Chávez et al., 2015; Hallett et al., 2017; Rink et al., 2020; Windchief & Cummins, 2021) after every field season of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. To support meaningful participation during this phase, the codes and themes were translated back to Darhad, Dukha, and Khalkh Mongolian languages. The focused coding did not use a pre-determined coding framework, instead drawing upon the community-generated interpretations (Rogers Stanton, 2020), metaphors (Berkes, 2012; Dinero, 2011; Kimmerer, 2002; Stanton et al., 2020), and traditional knowledge. This approach, which resembles Grounded Theory (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2015; Corbin & Strauss, 1990), recognizes the unique expertise of participants and is well-suited for CBPR applications. Each code was matched to the examples and explanations of CAB and/or the key participant experts' documented memos. In some cases, the data was in the form of a song or a poem, or a series of stories, and it was important to associate the participant expert’s personal information (McCormick & Held, 2017; Stanton et al., 2019, 2020), even though such information is usually removed during analysis. 95 To check analysis and synthesis, various tools in NVivo12 were applied to the coded files. For example, frequencies of codes and comparisons across contexts and participant experts provided in-depth information about the codes and themes. As a further check on the trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation, the CAB reviewed the results and provided guidance relevant to data access and security prior to dissemination. The collaborative analysis revealed that historically communications among the stakeholders (i.e., herders, local and national government, and Ulaan Taiga SPA) are complicated. In the past, there has been no transparency, and a lack of communication led to misunderstandings and lost trust, with herders typically excluded from decision-making processes. The analysis also revealed that while the local Government and SPA operate at the same level of authority, they do not negotiate. Furthermore, while the herders prefer TEK, WSEK is prioritized by government and Park officials. This dual system prevented the implementation of effective land management practices. Herders felt the government officials were disconnected from actual real-life issues, and they felt unable to communicate their knowledge as TEK is not accepted. The CBPR process provided insight to these multiple tensions, and that insight resulted in the development of workshops focusing on collaboratively building an inclusive land assessment tool. Phase#5: Dissemination Plans The development of a results-dissemination plan for different audiences is key to CBPR (Gruber, 2010). Reframing dissemination as a two-way dialogue, rather than a one-way broadcast, supports the twin aims of advancing scientific knowledge and achieving community benefit (Trinidad et al., 2015). To ensure the research findings are shared in timely, appropriate, and respectful ways with various stakeholder groups, we planned the dissemination methods with CAB advice. Furthermore, the dissemination of CBPR depends upon extra steps to ensure the communication style, method, timing, location, and even language are well planned beyond conventional dissemination through the scientific publications (Chen, Diaz, Lucas, & Rosenthal, 2010). The dissemination plan for this study included several steps. As we had various stakeholders participating, co-creating, and benefiting from this study, we referred to CAB members, community stakeholders, and key participant experts to refine the results and ensure the findings adhered to community cultural and ethical criteria (Dunbar & Scrimgeour, 2006). Furthermore, since protocols and norms vary between stakeholder groups, we developed specific dissemination plans for and with each stakeholder group. For example, stating the name of certain rivers and mountains in written or spoken forms is taboo for community outsiders or younger people (both local and outsiders). In the cases where data and/or findings referenced specific rivers or mountains, we used generic names (mountains: "хайрхан/hairhan"; rivers: "мѳрѳн/murun" and sacred "тахилгатай/tahilgatai"). Herders: Visual Posters, Storytelling, and Community Meetings We organized community meetings to share the findings in cloth posters and handouts which are travel-friendly, cost-effective, duplicable and illustrated using local artwork. As was 96 true with the analysis, dissemination of findings followed an integrative model. Preliminary results were shared promptly to ensure the herders were involved in every research stage. Then, we facilitated discussions about appropriate next steps to ensure the results were not misinterpreting the herders' values and current situations and to note possible culturally sensitive information. In addition to dissemination of final results, the CAB provided the research updates to local community people during seasonal gatherings and ceremonies. During summertime, I (Badamgarav) presented findings and engaged with community members in personal meetings and home visits. Local Government/Policymakers: Organization Feedback Reports Several organizations and policymakers were included in the second group of stakeholders, including representatives from the local government, the UTSPA, the provincial government, and ministries involved with research contracts. For this group, we shared the result as a report at the end of every field year, no later than February 1 of the following year, which is the legal deadline for the scientific research results to be submitted to Mongolia's coordinating ministries. Then the ministry provided a follow-up on our annual report, and some relevant results in their work plans for the coming year. In Mongolia, local government officers and specialists usually work on local county-level pasture management plans and contribute to provincial plans. The official research results approved by the locals were shared with the officers and specialists in report form, and this group was invited for further discussions to reveal additional suggestions. After sharing the results, we organized all stakeholders to build an inclusive land-assessment tool and co-create the local, value-based management plans with the local Government and UTSPA. Government reports are sensitive, so the CAB and I submitted annual reports after each field season with the preliminary results to local county, provincial and national governments, as well as the Ministry of Environment (i.e., the office overseeing the UTSPA). Scientists/Researchers: Scientific Publications Publication in academic and professional scientific journals is an important aspect of the dissemination process. To identify appropriate journals, the CAB reviewed and discussed sample issues. For example, the CAB identified IK: Other Ways of Knowing from Pennsylvania State University Press as one potential outlet, given that journal's focus on Indigenous knowledge (i.e., "IK") and community-aligned methodologies. This work could help inform scientific communities working on and interested in similar problems in different parts of the world. One thing to carefully consider in the publications and sharing credits is the reciprocity of authorship benefits. While co-authorship is a rightful way to credit the contributions of the participant experts, the benefit for each author could be unequally different. For instance, the scientists would benefit the most by authoring the research publications, for herders and local participant experts the co-authorship would not bring much meaningful benefits. Thus, scientific community as a whole need to consider planning more meaningful and reciprocal ways of benefits to the non-scientific community co-authors. This could be different to each community and participants depending on their culture and living conditions and needs. 97 Discussion This project was a complex and multifaceted work that shed light on previously hidden parts of land use decision making and the epistemological division in Darhad Valley, Mongolia. Several aspects of the project are of particular note in terms of offering insight to the potential for CBPR applications in Mongolia and similar contexts. First of all, beginning the third year of this project, the community participants began taking the lead on the research decision-making, workshop planning, and tool development. From this phase forward, the CBPR process did not need close facilitation by the research team, which we see as a positive change that CBPR process (Brown et al., 2010; Lepore et al., 2021; Minkler et al., 2008). Such work results in greater community buy-in and practical action (Allen et al., 2011). Second, this project demonstrated how critical the CAB and the focus group members' participation was throughout the CBPR process. This comprehensive participation was especially important during the initial coding (Hallett et al., 2017; Stanton, 2014), not only to ensure accurate translation but to ensure trustworthiness in basic analysis. Being inclusive at every stage, especially during analysis (Hallett et al., 2017), was crucial to comprehending the data in how it was meant to be conveyed (Laveaux & Christopher, 2009; McCormick & Held, 2017). Collaboration during analysis also supported the broader goal of distributing the power of the research decisions to all critical participants (Chávez et al., 2015; Lachapelle et al., 2004; Muhammad et al., 2015; Robbins & Berkes, 2000; Tobias et al., 2013). One of many important ways of power distribution and maintaining trust and respect by using the "respectful" version of the spoken language and adhering to culturally appropriate body language norms (e.g., standing in the junior location of the meeting settings, waiting for the elder's approval of proceeding as facilitator). Additionally, the use of CBPR in this context supported a natural integration of WSEK and TEK. CBPR encourages purposeful and complimentary use of academic knowledge and community expertise. Similarly, WSEK and TEK complement each other (Cebrián-Piqueras et al., 2020; Reed, 2008), and the project allowed the stakeholders to redirect the land assessment and management from only biodiversity conservation into local value-based land management alongside the policy development from the UTSPA and local government. This was a positive result of power redistribution (Allen et al., 2011; Coombe et al., 2020a; Robinson et al., 2021; Stanton, 2014a) and collaboration. All in all, the flow of knowledge was activated through the CBPR's facilitation (Aslin et al., 2013; Lepore et al., 2021) and local people's participation. This example of CBPR in practice also illustrates several recommendations for future researchers and participants of similar research projects in similar settings. As the CBPR framework provides equal opportunity for participants to be co-researchers, the recommendations should also be specifically planned for each group, and they should fit the needs and preferences of the unique context and community. Most importantly, continued capacity building is an important part of CBPR works for all participants to plan time and budget for it in all 5 phases. Researchers: Mentally prepare yourselves to walk the nuanced spaces between the expectations of the western academic institution and the elements of CBPR within an Indigenous community, especially if the institution and community are located in different countries. Remember that community knowledge is not all automatically the best ways of knowing or 98 doing, similarly, western expectations and practices have limitations. Therefore, triangulation should occur in culturally and academically respectful ways. Keep reminding yourself and others of the purpose of the project, as it may change over time. Establish a clear definition of your role as a researcher/participant of the project but be prepared to be flexible (Chilisa, 2019; Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 2021; Stanton et al., 2020; S. Wilson, 2008; Windchief & Pedro, 2019). Learn to be prepared and to wear multiple hats (Chan et al., 2012; Hosen & Nakamura, 2020) of a researcher, a participant, interpreter, cultural filter, facilitator between the teams, and educator for all sides. Expect growth and change (or even a complete return to the beginning) (Jagosh et al., 2015) as the research progresses. Look to your CAB to preempt your possible missteps. Review the funding for the research with your CAB and community to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Build capacity in your academic and local communities as you build the research so the process can be sustainable after your project is finished. Transparency is the key to keeping the trust of all participants. Host community participants: Make sure the research team provides workshops and discussions to familiarize the audiences not only with content but also with research processes (Allen et al., 2011; Chávez et al., 2015; Sánchez et al., 2021). Communicate the expectations of data sharing and Institutional Review Board requirements with the CAB. Learn to say "no" when needed and be transparent if possible. One of the unexpected positive effects of a CBPR project, especially an international project, is it can raise awareness (Purev & Plumley, 2003; Tobias et al., 2013) and cultivate interest in culture and land, which can serve as a means of cultivating interest among local youth (Tobias et al., 2013). Finally, CBPR offers a high potential to revitalize Indigenous knowledge that can generate positive changes within your community. Conclusion Compared to some Indigenous communities of other parts of the world, Mongolian Indigenous communities have never experienced total colonization. However, the systematic changes forced on these communities are deep in the roots of socio-economic and environmental degradation. The CBPR project described in this article demonstrates significant progress toward solving the communication and collaboration challenges identified by current Mongolian rural communities. We hope this work will offer a model for other communities around Mongolia to adapt to solve their land-degradation and management dispute issues. In the Darhad Valley, the CAB and the local stakeholders plan to continue using CBPR for continued building and practicing the inclusive and local value-based approaches to conservation, land management, and decision-making. When asked to identify their choice of further research approach, CBPR was preferred by most participants. All the CAB members agreed to continue these participatory interventions to encourage greater collaboration among the stakeholders. This common ground did not come quickly or easily (Chan & Satterfield, 2020; Chávez et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2018; Schröter et al., 2019). At first, the intensity of the conflict among the stakeholders meant we could not hold the community meetings in either SPA offices or local government offices. However, after the initial sessions, the tension eased slightly. After two years of working together, the CAB and the community stakeholders could hold the 99 meetings without the research team facilitation. This improvement in the stakeholders' collaborations was one of the desired outcomes of CBPR. This project was conducted as a continuation of long-term collaborations with the community. Therefore, the research team did not experience the main limitations of participatory research that take longer time and effort, such as establishing relationships, building trust, and understanding the participating communities' cultural and historical foundations. On the contrary, we had issues narrowing down the research priorities and establishing boundaries for the study given (Plumb et al., 2004) the wealth of information we learned from the community throughout the process. Choosing the most important factors among the interconnected problems surrounding the land degradation issues was a complicated process. In addition to prioritizing the research topic requests, the research team endeavored to maintain a neutral participant relative to all stakeholders to ensure research integrity and enact a researcher-as-facilitator role that would encourage a shift of power to participants (Chávez et al., 2015; E. Wilson, 2019). "Neutrality" required purposeful planning that included details such as choice of the campsite and lodging of the research team, location of community meetings, research steps taken in each community, and transparency across all phases. Despite meticulous and multi-leveled planning efforts across two continents, stages of research did not always go as they were intended. For example, due to disrupted communication and 15-hour time differences, the herders' stakeholder group sometimes experienced a slight lag in updates. Another final important lesson we learned from this CBPR project occurred as a result of the use of multiple languages of participants. Data collection, preparation, and analysis took longer since multiple translation and interpretation steps needed to occur. For instance, one conversation had to be translated from Dukha to Darhad to Central Mongolian and English and then back to Darhad. The additional interpretations of the connotative meanings, cultural background, and historical reasonings necessary to fully understand all participants demanded further meticulous work. To minimize errors due to information "lost in translation" and reduce possible data variation errors, we relied on the lead researcher to complete the entry and preparation of all the raw and analyzed data. However, we acknowledge that some loss of knowledge (Ericksen, 2020) is inevitable, regardless of the time and effort spent collecting, preparing, and analyzing data. 100 Works Cited Addison, J., Davies, J., Friedel, M., & Brown, C. (2013). Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? Journal of Arid Environments, 94, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.02.009 Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert: not as straight forward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Afifi, R. A., Abdulrahim, S., Betancourt, T., Btedinni, D., Berent, J., Dellos, L., Farrar, J., Nakkash, R., Osman, R., Saravanan, M., Story, W. T., Zombo, M., & Parker, E. (2020). Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12453 Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. S. (2011). Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38(02), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000925 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Allen, M. L., Culhane-Pera, K. A., Pergament, S., & Call, K. T. (2011). A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00362.x Allington, G. R. H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Chen, J., & Brown, D. G. (2018). Combining participatory scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the Mongolian Plateau. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209 Anna, & Drugge. (2016). Ethics in Indigenous Research. In Past experiences–future challenges. Umeå: Vaartoe– …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra_Juutilainen/publication/311593254_Moving_forwar d_with_Sami_research_ethics_how_the_dialogical_process_to_policy_development_in_Canada _supports_the_course_of_action_for_the_Nordic_countries_In_Drugge_AL_ed_Ethics Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.011 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non-indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 101 Ayre, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). “Unwritten, unsaid, just known”: the role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environment, 18(January 2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665864 Baabar, B.-E. (1999). History of Mongolia. Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. In Alaska Native Knowledge Network (Vol. 23). http://search.ebscohost.com.cyber.usask.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44047668&sit e=ehost-live Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knolwedge Systems and the Alaskan Native Ways of Knowing.pdf. In Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 8–23). Barnhardt, R., & Kirkness, V. J. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R ’ s - Respect, Relevance , Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–17. Bathishig Baival, Fernandez-Gimenez, & Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E, R. R. (2012). Community- Based Range Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities. In Vasa. Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2010). Fenced in: Common property struggles in the management of communal rangelands in central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.006 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Biran, M. (2004). The Mongol transformation: From the steppe to Eurasian Empire. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570067043077869 Boslaugh, S. (2016). Anthropocentrism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Issue January 2016). Bradsher, H. S. (1972). The Sovietization of Mongolia. Foreign Affairs, 50(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.2307/20037928 102 Brondizio, E. S., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Wilson, S. J., Reyes-García, V., Öllerer, K., & Fernández- Llamazares, Á. (2018). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., Pérez, C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins : A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-39 Bruegger, R. A., Jigjsuren, O., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2014). Herder Observations of Rangeland Change in Mongolia: Indicators, Causes, and Application to Community-Based Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00124.1 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 Bumochir, D. (2017). Mongolia. In Routledge handbook of civil society in Asia (pp. 95–109). Routledge. Bumochir, D., & Munkherdene, G. (2019). Revitalisation of Cultural Heritage in Mongolia. Inner Asia, 21(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340117 Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, S. A. (2005). Lessons learned from community- based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 12 Suppl 2(November), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274805012004s10 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty : 34(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.127.American Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression, Mongolia, during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012a). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012b). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4 103 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020a). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020b). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community- based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christmann, S., Aw-Hassan, A., Rajabov, T., & Rabbimov, A. (2015). Collective Action for Common Rangelands Improvement: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in Uzbekistan. Society and Natural Resources, 28(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933927 Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships ‘Walk Softly and L Carefully’ isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757 Circle of Tribal Advisers. (2003). Enough Good People. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). (2014). Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. (Issue September). http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Espinosa, P. R., Nicasio, A. v., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wylliede Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020a). A Participatory, Mixed Methods 104 Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020b). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 13). Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28. https://doi.org/38 Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716 Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010a). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010b). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing Health Research: Community-Based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22– 36. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v15i3.155 Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. House of Anansi. Davis, W. (2014). Keynote Speech: The Ethnosphere and the Academy. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Calvo-Boyero, D., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante-Semerena, R. I., & Corbera, E. (2018). Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & others. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage. Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2005). Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press. Devall, B., Sessions, G., & others. (1985). Deep ecology. Pojman. 105 Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local Understandings of the Land: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_4 Dunbar, T., & Scrimgeour, M. (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9018-1 Dunn, C. P. (2017). Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies. In Plant Diversity (Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 396–401). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.003 E. Tumur. (2021). Institutional arrangements for community-based rangeland management in Mongolia. Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Lancet, 367(9528), 2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68925-3 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elands, B. H. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elliott, F. (2009). Science, metaphoric meaning, and Indigenous knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 284–297. Endicott, E. (2012). A history of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). Enkhjargal Adiya. (2010). GENDER EQUITY IN ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONGOLIA. In Thesis (Issue May). Ericksen, A. (2014). Depend on Each Other and Don’t Just Sit: The Socialist Legacy, Responsibility, and Winter Risk among Mongolian Herders. 73(1). Ericksen, A. (2020). The Limitations of Wintering Away From Customary Pastures in Relation to Dzud in Mongolia’s Gobi Region. Nomadic Peoples, 24(1), 86–110. Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 Fassnacht, S. R., Sukh, T., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Batbuyan, B., Venable, N. B. H., Laituri, M., & Adyabadam, G. (2011). Local understanding of hydro-climatic changes in Mongolia. IAHS-AISH Publication, 346(July), 120–129. 106 Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070 Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Community-based Natural Resource Management: State of the Science—Global Perspectives. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(Caughley 1979), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00447.x Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Batkhishig, B., Batbuyan, B., & Ulambayar, T. (2015). Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters. World Development, 68, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015 Fernandez-gimenez, M. E., & Fassnacht, S. R. (2015). Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands : A Trans- disciplinary Research Conference – Preface. 9–15. Flanagan, C., & Laituri, M. (2004). Local Cultural Knowledge and Water Resource Management: The Wind River Indian Reservation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McMcgrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2008). “If you could change one thing⋯” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 Fratkin, E., & Mearns, R. (2003). Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Human Organization, 62(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.2.am1qpp36eqgxh3h1 Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Konagaya, Y., Maekawa, A., Tsogtbaatar, J., Batjargal, Z., Enkhjargal, B., Tuvshintogtokh, I., Ariungerel, D., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Yamamura, N., Satoh, T., Sugita, M., Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, M., Ishii, R., … Jargalsaikhan, L. (2013). The Mongolian Ecosystem Network. 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431- 54052-6 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 107 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Gantuya, B., Avar, Babai, D., Molnár, & Molnár, Z. (2019). “a herder’s duty is to think”: Landscape partitioning and folk habitats of Mongolian herders in a mountain forest steppe (Khuvsugul- Murun region). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0328-x Goulden, C. E., Mead, J., Horwitz, R., Mccormick, S., Boldgiv, B., & Petraitis, P. S. (2016). Interviews of Mongolian herders and high resolution precipitation data reveal an increase in short heavy rains and thunderstorm activity in semi-arid Mongolia. Climate Change, First onli, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1614-4 Goyal, H. D. (1999). A Development Perspective on Mongolia. Asian Survey, 39(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/3021242 Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance \& Development, 34(003). Grayson, R. (2007). Anatomy of the People’s Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia. World Placer Journal, 7, 1–66. http://www.mine.mn/WPJ7_1_Peoples_Gold_Rush.pdf Grayson, R., Delgertsoo, T., Murray, W., Tumenbayar, B., Batbayar, M., Urtnasan, T., Dashzeveg, B., & Chimed, E.-B. (2004). The People’s Gold Rush in Mongolia – the Rise of the ‘ Ninja ’ Phenomenon. World Placer Journal, 4. Special (November), 1–112. Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. idrc. Guta, A., Flicker, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Governing through community allegiance: A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.761675 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Scienc , 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200105 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Heuschert, D. (1998). Legal pluralism in the Qing Empire: Manchu legislation for the mongols. In International History Review (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 310–324). https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640825 108 Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a native american community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002 Hosen, N., & Nakamura, H. (2020). Local Knowledge for Global Actions: The role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change adaptation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(13), 37. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2059 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 Humphrey, C. (1992). The Moral Authority of the Past in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Religion, State & Society, 20(3–4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499208431566 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “Wilderness” park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf IMF. (2019). Selected issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3821-5_16 Inikori, J. E. (2020). Atlantic slavery and the rise of the capitalist global economy. Current Anthropology, 61(S22), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/709818 Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community- Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 109 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kakinuma, K., Ozaki, T., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). VEGETATION CHANGES CAUSED BY GRAZING. 12(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120205 Kakinuma, K., & Takatsuki, S. (2012). Applying local knowledge to rangeland management in northern Mongolia: do ‘narrow plants’ reflect the carrying capacity of the land? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-23 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Karnieli, A., & Bayarjargal, Y. (2013). Do vegetation indices provide a reliable indication of vegetation degradation? A case study in the Mongolian pastures. … Journal of Remote …. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2013.793865 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (2018). Addressing climate change at the community level in the United States. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727 Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning. Society and Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855 Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F., & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources, 16(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309151 110 Lachapelle, P. R., Smith, P. D., & McCool, S. F. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review, 11(1), 1–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory—What it is Not! Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 12669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for Indigenous Survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ba4oDwAAQBAJ Lander, J. (2019). Transnational Law and State Transformation: The Case of Extractive Development in Mongolia. Routledge. Lattimore, O. (2008). Religion and Revolution in Mongolia. Modern Asian Studies, 1(01), 81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00000081 Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articler ender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 Lee Peluso, N. (2011). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch55 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia : data analysis and game estimation. Liu, Y. Y., Evans, J. P., Mccabe, M. F., Jeu, R. A. M. de, Dijk, A. I. J. M. van, Dolman, A. J., & Saizen, I. (2013). Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. 8(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057599 Lkhagvadorj, D., Hauck, M., Dulamsuren, C., & Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013). Twenty Years After Decollectivization: Mobile Livestock Husbandry and Its Ecological Impact in the Mongolian Forest-Steppe. Human Ecology, 41(5), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9599-3 Llp, A. (2017). Land law of Mongolia | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司 │Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК. 2017. http://www.anallp.com/land-law-of-mongolia/ Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 Luvsanjamts, L., & Söderberg, M. (2005). Mongolia – Heaven for Foreign Consultants. June. http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0215.pdf 111 Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 MARCC. (2009). Mongolia: Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009. Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Development Programme. Marin, A. (2010). Riders under storms : Contributions of nomadic herders ’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010a). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010b). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Martinez, L. S. S., Zamore, W., Finley, A., Reisner, E., Lowe, L., & Brugge, D. (2020). Cbpr partnerships and near‐roadway pollution: A promising strategy to influence the translation of research into practice. Environments - MDPI, 7(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7060044 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(October 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Maweu, J. M. (2011). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Modern Western Ecological Knowledge: Complementary, not Contradictory. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2 Mbizvo, C., Duraiappah, A., Koetz, T., Brondizio, E., Bartus, G., Roué, M., Asah, S. T., Lonsdale, M., Fischer, M., Moller, H., Darnaedi, D., Smith, P., Mikissa, J. B., Lyver, P., Allahverdiyev, R., Mooney, H. A., Pacheco, D., Hashimoto, S., Tallis, H., … Chan, K. M. (2014). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). “We Don’t Take Things Apart”: Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGonegal, J. (2009). The great Canadian (and Australian) secret: The limits of non-indigenous knowledge and representation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 67–83. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy, 53(July), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 Mendee, J. (2015). a “Let’S Change It” Syndrome – Why Does Policy Fail in Mongolia? 1–18. http://sites.socialsciences.manoa.hawaii.edu/css/demr2015/_papers/mendee-jargalsaikhan.pdf 112 Mijiddorj, T. N., Ahearn, A., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2019). Gobi Herders’ Decision-Making and Risk Management under Changing Climate. Human Ecology, 47(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00112-9 Mijiddorj, T. N., Alexander, J. S., Samelius, G., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2020). Traditional livelihoods under a changing climate: herder perceptions of climate change and its consequences in South Gobi, Mongolia. Climatic Change, 162(3), 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02851-x Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl, S81-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720 Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M., & Tamir, H. (2003). Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health, 93(8), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1210 Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025 Murphy, D. (2018). Disaster, mobility, and the moral economy of exchange in Mongolian pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220207 Myagmarjav, T. (2019). TRADITIONAL PASTORALISM OR MINING ? CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ACCESS TO NATURAL PASTURES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 4(4), 56–68. Naidansuren, E. (2012). A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MONGOLIA AUTHOR : ERDENESAIKHAN NAIDANSUREN Table of Contents. National Statistics Office. (2021). Малын тоо 1989-2020. Nelson, M. P., Cullman, G., Chan, K., Durbin, T. J., Teel, T. L., Roth, R., Epstein, G., Stedman, R., Christie, P., Wyborn, C., Thomas, R., Sandlos, J., Greenberg, A., Klain, S. C., Bennett, N. J., Veríssimo, D., Curran, D., & Clark, D. A. (2016). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Vol. null (null, Ed.). Ostrom, E. (1999a). Coping With Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1968), 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 113 Ostrom, E. (1999b). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Ostrom, E. (2000). PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS. INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/common property.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Padgham, J. O. N., Mtilatila, L., & Agyemang-yeboah, F. (2013). Building Shared Understanding and Capacity for Action : Insights on Climate Risk Communication from India , Ghana , Malawi , and Mongolia. International Journal of Communication, 7, 970–983. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pérez, A., Santamaria, E. K., Operario, D., Tarkang, E. E., Zotor, F. B., Cardoso, S. R. de S. N., Autor, S. E. U., De, I., Dos, A., Vendas, O. D. E., Empresas, D. A. S., Atividades, P. O., Artigo, N., Gest, G. N. R. M. D. E., Para, D. E. F., Miranda, S. F. da R., Ferreira, F. A. A., Oliver, J., Dario, M., … Volk, J. E. (2017). Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 5(1), 1–8. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000a). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2 Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000b). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). Plumb, M., Price, W., & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. (2004). Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820400011792 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014a). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014b). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Principe, L. (2006). Science and Religion. Teaching Company Limited Partnership. https://books.google.com/books?id=19xoPQAACAAJ Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Rai, S. C. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0248-4 Raymond, C. M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A Tool and Process that Facilitate Community Capacity Building and. 18(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 114 Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Rink, E., Knight, K., Ellis, C., McCormick, A., FireMoon, P., Held, S., Webber, E., & Adams, A. (2020). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200099 Rink, E., Law, D. G., Montgomery-andersen, R., Mulvad, G., & Koch, A. (2009). The Practical Application of Community-based Participatory Research in Greenland: Initial Experiences of the Greenland Sexual Health Study. Circumpolar Voices, 68(4), 405–413. Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., & Wiesmann, U. (2004). From epistemic monoculture to cooperation between epistemic communities – development research and sustainability. International Conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies”. Millennium Assessment, 17–20. Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Economic Geography, 76(4), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/144393 Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021- 01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 115 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sablin, I. (2016). Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911-1924: Buddhism, Socialism and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building. Routledge. Said, S. (2019). Knowing through being known: reflections on Indigenous epistemology and participatory consciousness. Interventions, 21(8), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558091 Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Schröter, M., Bonn, A., & Klotz, S. (2019). Atlas of Ecosystem Services. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Schulze, A. (2009). Land Legislation and the Possibilities for Pastoral Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – The Example of Mongolia by Land. October, 52. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019a). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019b). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Sneath, D. (2003a). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2003b). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author ( s ): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. 116 Soma, T., & Schlecht, E. (2018). The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0108-y Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014c). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & Carjuzaa, J. (2019). The Digital Storywork Partnership: Community- centered social studies to revitalize Indigenous histories and cultural knowledges. Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.08.001 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & DeCrane, V. W. (2020). “Keep it sacred!”: Indigenous youth-led filmmaking to advance critical race media literacy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2245 Stépanoff, C., Marchina, C., Fossier, C., & Bureau, N. (2017). Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Current Anthropology, 58(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/690120 Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1294–1304. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196307003503 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge. Mountain Forum, April. Sukhbaatar, T. (2020). AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Opportunities for Reducing Human-Wolf Conflicts in Mongolia. Suzanne Christopher, PhD, Robin Saha, PhD, Paul Lachapelle, PhD, Derek Jennings, MEd, Yoshiko Colclough, PhD, Clarice Cooper, BSN, RN, Crescentia Cummins, BS, Margaret J. Eggers, MS, MA, Kris FourStar, Kari Harris, PhD, Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, PHCNS-BC, Vic, B. (2011). Applying Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Principles to Partnership Development in Health Disparities Research. Fam Community Health., 34 (3), 246–255. Szalontai, B. (2013). Tsedenbal’s Mongolia and Communist Aid Donors: A Reappraisal. Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, 12, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v0i12.97 Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Terentyev, V. I. (2019). The Specifics of Teaching History in Russian Schools in Mongolia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 444, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/444/27 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of 117 Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tremblay, M. C., Martin, D. H., McComber, A. M., McGregor, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2018). Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: A case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y Tumenbayar, N. (2000). Land privatization option for Mongolia. … : Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New …, 1–32. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/133 Ulambayar, T., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2019). How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Land Use Policy, 82, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.008 Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., & Batjav, B. (2016). Social Outcomes of Community-based Rangeland Management in Mongolian Steppe Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 00(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267 Undargaa, S. (2016a). Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2016b). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co- management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005a). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2005b). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007- 9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia’s Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). socialist Mongolia Social Capital , Collective Action and Group Formation : Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x Venable, N. B. H., Fassnacht, S. R., Adyabadam, G., Tumenjargal, S., Fernández-Giménez, M., & Batbuyan, B. (2012). Does the length of station record influence the warming trend that is 118 perceived by Mongolian Herders near the Khangai Mountains? Pirineos, 167(167), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3989/Pirineos.2012.167004 Vetter, D. (2021). David Attenborough’s Powerful Speech To COP26 Leaders: ‘The World Is Looking To You.’ Forbes, 1–6. Vol, I. D. S. B. (2002). Drought and Zud but No Famine ( Yet ) in the Mongolian Herding Economy H an n a Siu ru a an d. 33(4), 88–97. Vollan, B., Prediger, S., & Frölich, M. (2013). Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms? Ecological Economics, 95, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010 Waddell, C. M., Herron, R. v., Gobeil, J., Tacan, F., de Jager, M., Allan, J. A., & Roger, K. (2020). Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14), 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320960050 Wagner, J. R., & Davis, A. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. In Human Ecology (Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 463–489). Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., Dickson, E., Kastelic, S., Koegel, P., Lucero, J. E., Magarati, M., Ortiz, K., Parker, M., Peña, J., Richmond, A., & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075 Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent-based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 White, B. T. (2009). Rotten to the Core: Project Capture and the Failure of Judicial Reform in Mongolia. East Asia Law Review, 4(209), 209–275. Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Health Research, 104973231769072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166–174. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indig enous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. 119 Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Windchief, S., & Pedro, T. S. (2019). Applying Indigenous Research Methods. In Applying Indigenous Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169811 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Xie, Y., & Li, W. (2008). WHY DO HERDERS INSIST ON OTOR ? MAINTAINING MOBILITY IN INNER. 12(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zahler, P., Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R. P., Wingard, J. R., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N., Onon, Y., Society, W. C., & Box, P. O. (2004). Illegal and Unsustainable Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2004.02.14 Zhao, G. (2006). Reinventing China: Imperial Qing ideology and the rise of modern Chinese national identity in the early twentieth century. Modern China, 32(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282349 Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 19(March 2015), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051 А. Очир, Ч. Далай, Д. Ц. (2004). МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ТҮҮХ 1. Байгаль Орчны Яам. (2015). Биологийн олон янз байдлын үндэсний хөтөлбөр. Далай, Ч. (1999). Монгол улсын түүх 4 (Vol. 4). Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, У. Б. (2018). Монгол Орны Бэлчээрийн Төлөв Байдлын Үндэсний Тайлан. II, 66. http://greenmongolia.mn/upload/news_files/5946e6e365eb3b52d748af9db89dcc30.pdf Лиштованный Е.И. (2006). ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В МОНГОЛИИ В КОНЦЕ XX ВЕКА: НАЧАЛО МОНГОЛЬСКОЙ ПЕРЕСТРОЙКИ. Иркутский Государственный Университет Науч, Конф, 55–76. МЗГ. (2018). Иргэдэд зориулсан гарын авлага 1. Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ. (2018). http://www.unece.org 120 Пэрлээ, Х. (1976). Монголын Түүх Судлах Нэгэн Үндэс нь Пайз Мѳн. С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга. (2017). ХХ ЗУУНЫ МОНГОЛ : ТҮҮХ, СОЁЛ, ГЕОПОЛИТИК, ГАДААД ХАРИЛЦААНЫ ТУЛГАМДСАН АСУУДЛУУД. Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж. (1983). Түүхийн Судлал. 121 CHAPTER FOUR BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM FOR BUFFER ZONE LAND MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF ULAAN TAIGA SPECIAL PROTECTED AREA Contribution of Authors and Co-Authors Manuscript in Chapter 4 Author: Badamgarav Dovchin Contributions: Conceived the study, translated, transcribed, performed the analyses, interpreted results, and wrote the manuscript. Co-Author: Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle Contributions: Taught the methods of the study, discussed results and implications, and edited manuscripts. Co-Author: Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board of this study Contributions: Participated advised the study data collections and analysis, discussed and approved results and implications. 122 Manuscript Information Badamgarav Dovchin, Christine Stanton, Suzanne Held, Kristin Ruppel, Paul Lachapelle, Tumursukh Jal, Herders user groups in Darhad Valley, Community Advisory Board The Other Ways of Knowing Status of Manuscript: [Put an x in one of the options below, delete this] __x_ Prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Officially submitted to a peer-reviewed journal ____ Accepted by a peer-reviewed journal ____ Published in a peer-reviewed journal Pennsylvania State University Libraries [Type date of submission here (submitted manuscript – otherwise leave blank)] [Type date the manuscript will appear here (accepted work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type issue in which manuscript appears here (published work – otherwise leave blank)] [Type DOI, if available] 123 Abstract Mongolian land degradation is mainly explained by climate change, overgrazing, and land-use changes. The Mongolian government, the primary decision-maker, fully adopted Eurocentric/Western science-based ecological knowledge (WSEK) (Studley, 1998) systems in all national management for the last 100 years, whereas the actual land users/herders base their land-use assessments and decisions using centuries-old traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) (Berkes, 2012b). This mismatched system based on WSEK exclude deep ecological knowledge of herding communities and generate conflicts between stakeholder groups. The complexity of Mongolian land degradation presents a rare opportunity to utilize both WSEK and TEK for diverse stakeholders and though facilitation of a community-based participatory approach. This study is conducted in the buffer zone of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Areas (UTSPA) in Darhad Valley of Northern Mongolia. Our research team and the community chose to use the Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework to support the collaborative development of an inclusive tool for land quality assessment and management by facilitating all three groups of stakeholders' collaborations: UTSPA specialists, local government officials, and the herders. This chapter describes the content and process of the tool's development and offers recommendations for land use researchers and policymakers. Introduction There are increasing calls worldwide to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science-based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) for management and decision-making (Raymond et al., 2010). TEK is rarely used in Mongolian national-level environmental policymaking, assessment monitoring, and resource management (Jamsranjav et al., 2019). The Mongolian government bases its land assessment, management plans, and conservation initiatives, including those aided by international organizations, on WSEK only. Thus, the government employees are required to utilize and collect the necessary data using only WSEK (Sneath, 2003b; Undargaa & McCarthy, 2016; Upton, 2020), while herders/users are still practicing and using TEK for their daily land-use decision-making (Undargaa, 2016b). These dual systems of the WSEK system practiced by the national government and TEK practiced by the pastoral herders have led to stagnation of management solutions and acceleration of land degradation. An average of 22.7% of the land is declining in productivity, and from 2000-2015, Mongolia lost 500-600 tons/year topsoil by water erosion. Contributing co- factors of climate change and overgrazing have further exacerbated the degradation trend (Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mongolia, 2018). Globally, land degradation affects rural people at disproportionate rates (Albrecht & Lachapelle, 2018; Hosen et al., 2020; ILO, 2019), causing increasing conflicts and distrust among stakeholders in rural communities like Darhad Valley. Despite the significant differences, each system of WSEK and TEK has its advantages (Nowotny, 2003) and disadvantages (Failing et al., 2007). Scholars suggest that the two systems can be integrated responsibly and reciprocally without extrapolating and/or exploiting each other (Albrecht & Lachapelle, 2018; K. Bennett, 2015; Berkes & Ross, 2013; Castleden et al., 2012b; 124 Chan & Satterfield, 2020a; Chilisa, 2019; Fazey et al., 2020; Held, 2019; Kimmerer, 2002, 2012a; McCormick & Held, 2017; Raymond et al., 2010; Reed et al., 2007, 2012; Stanton, 2014b; Tarrasón et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013; S. Wilson, 2008; Windchief & Cummins, 2021). The complexity of land degradation and its management requires a flexible framework and careful facilitation. The Darhad Valley provides a unique context to study the potential for a collaboratively developed land assessment tool to integrate WSEK and TEK successfully. The overarching research question for the project was, How can Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) processes support stakeholders in the collaborative development of an inclusive land assessment tool? The study described in this article focuses on the following sub-questions: 1) What perceptions do local Mongolian stakeholders hold regarding land management processes, tools, and decision-making? and 2) How does collaborative land management planning in the Darhad Valley inform understanding about the potential for integration of WSEK and TEK? To guide the study and related land management planning, the research team (I Badamgarav Dovchin and graduate and undergraduate students from MSU and local CAB and participant experts)—including community participants—decided to use Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR). CBPR is a research orientation that involves community members, organizational representatives, and researchers as equal participants in all phases of the research process (Ali et al., 2008; Hallett et al., 2017; Israel et al., 2013; McCormick & Held, 2017; Rink & Adler Reimer, 2019). This approach has been used successfully in many projects worldwide to facilitate stakeholders' involvement in complex decision-making (Chávez et al., 2015; Denzongpa et al., 2020; Huffman, 2017; Israel et al., 2013; Laveaux & Christopher, 2009; Lucero et al., 2018; Minkler et al., 2008; Sánchez et al., 2021). Background Epistemological Differences and the Historic Changes that Shaped Modern Mongolia Both WSEK and TEK (Figure 11) are similarly based on observation accumulations (Berkes et al., 2000), but they have fundamental differences in the worldviews they are grounded in (Kimmerer, 2012a). The main difference between the two branches of knowledge systems is that WSEK is founded on the belief that human beings are superior to nature and that nature exists for humans' pleasure, use, and observation. Along with this extractionist worldview, people are viewed as harmful to the land. Environmentalists such as John Muir advised removing Indigenous people in many North American areas that are now national parks because he believed they were too damaging to the Garden of Eden (Clayton, 2019; Winchester, 2021). 125 Figure 11 TEK and WEK evolutions and disconnect. In contrast, the TEK systems share an assumption that humans are a necessary part of nature (Hardy & Patterson, 2012; Hunn et al., 2003; Kimmerer, 2012b) and, in some cases, equal to other beings (Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000b). Humans benefit nature if we positively participate in an interconnected relationship with the land rather than fencing and isolating the land like most protected areas of the world (Johnston & Mason, 2020; Kimmerer & Lake, 2001; Robinson et al., 2021; Winchester, 2021). Prior to Mongolia's "communist friendship" with Russia, which began in 1921, the local system allowed herders to make decisions based on careful observations of land and climate using centuries-old place-specific TEK (Byambaa & de Vries, 2020; Sneath, 2018). The communist system introduced European epistemological approaches, educational practices, and policymaking strategies (Kaplonski, 1998; Koobak et al., 2021). Decisions about seasonal migrations, camp locations, and duration of stay were made by government officials based on WSEK, and the new system started breaking apart the long-developed relational knowledge system of Mongolian herder communities. Discreetly, land users/herders still practiced as much TEK as they could to fit the natural laws and life cycles (Purev & Plumley, 2003). The democratic revolution and associated free-market economy introduced a Western education system, which further reinforced WSEK on a systemic and national scale (Bruun & Odgaard, 2013; Upton & Upton, 2012). From 1990 through the early 2010s, Mongolians faced the chaotic process of rebuilding the country without Soviet Union support (Sneath, 2003b; Upton, 2008). Livestock was privatized while the land stayed public (Bruun & Odgaard, 2013; Upton, 2005), as stated in Mongolia's constitution. Mongolia's previously closed borders suddenly opened to the outside world (Mearns, 1996), including the Asian wildlife market (Wingard et al., 2006). By the end of the 2010s, Mongolian environmental resources were dramatically depleted by overharvesting, poaching, overgrazing (Batsuuri & Wang, 2017; 126 Reading et al., 2006), and artisanal mining (Addison et al., n.d.; Lise et al., 2005; Ykhanbai et al., 2004). The 2010s launched a wave of sustainability initiatives to conserve intact contiguous ecosystems, such as Mongolian grasslands (Dong et al., 2011; Sneath, 2008; Upton, 2012; Zhang & Drake, 2005; W. Z. Zhao, Xiao, Liu, & Li, 2005). Western environmental aid organizations arrived in Mongolia (Fritz, 2007). These organizations often used political and economic agendas to expand reliance on Western systems and WSEK, and in some cases, they pushed Mongolia to privatize the land that serves broader geopolitical and other purposes (Undargaa, 2017). Mongolia, which desperately needed economic aid, accepted assistance from the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), World Bank, The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB), Swiss Development Agency, Millennium Assessment Fund, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and others. Collaborations between these international aid organizations resulted in the land assessment tool based on WSEK used by the Pasture Assessment Association of Mongolia beginning in 1994 and had several updates (Appendix A). Study Area and Stakeholders The Darhad Valley (51.02oN, 99.45oE) is geographically isolated in northern Mongolia at the southern end of the Siberian Taiga ecosystem and the easternmost of the Sayan mountain ranges. It includes high alpine, talus, larch forest, taiga, dry steppe, and wetland habitats (Call et al., 2019). The valley consists of four soums (counties) populated with over ten thousand people and about 850 thousand head of livestock, including sheep, goats, horses, cattle, camels, and reindeer (National Statistical Report. 2019). According to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism report (2018), Darhad Valley is one of the national hotspots in terms of land degradation. Government specialists have estimated 4011km2 (15.4%)of the valley land has been degraded due primarily to climate change, deforestation, and overgrazing (Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia, 2018). 127 Figure 12 Map of Darhad Valley and Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area To respond to the rapid degradation, more than 70% of the Darhad Valley territory was taken under state protection as the Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area (UTSPA) in 2012. The UTSPA administration completely eliminated illegal mining by 2014, and poaching was reduced by 95% with persistent patrolling (Annual Report, UTSPA, 2014). However, the UTSPA did not only bring positive changes, but it also created significant adverse effects in terms of pastureland decrease, SPA law enforcements on all types of resources, including use timbers for fuel and corals and cabin building, the seasonal harvest of certain medicinal plants of which herders were neither informed nor expected. The lack of communication and unexpected changes related to the new laws and regulations that came with establishing the UTSPA started causing conflicts among stakeholders. By 2014, locals were divided into small groups of herders, park administrators, and local government officials. Methods Today, there are increasing calls to utilize both TEK and WSEK for a stronger knowledge base for inclusive environmental management (Cebrián-Piqueras et al., 2020; Gambon & Rist, 2019; Hill et al., 2020; Kovach, 2021; Polfus et al., 2014b; Robinson et al., 2021). However, before 2014 conflicts between various stakeholders had minimized the potential for collaboration and integration of these epistemological systems. This study, which began in 2014, engaged various stakeholders as participants and co-researchers in determining differences in perceptions and paths forward for collaboration to support stakeholders in the collaborative 128 development of an inclusive land assessment tool. This article focuses on two research sub- questions: 1) What perceptions do local Mongolian stakeholders hold regarding land management processes, tools, and decision-making? And 2) How does collaborative land management planning in the Darhad Valley inform understanding about the potential for integration of WSEK and TEK? We applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to examine the current perceptions of local stakeholders and the land assessment methods and tools used by each stakeholder group. The CBPR process also facilitated stakeholder collaborations and the development of an inclusive assessment tool to manage the land collectively in and outside the UTSPA boundaries. CBPR is a collaborative approach to any research that involves community members, organizational representatives, and researchers as equal participants in all phases of the research process (Ali et al., 2008) and is used successfully in many complex situations of health, education, and natural resources management in developing countries and marginalized communities of Asia, Africa (Chávez et al., 2015; Christopher, 2012; Hallett et al., 2017; Huffman, 2017; Israel et al., 2013; Laveaux & Christopher, 2009; Lucero et al., 2018; Stanton, 2014b). The CBPR framework consists of five main phases (Israel et al., 2013): 1. Build capacity: Build and maintain a relationship with the community and reflect on the relationship. 2. Develop research question: Community stakeholders identify and develop a research question(s). 3. Data collection: Form focus groups and critical informants for conducting detailed surveys and interviews. 4. Interpret results: Conduct analyses of data that are inclusive, transparent, and collaborative. 5. Dissemination: Create plans to share results with different audiences. CBPR is not a specific or prescriptive research methodology. Rather, it is an orientation to research that, upon consultation with community members, may draw upon a wide variety of specific quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods (Castleden et al., 2012; Chen, Diaz, Lucas, & Rosenthal, 2010; Christopher, Watts, McCormick, & Young, 2008; Love, 2004; M Minkler, Blackwell, Thompson, & Tamir, 2003; M Minkler, Vásquez, Tajik, & Petersen, 2008; Rink, Law, Montgomery-andersen, Mulvad, & Koch, 2009). While the features of a conventional methods section are absorbed into CBPR's five phases (e.g., "Data Collection"), CBPR includes focused attention to community engagement within those phases (e.g., the inclusion of "critical informants" to guide data collection). Additionally, CBPR's initial phase, "Build capacity," is not standard across research orientations. Given the prior source of conflict between stakeholders within this study's context, this first phase proved integral to this study's success. Below, we outline the specific methods and CBPR elements used throughout this study, as aligned with each CBPR phase and the overall research matrix is in the Figure 13. 129 Figure 13 Research matrix Phase 1: Build Capacity. This study emerged from extensive relationship-building within the community and the various local stakeholders. After the lead researcher (a Mongolian woman) spent two field seasons (2014 and 2015) in the Darhad Valley getting to know local stakeholders and the context, we successfully organized ten stakeholder meetings to occur over the next four years. The lead researcher facilitated four of these meetings, and six were facilitated by a Community Advisory Board (CAB) and stakeholders. The meetings were explicitly organized to encourage listening, improve trust, and reach mutual understanding in order to develop an inclusive land assessment tool. In addition to the stakeholder meetings, the lead researcher worked with herder user groups (HUGS) (Figure 14) and guided the CAB development. While herders expressed an interest in being involved in land management plans with other stakeholder groups, they noted that they could not act individually. Instead, they must work with neighbors who have adjacent pastures to propose a land management plan. Therefore, herders' participation requires recognition of the HUGS, which are extensive networks of neighboring herders. Fortunately, in Mongolia, neighbors are usually extended family or close friends, making collaborations easier. In this study, the two focal HUGs span two UTSPA buffer zone counties, Bayanzurkh (BZ) and Renchinlhumbe (RL). Members of the CAB were selected during the initial community meetings. A total of 10 individuals participated in the CAB, although CAB activities did not always include all 130 members. The research team aligned CAB activities with culturally significant events, such as the Naadam festival, to encourage as much participation as possible. The CAB and the research team designed the general survey to establish the general understanding of the valley community’s environmental, social and economic conditions at the time of the research. Sixty- Nine survey respondents completed and returned the general survey. Participant experts included seven herders from the two HUG participants, two government officers, and two UTPSA specialists. Two focus groups—one in each county—were formed to provide in-depth insight and methodological guidance. These groups included an additional 21 herders in RL county and 25 in BZ county and eight other participants across stakeholder groups. Across the data sources, herders included both men and women of varying ages and education levels. Overall, participants in this study included 142 herders, eight local government officials, 9 SPA administrators, and 21 SPA rangers. Phase 2: Develop Research Questions. During the initial meetings, stakeholders expressed an interest in learning about broader community perceptions regarding land use management and suggestions for collaborative planning. Together, the research team and CAB designed a general survey (Appendix C) which covers the current environmental social and economic conditions of the valley community, which was administered in the summer of 2015. The lead researcher conducted two rounds of qualitative coding (Appendix F), which revealed the most prominent survey codes. These codes were reviewed and approved by the CAB. The results of the community surveys demonstrated that stakeholders suggested addressing land management issues by co-creating an inclusive decision-making system of pastureland evaluation and management. To reach this goal and guide the next research phases, we co-developed an overarching research question (How can CBPR processes support stakeholders in the collaborative development of an inclusive land assessment tool?) as well as the two research questions specific to this article's focus (i.e., What perceptions do local Mongolian stakeholders hold regarding land management processes, tools, and decision-making? And, how does collaborative land management planning in the Darhad Valley inform understanding about the potential for integration of WSEK and TEK?). In addition to co- designing the research questions, the CAB identified appropriate interventions (e.g., additional community meetings and workshops) and data sources (e.g., interviews and focus groups) for the next phase of the study. The CAB also selected participant experts to participate in the interviews and workshops. Phase 3: Data Collection. The general survey offered initial insights to guide research question development and identify data sources and methods. Additional data sources for this study included focus groups, individual in-depth interviews, herder notebook entries, and observations and artifacts from 3 rounds of community meetings and workshops in each of the two counties. For these workshops, we spent two weeks with each partner HUG (one in RL and another in BZ county) and other representative local stakeholders (Figure 14). The first workshops, and their related focus groups, were held in 2016. The main goal of these workshops was to clarify existing management plans and their similarities and differences. First, we asked each HUG to draw a map of their winter pasture (Figure 15).Then, we invited representatives from the local government and park administrator stakeholder groups to illustrate their plans for the winter pastureland on a clear slide layered over the hand-drawn map. We compared the plans with all three versions of stakeholder plans on clear slides by overlapping 131 them to understand where similarities and differences occurred. This exercise aimed to clarify the need for collaboration among the stakeholders and establish the next steps. Figure 14 Bayanzurkh and Renchinlhumbe county HUG and other stakeholder meetings L-R Figure 15 Hand-drawn maps and GIS maps of the two HUGs in the buffer zone 132 The second workshops were conducted at the winter camps of participating HUG families in 2017. These workshops included discussions and in-depth interviews to learn about WSEK and TEK management expectations and methods. These workshops also addressed the community's central goal to develop an inclusive land assessment tool, Малчны Дэвтэр/Herder Notebook (Appendix G). Since these workshops occurred on-site at the winter pastures of the HUGs, participants and research team members drew upon real examples and experiential, place- based demonstrations of various land assessment tools and practices. Development of the inclusive land assessment tool included three steps. First, the government officer and our research team have introduced the basic western scientific method of measuring soil and pasture quality using the Mongolian government's evaluation tool (Appendix A) (Figure 16) After introducing the government's tool, we had herders present their soil and pasture assessment methods to the other stakeholders (i.e., government officials and park administrators) (Figure 18). Third, we had extended discussions on the rationale for the WSEK and TEK approaches and different stakeholder group methods (Figure 17). 133 Figure 16 Western science-based land assessment method being introduced to herders Figure 17 Herders' interpretation of topsoil quality poster 134 Figure 18 Herder's evaluation method is being introduced to other stakeholder groups. As part of the second workshop, in-depth interviews with the eleven key participant experts were conducted and transcribed (Appendix D). As part of the discussions and interviews, we asked the participants to show the research team and other participants where they think the pastureland was in the best condition or at the worst level of degradation that we could use to establish a baseline of perceptions (Rykiel, 1985). The interviews then explored participants' memories to determine when/where the participants believed the land was health and functioning fully. After that, we asked participants what changes had led the system to its current state. These descriptions were expanded and confirmed through visits to the sites (Figure 19). Figure 19 The least and the most degraded pastureland photos L-R used as reference sites. Finally, the second workshop included opportunities for stakeholders to begin building a land assessment tool that was inclusive of both WSEK and TEK. First, the participating stakeholders agreed on the methods and units for land management assessment that includes documentation of land quality observations. Then, the research team and CAB facilitated discussions between the stakeholder groups on how their original land assessment tools overlapped and where those tools could complement one another. A template for the new inclusive land assessment tool, "The Herder Notebook," was developed. Herders were invited to deliver observations in each season or daily, as preferred. In these notebooks, herders were able to document what they observed to be the most critical "ecosystem 135 services" (ES)—a WSEK concept—and provide the reasons for the prioritized ESs. This documentation provided TEK-oriented information about the central WSEK concept, thereby offering information both herders and the other stakeholders (i.e., government officials and park administrators) understand. The Herder Notebook (Appendix G) also included sections devoted to both WSEK quantitative data required by the government (Appendix A) and descriptive TEK- based assessments of the pastureland in order to come up with an inclusive HUG management plan (2017, 2018, 2019). The WSEK section of the Herder Notebook incorporates elements of the Green Gold pasture evaluation handbook (Appendix A), which the Mongolian government and Pasture Association have used since 2011 to evaluate Mongolia's pasture (Ministry of Food and Agriculture & Green Gold Program, 2015). This evaluation tool was adopted from a pasture assessment project from USDA in Mongolia and another land assessment project funded by the Swiss Development Agency. The TEK section allowed culturally-aligned observation and documentation methods, including descriptions and drawings (Table 1). Beginning in 2017, the Herder Notebook data were collected to learn about herders' participation in land management issues and the potential for integration of WSEK and TEK. Table 1 The Inclusive Land Assessment Tool Chart Measurable pasture Western Science Method The Inclusive land Mongolian Herder Method properties (WSEK) Assessment Tool (TEK) (50x50cm plot) Soil Moisture Volumetric measurement Both Rawhide Soil Organic Matter Loss on Ignition Both Fingerprint, Burrowing animals' hole Soil bulk density Wax method Mongolian Herder Method Horse frog ( horse pig in (TEK) Mongolian TEK) health Plant Biomass Dry Weight Both Hay mound size Timing and species component is more important Species Richness Counting Both Counting and Pattern of species dispersal Productivity Water Balance Model Both Reading land prediction (Hay yield, Climate Data, Animal behavior and Herder NDVI) memories Soil loss Erosion pins Both Grass seat height Aspect Compass TEK Wind, Shelter Sun, Shadow Slope Clinometer Both Ger base Precipitation Hydrometer TEK River level and snow level in marker places 136 Phase 4 Data Analysis. In CBPR, researchers are encouraged to interpret the results using an inclusive, transparent, and collaborative method. We have diligently worked with the CAB and stakeholder representatives throughout our analysis to ensure data security and culturally appropriate interpretations. Data collection and analysis protocols (Appendix F) were discussed with stakeholders and approved by the CAB to ensure accurate data collection and interpretations, particularly in terms of understanding both WSEK and TEK in the context. The CAB approved the quantitative soil and pasture data from the herder notebooks for use in future research. However, the data analyzed for the study described in this article was predominantly qualitative/descriptive data. The qualitative data analysis included multiple steps. First, data was translated from local dialects and transcribed into Khalkh Mongolian, the only version of Mongolian recognized by Microsoft Word. Next, the lead researcher completed a round of descriptive line-by-line coding. Since the data included substantial cultural and community-specific knowledge, this step included analytical verification on-site with community partners. To prepare the data for the second round of coding, the initial codes and raw data were translated into English to support analysis using NVivo12. This second round of interpretive and presumptive coding drew upon community- generated interpretations (Rogers Stanton, 2020), metaphors (Berkes, 2012a; Dinero, 2011; Kimmerer, 2002; Rogers Stanton, 2020), and traditional knowledge. In some cases, the data and/or its analysis came in the form of a song or a series of stories. The coded files were then analyzed using various tools in NVivo12 (e.g., frequencies of codes, comparisons across participants), and five themes were identified. Again, following this round of coding, the CAB reviewed the results and approved the results. Phase 5: Dissemination plans. The dissemination of CBPR often requires extra steps to ensure cultural sensitivity. The communication style, method, timing, location, and even language of forms of dissemination must be well planned beyond scientific publications (Chen, Diaz, Lucas, & Rosenthal, 2010). For this study, we collaborated with the CAB, key partipicant experts, and other community stakeholders to ensure the findings would be shared in timely ways and with respect for the various participating community groups. Therefore, we developed the following plans to share findings with different audiences and stakeholders: a. Herders (visual posters, storytelling, and community meetings) b. Policymakers and Government Officials (feedback reports for local government, UTSPA, the provincial government, and national ministries) c. Scientists, Researchers, and Park Administrators (scientific publications of a content approved by the CAB and university IRB, government, and funder reports) Broadly, the CAB determined certain TEK-based data could be included in collaborations with other land management stakeholders but not in official reports or journal articles. Additionally, the CAB permitted the research team to include descriptive data from the herder notebooks in academic and governmental publications without disclosing identifying details of the notebook owners. The CAB also approved the inclusion of workshop photos and the documents shared in the Appendices of this article. 137 Results Analysis revealed six themes common across the stakeholder groups: 1) an absence of inclusive tools, 2) unbalanced decision-making, 3) recognition of climate change, 4) benefits of SPAs, 5) recommendations for policy changes, and 6) recommendations for continued collaboration. Absence of inclusive land assessment and management tools In this study, all three groups of stakeholders—herders, local government, and UTSPA administration—noted official land assessment and management tools exclude TEK. However, the perception of that exclusion varied from group to group. Furthermore, results related to this theme demonstrate conflicting views of TEK and WSEK. During the first workshop, the participants drew a diagram of their preferred assessment system and ways of knowing (Figure 20). While there are some similarities between government officials (at both national and local levels) and park administrators, neither of these stakeholder groups identified herder observations or other TEK-informed practices as part of their assessment tools. Similarly, the herders almost exclusively referenced TEK-informed assessment practices while avoiding mention of WSEK tools. Figure 20 Stakeholder preferred system of land assessment and decision-making. National "Green Gold" Pasture Assesment (funded by International Aid National Government Organizations) WSEK based evaluations and management plans Local Government Special Protected Area Administration reviews, Local Government reviews National Park Western science educated specialists Administration implementing the National "Green Gold" Pasture Assessment Herders making seasonal and daily Herders d ecisions TEK-informed observations The interview and focus group data further illustrated the perceived tensions between WSEK and TEK within the assessment practices and tools that were in place at the start of the first workshop. Examples of words and phrases describing stakeholder perceptions of the land assessment and management tools and processes included: The herders said: "We do not understand how they measure what they measure," "misunderstand," "no respect to herders' knowledge," "we uneducated herders are not part of 138 decision-making," "do not know who creates these evaluations for what," "environmental officers who never stepped on the real grass by their feet." The local government officials said: "superstition is not accepted," "time to accept the science," "outdated ways of shamanic people have no place for policymaking," "the twenty-first century is here, but herders are living in their prehistoric beliefs," "the measurements should be in metric and in 'Green Gold' format." UTSPA park administrators, rangers, and specialists said: "We are here to protect the land and wildlife, but herders see us as enemies," "protecting their land from the local herders is the hardest thing," "wish they respect our work," "same goal, a different path and it crosses," "science is what the ministry wants, not a legend or story regardless how much we respect them." In these examples, the herders generally viewed WSEK with hesitation, confusion, and frustration. In contrast, government officials typically viewed TEK as "outdated" and inferior "superstition." The SPA administrators provided a view that offers a glimpse of the potential for an inclusive view. While they did not advocate for TEK to be included explicitly, and while they prioritized WSEK, they did acknowledge a "respect" for TEK and a recognition that it offers a "different path" to the "same goal." Relatedly, different stakeholders viewed some aspects in similar yet nuanced ways. The NVivo12 analysis reinforced these varying perceptions between—and among—people across the different stakeholder groups (Table 2). For example, all three stakeholder groups recognized that some herders disobey the rules through purposeful poaching or inadvertent lack of knowledge. However, the specific wording suggests very different perceptions of herders across the stakeholder groups. Importantly, the perceptions about the herders by the other groups were all negative. In contrast, the herders emphasized that while they view themselves as the caregivers of the land, they cannot participate fully in its conservation because they do not understand the current system in use. 139 Table 2 Codes for each stakeholder in columns address the stakeholders in the rows. Stakehol Herders SPA Local Government der Herders ● Other herders do not ● Herders ● Herders do not collaborate on poach follow the rules. managing the pasture ● Herders try to ● Herders do not ● Some people poach, mine accomplish the and blame gets on all ● Herders hate pasture of us us management plan ● Young herders do not ● Herders do that we have know the way not provided collaborate. ● Herders do not do the measurements in our way SPA ● SPA reduced the ● Do not have ● Law enforcement in pastureland enough HR the SPA pushed the ● SPA prohibited all and budget poachers out into the natural resource the soum land harvesting and ● SPA has a better managing that we budget; they need used to do 140 ● SPA did not initiate to do the whole new income valley resources to replace ● SPA closed the the natural resources mining and did not income bring anything in return Local ● The local government ● LG turns the ● We do not have Governm does not do their job herders enough HR and ent of social help against SPA. budget (LG) ● The environmental assessment tools are useless, and we do not know how they measure what. ● The education system is weak, so kids leave this place 141 The establishment of the new SPA created unbalanced decision-making Survey comments mentioned herders are not able to manage their land a total of 45 times. Throughout the data, herders and local people expressed feelings of betrayal and suggested they had been misinformed when they signed the petition to create the SPA. The herders' understanding was that the illegal miners would be banned but that the park would create jobs or tourism opportunities that would benefit local people. Those economic boosts never happened; instead, herders were banned from traditional pasturelands and had to follow stricter rules on natural-resource use. (Byambaa Ranger, for UTSPA, personal conversation, 2018). The local government said they would let the locals mine the gold without outsiders without SPA protection, which is legally impossible. Nevertheless, the local government blames the SPA for the unemployed people losing the mining income (Gantumur, head of the HUG in BZ, 2016). Both SPA and local government have ruled over us, but neither helps us create income other than herding, limited by the park and local government regulations From the written survey analysis, unexpected changes in land use came with the new SPA. First of all, some pastureland is no longer available for herders. The SPA boundary covered most of the valley's mountainous areas, including 30–40% of herder families' winter camps and pastures. The SPA enforces these boundaries through a no trespassing law. Natural-resource use, such as mining, green tree harvesting, hunting of any type, and gathering rare plants, was prohibited for everyone, including community members. Herders feel oppressed by the constant patrolling by rangers and associated tickets, fines, and permits. The majority of the herders mentioned inequality and conflict among the stakeholder groups as the two most widespread issues among the stakeholders. For example, in 2015, Participant#36 explained: Unrealistic laws and too strict reinforcement. Rural people have no authority. For instance, we cannot get timbers to build animal fences and carry a gun with our free will when traveling in the taiga's deepest forest. It is Siberian taiga; how can one travel through it without a rifle to protect themselves from wild animals like a brown bear? Many arguments between the Government and SPA, and local people are related to these problems. Because community members were not informed of certain restrictions in advance, they felt left out of the key decision-making processes. UTSPA officials believe that the economic condition will improve, but it will take time for the new SPA to benefit the local economy. Meanwhile, the herders and local community people believe the local government is not fulfilling its role of bridging and supporting the collaboration of UTSPA and communities in the Darhad Valley. The local government officials say they have no legal framework to step in between the herders and SPA conflicts and/or that "bureaucracy" interferes with government effectiveness. For example, Participant #52 stated: 142 Bureaucracy has to be eradicated. People are losing their hope and trust in the government. The government people need to work to regain people's trust to work together and manage the environment and other social problems (2015). UTSPA administrators feel they are fighting against both the local community and the local government to protect their environment, and they recognize that conflict between the other two stakeholder groups compounds the challenges they face. For example, Participant #63 (2015) explained, "Government people create conflict among the rangers and herders." Climate change and land degradation observations The stakeholder perceptions highlighted many points of division, but commonalities also emerged. Concerning climate change and environmental degradation, all but four participants observed changes in the environment regarding precipitation patterns and seasonal changes, degraded pasture in several indicators and overall observations, and animal health. Participant#66 said: "Climate change is here; dry summers and cold winters are so hard for herders." Participants also noted widespread undesired species of plants and insects and water quality issues caused by topsoil erosion into rivers and streams, sheep dips built near water resources, and increased plastic and non-biodegradable waste. Participant#19 said: "The precipitation pattern is changed, and we get sudden floods that contain the whole year's precipitation, and they not only wash the soil down also break our dirt roads." Participant#21 thinks: The climate change is very drastic; there is very heavy snow in spring and no snow in winter, there is heavy rain in fall, no rain in summer, the moisture does not get to the soil, it just washes everything downhill and still have dry, empty ground. Particiant#44 also shares similar observations with the previous participants: The duration of summertime has decreased, winter is too long, and the rain and the snow are unpredictable and more harmful than helpful. Regardless of the stakeholder group, participants recognized that the changing climate negatively affects the UTSPA and buffer zone communities. Climate change-related, dry summers and falls cause forest fires and destroy wildlife and forest resources. Windy springs erode soil and make it hard to grow plants, and extremely cold winters with occasional warmings make it "iron winter" (pasture covered with icy, wet snow is called iron winter). Benefits of SPAs Despite the problems stakeholders identified, most (42 of 69) believed that the formation of the new SPA was a positive step, and several benefits were mentioned in the survey. For 143 example, participants believed the communities were safer now that the illegal miners had been forced out. As a result, local people are slowly returning to their normal lives without the social disorder and chaos brought by unwanted visitors and their exploitation. In his interview of participant expert Nyamrenchin, a herder in RL county баг#1 (a Mongolian word for sub-county, usually each county consists of 6 "bag" s), explained: The "Gold Rush" brought many outsiders into our place, and they were not always the best of human beings and changed the ways of us seeing the outsiders in a very different direction. We do not trust those people anymore. This sub-county of RL county is the most affected by the "gold rush" as it covers all the river valleys of the gold deposits. The surveys mentioned a second positive change regarding the revitalization of the wildlife and some environmental quality. A majority of the survey respondents answered that the number of wildlife has increased since the SPAs were initiated. They also see rivers are clearer, more signs of wild boar and bear digs, and musk deer and moose sightings are becoming more common while traveling. For example, Participant #5 noted, After the first snow, we see all the wild boar trails, and the park has started selling few but legal tags for wild boar hunting, which makes me feel good about the UTSPA work. It stopped panning gold, and that prevented rivers from drying out and forests from being destroyed. There is some advantage of having PA; otherwise, wild animals would become rare, and the environment would be degraded. Figure 21 Waterfall on Hög River during the Gold Rush 2011 and after UTSPA protection 2013 and 2020. Recommendations for policy changes Throughout the study, participants recommended multiple changes to policy and law. Amendments to laws related to environmental management, SPA conservation, and local governance were suggested 41 times in 29 surveys. Most of the comments regarded the laws as nonrealistic, too strict, and corruption-prone. For example, Participant #68 explained: 144 The environmental law is too strict and far away from real life. The environment should include all people and wildlife, and plants. The unrealistic law is what they are following, making the SPA and government people look bad. Participants also suggested that policymaking should include place-based and community-connected planning and development. For example, Herder #50 suggested: The environmental law should be place-based. Mainly the SPA laws should be discussed with local people and reflect their unique lifestyle. The SPA does not have to restrict everything. Recommendations for continued collaboration Based on the results from our stakeholders' meetings and surveys, each stakeholder group was willing to continue collaborating and building trust with each other. Overall, the stakeholder groups agreed that they were in need of urgent collaborations regarding environmental degradation in Darhad Valley. The herders offered several specific recommendations for future collaboration (Table 3). Table 3 Herders' Suggestion of collaborations with the other stakeholders Stakeholders Herders SPA Local Government Herders HUGs manage the ES value-based Pasture and land as a group conservation is the only environmental with the support way that we have the evaluation system of other herders subscribe to our that works for all. stakeholders. mission. Finally, the participants raised the following five guidelines for future research and collaborative work. 1. Herders need new income resources that replace the gold mining income and pasture reductions due to the new SPA. 2. Education and health service quality needs to be improved for the rural herders. 3. Herders want to be involved and invited to collaborate on environmental protection measures proposed by UTSPA and local government. 145 4. UTSPA administrators believe that local herders' knowledge should be fundamental to the conservation efforts and management of the UTSPA. 5. The local government wants the herders to manage the pasture, but with a "national government accepted" and measurable system that both government and herders understand. Discussion Nearly 80% of Mongolian land is characterized as grassland (Endicott, 2012; Wu et al., 2015) and has been home to mobile pastoralists for centuries. It is "the largest remaining contiguous area of common grazing in the world" (Reading et al., 2006), although it faces enormous risks due to land degradation. Mongolia's herders, the most experienced field scientists in the region, have been largely excluded from land management and assessment decision- making. The results of this study demonstrate the potential for the collaboratively developed inclusive land assessment tool called the "Herder Notebook" to help all stakeholders benefit from "high tech-WSEK" and "high-TEK" (Ausubel, 2012). The three stakeholder groups in this study—herders, local government officials, and SPA administrators—achieved a mutual understanding regarding the need to work towards inclusive management plans. There is a sense of urgency for this work in order to secure HUG land management rights for the coming three years without resorting to land privatization. Such privatization would conflict with herder TEK and lifeways, in addition to fragmenting the largest contiguous ecosystem left in central Asia. If, however, the HUGs demonstrate measurable success as a result of implementing the new inclusive assessment tool, they will be able to manage the pasture for those three years and hopefully longer. As the land degradation issue is complex, the community and stakeholders have requested other governmental and non-governmental agencies to address livelihood, education, and community health problems. These agencies have engaged in some collaboration with the local government officials, the UTSPA, and herders. For example, proposals have been developed to create diverse community income resources that emphasize local culture and traditions to support tourism and small business growth. Such programs would help the stakeholders access international and domestic resources(Awung & Marchant, 2018; Hunn et al., 2003; Schuerholz et al., 2007; West et al., 2006), which are essential to the advancement of causes of regional importance (B. H. M. M. Elands et al., 2019; Seele et al., 2019b). As we attempted to emphasize to stakeholders throughout the research process, the conservation and management of land is not an isolated problem (Burkhard et al., 2010; Chan & Satterfield, 2020a; Donaldson et al., 2014; Fazey et al., 2020; Kasprzyk et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2010). As is becoming more and more evident, solutions for environmental degradation require a holistic approach and participatory management (Aslin et al., 2013; Fraser, 2018; Gadgil et al., 1993; Gambon & Rist, 2019; Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013; Hill et al., 2020; Jankowski, 2009; Lepore et al., 2021; McGregor, 2013; Robinson et al., 2021; N. J. Wilson et al., 2018). This particular project, which utilized a CBPR framework, offers lessons for similar contexts worldwide, particularly when conflicts between stakeholders arise in those contexts. 146 First, we note that both CBPR processes and land assessment tools need to recognize the unique places, knowledge, and lifestyles of observers/participants (Potschin & Haines-Young, 2011). By acknowledging and valuing the observational notes and historical recollections of local people, such as the herders in this study, researchers may be able to develop a better decision system that addresses land degradation and the social-economic and cultural drivers affecting land management practice. Similarly, we noted an increased sense of commitment to the new land assessment tool by including local people—especially herders who have been disproportionately excluded from previous decision-making. As a result, we anticipate greater fidelity of implementation and continued interest in collaboration. Second, CBPR offers an opportunity for culturally-aligned (Figure 22) methods and deep listening, which are particularly helpful when working to engage historically marginalized participants (Hallett et al., 2017; McCormick & Held, 2017; Stanton, 2014a). Figure 22 Circle of Mongolian community and CBPR overlap In this case, the interviews proved to be a healing process for the community, giving members a chance to express their reactions and the changes they had to bear when forced to follow a new system (Love, 2004). All participating stakeholders were able to share their beliefs and what they desired to contribute to land degradation management. But there are significant limitations we collectively recognized as research team and partners. While the CBPR process had primarily positive results, we faced difficulties maintaining communications with the herders as they migrated seasonally away from the county centers and SPA headquarters. We learned that using community gatherings and seasonal festival opportunities supported collective participation and more consistent communication. Furthermore, researchers need to recognize the impact of seasonal migration on data collection 147 and decision-making. For example, we experienced delays in participation and communication during winter, when the herders had limited mobility, and camp locations were further from the other stakeholders residing in county centers. Attracting unwanted publicity was another concern that we as a team had to address carefully but consistently. As with any research project's aims, we planned to publish the results of this work for the appropriate audience in suitable forms and languages. But such publication, especially in English as it is an internationally spoken language, could be a risk to the community's efforts. The lead researcher had to remind the stakeholders that publication could lead to unwanted attention from the outside world and the potential for the Darhad Valley to become a target of "discovery" (Watson, 2012) that would increase tourism or draw disrespectful visitors. Relatedly, CBPR efforts in similar contexts need to consider capacity building for sensitive data security. In the case of this study, the lead researcher, who is Mongolian, while familiar with the context and people, is still a community outsider. She is also not a specialist in the all integrated fields of this research. Throughout the project, she has tried to learn as much as possible and help build the community's knowledge system. Still, she wishes she had greater time and resources to ensure accuracy in interpretations, responsibility in representations, and appropriate dissemination. One of the greatest challenges we faced was the expansive amount of time and funding needed to engage effectively in CBPR work in this context. The Darhad Valley is a remote site, and CBPR demands it sustained on-location partnerships. Over five years were needed to establish relationships, design the research project, plan and facilitate workshops and focus groups, conduct interviews, collaboratively analyze diverse data, and prepare results for dissemination. To work on a large body of diverse and complex data—especially data that required multiple translations and communication with members of the CAB—demanded extensive human resources and funding. Related to this challenge is the research team's sense of responsibility to the community. We recognize that our capacity to complete the project in a timely manner was limited and that we were unable to meet the local community's expectations as effectively as we had hoped. A final limitation of the research occurred in the use of multiple languages of participants. The time and effort spent on the data collection, preparation, and analysis steps were longer than any typical graduate school research project timeline. For instance, one conversation had to be translated from Dukha to Darhad to Central Mongolian and then to English. The interpretation then had to circle back through that progression to be verified by members of the CAB and participant experts. Additional interpretation related to connotative meanings, cultural background, and historical reasonings compounded the already meticulous work. To reduce possible data variation errors, the lead researcher, who is fluent in multiple languages and dialects, independently completed the data entry, data preparation, translation, and initial analysis to reduce possible data variation errors. Her work was checked periodically by members of the CAB and other stakeholders. Despite our best efforts, we acknowledge that loss of knowledge is inevitable due to the project's multiple stages of translation and interpretation. 148 Conclusion In conclusion, the CBPR process proved to be supportive in the development of an inclusive land management tool in the Darhad Valley. More broadly, as applied in this project, CBPR offers the potential to support collaboration in situations of conflict. While this study demonstrated differing and conflicting perceptions among stakeholder groups at the start of the process, it also highlighted common interests and understandings. In terms of land assessment and management planning and practice, specifically, this project supported the multistakeholder development of a tool that effectively integrates WSEK and TEK. At the conclusion of this study, the CAB submitted an official letter outlining our results for Darhad Valley's parliamentary representative. In November 2019, the results were shared with the Ministry of Environment. As of 2021, no official steps have been taken at the national level to address stakeholder concerns or amend environmental law or policy to include herders and TEK more effectively. We continue to partner with the local stakeholders to refine the assessment tool, develop a management plan based on the results of this study, and share the findings and CBPR process used in the study. After our team has stopped actively organizing the participatory interventions, the Darhad community of our research is still collaborating on the land assessment and management. This could be a parallel to the “Indigenous-Led Conservation” scholarship emerging out of Canada in efforts of managing the protected areas with the local communities. However, CBPR is a highly place specific and culturally sensitive process. CBPR application and the process could differ widely depending on the location and other factors of the host community and the questions the team of participants are tackling. There are many opportunities for future research and collaboration related to this project. I am a younger person compared to the CAB and other participants, still an outsider to the community and student at a Western university. In the circle of the community (Figure 21) I am in the lower left side of the circle diagram, all of which complicate my ability to independently identify transferable recommendations and implications. We invite more community-based research specialists who have experience with working with marginalized Indigenous communities to work on the database we created and/or apply CBPR to similar contexts. We hope researchers who engage in work in the Darhad Valley will sustain the trust and mutual understanding that has been built by following guidelines that the CAB and other stakeholders want the teams to recognize. Ensuring equal participation in the process of land resource management as well as other research in Mongolia and any other Indigenous communities is what we would like to recommend to the future teams of researchers. Such work should also continue to build local capacity by helping stakeholders take the lead in research and policy decision-making. 149 Works Cited Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia's Gobi Desert: not as straightforward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non- indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision- making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy, and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 150 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression, Mongolia, during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012). "I spent the first year drinking tea": Exploring Canadian university researchers' perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020- 01107-4 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships' Walk Softly and L Carefully' isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation, and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Endicott, E. (2012). History of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). 151 Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR . The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 152 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a "Wilderness" park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/--- protrav/---ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community- based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. 153 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art iclerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community- based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia : data analysis and game estimation. Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community- based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). "We Don't Take Things Apart": Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐ socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 154 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Sneath, D. (2003). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author ( s ): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. 155 Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge (Issue August). Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Undargaa, S. (2016). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia's Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). socialist Mongolia Social Capital , Collective Action and Group Formation : Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent- based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 Watson, B. (2012). Buying America from the Indians: Johnson v. McIntosh and the history of native land rights. University of Oklahoma Press. West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 156 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders' Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders' Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 157 CHAPTER 5 REFLECTION/SYNTHESIS As I am writing my concluding remarks for this work, the UN Climate Change Forum, Glasgow 2021, is live streaming on my computer. World leaders are gathered to discuss how the current greenhouse gas load of 414ppm in the global atmosphere urgently needs to be reversed within this decade, or, at the latest, by 2050. In his persuasive presentations at the opening of the forum, Sir David Attenborough reminds us: "Those who've done the least to cause this problem are being the hardest hit" (Vetter, 2021). While only a few countries—including the U.S.—have contributed extensively to the problem, it is often the nations still developing politically and economically that suffer the greatest. Through critical examinations of past and present factors (Delgado-Serrano et al., 2018) related to socio-economic and political changes, the epistemologies and worldviews shaped by the world's most powerful nations help reveal the root of the land degradation issues around the world. The causes of climate change are global, and it is important to address the major contributors at transnational and national levels, but the impacts are felt locally (Albrecht & Lachapelle, 2018). Therefore, climate change also needs to be addressed locally (Brondizio et al., 2018; Flanagan & Laituri, 2004; Ostrom, 1999; Raymond et al., 2010; Wagner & Davis, 2003), with the help of diverse knowledge and equitable participation of specialists, land users, and, most importantly, young people. In the case of the manuscripts included in this work, these local community members include those belonging to Northern Mongolian herder communities. 158 Like any monoculture, epistemological monoculture (K. Bennett, 2015; Rist et al., 2004) is not robust (Kimmerer, 2002) given the complex issues our land and people face. Our research team of participants and specialists concluded that integrated epistemologies offer added strength and innovation in terms of addressing some of the complex challenges. In particular, we found that the "twin ride" of Western Science-based Ecological Knowledge (WSEK) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) complement each other rather than compete against each other (Maweu, 2011). Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) provides a framework to facilitate this kind of collaboration. Broadly, CBPR helps apply theory to practice in culturally and epistemologically appropriate ways specific to the host community (Stanton et al., 2020). CBPR relies upon community participation during every step (Hallett et al., 2017; Israel et al., 2013) and careful facilitation to help overcome various barriers such as loss of trust, institutional differences, and time and energy needed to collectively develop shared goals (Lachapelle et al., 2003). CBPR is a complicated but rewarding and potentially healing process (Stanton, 2014a; Waddell et al., 2020)). In this chapter, I share lessons, recommendations, and conclusions related to CBPR applications, integration of TEK and WSEK, and partnerships between communities— especially those that identify as Indigenous—and Western academic institutions. These lessons, recommendations, and conclusions offer implications for colleagues, students, participants, stakeholders, decision-makers, and host communities of similar conditions and historic backgrounds. 159 Lessons Related to the Use of CBPR for Land Management Research and Practice The first lesson for applications of CBPR to land management contexts is to ask co- researchers and participants to critically review the issue as a whole. Participatory land management is not only about challenges related to land use; it also needs to consider the social, economic, and political conditions and the historic pathways of the society using the land. For the initial steps of the CBPR process, the research team and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) can identify the causes of the land degradation and management issues by critically reviewing the history of the significant changes, the laws and regulations, and the methods of enforcement, and then comparing these aspects to the local people's narratives or counter- mapping examples (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Delgado, 1989; Glaser, 1999; Lee Peluso, 2011). Reviewing the issue as its whole also supports the use of an interdisciplinary approach and flexible methods without losing the focus, therefore proving helpful in examining multifaceted and dynamic problems such as land degradation (Rai, 2007). Understanding the broader context also supports comprehensive CBPR planning that can reduce tensions. In the case study highlighted in this dissertation, the critical reviews and in- depth interviews with stakeholder representatives revealed that the dual use of TEK and WSEK without proper bridging caused a disconnect between the policymakers and the land users. These different stakeholders have different priorities and perceptions of land use due to their different worldviews and epistemologies. After CBPR stakeholder meetings where participants were able to exchange their knowledge and stories, the tensions lessened. Eventually, the stakeholders started to have the meetings without the research team's facilitation. As a research team, we 160 recognized the potential for the various stakeholders to collaborate and learn from each other if they only had the time and space to explore the broader contexts together. A second lesson related to CBPR encourages researchers to include the users (i.e., the community members with practical needs and interests related to the research topic) (Israel et al., 2013). In the example in this dissertation, management of common land without the users' involvement can lead to stakeholder rejection of management plans, scientific knowledge, globally-recognized practices, and funding or other aid. Working with local people can prove to be the key to defining the solutions they need and to generating support for externally proposed solutions. In many cases, local understandings may mirror broader scientific consensus. For example, in the dissertation project, all but four of 69 participants agreed on climate change as a threat. This percentage is similar to the scientific research, which suggests almost 100% agreement surrounding the realities of climate change (Albrecht & Lachapelle, 2018). Broadly, the CBPR process created the structure and generated the interest to engage the local people in the land management decision-making. A third CBPR-related lesson focuses on power redistribution and capacity building for sustainable results. CBPR is unique as it redistributes the power among the participants and researchers (Denzongpa et al., 2020) to assist the community-identified issues (Israel et al., 2013) in culturally appropriate, equitable facilitations (Collins et al., 2018). CBPR demands flexibility and generous time (Stanton, 2014c) to build sustained relationships founded on honesty, trust, and mutual learning/mentoring (Stanton et al., 2019). For example, the dissertation project began after a decade of collaboration on various community development and cultural preservation projects. Despite the established relationships, our team had to carefully 161 mitigate issues along the way. This project was the first of its kind to fully utilize the principles of CBPR in buffer zone land management of the special protected areas of Mongolia and the first to confront the decision-making power imbalance among stakeholder groups. To apply CBPR in this context, we had to navigate unwritten cultural rules while facilitating various interventions. The next important lesson related to the capacity building of participants and coresearchers of the host community. Since capacity building for the community is the key to being sustainable (Lepore et al., 2021; Raymond & Cleary, 2013) in land management efforts, we had to consider future research projects and collaborations in our CBPR planning and practice. In the past, the Darhad community did not have much experience with researchers, but with the increased attention surrounding the formation of the Special Protected Area (SPA) and the Valley's unique culture and lifestyle, there is no doubt that Darhad will receive more interest and requests for research and other collaborations. To help prepare the community for future research and collaboration, this dissertation project sought to lay the foundation of CBPR standards, with the hope that the community will benefit from being responsible and equitable participants (Padgham et al., 2013) and co-researchers (Allen et al., 2011; Collins et al., 2018; Guta et al., 2013; Laveaux & Christopher, 2009) of future research and other collaborations. The impacts of the CBPR project to provide a broader shift in terms of understanding research have become apparent as the dissertation project CAB raised questions about a new archeological project and a moss research project in the Valley. Our team recognized the interest from the CAB and local people as a positive outcome of our work on capacity building for suitable research practices. 162 Finally, our research team learned that CBPR offers implications for change in real life (Collins et al., 2018; Lepore et al., 2021; Wallerstein et al., 2020). CBPR is not theoretical, and unlike many academic research efforts, CBPR projects are not bounded by researcher involvement. One of the main purposes of the CBPR is to bring change in real life (Lepore et al., 2021). The specific Darhad Valley land management issues started moving forward with new collaborations among the stakeholders, and these collaborations were facilitated by the CBPR project. Importantly, the collaborations and practices continue, even beyond the official "study" context. The most important practices that emerged were 1) creating an inclusive land assessment tool called "herder notebook" and 2) changing the SPA management from pure conservation and WSEK-oriented into a model that also includes local value-based management and community stakeholder participation, especially the TEK. As demonstrated by this project, the purpose of CBPR is to simultaneously generate knowledge and support practice and application based on that new knowledge (Fazey et al., 2020). Lessons Related to the Integration of WSEK and TEK A key lesson that emerged from the dissertation research is the need for scholars and practitioners to avoid romanticizing a system of knowledge. Neither TEK nor WSEK is a perfect knowledge system (Raymond et al., 2010). As an Indigenous researcher myself, I have tried to avoid romanticizing a certain type of knowledge system over the other and approached the process from the view that everything is subject to further examinations (Principe, 2006) by searching and following the "flow of knowledge." Such a flow might change its direction 163 depending on situations not controlled by researchers or participants. Having an alternative way of knowing (Hosen & Nakamura, 2020), or the "twin ride," can support navigation of the flow. Secondly, we learned just how limited the representations of Indigenous knowledge remain in academic literature. We performed an extensive literature review to synthesize the preexisting literature and draw conclusions. While there were interesting findings from worldwide contributors, the lack of Indigenous knowledge (McGonegal, 2009) representation related to our research topic was significant. Most research data portals predominantly use the English language and follow the strict format of Western academic writing (Smith, 2021), which might create barriers to sharing publications and practices that incorporate TEK. This might be a good research topic to expand academic diversity and knowledge production. Lessons Related to Working with Indigenous Communities and Western Institutions In addition to lessons and recommendations related to CBPR implementation within land management research and the integration of TEK and WSEK, this dissertation project offers broad insights regarding interdisciplinary academic research and collaborations with Indigenous communities, especially those in Mongolia. Personally, this dissertation journey was emotionally and intellectually challenging for me. As a Mongolian woman, I had to navigate the intersections of being a researcher in a Western university pursuing a doctoral degree in my third language and a participant of a CBPR project in an Indigenous community in my home country. The first lesson-- acknowledging the importance of balance and respect (Anna & Drugge, 2016; Barnhardt & Kirkness, 1991; Berkes, 2012a; Chilisa, 2019; Denzin et al., 2008; Kovach, 2021; Rogers Stanton, 2020; Smith, 2021; Stanton et al., 2020; Tobias et al., 2013; N. J. Wilson 164 et al., 2018; S. Wilson, 2001; Windchief & Pedro, 2019) —informs Indigenous research and collaboration on a broad scale, and it also offers insight to CBPR practice within Western institutions. Within both Indigenous research contexts and CBPR applications, it can be challenging to simultaneously privilege the community's priority (Israel et al., 2013; Stanton et al., 2019; E. Wilson et al., 2017) while maintaining the needs of other stakeholders and upholding academic integrity. In some cases, as a researcher and a participant of this CBPR project, I had to negotiate needs dictated by the preset schedules of my Western university degree program without interrupting the flow of this CBPR project progress and recognizing our host community's preferences and availability. Cultural and epistemological differences between the two countries also required some explanations and adjustments. Still, the Western university was flexible enough to help me maintain the host community's needs and priorities. At the same time, the Darhad CAB understood the tedious processes of my degree requirements, such as coursework on campus, translation of some materials to English, and the need for permission to use certain materials in my dissertation. To ensure balance and respect and encourage a shift of power to participants, the research team endeavored to maintain a neutral participant stance relative to all stakeholders and enact a researcher-as-facilitator role (Chávez et al., 2015; E. Wilson, 2019). "Neutrality" required purposeful collaborative planning that included details such as choosing the campsite and lodging of the research team, location of community meetings, research steps taken in each community, and transparency across all phases. While this challenge arises in many CBPR projects, it was particularly influential in this project. I encountered both advantages and challenges based on age-related roles and norms specific to the Indigenous community. As I was younger than most of my coresearchers in our 165 CAB and other key participants and collaborators, I was able to learn from more experienced people through mentorship relationships and listening to the local people/elders. However, in Western settings, age is not very important to the person's role in the research (academic training is typically more important). Due to the timelines and other restrictions imposed by the Western institution, as a lead researcher of the project, I often had to take the role of facilitation which required stepping over the norms of the culture, which expected me—as a younger person—to wait to be the last to share my ideas, experiences, or opinions. In those cases, I had to be transparent about the situation, and as a result, the community members and CAB were collaborative about the transformation of roles. Despite the change in roles, I kept special attention to the importance of respect by using the "respectful" version of the spoken language and adhering to culturally appropriate body language norms (e.g., standing in the junior location of the meeting settings, waiting for the elder's approval of proceeding as facilitator). This approach perfectly overlaps with the CBPR principles of respecting the community's needs and priorities. Although I am a female and researcher of color, intersectionality (Crenshaw, 2017) did not affect me in terms of my role in Mongolia, as Mongolians are members of one race (Asian) (race is a social construct (Ladson-Billings, 2015)) both historically and currently, higher education has favored female representations due to the nomadic lifestyle and socio-political transitions (Enkhjargal Adiya, 2010). However, surprisingly, my intersectional positionality affected my mental stability and academic progress in terms of the U.S. expectations and norms, and the impacts were compounded because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across the U.S. and other Western nations, there have been increases in hate crimes against Asian people. Anxiety 166 about the potential for such attacks influenced my overall well-being and my academic progress. The pandemic-related challenges amplified the long-standing challenges that surround intersections of being a female researcher in a predominantly male field of study (i.e., environmental science), a scholar advocating TEK and WSEK integrations, and a researcher committed to using CBPR. Independently, each of these aspects of researcher identity presents unique challenges in terms of navigating the structure of the Western institution, and together they are even more complex. The journey takes consistent, frequent, and ongoing self-reflection. To build stronger capacity for future CBPR projects, it would be helpful to review the scholarly journey of others who have experienced similar intersectional challenges and ask for support from more experienced mentors and advisers. Being an outsider to the community but still, a Mongolian proved to be another aspect that offered both advantages and challenges. To facilitate the collaborations and CBPR interventions without having immediate conflicts of interest, it was helpful to be a third party and community outsider. However, building a lasting relationship with the community while coordinating international projects in the community kept me on my toes, especially since all but three of the participants were new every year. My goal was to make sure both host and visiting participants held correct understandings about both sides and, when needed, filter the cultural differences and interpret them into respective customs with which each side is familiar. As a Mongolian, an interpreter, and a coordinator, understanding all the mediating roles and expectations fell on me, and given the complexities and differences, it was easy to make mistakes. However, admitting honest mistakes and asking for apologies proved a straightforward way to mitigate the issues. Additionally, with experienced and understanding advisers, personal 167 mentors, and caring family members, the pressure of this complicated work was reduced. I was able to complete the work in ways that addressed the expectations of both the university and the community. Within both CBPR and Indigenous research, reciprocity (Barnhardt, 1998; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Held, 2019; Rogers Stanton, 2020; Stanton et al., 2019; Windchief & Cummins, 2021) is of critical importance. In the dissertation project, we learned that logistical issues complicate reciprocity. Due to the remoteness and extreme weather conditions of the Darhad Valley and the migratory nature of participant lifestyles, we had to be mindful of some possible delays. In some cases, planned data collection was unsuccessful, meetings had to be rescheduled, or we had to ask the CAB members and participants to spare their time during important celebrations and traditional gatherings. We tried to reciprocate by sponsoring culturally significant events such as singing contests and horse races during these gatherings. While the concept of community reciprocity is valued within CBPR and Indigenous contexts, it is less important for Western educational settings, where historically, most of the research process occurs outside of the community (e.g., in a lab or using a computer) and the research ends with the completion of an academic product that benefits the individual and institution, such as a dissertation. In the case of this project, the benefit to the community came through the community-based problem-solving and workshops, and true reciprocity depends upon sharing results in meaningful ways (e.g., through presentations after completion of the final dissertation). As this project demonstrates, work that seeks to adhere to both Indigenous community norms and Western university expectations often requires researchers to do much more than would be required for either context in isolation. 168 Another lesson we learned specific to partnerships between Western institutions and Indigenous communities focuses on the challenges surrounding Indigenous community data safety, transparency, and authorship. In particular, researchers in similar contexts need to plan for the security and appropriate use of Indigenous knowledge (Berkes, 2012; Grenier, 1998; Windchief & Cummins, 2021). In the case of this dissertation work, such plans included following Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidance, creating the CAB, and working closely with the local people and CAB to ensure data safety and avoid misrepresentations. Additionally, transparency (Collins et al., 2018; Stanton, 2014b) is vital to protect Indigenous knowledge and support trusting relationships between the participant parties such as the host community, organizations; UTSPA; local, provincial, and national governments; and academic institutions. A suitable dissemination plan for each audience group is an important aspect of managing Indigenous data and knowledge responsibly. For example, work related to this project contributed to the development of both Western academic products (e.g., the dissertation, manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals) and Indigenous community results (e.g., community presentations, creation of guidelines for similar research). We encourage co-authorship of products that recognize diverse contributors, even if such recognition is initially viewed as irrelevant to some co-researchers. For example, articles related to this dissertation project will list core co-researchers as either co-authors or collaborators. Through attribution of proper credit to the contributors, research products can help pave the way for future collaborations and reduce the potential for commodification. To further reduce future exploitations, the funding requirements for this type of research should include clear plans for crediting and compensating co-authors and collaborators as part of the initial proposals. 169 Lessons Related to Mentoring Graduate Students in CBPR Research First, students need to have access to CBPR method courses as early as possible in the coursework. The process of familiarizing themselves with the details of CBPR would help students prepare and design the research project with their community and CAB from the beginning, which would make the work stronger and more relevant to the community and their needs. Second, from my own experience, I feel international students need strong advising and mentoring relationship. Such advising and mentoring are especially important for students who engage in CBPR, since such research requires more sophisticated relationship-building with community members and participant experts than conventional research. Third, the CBPR process requires more time and flexibility from the student and their academic partners. Sometimes, it requires breaking down walls between methods, departments, and disciplines. In my research project case, the breadth of my project and the integration of disciplines required me to pursue the interdisciplinary degree. Even though it was a new degree that MSU started to offer with the help of the supportive faculties and specialists at graduate school and the Department of Education, this work was completed. Finally, this kind of work requires significant financial support for the researcher/participant team to work with the community long-term by building a lasting relationship and collectively creating the project that benefits the community. CBPR requires extensive travel support and resources, and the extended timeframes mean research projects tend to take years instead of months. 170 Conclusion and Future Directions This overall project was more than a research project for me, the CAB, and the team of participants. We have grown together, and this project continues outside this degree work in many useful directions. Our current and future projects focus on three general areas: health of the land, people and animals, education/conservation, and tourism/livelihood. The CAB and local stakeholders have made the community meetings a consistent practice, supporting more effective communication and collaborations and helping us write proposals seeking outside and local support and funding. Land and animal health are directly connected to human health. Land degradation, soil and water pollution from sheep dips and plastics, improper use of Western animal medications have been identified as main concerns moving forward. This dissertation project laid a foundation of CBPR-oriented approaches and perspectives, especially surrounding soil and water issues. I will continue to work with our community as we have been establishing the baseline research and long-term monitoring sites for plants, animals, and soil/pasture for the Valley and UTPSA. Other social and economic issues are inseparable from this issue; therefore, it will be important to address the health, education, and livelihood initiatives we describe below. As one of many outcomes of our community meetings, we identified that first aid kits (FAK) are not readily available for locals, especially young families. Furthermore, rangers far away from the town centers in the remote wilderness are in need of knowledge of first aid and materials that include both Western and traditional medicines. We have raised a small fund and distributed 200 family FAKs and 50 ranger FAKs as part of our first aid education and supply project in 2019 and 2018. The FAKs included Western medicine and handouts of the 171 traditionally used, local plant-based first aid medicines that grow in local fields and forests. This initiative has been a success with the collaboration of local medicine plant users and doctors from Ulaanbaatar and Montana. Several other areas of need have been identified for future CBPR projects. We are planning to continue the revival of TEK use and expand public health training to encourage appropriate Western medicine use (antibiotic overuse inherited from communist times is still causing problems), healthy diet education (sugar intake related to the increase of tooth decay among children), and reproductive and mental health (suicide rate is increasing). In the education/conservation fields, the UTSPA, local government, and school administration support integrating TEK and WSEK into the school curriculum and dedicating two hours per week towards this purpose. Schoolteachers, especially language/history and science teachers, are leading this work. All four schools already have student clubs that are actively participating and organizing local value-based environmental education content, such as a day with elders and rangers at UTPSA and art (paintings, songs, legends, or names) projects to collect TEK about students' homelands with their parents and elders. My husband and I have awarded a year of college tuition to the best student in need from the Valley for the last five years. So far, we have provided continuous support for one medical student and one information technology engineer, and both are planning to return to the Darhad Valley when they finish this spring. We plan to expand the scholarship program to support more students by collaborating with local business owners and herders. The UTSPA and national universities will collaborate on preparing future specialists and rangers who can utilize TEK and WSEK. Some of our future work will focus on youth 172 education, especially TEK and WSEK integration in the local school curriculum; community participation, such as elders as advisers for UTSPA research; and visitor center seasonal exhibit planning. Conservation efforts will include cultural preservation projects, such as creating a cultural layer consisting of traditional names, legends, and songs of the Darhad Valley and interactive GIS maps for local peoples' TEK revival and local value-based conservation purposes. In the tourism/livelihood field, the community meetings and fruitful stakeholder discussions have already led to several projects supporting family level production, centered around the locally produced raw materials and local people's arts by encouraging natural products sales such as felt products, yak yarns, and leather crafts. The UTPSA recognizes the loss of natural resource income caused by the national protection and conservation efforts. The administrations are open for co-production of income in the forms of tourism and related small projects. For instance, the "Yak Latte" coffee shop at the new UTPSA visitor center started just before the pandemic and is ready to resume when the world opens for travel. This project is designed to support local people who provide fresh yak milk every day and offer seasonal reindeer latte, wild berry juice, and local crafts such as yak yarn felt potholders died with blueberries and soft dog collars. These projects did not require much funding, just good collaboration. The startup 20-pound bag of coffee beans and an espresso machine were donated by a few visitors who desperately needed coffee while staying in the Valley and local people's support made this project start. Much more is being planned and initiated to collectively support life in the Valley, and everyone's participation is key to our progress. On behalf of our team, I would like to invite 173 readers to visit our community and contribute their wisdom and skills to the sacred flow of knowledge and life in the Blue Valley of Darhad. 174 Works Cited Addison, J., Davies, J., Friedel, M., & Brown, C. (2013). Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? Journal of Arid Environments, 94, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.02.009 Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert: not as straight forward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Afifi, R. A., Abdulrahim, S., Betancourt, T., Btedinni, D., Berent, J., Dellos, L., Farrar, J., Nakkash, R., Osman, R., Saravanan, M., Story, W. T., Zombo, M., & Parker, E. (2020). Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12453 Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. S. (2011). Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38(02), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000925 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Allen, M. L., Culhane-Pera, K. A., Pergament, S., & Call, K. T. (2011). A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00362.x Allington, G. R. H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Chen, J., & Brown, D. G. (2018). Combining participatory scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the Mongolian Plateau. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209 Anna, & Drugge. (2016). Ethics in Indigenous Research. In Past experiences–future challenges. Umeå: Vaartoe– …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra_Juutilainen/publication/311593254_Moving_forwar d_with_Sami_research_ethics_how_the_dialogical_process_to_policy_development_in_Canada _supports_the_course_of_action_for_the_Nordic_countries_In_Drugge_AL_ed_Ethics 175 Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.011 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non-indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 Ayre, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). “Unwritten, unsaid, just known”: the role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environment, 18(January 2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665864 Baabar, B.-E. (1999). History of Mongolia. Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. In Alaska Native Knowledge Network (Vol. 23). http://search.ebscohost.com.cyber.usask.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44047668&sit e=ehost-live Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knolwedge Systems and the Alaskan Native Ways of Knowing.pdf. In Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 8–23). Barnhardt, R., & Kirkness, V. J. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R ’ s - Respect, Relevance , Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–17. Bathishig Baival, Fernandez-Gimenez, & Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E, R. R. (2012). Community- Based Range Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities. In Vasa. Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2010). Fenced in: Common property struggles in the management of communal rangelands in central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.006 176 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Biran, M. (2004). The Mongol transformation: From the steppe to Eurasian Empire. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570067043077869 Boslaugh, S. (2016). Anthropocentrism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Issue January 2016). Bradsher, H. S. (1972). The Sovietization of Mongolia. Foreign Affairs, 50(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.2307/20037928 Brondizio, E. S., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Wilson, S. J., Reyes-García, V., Öllerer, K., & Fernández- Llamazares, Á. (2018). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., Pérez, C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-39 Bruegger, R. A., Jigjsuren, O., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2014). Herder Observations of Rangeland Change in Mongolia: Indicators, Causes, and Application to Community-Based Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00124.1 177 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 Bumochir, D. (2017). Mongolia. In Routledge handbook of civil society in Asia (pp. 95–109). Routledge. Bumochir, D., & Munkherdene, G. (2019). Revitalisation of Cultural Heritage in Mongolia. Inner Asia, 21(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340117 Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, S. A. (2005). Lessons learned from community- based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 12 Suppl 2(November), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274805012004s10 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty  34(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.127.American Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression, Mongolia, during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012a). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012b). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4 178 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020a). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020b). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community- based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christmann, S., Aw-Hassan, A., Rajabov, T., & Rabbimov, A. (2015). Collective Action for Common Rangelands Improvement: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in Uzbekistan. Society and Natural Resources, 28(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933927 Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships ‘Walk Softly and L Carefully’ isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757 Circle of Tribal Advisers. (2003). Enough Good People. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). (2014). Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. (Issue September). http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ 179 Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Espinosa, P. R., Nicasio, A. v., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wylliede Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020a). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020b). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 13). Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28. https://doi.org/38 Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716 Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010a). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010b). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x 180 Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing Health Research: Community-Based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22– 36. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v15i3.155 Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. House of Anansi. Davis, W. (2014). Keynote Speech: The Ethnosphere and the Academy. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Calvo-Boyero, D., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante-Semerena, R. I., & Corbera, E. (2018). Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & others. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage. Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2005). Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press. Devall, B., Sessions, G., & others. (1985). Deep ecology. Pojman. Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 181 Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local Understandings of the Land: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_4 Dunbar, T., & Scrimgeour, M. (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9018-1 Dunn, C. P. (2017). Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies. In Plant Diversity (Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 396–401). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.003 E. Tumur. (2021). Institutional arrangements for community-based rangeland management in Mongolia. Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Lancet, 367(9528), 2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68925-3 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elands, B. H. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elliott, F. (2009). Science, metaphoric meaning, and Indigenous knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 284–297. Endicott, E. (2012). A history of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). Enkhjargal Adiya. (2010). GENDER EQUITY IN ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONGOLIA. In Thesis (Issue May). Ericksen, A. (2014). Depend on Each Other and Don’t Just Sit: The Socialist Legacy, Responsibility, and Winter Risk among Mongolian Herders. 73(1). Ericksen, A. (2020). The Limitations of Wintering Away From Customary Pastures in Relation to Dzud in Mongolia’s Gobi Region. Nomadic Peoples, 24(1), 86–110. 182 Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 Fassnacht, S. R., Sukh, T., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Batbuyan, B., Venable, N. B. H., Laituri, M., & Adyabadam, G. (2011). Local understanding of hydro-climatic changes in Mongolia. IAHS-AISH Publication, 346(July), 120–129. Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070 Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Community-based Natural Resource Management: State of the Science—Global Perspectives. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(Caughley 1979), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00447.x Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Batkhishig, B., Batbuyan, B., & Ulambayar, T. (2015). Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters. World Development, 68, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015 Fernandez-gimenez, M. E., & Fassnacht, S. R. (2015). Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands: A Trans- disciplinary Research Conference – Preface. 9–15. Flanagan, C., & Laituri, M. (2004). Local Cultural Knowledge and Water Resource Management: The Wind River Indian Reservation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McMcgrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2008). “If you could change one thing⋯” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 183 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 Fratkin, E., & Mearns, R. (2003). Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods : Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Konagaya, Y., Maekawa, A., Tsogtbaatar, J., Batjargal, Z., Enkhjargal, B., Tuvshintogtokh, I., Ariungerel, D., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Yamamura, N., Satoh, T., Sugita, M., Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, M., Ishii, R., … Jargalsaikhan, L. (2013). The Mongolian Ecosystem Network. 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431- 54052-6 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Gantuya, B., Avar, Babai, D., Molnár, & Molnár, Z. (2019). “a herder’s duty is to think”: Landscape partitioning and folk habitats of Mongolian herders in a mountain forest steppe (Khuvsugul- Murun region). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0328-x Goulden, C. E., Mead, J., Horwitz, R., Mccormick, S., Boldgiv, B., & Petraitis, P. S. (2016). Interviews of Mongolian herders and high resolution precipitation data reveal an increase in short heavy rains and thunderstorm activity in semi-arid Mongolia. Climate Change, First onli, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1614-4 Goyal, H. D. (1999). A Development Perspective on Mongolia. Asian Survey, 39(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/3021242 Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance \& Development, 34(003). Grayson, R. (2007). Anatomy of the People’s Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia. World Placer Journal, 7, 1–66. http://www.mine.mn/WPJ7_1_Peoples_Gold_Rush.pdf 184 Grayson, R., Delgertsoo, T., Murray, W., Tumenbayar, B., Batbayar, M., Urtnasan, T., Dashzeveg, B., & Chimed, E.-B. (2004). The People’s Gold Rush in Mongolia – the Rise of the ‘Ninja’ Phenomenon. World Placer Journal, 4. Special (November), 1–112. Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. idrc. Guta, A., Flicker, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Governing through community allegiance: A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.761675 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200105 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Heuschert, D. (1998). Legal pluralism in the Qing Empire: Manchu legislation for the mongols. In International History Review (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 310–324). https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640825 Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s 185 linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a native american community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002 Hosen, N., & Nakamura, H. (2020). Local Knowledge for Global Actions: The role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change adaptation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(13), 37. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2059 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR . The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 Humphrey, C. (1992). The Moral Authority of the Past in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Religion, State & Society, 20(3–4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499208431566 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “Wilderness” park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf IMF. (2019). Selected issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3821-5_16 Inikori, J. E. (2020). Atlantic slavery and the rise of the capitalist global economy. Current Anthropology, 61(S22), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/709818 Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community- Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 186 Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kakinuma, K., Ozaki, T., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). VEGETATION CHANGES CAUSED BY GRAZING. 12(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120205 Kakinuma, K., & Takatsuki, S. (2012). Applying local knowledge to rangeland management in northern Mongolia: do ‘narrow plants’ reflect the carrying capacity of the land? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-23 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Karnieli, A., & Bayarjargal, Y. (2013). Do vegetation indices provide a reliable indication of vegetation degradation? A case study in the Mongolian pastures. … Journal of Remote …. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2013.793865 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 187 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (2018). Addressing climate change at the community level in the United States. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727 Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning. Society and Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855 Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F., & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources, 16(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309151 Lachapelle, P. R., Smith, P. D., & McCool, S. F. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review, 11(1), 1–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory—What it is Not! Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 12669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for Indigenous Survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ba4oDwAAQBAJ Lander, J. (2019). Transnational Law and State Transformation: The Case of Extractive Development in Mongolia. Routledge. Lattimore, O. (2008). Religion and Revolution in Mongolia. Modern Asian Studies, 1(01), 81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00000081 Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articler ender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 188 Lee Peluso, N. (2011). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch55 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia: data analysis and game estimation. Liu, Y. Y., Evans, J. P., Mccabe, M. F., Jeu, R. A. M. de, Dijk, A. I. J. M. van, Dolman, A. J., & Saizen, I. (2013). Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. 8(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057599 Lkhagvadorj, D., Hauck, M., Dulamsuren, C., & Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013). Twenty Years After Decollectivization: Mobile Livestock Husbandry and Its Ecological Impact in the Mongolian Forest-Steppe. Human Ecology, 41(5), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9599-3 Llp, A. (2017). Land law of Mongolia | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司 │Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК. 2017. http://www.anallp.com/land-law-of-mongolia/ Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 Luvsanjamts, L., & Söderberg, M. (2005). Mongolia – Heaven for Foreign Consultants. June. http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0215.pdf Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 MARCC. (2009). Mongolia: Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009. Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Development Programme. 189 Marin, A. (2010). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders ’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010a). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010b). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Martinez, L. S. S., Zamore, W., Finley, A., Reisner, E., Lowe, L., & Brugge, D. (2020). Cbpr partnerships and near‐roadway pollution: A promising strategy to influence the translation of research into practice. Environments - MDPI, 7(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7060044 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(October 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Maweu, J. M. (2011). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Modern Western Ecological Knowledge: Complementary, not Contradictory. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2 Mbizvo, C., Duraiappah, A., Koetz, T., Brondizio, E., Bartus, G., Roué, M., Asah, S. T., Lonsdale, M., Fischer, M., Moller, H., Darnaedi, D., Smith, P., Mikissa, J. B., Lyver, P., Allahverdiyev, R., Mooney, H. A., Pacheco, D., Hashimoto, S., Tallis, H., … Chan, K. M. (2014). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). “We Don’t Take Things Apart”: Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGonegal, J. (2009). The great Canadian (and Australian) secret: The limits of non-indigenous knowledge and representation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 67–83. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 190 Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy, 53(July), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 Mendee, J. (2015). a “Let’S Change It” Syndrome – Why Does Policy Fail in Mongolia? 1–18. http://sites.socialsciences.manoa.hawaii.edu/css/demr2015/_papers/mendee-jargalsaikhan.pdf Mijiddorj, T. N., Ahearn, A., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2019). Gobi Herders’ Decision-Making and Risk Management under Changing Climate. Human Ecology, 47(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00112-9 Mijiddorj, T. N., Alexander, J. S., Samelius, G., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2020). Traditional livelihoods under a changing climate: herder perceptions of climate change and its consequences in South Gobi, Mongolia. Climatic Change, 162(3), 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02851-x Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl, S81-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720 Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M., & Tamir, H. (2003). Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health, 93(8), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1210 Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025 Murphy, D. (2018). Disaster, mobility, and the moral economy of exchange in Mongolian pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220207 191 Myagmarjav, T. (2019). TRADITIONAL PASTORALISM OR MINING ? CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ACCESS TO NATURAL PASTURES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 4(4), 56–68. Naidansuren, E. (2012). A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MONGOLIA AUTHOR: ERDENESAIKHAN NAIDANSUREN Table of Contents. National Statistics Office. (2021). Малын тоо 1989-2020. Nelson, M. P., Cullman, G., Chan, K., Durbin, T. J., Teel, T. L., Roth, R., Epstein, G., Stedman, R., Christie, P., Wyborn, C., Thomas, R., Sandlos, J., Greenberg, A., Klain, S. C., Bennett, N. J., Veríssimo, D., Curran, D., & Clark, D. A. (2016). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Vol. null (null, Ed.). Ostrom, E. (1999a). Coping With Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1968), 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 Ostrom, E. (1999b). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Ostrom, E. (2000). PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS. INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/common property.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Padgham, J. O. N., Mtilatila, L., & Agyemang-yeboah, F. (2013). Building Shared Understanding and Capacity for Action : Insights on Climate Risk Communication from India , Ghana , Malawi , and Mongolia. International Journal of Communication, 7, 970–983. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pérez, A., Santamaria, E. K., Operario, D., Tarkang, E. E., Zotor, F. B., Cardoso, S. R. de S. N., Autor, S. E. U., De, I., Dos, A., Vendas, O. D. E., Empresas, D. A. S., Atividades, P. O., Artigo, N., Gest, G. N. R. M. D. E., Para, D. E. F., Miranda, S. F. da R., Ferreira, F. A. A., Oliver, J., 192 Dario, M., … Volk, J. E. (2017). Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 5(1), 1–8. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000a). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2 Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000b). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). Plumb, M., Price, W., & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. (2004). Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820400011792 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014a). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014b). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Principe, L. (2006). Science and Religion. Teaching Company Limited Partnership. https://books.google.com/books?id=19xoPQAACAAJ Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Rai, S. C. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0248-4 Raymond, C. M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A Tool and Process that Facilitate Community Capacity Building and. 18(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7 193 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Rink, E., Knight, K., Ellis, C., McCormick, A., FireMoon, P., Held, S., Webber, E., & Adams, A. (2020). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200099 Rink, E., Law, D. G., Montgomery-andersen, R., Mulvad, G., & Koch, A. (2009). The Practical Application of Community-based Participatory Research in Greenland: Initial Experiences of the Greenland Sexual Health Study. Circumpolar Voices, 68(4), 405–413. Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., & Wiesmann, U. (2004). From epistemic monoculture to cooperation between epistemic communities – development research and sustainability. International Conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies”. Millennium Assessment, 17–20. Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Economic Geography, 76(4), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/144393 Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage 194 Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021- 01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sablin, I. (2016). Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911-1924: Buddhism, Socialism and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building. Routledge. Said, S. (2019). Knowing through being known: reflections on Indigenous epistemology and participatory consciousness. Interventions, 21(8), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558091 Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Schröter, M., Bonn, A., & Klotz, S. (2019). Atlas of Ecosystem Services. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Schulze, A. (2009). Land Legislation and the Possibilities for Pastoral Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – The Example of Mongolia by Land. October, 52. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019a). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 195 Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019b). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Sneath, D. (2003a). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2003b). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author ( s ): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. Soma, T., & Schlecht, E. (2018). The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0108-y Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014c). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & Carjuzaa, J. (2019). The Digital Storywork Partnership: Community- centered social studies to revitalize Indigenous histories and cultural knowledges. Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.08.001 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & DeCrane, V. W. (2020). “Keep it sacred!”: Indigenous youth-led filmmaking to advance critical race media literacy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2245 196 Stépanoff, C., Marchina, C., Fossier, C., & Bureau, N. (2017). Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Current Anthropology, 58(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/690120 Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1294–1304. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196307003503 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge. Mountain Forum, April. Sukhbaatar, T. (2020). AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Opportunities for Reducing Human-Wolf Conflicts in Mongolia. Suzanne Christopher, PhD, Robin Saha, PhD, Paul Lachapelle, PhD, Derek Jennings, MEd, Yoshiko Colclough, PhD, Clarice Cooper, BSN, RN, Crescentia Cummins, BS, Margaret J. Eggers, MS, MA, Kris FourStar, Kari Harris, PhD, Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, PHCNS-BC, Vic, B. (2011). Applying Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Principles to Partnership Development in Health Disparities Research. Fam Community Health, 34 (3), 246–255. Szalontai, B. (2013). Tsedenbal’s Mongolia and Communist Aid Donors: A Reappraisal. Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, 12, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v0i12.97 Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Terentyev, V. I. (2019). The Specifics of Teaching History in Russian Schools in Mongolia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 444, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/444/27 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tremblay, M. C., Martin, D. H., McComber, A. M., McGregor, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2018). Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: A case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y Tumenbayar, N. (2000). Land privatization option for Mongolia. … : Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New …, 1–32. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/133 197 Ulambayar, T., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2019). How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Land Use Policy, 82, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.008 Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., & Batjav, B. (2016). Social Outcomes of Community-based Rangeland Management in Mongolian Steppe Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 00(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267 Undargaa, S. (2016a). Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2016b). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co- management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005a). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2005b). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007- 9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia’s Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). Socialist Mongolia Social Capital , Collective Action and Group Formation : Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x 198 Venable, N. B. H., Fassnacht, S. R., Adyabadam, G., Tumenjargal, S., Fernández-Giménez, M., & Batbuyan, B. (2012). Does the length of station record influence the warming trend that is perceived by Mongolian Herders near the Khangai Mountains? Pirineos, 167(167), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3989/Pirineos.2012.167004 Vetter, D. (2021). David Attenborough’s Powerful Speech To COP26 Leaders: ‘The World Is Looking To You.’ Forbes, 1–6. Vol, I. D. S. B. (2002). Drought and Zud but No Famine ( Yet ) in the Mongolian Herding Economy H an n a Siu ru a an d. 33(4), 88–97. Vollan, B., Prediger, S., & Frölich, M. (2013). Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms? Ecological Economics, 95, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010 Waddell, C. M., Herron, R. v., Gobeil, J., Tacan, F., de Jager, M., Allan, J. A., & Roger, K. (2020). Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14), 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320960050 Wagner, J. R., & Davis, A. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. In Human Ecology (Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 463–489). Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., Dickson, E., Kastelic, S., Koegel, P., Lucero, J. E., Magarati, M., Ortiz, K., Parker, M., Peña, J., Richmond, A., & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075 Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent-based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 White, B. T. (2009). Rotten to the Core: Project Capture and the Failure of Judicial Reform in Mongolia. East Asia Law Review, 4(209), 209–275. 199 Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Health Research, 104973231769072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166–174. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indig enous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Windchief, S., & Pedro, T. S. (2019). Applying Indigenous Research Methods. In Applying Indigenous Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169811 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Xie, Y., & Li, W. (2008). WHY DO HERDERS INSIST ON OTOR ? MAINTAINING MOBILITY IN INNER. 12(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zahler, P., Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R. P., Wingard, J. R., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N., Onon, Y., Society, W. C., & Box, P. O. (2004). Illegal and Unsustainable Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2004.02.14 200 Zhao, G. (2006). Reinventing China: Imperial Qing ideology and the rise of modern Chinese national identity in the early twentieth century. Modern China, 32(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282349 Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 19(March 2015), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051 А. Очир, Ч. Далай, Д. Ц. (2004). МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ТҮҮХ 1. Байгаль Орчны Яам. (2015). Биологийн олон янз байдлын үндэсний хөтөлбөр. Далай, Ч. (1999). Монгол улсын түүх 4 (Vol. 4). Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, У. Б. (2018). Монгол Орны Бэлчээрийн Төлөв Байдлын Үндэсний Тайлан. II, 66. http://greenmongolia.mn/upload/news_files/5946e6e365eb3b52d748af9db89dcc30.pdf Лиштованный Е.И. (2006). ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В МОНГОЛИИ В КОНЦЕ XX ВЕКА: НАЧАЛО МОНГОЛЬСКОЙ ПЕРЕСТРОЙКИ. Иркутский Государственный Университет Науч, Конф, 55–76. МЗГ. (2018). Иргэдэд зориулсан гарын авлага 1. Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ. (2018). http://www.unece.org Пэрлээ, Х. (1976). Монголын Түүх Судлах Нэгэн Үндэс нь Пайз Мѳн. С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга. (2017). ХХ ЗУУНЫ МОНГОЛ : ТҮҮХ, СОЁЛ, ГЕОПОЛИТИК, ГАДААД ХАРИЛЦААНЫ ТУЛГАМДСАН АСУУДЛУУД. Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж. (1983). Түүхийн Судлал. 201 REFERENCES CITED 202 Addison, J., Davies, J., Friedel, M., & Brown, C. (2013). Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? Journal of Arid Environments, 94, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.02.009 Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (n.d.). Degradation in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert: not as straight forward as assumed. Publications.Csiro.Au, 1–45. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP111016&dsid=DS3 Afifi, R. A., Abdulrahim, S., Betancourt, T., Btedinni, D., Berent, J., Dellos, L., Farrar, J., Nakkash, R., Osman, R., Saravanan, M., Story, W. T., Zombo, M., & Parker, E. (2020). Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12453 Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. S. (2011). Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38(02), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000925 Albrecht, D., & Lachapelle, P. (2018). Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727-18 Ali, R., Olden, K., & Xu, S. (2008). Community-based participatory research: A vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1281–1284. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11399 Allen, M. L., Culhane-Pera, K. A., Pergament, S., & Call, K. T. (2011). A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00362.x Allington, G. R. H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Chen, J., & Brown, D. G. (2018). Combining participatory scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the Mongolian Plateau. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209 Anna, & Drugge. (2016). Ethics in Indigenous Research. In Past experiences–future challenges. Umeå: Vaartoe– …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra_Juutilainen/publication/311593254_Moving_forwar d_with_Sami_research_ethics_how_the_dialogical_process_to_policy_development_in_Canada _supports_the_course_of_action_for_the_Nordic_countries_In_Drugge_AL_ed_Ethics Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.011 203 Aslin, H. J., Collier, N., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). 4 Community-based natural resource management and environmental assessment: finding a place for indigenous and non-indigenous communities. May 2014. Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. Chelsea Green Publishing. Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the Mount Cameroon National Park REDD+ project. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144 Ayre, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). “Unwritten, unsaid, just known”: the role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environment, 18(January 2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665864 Baabar, B.-E. (1999). History of Mongolia. Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. In Alaska Native Knowledge Network (Vol. 23). http://search.ebscohost.com.cyber.usask.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44047668&sit e=ehost-live Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knolwedge Systems and the Alaskan Native Ways of Knowing.pdf. In Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 8–23). Barnhardt, R., & Kirkness, V. J. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R ’ s - Respect, Relevance , Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–17. Bathishig Baival, Fernandez-Gimenez, & Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E, R. R. (2012). Community- Based Range Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities. In Vasa. Batsuuri, T., & Wang, J. (2017). THE IMPACTS of CLIMATE CHANGE on NOMADIC LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY in MONGOLIA. Climate Change Economics. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817400036 Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2010). Fenced in: Common property struggles in the management of communal rangelands in central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.006 Bennett, K. (2015). Towards an epistemological monoculture: Mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and 204 Discourses: English in Europe, Volume 2 (Vol. 3, Issue July, pp. 9–35). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-004 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Berkes, F. (2012a). Challenges for Indigenous Knowledge. In Sacred Ecology (Issue Evernden 1993, pp. 239–264). Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. In Sacred Ecology (pp. 53–105). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 2000, 1251–1262. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Biran, M. (2004). The Mongol transformation: From the steppe to Eurasian Empire. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570067043077869 Boslaugh, S. (2016). Anthropocentrism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Issue January 2016). Bradsher, H. S. (1972). The Sovietization of Mongolia. Foreign Affairs, 50(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.2307/20037928 Brondizio, E. S., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Wilson, S. J., Reyes-García, V., Öllerer, K., & Fernández- Llamazares, Á. (2018). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., Pérez, C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-39 Bruegger, R. A., Jigjsuren, O., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2014). Herder Observations of Rangeland Change in Mongolia: Indicators, Causes, and Application to Community-Based Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00124.1 Bruun, O., & Odgaard, O. (2013). Mongolia in Transition: Old Patterns, New Challenges. Routledge. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TEWOiBreYQAC&pgis=1 205 Bumochir, D. (2017). Mongolia. In Routledge handbook of civil society in Asia (pp. 95–109). Routledge. Bumochir, D., & Munkherdene, G. (2019). Revitalisation of Cultural Heritage in Mongolia. Inner Asia, 21(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340117 Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, S. A. (2005). Lessons learned from community- based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 12 Suppl 2(November), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274805012004s10 Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty: 34(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.127.American Byambaa, B., & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1643629 Call, M. N., Schummer, M. L., Smith, C. J., Dovchin, B., Tumur, B., Byambaa, B., Jal, T., & Watters, R. J. (2019). Surveys of waterbirds in the Darkhad Depression , Mongolia , during summer and autumn. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 69, 188–205. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012a). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012b). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 4, 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020a). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 206 Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020b). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature, April 2019, 1021–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2 Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2015). The Dance of Race and Privilege in Cbpr (pp. 91–104). Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community- based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Christmann, S., Aw-Hassan, A., Rajabov, T., & Rabbimov, A. (2015). Collective Action for Common Rangelands Improvement: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in Uzbekistan. Society and Natural Resources, 28(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933927 Christopher, S. (2012). NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships ‘Walk Softly and L Carefully’ isten Building Research Relationships with Tribal Communities. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757 Circle of Tribal Advisers. (2003). Enough Good People. Clayton, J. (2019). Natural Rivals. Pegasus Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=4DejDwAAQBAJ Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). (2014). Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. (Issue September). http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/ Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Espinosa, P. R., Nicasio, A. v., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards 207 equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wylliede Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020a). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Coombe, C. M., Chandanabhumma, P. P., Bhardwaj, P., Brush, B. L., Greene-Moton, E., Jensen, M., Lachance, L., Lee, S. Y. D., Meisenheimer, M., Minkler, M., Muhammad, M., Reyes, A. G., Rowe, Z., Wilson-Powers, E., & Israel, B. A. (2020b). A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12447 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 13). Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28. https://doi.org/38 Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716 Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010a). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x D’Alonzo, K. T. (2010b). Getting started in CBPR: Lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1800.2010.00510.x Darroch, F., & Giles, A. (2014). Decolonizing Health Research: Community-Based Participatory Research and Postcolonial Feminist Theory. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(3), 22– 36. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v15i3.155 208 Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. House of Anansi. Davis, W. (2014). Keynote Speech: The Ethnosphere and the Academy. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Calvo-Boyero, D., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante-Semerena, R. I., & Corbera, E. (2018). Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Smith, L. T., & others. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage. Denzongpa, K., Nichols, T., & Morrison, S. D. (2020). Situating positionality and power in CBPR conducted with a refugee community: benefits of a co-learning reflective model. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1733955 Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2005). Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press. Devall, B., Sessions, G., & others. (1985). Deep ecology. Pojman. Dinero, S. C. (2011). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. In Polar Geography (Vol. 34, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2011.645903 Donaldson, A., Bracken, L., Forrester, J., Cook, B., & Cinderby, S. (2014). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J. P., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2011). Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.98 Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local Understandings of the Land: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_4 209 Dunbar, T., & Scrimgeour, M. (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9018-1 Dunn, C. P. (2017). Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies. In Plant Diversity (Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 396–401). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.003 E. Tumur. (2021). Institutional arrangements for community-based rangeland management in Mongolia. Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Lancet, 367(9528), 2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68925-3 Elands, B. H. M. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elands, B. H. M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L. K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I., Luz, A. C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., & Wiersum, K. F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(December 2017), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006 Elliott, F. (2009). Science, metaphoric meaning, and Indigenous knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 284–297. Endicott, E. (2012). A history of Land Use in Mongolia. In springer (Vol. 136, Issue 1). Enkhjargal Adiya. (2010). GENDER EQUITY IN ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONGOLIA. In Thesis (Issue May). Ericksen, A. (2014). Depend on Each Other and Don’t Just Sit: The Socialist Legacy, Responsibility, and Winter Risk among Mongolian Herders. 73(1). Ericksen, A. (2020). The Limitations of Wintering Away From Customary Pastures in Relation to Dzud in Mongolia’s Gobi Region. Nomadic Peoples, 24(1), 86–110. Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47–60. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907002017 210 Fassnacht, S. R., Sukh, T., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Batbuyan, B., Venable, N. B. H., Laituri, M., & Adyabadam, G. (2011). Local understanding of hydro-climatic changes in Mongolia. IAHS-AISH Publication, 346(July), 120–129. Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., … Young, H. R. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070 Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Community-based Natural Resource Management: State of the Science—Global Perspectives. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(Caughley 1979), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00447.x Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Batkhishig, B., Batbuyan, B., & Ulambayar, T. (2015). Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters. World Development, 68, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015 Fernandez-gimenez, M. E., & Fassnacht, S. R. (2015). Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands: A Trans- disciplinary Research Conference – Preface. 9–15. Flanagan, C., & Laituri, M. (2004). Local Cultural Knowledge and Water Resource Management: The Wind River Indian Reservation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McMcgrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2008). “If you could change one thing⋯” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 Fraser, S. L. (2018). What stories to tell? A trilogy of methods used for knowledge exchange in a community-based participatory research project. Action Research, 16(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316680722 211 Fratkin, E., & Mearns, R. (2003). Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods : Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.450 Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Konagaya, Y., Maekawa, A., Tsogtbaatar, J., Batjargal, Z., Enkhjargal, B., Tuvshintogtokh, I., Ariungerel, D., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Ariunbold, E., Yamamura, N., Satoh, T., Sugita, M., Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, M., Ishii, R., … Jargalsaikhan, L. (2013). The Mongolian Ecosystem Network. 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431- 54052-6 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314060 Gambon, H., & Rist, S. (2019). Worldview matters: Mosetene ontology and resource use in the pilón lajas indigenousterritory and biosphere reserve in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization, 78(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.1.54 Gantuya, B., Avar, Babai, D., Molnár, & Molnár, Z. (2019). “a herder’s duty is to think”: Landscape partitioning and folk habitats of Mongolian herders in a mountain forest steppe (Khuvsugul- Murun region). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0328-x Goulden, C. E., Mead, J., Horwitz, R., Mccormick, S., Boldgiv, B., & Petraitis, P. S. (2016). Interviews of Mongolian herders and high resolution precipitation data reveal an increase in short heavy rains and thunderstorm activity in semi-arid Mongolia. Climate Change, First onli, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1614-4 Goyal, H. D. (1999). A Development Perspective on Mongolia. Asian Survey, 39(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/3021242 Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance \& Development, 34(003). Grayson, R. (2007). Anatomy of the People’s Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia. World Placer Journal, 7, 1–66. http://www.mine.mn/WPJ7_1_Peoples_Gold_Rush.pdf Grayson, R., Delgertsoo, T., Murray, W., Tumenbayar, B., Batbayar, M., Urtnasan, T., Dashzeveg, B., & Chimed, E.-B. (2004). The People ’ s Gold Rush in Mongolia – the Rise of the ‘ Ninja ’ Phenomenon. World Placer Journal, 4. Special(November), 1–112. Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. idrc. 212 Guta, A., Flicker, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Governing through community allegiance: A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.761675 Hallett, J., Held, S., McCormick, A. K. H. G., Simonds, V., Real Bird, S., Martin, C., Simpson, C., Schure, M., Turnsplenty, N., & Trottier, C. (2017). What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging from an Apsáalooke Cultural Context. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316669340 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science , 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hardy, D. J., & Patterson, M. G. (2012). Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecological Economics, 73, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.022 Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200105 Harmsworth, G. R., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Māori Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 274–286. Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574 Heuschert, D. (1998). Legal pluralism in the qing empire: Manchu legislation for the mongols. In International History Review (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 310–324). https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640825 Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. v., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43(July 2019), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a native american community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002 213 Hosen, N., & Nakamura, H. (2020). Local Knowledge for Global Actions: The role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change adaptation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(13), 37. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2059 Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., & Hamzah, A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/Action Research/ CBPR . The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180 Humphrey, C. (1992). The Moral Authority of the Past in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Religion, State & Society, 20(3–4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499208431566 Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N., & Thornton, T. F. (2003). Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “Wilderness” park. In Current Anthropology (Vol. 44, Issue 5 SUPPL., pp. 79–103). https://doi.org/10.1086/377666 ILO. (2019). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging research on traditional knowledge and livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- ilo_aids/documents/publication/wcms_686780.pdf IMF. (2019). Selected issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3821-5_16 Inikori, J. E. (2020). Atlantic slavery and the rise of the capitalist global economy. Current Anthropology, 61(S22), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/709818 Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Introduction to Methods for Community- Based Participatory Research for Health. In Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 Jamsranjav, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Reid, R. S., & Adya, B. (2019). Opportunities to integrate herders’ indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1899 Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028 214 Johnston, J., & Mason, C. (2020). Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2020-10251 Kakinuma, K., Ozaki, T., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). VEGETATION CHANGES CAUSED BY GRAZING. 12(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120205 Kakinuma, K., & Takatsuki, S. (2012). Applying local knowledge to rangeland management in northern Mongolia: do ‘narrow plants’ reflect the carrying capacity of the land? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-23 Kaplonski, C. (1998). Creating national identity in socialist Mongolia. Central Asian Survey, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939808401022 Karnieli, A., & Bayarjargal, Y. (2013). Do vegetation indices provide a reliable indication of vegetation degradation? A case study in the Mongolian pastures. … Journal of Remote …. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2013.793865 Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2012a). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W. (2012b). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional and scientific ecological knowledge in environmental science education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y Kimmerer, R. W., & Lake, F. K. (2001). Maintaining the Mosaic: The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36 Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 Koobak, R., Tlostanova, M., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2021). Postcolonial and Postsocialist Dialogues: Intersections, Opacities, Challenges in Feminist Theorizing and Practice. Routledge. 215 Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto press. Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (2018). Addressing climate change at the community level in the United States. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727 Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning. Society and Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855 Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F., & Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources, 16(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309151 Lachapelle, P. R., Smith, P. D., & McCool, S. F. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review, 11(1), 1–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory—What it is Not! Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 12669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for Indigenous Survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ba4oDwAAQBAJ Lander, J. (2019). Transnational Law and State Transformation: The Case of Extractive Development in Mongolia. Routledge. Lattimore, O. (2008). Religion and Revolution in Mongolia. Modern Asian Studies, 1(01), 81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00000081 Laveaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150951%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articler ender.fcgi?artid=PMC2818123 Lee Peluso, N. (2011). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch55 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: a decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 216 Lise, W., Hess, S., & Purev, B. (2005). Pastureland degradation and poverty within herder communities in Mongolia: data analysis and game estimation. Liu, Y. Y., Evans, J. P., Mccabe, M. F., Jeu, R. A. M. de, Dijk, A. I. J. M. van, Dolman, A. J., & Saizen, I. (2013). Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. 8(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057599 Lkhagvadorj, D., Hauck, M., Dulamsuren, C., & Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013). Twenty Years After Decollectivization: Mobile Livestock Husbandry and Its Ecological Impact in the Mongolian Forest-Steppe. Human Ecology, 41(5), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9599-3 Llp, A. (2017). Land law of Mongolia | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司 │Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК. 2017. http://www.anallp.com/land-law-of-mongolia/ Love, K. (2004). Little known but powerful approach to applied research: community-based participatory research. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.), 32(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.12.004 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., Kastelic, S., Magarati, M., Oetzel, J., Pearson, C., Schulz, A., Villegas, M., & White Hat, E. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309 Luvsanjamts, L., & Söderberg, M. (2005). Mongolia – Heaven for Foreign Consultants. June. http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0215.pdf Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 MARCC. (2009). Mongolia: Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009. Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Development Programme. Marin, A. (2010). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010a). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 217 Marin, A., Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C., & Marin, A. (2010b). Riders under storms: Contributions of nomadic herders’ observations to analysing climate change in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.004 Martinez, L. S. S., Zamore, W., Finley, A., Reisner, E., Lowe, L., & Brugge, D. (2020). Cbpr partnerships and near‐roadway pollution: A promising strategy to influence the translation of research into practice. Environments - MDPI, 7(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7060044 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(October 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Maweu, J. M. (2011). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Modern Western Ecological Knowledge: Complementary, not Contradictory. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2 Mbizvo, C., Duraiappah, A., Koetz, T., Brondizio, E., Bartus, G., Roué, M., Asah, S. T., Lonsdale, M., Fischer, M., Moller, H., Darnaedi, D., Smith, P., Mikissa, J. B., Lyver, P., Allahverdiyev, R., Mooney, H. A., Pacheco, D., Hashimoto, S., Tallis, H., … Chan, K. M. (2014). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Held, S. (2017). “We Don’t Take Things Apart”: Lessons learned over a 20-year successful CBPR partnership. McGonegal, J. (2009). The great Canadian (and Australian) secret: The limits of non-indigenous knowledge and representation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 67–83. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous women, water justice and Zaagidowin (love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 71–78. Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia. In Journal of Development Studies (Vol. 32, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389608422418 Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy, 53(July), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 Mendee, J. (2015). a “Let’S Change It” Syndrome – Why Does Policy Fail in Mongolia? 1–18. http://sites.socialsciences.manoa.hawaii.edu/css/demr2015/_papers/mendee-jargalsaikhan.pdf 218 Mijiddorj, T. N., Ahearn, A., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2019). Gobi Herders’ Decision-Making and Risk Management under Changing Climate. Human Ecology, 47(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00112-9 Mijiddorj, T. N., Alexander, J. S., Samelius, G., Mishra, C., & Boldgiv, B. (2020). Traditional livelihoods under a changing climate: herder perceptions of climate change and its consequences in South Gobi, Mongolia. Climatic Change, 162(3), 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02851-x Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. (2018). National Report on Voluntary Target Setting To Achieve Land Degradation. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, & Green Gold Program. (2015). National Report on The Rangeland Health of Mongolia. Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl, S81-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720 Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M., & Tamir, H. (2003). Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health, 93(8), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1210 Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025 Murphy, D. (2018). Disaster, mobility, and the moral economy of exchange in Mongolian pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220207 Myagmarjav, T. (2019). TRADITIONAL PASTORALISM OR MINING ? CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ACCESS TO NATURAL PASTURES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 4(4), 56–68. Naidansuren, E. (2012). A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MONGOLIA AUTHOR : ERDENESAIKHAN NAIDANSUREN Table of Contents. National Statistics Office. (2021). Малын тоо 1989-2020. 219 Nelson, M. P., Cullman, G., Chan, K., Durbin, T. J., Teel, T. L., Roth, R., Epstein, G., Stedman, R., Christie, P., Wyborn, C., Thomas, R., Sandlos, J., Greenberg, A., Klain, S. C., Bennett, N. J., Veríssimo, D., Curran, D., & Clark, D. A. (2016). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Nowotny, H. (2003). The New Production of Knowledge. 41(3), 179–194. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Vol. null (null, Ed.). Ostrom, E. (1999a). Coping With Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1968), 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 Ostrom, E. (1999b). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Ostrom, E. (2000). PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS. INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/common property.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Padgham, J. O. N., Mtilatila, L., & Agyemang-yeboah, F. (2013). Building Shared Understanding and Capacity for Action : Insights on Climate Risk Communication from India , Ghana , Malawi , and Mongolia. International Journal of Communication, 7, 970–983. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pérez, A., Santamaria, E. K., Operario, D., Tarkang, E. E., Zotor, F. B., Cardoso, S. R. de S. N., Autor, S. E. U., De, I., Dos, A., Vendas, O. D. E., Empresas, D. A. S., Atividades, P. O., Artigo, N., Gest, G. N. R. M. D. E., Para, D. E. F., Miranda, S. F. da R., Ferreira, F. A. A., Oliver, J., Dario, M., … Volk, J. E. (2017). Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 5(1), 1–8. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000a). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2 Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000b). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE (COMMENTARY). In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5). 220 Plumb, M., Price, W., & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. (2004). Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820400011792 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014a). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Polfus, J. L., Heinemeyer, K., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014b). Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643 Principe, L. (2006). Science and Religion. Teaching Company Limited Partnership. https://books.google.com/books?id=19xoPQAACAAJ Purev, T., & Plumley, D. (2003). Following the White Stag. Cultural Survival, 27(1). Rai, S. C. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0248-4 Raymond, C. M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A Tool and Process that Facilitate Community Capacity Building and. 18(1). Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7 Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., & Amgalanbaatar, S. (2006). Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges, 1–17. Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development, 18(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.777 Reed, M. S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L. C., Raymond, C. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., 221 Evely, a., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Hubacek, K., … Wagner, L. (2012). Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: An analysis of contemporary thinking. 322(June 2011), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Rink, E., & Adler Reimer, G. (2019). A toolkit for community Based participatory research in Greenland. https://uk.uni.gl/find-employee/management/gitte-adler-reimer- tróndheim/publications.aspx Rink, E., Knight, K., Ellis, C., McCormick, A., FireMoon, P., Held, S., Webber, E., & Adams, A. (2020). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200099 Rink, E., Law, D. G., Montgomery-andersen, R., Mulvad, G., & Koch, A. (2009). The Practical Application of Community-based Participatory Research in Greenland: Initial Experiences of the Greenland Sexual Health Study. Circumpolar Voices, 68(4), 405–413. Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., & Wiesmann, U. (2004). From epistemic monoculture to cooperation between epistemic communities – development research and sustainability. International Conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies”. Millennium Assessment, 17–20. Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Economic Geography, 76(4), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/144393 Robinson, C. J., Macdonald, J. M., Douglas, M., Perry, J., Setterfield, S., Cooper, D., Lee, M., Nadji, J., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Nayinggul, A., Mangiru, K., Hunter, F., Coleman, B., Barrowei, R., Markham, J., Alderson, J., Moyle, F., May, K., & Bangalang, N. gangila. (2021). Using knowledge to care for country: Indigenous-led evaluations of research to adaptively co-manage Kakadu National Park, Australia. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021- 01015-9 Rogers Stanton, C. (2020). Survivance storywork: Expecting more from ourselves. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1678329 Rykiel, E. J. (1985). Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10(3), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00897.x Sablin, I. (2016). Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911-1924: Buddhism, Socialism and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building. Routledge. 222 Said, S. (2019). Knowing through being known: reflections on Indigenous epistemology and participatory consciousness. Interventions, 21(8), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558091 Sánchez, V., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Burgess, E., Haozous, E., Trickett, E., Baker, E., & Wallerstein, N. (2021). CBPR Implementation Framework for Community-Academic Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12506 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Schröter, M., Bonn, A., & Klotz, S. (2019). Atlas of Ecosystem Services. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0 Schuerholz, G., Consultant, I., & Leader, T. (2007). CAPACITY- AND FINANCIAL NEED ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS LOCATED IN THE ALTAI SAYAN ECOREGION OF MONGOLIA Protection Categories covered : Strictly Protected Areas National Parks Ministry of Nature and Environment Final Report. October. Schulze, A. (2009). Land Legislation and the Possibilities for Pastoral Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – The Example of Mongolia by Land. October, 52. Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019a). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019b). Biocultural diversity: A mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427 Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Sneath, D. (2003a). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 223 Sneath, D. (2003b). Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxford Development Studies, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000146627 Sneath, D. (2008). Degradation. 281(5380), 1147–1148. Sneath, D. (2018). Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism Author ( s ): DAVID SNEATH Published by : Brill Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/23615447 Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. 3(1), 41–58. Soma, T., & Schlecht, E. (2018). The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0108-y Stanton, C. R. (2014a). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014b). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R. (2014c). Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & Carjuzaa, J. (2019). The Digital Storywork Partnership: Community- centered social studies to revitalize Indigenous histories and cultural knowledges. Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.08.001 Stanton, C. R., Hall, B., & DeCrane, V. W. (2020). “Keep it sacred!”: Indigenous youth-led filmmaking to advance critical race media literacy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2245 Stépanoff, C., Marchina, C., Fossier, C., & Bureau, N. (2017). Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Current Anthropology, 58(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/690120 Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1294–1304. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196307003503 Studley, J. (1998). Dominant Knowledge Systems & Local Knowledge. Mountain Forum, April. 224 Sukhbaatar, T. (2020). AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Opportunities for Reducing Human-Wolf Conflicts in Mongolia. Suzanne Christopher, PhD, Robin Saha, PhD, Paul Lachapelle, PhD, Derek Jennings, MEd, Yoshiko Colclough, PhD, Clarice Cooper, BSN, RN, Crescentia Cummins, BS, Margaret J. Eggers, MS, MA, Kris FourStar, Kari Harris, PhD, Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, PHCNS-BC, Vic, B. (2011). Applying Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Principles to Partnership Development in Health Disparities Research. Fam Community Health., 34 (3), 246–255. Szalontai, B. (2013). Tsedenbal’s Mongolia and Communist Aid Donors: A Reappraisal. Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, 12, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v0i12.97 Tarrasón, D., Ravera, F., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Gonzalez, L. (2016). Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.002 Terentyev, V. I. (2019). The Specifics of Teaching History in Russian Schools in Mongolia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 444, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/444/27 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tremblay, M. C., Martin, D. H., McComber, A. M., McGregor, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2018). Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: A case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y Tumenbayar, N. (2000). Land privatization option for Mongolia. … : Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New …, 1–32. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/133 Ulambayar, T., & Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2019). How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Land Use Policy, 82, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.008 Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., & Batjav, B. (2016). Social Outcomes of Community-based Rangeland Management in Mongolian Steppe Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 00(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267 Undargaa, S. (2016a). Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 225 Undargaa, S. (2016b). Pastoralism and common pool resources: Rangeland co-management, property rights and access in Mongolia. In Pastoralism and Common Pool Resources: Rangeland co- management, property rights and access in Mongolia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726779 Undargaa, S. (2017). Re-Imagining Collective Action Institutions: Pastoralism in Mongolia. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9898-1 Undargaa, S., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Development, 77, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012 Upton, C. (2005a). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2005b). Institutions in a pastoral society: Processes of formation and transformation in postsocialist Mongolia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-25-3-584 Upton, C. (2008). Social capital, collective action and group formation: developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007- 9158-x Upton, C. (2012). Managing Mongolia’s Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional Change. Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.597494 Upton, C. (2020). Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mongolian Rangelands. Development and Change, 51(1), 224–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549 Upton, C., & Upton, C. (2012). socialist Mongolia Social Capital, Collective Action and Group Formation: Developmental Trajectories in Post-socialist Mongolia. 36(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-007-9158-x Venable, N. B. H., Fassnacht, S. R., Adyabadam, G., Tumenjargal, S., Fernández-Giménez, M., & Batbuyan, B. (2012). Does the length of station record influence the warming trend that is perceived by Mongolian Herders near the Khangai Mountains? Pirineos, 167(167), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3989/Pirineos.2012.167004 Vetter, D. (2021). David Attenborough’s Powerful Speech To COP26 Leaders: ‘The World Is Looking To You.’ Forbes, 1–6. Vol, I. D. S. B. (2002). Drought and Zud but No Famine ( Yet ) in the Mongolian Herding Economy H an n a Siu ru a an d. 33(4), 88–97. 226 Vollan, B., Prediger, S., & Frölich, M. (2013). Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms? Ecological Economics, 95, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010 Waddell, C. M., Herron, R. v., Gobeil, J., Tacan, F., de Jager, M., Allan, J. A., & Roger, K. (2020). Grounded in Culture: Reflections on Sitting Outside the Circle in Community-Based Research With Indigenous Men. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14), 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320960050 Wagner, J. R., & Davis, A. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. In Human Ecology (Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 463–489). Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., Dickson, E., Kastelic, S., Koegel, P., Lucero, J. E., Magarati, M., Ortiz, K., Parker, M., Peña, J., Richmond, A., & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075 Wang, J., Brown, D. G., Riolo, R. L., Page, S. E., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Exploratory analyses of local institutions for climate change adaptation in the Mongolian grasslands: An agent-based modeling approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.017 West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 White, B. T. (2009). Rotten to the Core: Project Capture and the Failure of Judicial Reform in Mongolia. East Asia Law Review, 4(209), 209–275. Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. Qualitative Health Research, 104973231769072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 210, pp. 290–298). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166–174. 227 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indig enous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Winchester, S. (2021). Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World. Harper. https://books.google.com/books?id=mePdDwAAQBAJ Windchief, S., & Cummins, J. (2021). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Bicultural Accountability and the Protection of Community Held Knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 107780042110218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803 Windchief, S., & Pedro, T. S. (2019). Applying Indigenous Research Methods. In Applying Indigenous Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169811 Wingard, J. R., Zahler, P., & others. (2006). Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, A., & Liang, C. (2015). Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 Xie, Y., & Li, W. (2008). WHY DO HERDERS INSIST ON OTOR? MAINTAINING MOBILITY IN INNER. 12(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203 Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia Reversing Grassland Degradation and Improving Herders ’ Livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. 24(2), 96–100. Zahler, P., Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R. P., Wingard, J. R., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N., Onon, Y., Society, W. C., & Box, P. O. (2004). Illegal and Unsustainable Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2004.02.14 Zhao, G. (2006). Reinventing China: Imperial Qing ideology and the rise of modern Chinese national identity in the early twentieth century. Modern China, 32(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282349 Zhao, H.-L., Zhao, X.-Y., Zhou, R.-L., Zhang, T.-H., & Drake, S. (2005). Desertification processes due to heavy grazing in sandy rangeland, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(2), 309–319. 228 Zhao, W. Z., Xiao, H. L., Liu, Z. M., & Li, J. (2005). Soil degradation and restoration as affected by land use change in the semiarid Bashang area, northern China. Catena, 59(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2004.06.004 Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 19(March 2015), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051 А. Очир, Ч. Далай, Д. Ц. (2004). МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ТҮҮХ 1. Байгаль Орчны Яам. (2015). Биологийн олон янз байдлын үндэсний хөтөлбөр. Далай, Ч. (1999). Монгол улсын түүх 4 (Vol. 4). Д.Булгамаа, С.Сүмжидмаа, Брандон Бестелмейер, У. Б. (2018). Монгол Орны Бэлчээрийн Төлөв Байдлын Үндэсний Тайлан. II, 66. http://greenmongolia.mn/upload/news_files/5946e6e365eb3b52d748af9db89dcc30.pdf Лиштованный Е.И. (2006). ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ В МОНГОЛИИ В КОНЦЕ XX ВЕКА: НАЧАЛО МОНГОЛЬСКОЙ ПЕРЕСТРОЙКИ. Иркутский Государственный Университет Науч, Конф, 55–76. МЗГ. (2018). Иргэдэд зориулсан гарын авлага 1. Монгол Улс Байгаль Орчны Гүйцэтгэлийн Тайлан НҮБ. (2018). http://www.unece.org Пэрлээ, Х. (1976). Монголын Түүх Судлах Нэгэн Үндэс нь Пайз Мѳн. С. Чулуун. С. Баттулга. (2017). ХХ ЗУУНЫ МОНГОЛ : ТҮҮХ, СОЁЛ, ГЕОПОЛИТИК, ГАДААД ХАРИЛЦААНЫ ТУЛГАМДСАН АСУУДЛУУД. Х. Пэрлээ Ш. Нацагдорж Л. Бат-Очир M. Санждорж. (1983). Түүхийн Судлал. 229 APPENDICES 230 APPENDIX A GOVERNMENT TOOL FOR SOIL AND PASTURE ASSESSMENT 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 APPENDIX B IRB FROM MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 289 The information in Appendix B is confidential. To request access to the information, please contact Badamgarav Dovchin or committee chair, Dr. Christine Stanton. 290 APPENDIX C GENERAL SURVEY 291 The questionnaire for the community members in the buffer zone of Ulaan Taiga Special Protected Area in Darhad Valley Mongolia to estimate the current condition of environment, economic and society The goal of the survey is to reveal the current situation in the Darhad Valley as perceived by buffer zone residents. By participating in this survey, you will experience no harm and if you cannot finish this survey or do not want to answer some of the questions you can leave the interview at any time or choose not to answer the questions. Your personal information is not going to be shared without your permission. Age: Gender: Profession: Educational level: Where in the area of town you live: 1. What is the current situation of your bag (please write detailed description): a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 2. What do you want the future situation looks like (in 5-10 years)? a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 3. What are the urgent problems that are facing in your life now? a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 4. What are the solution to those problems that you mentioned above a. What part of the solution can YOU local person contribute to? b. What part of the solution can SPA service contribute? c. What part of the solution can LOCAL GOVERNMENT contribute? d. What legal amendments can be made to solve the problem? This soum (county)’s territory is partly in the Ulaan Taiga SPA and partly in the buffer zone. Therefore, we are asking more detailed question about the SPA and its operations and activities. 5. Was there any need to take your homeland into state protection and turn it into SPA? Why? Yes No 6. What are the benefits of being under State protection (i e in the SPA)? a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 7. What are the disadvantages of being under State protection (i e in the SPA) ? a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 8. What do you know about the “Ulaan Taiga” SPA Administration? a. What is the purpose of this SPA in your opinion? b. What are the operation and activities that they accomplish? c. What are the SPA’s duties? d. What are the legal rights of this SPA? 9. What are the benefits of having SPA in your homeland as a herder in BUFFER ZONE? a. Economic situation: b. Social situation: c. Environmental situation: 10. If you have any more suggestions, please feel free to do so. Badamgarav Dovchin, P.O box 144, Sukhbaatar district, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 120140, Phone976- 99173145 Thank you very much for your contribution to this study 292 APPENDIX D KEY PARTICIPANT EXPERTS’ INTERVIEWS 293 The information in Appendix D is confidential. To request access to the information, please contact Badamgarav Dovchin or committee chair, Dr. Christine Stanton. 294 APPENDIX E IRB FROM MSU AND CONSENT FORM FOR KEY PARTICIPANT EXPERTS 295 Ярилцлагыг хөтлөн явуулагч: Д. Бадамгарав Төслийн нэр: Монголын нүүдэлчин малчдын бүлэг нөхөрлөлийн бэлчээрийн үнэлгээг оролчооны аргаар сайжруулах нь Ярилцлаганд сайн дураар орох зөвшөөрөлийн хуудас Та Монтана Мужийн Их Сургуулийн Газарын Баялаг болон Байгалийн Шинжлэх Ухааны Тэнхимийн докторын оюутан болох Д. Бадамгарав хөтлөн явуулах судалгааны ярилцлаганд уригдсан байна. Энэхүү судалгааны ажлын гол зорилго нь нүүдэлчдийн нөхөрлөл бүлэгүүдийн байгалийн үйлчлэлийн үнэлгээ түүнийг бэлчээр дээр хэрхэн үнэлдэг аргачлал болон бусад оролцогт талуудын үнэлгээний аргын ялгааг олж тогтоох явдал юм. Дунджаар 18-80 насны хүмүүс оролцох бөгөөд ярилцлага тус бүр 90 орчим минут үргэлжилнэ. Судалгааны ажлын агуулгад: 1) Бэлчээрийн үнэлгээ түүний аргачлал малчин болон бусад эрх бүхий байгууллагуудийн аргаас хэрхэн ялгагдах ялгаа 2) Байгалиас авч буй экосистемийн үйлчилгээг хэрхэн үнэлдэг болон хамгийн их амин чухал гэсэн үйчлэлүүдээс “чөлөөт жагсаалт гаргах” ажиллагаанд оролцно. Энэхүү судалгаа нь хувийн мэдээлэл агуулж байгаа тул нууцлалыг хадгалан хамгаална. Хамгаалахдаа таны хувийн мэдээлэл болох нас, хүйс, гэрлэлтийн байдал, төрлийн холбоо зэрэг болон бусад мэдээллийг таны нэрийг төлөөлөх холбоосоор нууцлах ба зөвхөн энэхүү судалгааг хөтлөн явуулах оюутан болон судлаач нарт нээлттэй бусад хүмүүст хаалттай газар хадгалагдна. Судалгааны баг болон Дархадын Хоргорын судалгааний зѳвлѳх багийнхан зөвхөн энэхүү мэдээллийг үзэх эрхтэй мөн зайлшгүй тохиолдолд хуулийн байгууллагынхан мөн нэвтрэх эрхтэй болно. Судалгааны ажлын тайлан мэргэжлийн сэтгүүл болон мэдээллийн хэлбэрээр нийтлэгдэх болбол зөвхөн багын дүнгээр нийтлэгдэх ба энэхүү мэдээлэл 36 сар хадгалагдна. Энэ судалгаанд хамрагдахад урьдчилан харж болохуйц эрсдэл байхгүй бөгөөд энэхүү судалгаанд оролцсоноор өөрийн нөхөрлөл болон түүний нийгмийн харилцааны талаар илүү ихийг мэдэх боломжтой болж байна. Гэхдээ энэхүү судалгаанд оролцсоны шууд ашиг тус байхгүй байж болох юм. Энэхүү судалгаанд сайн дураар орох бөгөөд хэрэв та хүсэхгүй бол оролцохгүй байж болох ба ярилцлагын дунд хэзээ ч хамаагүй дуусгах эрхтэй. Хэрэв та хүсэхгүй эсвэл эвгүй байвал асуултанд хариулахгүй байж болно. Энэхүү судалгааны ажлын талаар түүний үр дүн ахицын талаар асуулт байвал надтай холбогдох утас болох 976ь99173145 руу залгах эсвэл миний шуудангийн хаяг болох АНУ-ын Монтана Мужийн Их Сургуулийн Күлбэртсон барилгад байрлах шуудангийн хайрцаг 5231 тоот дах хаягаар рүүлнэ үү. Хэрэв та энэхүү судалгаатай хамаатай өөрийн эрх болон бусад эрхүүдийн талаарх мэдээллийг авахыг хүсвэл Дархадын Хотгорын судалгааны зѳвлѳлийн удирдлагын хэсэгтийн дараах хаягаар хандна уу. Хаяг: Улаан Уул сумын Дархад Судалгааны Зѳвлѳл Утас: 976 99504951 Судалгааны ажлын энэхүү зөвшөөрлийн хуудсын таньд уншиж танилцуулсны дараа хэрэв та энэ судалгаан оролцохыг зѳвшѳѳрвѳл, та аман байдлаар зѳйвшѳѳрлѳѳ ѳгнѳ. 296 APPENDIX F DATA ANALYSIS PROTOCOL 297 298 299 300 Qualitative data analysis for general surveys and interviews 1. Initial transcription: the initial transcription of the interviews from hand-written documents and voice recorded files and notes in Dukha language and Darhad, Urianhai Mongolian dialects (hand-written no computer programs available for these dialects). 2. Review with CAB and key informants for possible clarifications of idioms and cultural interpretations of the interviews' dubious parts. 3. Transcription, 2nd round into Khalkh Mongolian (Microsoft Word is capable only this version of Mongolian) 4. Initial coding (in Mongolian dialects) line by line coding with CAB and key informants 5. Translation/Interpretation: the relevant (by CAB's assessment) surveys were translated from Darhad and Urianhai dialects of Mongolian and Dukha languages into English. After preparing the data, we coded (in English for NVivo12 use) the data for analysis. 6. Coding a. The initial coding (descriptive) was completed using line by line coding technique of Charmaz (2004) using Microsoft Word in Khalkh Mongolian (the official language of government). Due to a large amount of cultural and community- specific knowledge encapsulated in the interviews, the initial line-by-line coding/analysis of the survey took place in Darhad. The CAB and the focus-group peoples' participation was critical to transcribe them into Khalkh Mongolian. Being inclusive at every stage, especially at the analysis step, was crucial to comprehending the data in how it was meant to be conveyed (Prasad et al., 2015). 301 APPENDIX G HERDER NOTEBOOKS 302 The information in Appendix G is confidential. To request access to the information, please contact Badamgarav Dovchin or committee chair, Dr. Christine Stanton.