Michael Kotutwa Johnson

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

No activities entered.

Scholarly Contributions

Journals/Publications

• Brewer, J. P., Carroll, S. R., Bartecchi, D., Chesnais, A. K., & Johnson, M. K. (2023).

  Life and times of data access: Regarding Native Lands

  . Environment and Planning F, 2(1-2), 305-315. doi:10.1177/26349825231164616
• Ferguson, D. B., Johnson, M. K., Carroll, S. R., Yazzie, J., Wilson, J., Whiting, D., Walker, A., Strawhacker, C., Reader, T., Pulsifer, P. L., Larson, S., Juan, A., Johnson, N., Huntington, O., & Jäger, M. B. (2019). Building an Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network Through Relational Accountability. The Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2019.09b.005
  More info

  In recent decades, there has been a movement toward rectifying injustices and developing collab­orations between Indigenous communities and mainstream researchers to address environmental challenges that are of concern to Indigenous Peo­ples. This movement, primarily driven by Indige­nous community leaders and scholars, emphasizes community-driven research that addresses Indige­nous People’s interests, foregrounds Indigenous Knowledge systems, and both respects and asserts Indigenous sovereignty. This article describes a nascent model in the movement—the Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network (IFKN)—designed to connect Indigenous communities and scholars across the Arctic and the U.S. Southwest. IFKN’s goal is to foster a network of Indigenous leaders, citizens, and scholars who are focused on research and community capacity related to food sover­eignty and resilience. IFKN members collectively work to promote and carry out research that (1) utilizes Indigenous research processes, (2) embraces and respects Indigenous Knowledge sys­tems, and (3) supports Indigenous communities (IFKN, 2018). The authors discuss relational accountability and centering of story, which form the foundation for the methodological approaches and work of IFKN. See the press release for this article. 
• Johnson, M. K., Lien, A. M., López-Hoffman, L., & Sherman, N. R. (2018). Barriers to PES programs in Indigenous communities: A lesson in land tenure insecurity from the Hopi Indian reservation. Ecosystem services. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.009
  More info

  • We study barriers to implementation of PES in Indigenous communities in the US. • We identify 4 barriers: land tenure, capital, communication, and institutions. • All four barriers are linked to Indigenous land tenure insecurity. • Successful PES programs must do more to understand Indigenous land tenure. There has been significant study of barriers to implementation of payment for ecosystem services in Indigenous communities in less developed countries. These barriers include land tenure insecurity and lack of access to capital. However, there is no similar research in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Our research fills this gap. We hypothesize that mismatches between the traditional land tenure regimes and institutional arrangements of Indigenous communities on one hand, and government sponsors of PES programs on the other hand, result in the lack of success of these programs. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a qualitative study of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) on the Hopi reservation in the United States. We answer two questions: (1) What barriers prevent Hopi ranchers and farmers from participating in incentive-based programs? (2) What institutional changes are necessary to permit Hopi farmer and rancher participation in EQIP? We analyzed primary documents and conducted key informant interviews. We conclude that land tenure is at the forefront of problems associated with administering PES programs in Indigenous communities. Without new approaches addressing the land tenure regimes in Indigenous communities, PES will continue to struggle on American Indian reservations and around the world.