Integrating sense of place and traditional ecological knowledge into environmental aesthetics

Abstract

Environmental aesthetics concerns how environments are best appreciated. While many environmental aesthetic experiences occur at national parks, the latter face two problems that affect the former: a history of colonialization and disrespectful attitudes and actions by ecotourists. These problems are shown to be connected when seen as expressions of dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature. Such treatments are widely critiqued as false and harmful in environmental ethics, but persist in some environmental aesthetic theories, even those that attempt to avoid them and ground appreciation in seemingly objective natural science. Indigenous perspectives have received scant attention in the discourse, but offer two beneficial concepts to avoid contemporary false and harmful treatments of nature: place and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). In native concepts of place, humans are seen as a part of nature, which is valued intrinsically and approached from an orientation of respect. Traditional ecological knowledge refers to the body of indigenous approaches to science, which produces place-based knowledge and unifies ecological, ethical and aesthetic values. Integrating sense of place and TEK in environmental aesthetics invites non-natives to consider different treatments that lead to more accurate understandings of and more just relationships with nature. These concepts can also be integrated at parklands with the help of native peoples acting as park stewards. Doing so provides benefits to environmental aesthetic appreciation and supports environmental justice for natives and ecological justice for non-natives.

Keywords

environmental aesthetics place traditional ecological knowledge indigenous philosophy nature aesthetics

Introduction

In 1916, the Organic Act was passed, creating the National Park System (NPS). The NPS was designed to provide Americans with environmental aesthetic experiences and refuge from urban life (Treuer, 2021). In 2022, the NPS received 322 million visits to over 400 parks (NPS, 2023). While many environmental aesthetic experiences occur at national parks, the latter face two problems that affect the former: a history of colonialization and disrespectful attitudes and actions by ecotourists. These problems are shown to be connected when seen as expressions of dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature. Such treatments are widely critiqued as false and harmful in environmental ethics but persist in some environmental aesthetic theories. I highlight how these problems exist at parklands, affect aesthetic experience and why they are problematic.

First, lands under NPS consideration are assumed to be unoccupied wilderness, making them available for parkland designation. While parks like Yellowstone are considered wild nature, vacant of people and culture, Yellowstone was inhabited by the Crow, Shoshone, Blackfeet, Flathead, Bannock and Nez Perce for 11,000 years (MacDonald, 2018; Nabokov and Loendorf, 2016). Tribes hunted, gathered plants, quarried obsidian and used thermal waters for religious, ceremonial and medicinal purposes. Yellowstone's geysers, hot springs and fumaroles, believed to house great spirits, were considered sacred and used as ritual sites. Yet native people were removed from these lands and denied recognition to create space for environmental aesthetic experiences for non-natives. In addition to this erasure, native presence, knowledge and sacred ties are often minimized or discredited in the ecological and cultural history conveyed at national parks (Kovach, 2010). These realities are contemporary forms of colonialism which continue to harm native life today (Grant, 2021; MacDonald, 2018) and are connected to dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature, as native peoples were likened to nature and dominated on this basis (Mills, 1999; Plumwood, 1993). Such epistemic and political injustices stem from viewing parklands as wild nature, metaphysically distinct from humans and culture, and from viewing native peoples as linked with nature rather than culture.

Second, contemporary ecotourist aesthetic experiences are shaped by continuing historical dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature and harmful and disrespectful behaviour in parklands can be seen as consequences of them. Dualism is a metaphysical framework that positions nature and humans as belonging to distinct ontological categories, with humans and culture ranked above nature. This anthropocentric worldview sees humans as unique and superior due to mind, soul or agency, denying their dependence on nature. Human interests are prioritized, with nature seen as merely a resource for human use. Nature's affordances – lands, plants and animals – are treated as property or tools rather than entities with intrinsic value or shared interests with humans. Valuing nature's affordances is appropriate, but assigning value solely in instrumentalist terms reduces them to means to an end rather than ends in themselves, worthy of dignity and respect (Kant, 2017). Native philosophy is typically based on respect for nature, with places, flora and fauna and natural resources having intrinsic rather than merely instrumental value.

Ecotourist experiences are dualistic when parklands are viewed as pristine nature, antithetical to human being and culture or property belonging to America rather than as land to which native peoples belong. Nature in parklands is instrumentalized when valued mainly for human aesthetic experiences, media content or resources to be extracted, commodified and monetized. Experiences are anthropocentric when humans view parklands only from their own perspectives rather than those of indigenous people, animals, plants and landscapes. Experiences are also atomized or removed from the appropriate historical context when native peoples’ cultural history in parklands is selectively presented, omitted or erased.

Such treatments of nature give rise to disrespectful attitudes and actions in parklands. An Instagram account called Tourons of Yellowstone (a term that combines ‘tourist’ and ‘moron’) and a linked account called Tourons of National Parks demonstrate such attitudes and actions and the harms they cause (Tourons of National Parks, 2025; Tourons of Yellowstone, 2025). The accounts show tourists instrumentalizing nature in being preoccupied with taking photographs and videos, presumably for social media content, disrespecting animals and the land and endangering themselves or fellow visitors in the process. Others are shown antagonizing animals for amusement while recording, sometimes paying the ultimate price. In fact, half of the deaths caused by bison in Yellowstone occur when tourists attempt to take pictures with them (Conover, 2019). Such calamity can be seen as arising from a lack of respect for the animals. Tourists exhibit anthropocentrism in disrespecting boundaries, straying from designated paths, degrading terrain and risking their lives or those of others by prioritizing their aesthetic interests at the expense of the integrity or stability of nature. These behaviours at parklands are direct and contemporary manifestations of historical dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist worldviews. Not only were parklands founded on these treatments, but they continue to shape environmental aesthetic experiences at them, manifesting in disrespect attitudes and harmful actions of nature and native peoples associated with it.

These unjust treatments of nature and people in environmental aesthetic experiences represent an environmental aesthetic injustice, defined as injustice in access to and use of environmental resources essential for aesthetic experience. Injustice is traditionally defined as an unfair distribution of social or political resources (Rawls, 2001). Environmental injustice encompasses both the unfair distribution of natural resources and a failure to recognize people, particularly marginalized people. This forcibly excludes them from political participation, often due to an assumed lack of capability (Schlosberg, 2007). Historically, native peoples have been equated with nature and considered incapable of full political participation. The label ‘savages’ was used to justify colonial violence against natives, displacing them from their ancestral homelands. This environmental injustice is embedded in the history of colonialism and erasure associated with the NPS. Colonialism is the historical phenomenon of one group subjugating another through seizing and occupying lands. Erasure refers to how dominant groups diminish the existence, culture and history of subjugated groups (Orr et al., 2019). Colonialism, which inherently involves environmental injustice, is ongoing in native struggles to keep lands, retain sovereignty and contend with intergenerational trauma (Millon, 2013). Aesthetic injustice is defined as the unfair distribution of social resources needed for environmental aesthetic experiences (Dalaqua, 2020; Zembylas, 2022).

I argue that dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature can be found not only in historical and contemporary treatments of parklands but also in certain environmental aesthetic theories articulating how the natural environment is best appreciated (Carlson, 1981, 2004; Carlson and Berleant, 2004; Carlson and Lintott, 2008). These treatments should be avoided in environmental aesthetics because they are metaphysically false, epistemically selective and ethically harmful. Many argue that nature should be appreciated differently from art, as nature is natural while art is cultural. Given that nature and culture are metaphysically distinct, aesthetic theories of natural environments should differ from those of art. Environmental aesthetic theories aim to avoid anthropocentrism by appreciating nature on its own terms rather than through the lens of art or culture (Saito, 2004). Such theories argue that the natural sciences provide epistemic frameworks to guide aesthetic appreciation (Carlson, 1981, 2004), with some suggesting that the concept of place should be used to avoid dualism and anthropocentrism (Cheng, 2013; Koh, 1988). While dualism has been thoroughly critiqued in environmental ethics, it is under-discussed in environmental aesthetics, underscoring the need for further inquiry. When dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature mediate environmental aesthetic experiences, appreciation is misguided and degraded and may reflect or contribute to aesthetic injustice. To avoid this, non-dualist treatments of nature should be employed, with native philosophy offering two related concepts: place and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

Native concepts of place and TEK differ from western notions in being rooted in non-colonial ontologies and epistemologies that are ecologically centred, largely avoid dualism and emphasize nature's intrinsic value. Indigenous places are sometimes considered sacred because of key historical, cultural and ecological events (Deloria, 1999). Although TEK, or native approaches to science, is heterogeneous in being place-based and differs widely among native peoples, there are commonalities among them. Not only is TEK place-based but it also arises from people indigenous to places, includes cultural history and narrative and unifies ethical, ecological and aesthetic values, unlike much of western science. Traditional ecological knowledge or ‘native science’ does not sequester environmental knowledge from cultural knowledge, illustrating one way it avoids dualism (Cajete, 2016, 2018). Because native concepts of place and science largely avoid dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature, they offer benefits in aesthetic encounters with parklands. One benefit is metaphysical accuracy: rightly, humans and nature are not separated into ontological categories with humans considered superior. Another benefit is epistemic comprehensiveness rather than selectiveness: landscapes are accurately understood only when the communities that occupied them and the place-based knowledge they produced are recognized. A third benefit is ethical: when humans are accurately understood as part of nature, nature's intrinsic value is recognized, fostering respect and moral treatment towards it. Acknowledging humans’ connection to, dependency on and appreciation of nature improves and enriches aesthetic experiences while promoting just human–nature relationships.

Improving human–nature relationships is the aim of ecological justice. Whereas environmental justice focuses on just relationships between humans concerning the distribution of environmental resources, ecological justice seeks just human–nature relationships (Schlosberg, 2007; Wienhues, 2020), which emerge only from appropriate metaphysical, epistemic and ethical treatments of nature. Metaphysically, humans should recognize that they are part of and dependent on nature, including ecosystems, plants, animals, insects and ecological, geological, chemical and biological relationships. Epistemically, humans should recognize that, just as there are different models of science (e.g., western and native), there are also diverse sources of ecological knowledge, including animals, forests, soils and landscapes, provided humans understand how to interpret the information they offer. Ethically, humans should develop a respectful orientation towards nature, recognizing our dependency on it, the benefits we gain from its affordances, the relationships of reciprocity and mutuality, and our responsibility to ensure ecological integrity, stability and beauty (Leopold, 1966).

Aesthetic experiences informed by native concepts of place and TEK invite non-natives to consider different treatments of nature that lead to more just relationships with it. One facet of ecological justice is its interspecies emphasis; flora, fauna, landscapes, air and water are included in the community of justice and are seen as deserving of moral consideration and rights in environmental policy (Celermajer et al., 2021). Just human–nature relationships demand appropriate recognition of capabilities and participation not just of humans, but also of biota, ecosystems, landscapes and the Earth itself. Native notions of place and TEK, imbued with rich histories of place-based knowledge, enable these recognitions and can be beneficially integrated into environmental aesthetic experiences (Whyte, 2010).

The terms ‘native’ and ‘indigenous’ risk homogenizing distinct peoples (Smith, 1999: 6). Daniel Wildcat (Muscogee) uses these terms to refer ‘to people or nations who take their tribal identities as members of the human species from the landscapes and seascapes that gave them their unique tribal cultures’ (Wildcat, 2009: 32). Shawn Wilson (Opaskwayak Cree) asserts that indigenous people have deep relationships to landscapes; autonomous social, economic and political systems; and distinct language, culture and beliefs which often contrast with western traditions (Wilson, 2008). While native peoples differ considerably, they share deep environmental relationships and knowledge, largely sustainable practices, common metaphysical concepts and profound respect for nature (V Deloria, 1992; McGregor, 2004).

Native philosophy includes a sense of community that encompasses humans and non-human animals, plants and environments; the ecological connectedness and interdependency of community members; sustainability or regenerative environmental practices; and humility regarding the natural world (McGregor, 2018; Trosper, 1995). Conversely, ‘western’ refers to ontologies, epistemologies, ethics and notions of place and science rooted in Anglo, European and non-native American traditions. These groups are also distinctive and heterogeneous, with some employing dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature, while others do not (see Simard, 2021). Similarly, certain native treatments of nature can be instrumentalist, and some historical indigenous practices caused environmental harm (Isenberg, 2001; Krech, 1999). Nonetheless, reasonable representations from both camps can be drawn and contrasted based on their metaphysical, epistemic and ethical treatments of nature, as well as their effects on environmental aesthetic experiences.

My goal as a non-native scholar is to highlight the value of including native concepts of place and TEK in environmental aesthetics. I focus on native scholars such as Vine Deloria (Standing Rock Sioux) and Gregory Cajete (Tewa) and include translations of those concepts into environmental philosophy by non-native scholars (Cheney, 2002; Cheney and Weston, 1999; Hester and Cheney, 2001; Malpas, 1999; Preston, 2003). Next, I review dualism in philosophy and environmental aesthetics and argue why it should be avoided. I then define indigenous notions of place and TEK, contrasting them with their western counterparts. Finally, I illustrate their advantages in environmental aesthetics, discuss their application and address potential objections.

Dualism in environmental aesthetics

The nature/culture dualism

While dualism in philosophy and environmental ethics has been widely critiqued (Cajete, 2016; Plumwood, 1993; Warren, 2000; Wildcat, 2009), it lingers in various environmental aesthetic theories. Dualism is the idea that nature and humans (or culture) are ontologically distinct and belong to different metaphysical categories. This worldview is rooted in many western sources, including the Judeo-Christian tradition, but also in Plato, Bacon and Descartes (Code, 2006; Plumwood, 1993). Dualism is value-laden, not neutral: humans are seen as superior, while nature is inferior. While dualism, anthropocentrism and instrumentalism are distinct concepts, they often co-exist in a logic of domination, which asserts that because humans are metaphysically distinct from and superior to nature, they are entitled to nature's resources, which exist to serve human interests.

Plumwood (1993) offers an influential critique of dualism, which she argues is rooted in humans denying their dependence on nature. This leads to a logic of domination, which humans employ to justify harmful treatments of nature. Domination includes actions that contravene the integrity and stability of natural environments and result in degradation and degeneration. According to Plumwood, the nature/culture dualism is part of a larger set of interrelated and mutually reinforcing dualisms, including culture/nature, reason/nature, master/slave, mind/body, mind/nature, rationality/animality and freedom/determinism (Plumwood, 1993: 43). As Plumwood explains, ‘western culture has treated the human/nature relation as a dualism and that this explains many of the problematic features of the west's treatment of nature which underlie the environmental crisis, especially the western construction of human identity as “outside” nature’ (Plumwood, 1993: 2). Framing dualism as an enabling framework for the domination of nature and those associated with it (women, people of colour, indigenous people) allows nature to be seen as a contested political category rather than merely a descriptive one. ‘The category of nature as a field of multiple exclusions and control, not only of non-humans, but of groups of humans and aspects of human life which are cast as nature’ (Plumwood, 1993: 4).

While metaphysical differences between humans, animals, plants and landscapes can be acknowledged without positing a larger sense of dualism, hierarchy is inherent in many western approaches, leading to negative environmental consequences. The historical domination of nature in the west was largely justified by the belief that non-human animals and natural environments were not part of the moral community, as they were seen to lack souls, reason, reciprocation, personhood or the de jure condition for moral membership. This also applies to native peoples, people of colour and women, who were likened to nature and considered incapable or unworthy of cultural, moral and political participation and consequently dominated (Mills, 1999; Plumwood, 1993; Warren, 2000). The current environmental crises can be traced to a history of dualism, anthropocentrism and instrumentalism that is deeply rooted in western culture (Kovach, 2010; Wildcat, 2009). Given that dualism is false, harmful and linked to the domination of nature, it should be avoided in theories of environmental aesthetics, though it persists in several.

Theories positing or reinforcing dualism

Early environmental aesthetic theories held that fundamental differences between art and nature require different frameworks of appreciation, so aesthetic theories should appeal to natural categories, not the terms, values and theories of art or culture (Budd, 1996; Callicott, 1994; Carlson, 1981, 2004; Parsons, 2002). For example, Budd argues that because nature is ‘autonomous’ (i.e., separate from culture, art and technology), social categories such as artistic genre do not apply. ‘For given that the world is not anyone's artefact, the aesthetic appreciation of nature as nature, if it is to be true to what nature actually is, must be the aesthetic appreciation of nature not as an intentionally produced object (and so not as art)’ (Budd, 1996: 208). Because nature is not artifice, there is no artistic intention, representation or depiction to evaluate. However, this approach overlooks the fact that seemingly natural environments may still be shaped by humans, risking the false assumption that they lack a human imprint. For example, native peoples engaged in regenerative ecological practices within landscapes which became parks. Because native approaches to land management were strategically focused on sustainability rather than colonization, areas such as Yellowstone were erroneously seen as pristine nature, uninhabited and available for seizure (Grant, 2021; Treuer, 2021). The colonial idea of ‘pristine wilderness’ is directly linked with Budd's concept of ‘autonomous nature,’ as both employ dualism to separate nature from humans and erase indigenous peoples who lived in areas regarded as uninhabited. Segregating the realms of nature and culture often overlooks subtle human presence or the presence of people likened to nature. While the human–nature relationship is a continuum rather than a dualism, certain frameworks for appreciating art will not apply to natural aspects of environments, so understanding them ecologically is appropriate.

To this end, Carlson and others advanced a framework called scientific cognitivism, which asserts that natural science categories like ecology, biology and geology should guide aesthetic appreciation of natural environments, as they provide the ‘correct’ categories to inform and enhance aesthetic experiences (Callicott, 1994; Carlson, 1981; Parsons, 2002). Carlson later amended his initial scientific cognitivist approach to incorporate social and cultural considerations in guiding aesthetic appreciation, while still prioritizing science for its objectivity (Carlson, 2009). Yet even his developed account, the ‘natural environmental model’, reinforces dualism and anthropocentrism. First, while he recognizes that environments exist on a spectrum, Carlson discusses natural and human environments separately, presuming and reproducing dualism (Carlson, 2009: ch. 2 and 4). Second, Carlson argues that scientific objectivity allows his account to avoid charges of anthropocentrism, as he believes science captures natural rather than human history (Carlson, 2009: 35–36). However, Carlson favours universalist western science, which is based on dualism and anthropocentrism, claiming that the ‘Natural Environmental Model bases aesthetic appreciation on a scientific view of nature with a degree of objectivity … the upshot is a more universal … and object-centred aesthetics’ (Carlson, 2009: 35–36). This approach aims to articulate the ‘correct way to appreciate landscapes’ by prioritizing universalism over pluralism and objectivism over contextualism (Carlson, 2009: ch. 7).

Carlson's theory risks perpetuating the dualism, anthropocentrism and instrumentalism it aims to avoid. If natural and human environments are addressed separately, then subtle human imprints on nature like many of those by indigenous people risk going unrecognized by visitors. If parklands are seen as pristine nature or public property, then contemporary American visitors may feel entitled to continue disrespectful attitudes and actions at them. If only western science is mobilized to inform and enhance aesthetic appreciation, then a richer, more diverse and more accurate body of knowledge stemming from people native to places risks being omitted. This demonstrates the link between environmental aesthetic theories that perpetuate these treatments of nature, and the disrespectful outlooks and harmful behaviours at parklands. While Carlson is right to highlight the benefits of employing science for environmental aesthetic appreciation, native science that is contextual, place-based and long-term offers advantages in guiding environmental aesthetic appreciation unavailable in western approaches. Accordingly, it should also be mobilized.

Ecological aesthetic theories attempt to avoid dualism and anthropocentrism by accommodating combinations of culture and nature. Some accomplish this by incorporating the concept of place (Berleant, 2004, 2016; Carlson, 2018; Cheng, 2013; Koh, 1988). While most theories recognize that concepts of nature and science are socially produced and culturally variant (Berleant, 2004; Saito, 2004), some reinforce less obvious dualistic and anthropocentric tendencies. Koh (1988) and Cheng (2013) discuss environmental aesthetics through environmental design, employing the concept of place. Yet, they undermine their effort to overcome dualism. For example, Koh's central tenets include inclusive unity and dynamic balance. The first is a unity of environment and place where people are seen as participants. He says unity ‘denies the distance between the subject and the object, between humans and nature, between order and disorder’ (Koh, 1988: 184). The second is a qualitative equilibrium that places creative and developmental processes between nature and artifice. Koh perpetuates dualism by positing an initial difference in those concepts, claiming that ‘[a]esthetic quality [emerges] in relation not only to people but to the place, not only to subject but to the object’ (Koh, 1988: 182–183). Likewise, Cheng advances a ‘model of aesthetic engagement that promotes the idea of unity of humans and the world’ (Cheng, 2013: 222). This implies unity as two different things coming together rather than being essentially interconnected. This again risks reinforcing historical treatments of nature that lead to contemporary disrespectful attitudes and harmful actions at parklands.

Employing science and sense of place offers benefits in guiding appreciation in environmental aesthetics, but these concepts culturally diverge. Western scientific approaches often claim to be objectively, universally and singularly correct when they are not. Western science has been used to discredit and marginalize native epistemologies and ontologies through claims of being ‘the center of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge, and the source of “civilized” knowledge’ (Smith, 1999: 63). Integrating these misguided tendencies into environmental aesthetics risks reproducing the false presumptions and harmful effects of dualism. While western approaches to science have yielded significant ecological knowledge, it is incorrect to view them as the only valid approach or the standard by which other scientific methods should be judged. Excluding other approaches, such as TEK, risks overlooking alternative treatments of nature that also offer valuable insights. Science, understood as empirical observation, rational analysis, social verification and review, is a useful and reliable method of understanding the world but it also occurs in native science. Moreover, western and native approaches to science differ in their foundational assumptions of value, scope of scientific explanation and the participants involved in scientific discovery.

Native concepts of place and science also help address novel concerns in ecological aesthetics, including how to unify or order ecological, ethical and aesthetic values (Berleant, 2016; Carlson, 2018). Western scholars treat these values as distinct and sometimes conflicting, arguing that they should be ordered, particularly if environmental aesthetics is used to influence environmental policy and planning (Carlson and Lintott, 2008). Carlson is concerned with the relationship between fact and value in transitioning from ecological knowledge to ethics in environmental aesthetics, arguing that environmental ethical prescriptions must be derived from ecological facts (Carlson, 2018). Berleant posits that ecological aesthetics lacks a hierarchy of ecological, ethical and aesthetic values to guide environmental planners and policymakers when these values conflict (Berleant, 2016). Many indigenous philosophies make no strict distinction between value and fact, and moral respect precedes environmental knowledge (Cheney, 2002; Cheney and Weston, 1999). Therefore, there is no divide between ecological facts and ethical value. According to Carlson, the gap between them is primarily a western scientific issue (Carlson, 2018). In native accounts, aesthetic values are intertwined with spiritual, moral and ecological ones. To clarify this, it is necessary to explore native ontologies, epistemologies and ethics.

Native ontologies, epistemologies and ethics

Native ontologies, epistemologies and ethics underpin concepts of place and TEK, typically avoiding dualism, anthropocentrism and instrumentalism. For many native peoples, Spirit or Mother Earth is the central life force or deity. For example, for the Cree, Nature is Spirit and the world itself is seen as being alive and having agency (Kovach, 2010: 66). Whereas western theistic systems view God outside Earth, space and time, indigenous frameworks often see Spirit as embedded within Earth, its systems, biotic life and affordances (Forbes, 2001; Wildcat, 2009). The biblical tradition views Earth primarily as a resource bestowed by God for human use, framing its value in instrumental terms, while native philosophies recognize the inherent worth of nature and life (Deloria, 1992; Wildcat, 2009). Additionally, indigenous peoples often view themselves as constituted by environments, with both their material and spiritual identities deeply connected to landscapes (Kovach, 2010; Wilson, 2008). By recognizing themselves as one among various entities in nature, including non-human animals and other environmental elements, indigenous approaches position humans as a part of, not apart from, nature.

Cheney and other non-native environmental philosophers examine ontological, epistemic and ethical contrasts between native and western treatments of nature (Cheney, 2002; Cheney and Weston, 1999; Hester and Cheney, 2001). Cheney argues that by identifying with landscapes seen as sacred, natives begin with an ethical orientation of respect for environments before acquiring knowledge. This ethical orientation towards nature mediates knowledge gained from it. Conversely, western philosophy advocates for ethical prescriptions based on prior epistemic discoveries (Cheney, 2002: 90), where ethical, ecological and aesthetic values follow from epistemic determinations. Cheney and Weston (1999) highlight that in native approaches, ethical orientation directs environmental perception, relationality and knowledge. Moral respect for all living things influences how environments are perceived and creates a moral awareness that shapes the production of science. Accordingly, many native epistemologies are value-laden, where knowledge is integrated into ethical living rather than solely generating abstract scientific data (Cheney, 2002). As Vine Deloria says of traditional native life, ‘[a]ll knowledge, if it is to be useful, was directed toward that [moral] goal’ (Deloria et al., 1999: 43–44). An orientation of respect guiding environmental perception and epistemic discovery is reflected in native concepts of place and science.

Because natives were equated with nature, they were contrasted with culture and civilisation, contributing to the perception of the environments they inhabited as pristine nature (Kovach, 2010). While indigenous peoples are widely considered to have sustainable environmental relationships, this does not imply that they never engaged in harmful environmental practices, and suggesting so perpetuates the noble savage and ecological Indian tropes (Krech, 1999). The noble savage stereotype includes the misconception that natives did not develop or manage lands. For example, some used prescribed fires to clear land for agriculture, facilitate access to gathered foods and corral animals for easier hunting (Krech, 1999). Fire pollutes the air, terminates or displaces fauna and kills flora. Additionally, Great Plains natives, along with European colonizers, contributed to the near extinction of bison (Isenberg, 2001). It is important to note that this was partly due to displacement, which made natives more nomadic than before. However, such practices may conflict with contemporary environmentalism.

Although native peoples unquestionably valued landscapes for their affordances, they avoided the instrumentalist treatments of western systems by regarding natural resources with moral respect and spiritual reverence, which extended to the animals, plants, waters and lands that sustained them across generations. For natives, the instrumental value of resources is linked to their spiritual and religious value. Accordingly, they tend to value nature not merely as a means to an end but as an end in itself. Natural resources are also connected to placed-based knowledge, which is used to locate and utilize them. Resources are managed holistically through traditional ecosystem-based practices connected to traditional knowledge (Bengston, 2003). Still, native ontologies offer valuable insights into ecological relationships rather than romanticized environmental practices (Beever, 2015). Native environmental relationships are complex, varied and should not be oversimplified, homogenized or romanticized.

Place and TEK

Place

Place is a concept theorized by native and non-native scholars as an open but bounded region with a particular location and character that deeply affects its constituents (Cajete, 2016, 2018; Deloria, 1992, Deloria, 1999; Malpas, 1999; Martinez, 2018; Preston, 2003). However, place's specific meaning varies widely and is contested within both camps (Cartaga, 1998). One reason for this is that place unifies seemingly opposing binaries, including nature/culture, organic/artificial, objective/social, subject/environment and community/location. Native and non-native scholars recognize that place includes natural and social environmental features, for example, landscapes and built structures. Place is a physical location with geographic coordinates, but also a social locale characterized by values, practices and histories (Cresswell, 2004). It is also widely recognized that place includes communities of human and non-human biotic populations. Additionally, both camps recognize that place boundaries are topographically based and partially objective, for example, marked by a valley. However, they also acknowledge that the specific designation of a boundary, like a valley rather than a river, is socially determined. Both also agree that land becomes place when it situates, frames and contextualizes human and non-human ecological activity.

However, western and native concepts of place differ. In native versions, communities that characterize place include non-human animals, plant life and landscapes, which are often seen as persons having agency, while western accounts usually cast them merely as resources (Cajete, 2016). Native accounts see individuals as ecologically constituted by landscapes and view human subjectivity and environmental objectivity as interconnected (Martinez, 2018). In native accounts, place is integral to both individual and collective identity, with cultural identity inextricably linked to animals, forests, rivers and landscapes. Western accounts make a strict distinction between subject and environment, often viewing resources gained from environments as shaping humans externally, rather than influencing internal identity, cognition or perception (Malpas, 1999; Preston, 2003). Native accounts treat perception and knowledge as actively mediated by nature, seeking contextual scientific knowledge of the places they inhabit, while western approaches aim to uncover universal scientific knowledge. Native peoples often see individual and collective identity as essentially connected to ancestral homelands, while westerners typically think internal identity is independent of external location. When native peoples are removed from their homelands, they often feel alienated from themselves (Butterworth, 2021). Instead of treating lands as property belonging to people, native peoples treat themselves as belonging to the land (Butterworth, 2021).

Place can also be contrasted with western notions of space. Unlike the western concept of space as neutral metaphysical space, place contextualizes, situates and makes its boundaries intelligible (Casey, 2001; Malpas, 1999). Whereas space lacks deterministic effects, place affects, conditions and partly constitutes its inhabitants. While space is universal, theoretical and homogenous, place is locatable, experiential and heterogeneous. Place is a lived environment, whereas space is a conceptual realm of thought. Place and space have associated knowledge systems. Space includes theoretical knowledge, ideal philosophical theory and western science, often seen as totalizing and universalist, with some scholars linking it to colonial tendencies (Smith, 1999). In contrast, place is linked to naturalized philosophical theory, TEK, and is contextual, situated and relational.

In native philosophies, place is characterized by community, including human and non-human biota (Cajete, 2018; Deloria, 1992; Martinez, 2018; McGregor, 2018). For example, Cajete notes that a key Lakota saying, ‘We are all related’, reflects their understanding of belonging to an ecological community (Cajete, 2018). Native concepts of place include the histories of people in relation to environments. Kovach (2010) highlights that the Cree view places in relation to communities of people who inhabit them and vice versa. A community is a body of interdependent beings inhabiting a place, developing it physically through design and land management and socially through concepts, knowledge and values. Community is both social and ecological, with indigenous concepts often emphasizing it over individualism and treating non-human life as fellow persons and community members (Deloria, 1992; Deloria, 1999). Landscapes and biotic life are seen as integral to a community's sociality and culture. Differences across native practices reflect particular characteristics of their places. For example, indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest ceremonially honour the salmon and whale, while those of the Great Plains honour the bison (Wildcat, 2009: 100–101). This sense of community demands respect for nature. ‘Respect … involves two attitudes. One attitude is the acceptance of self-discipline by humans and their communities to act responsibly toward other forms of life. The other attitude is to seek to establish communications and covenants with other forms of life on a mutually agreeable basis’ (Deloria et al., 1999: 50–51).

'Sense of place’ captures the felt relationality between person and place, including its physical, geographical and topographical character, and the values, knowledge and histories of communities developed around it (Feld and Basso, 1996). A deep sense of place develops through habitual dwelling but can also be gained through visitation, especially when a location's distinctive natural or cultural features are particularly pronounced or different from one's own. Gaining a sense of place means knowing and engaging its physical and organic character, including its climate and landscape and becoming familiar with social values, cultural practices and spiritual frameworks that emerge in relation to it. A place's physical and natural character mediates and influences the type of dwellings built there, the kind of practices it gives rise to or the type of agriculture it allows. Sense of place is both physical and social, capturing the interconnected relationships between the organic and social aspects of a place (Howard, 1998). An ongoing sense of place connects people across time, intertwining with their traditions and histories. This connection is reflected in place-based science developed by those who have inhabited an area across generations, known as TEK.

Traditional ecological knowledge

The core principle of ecology is a complex system that integrates interrelated components (Sarkar and Elliott-Graves, 2016). Ecology reflects a systems perspective, revealing relationships between a complex whole and its constituents, and applies to both natural and social environments. Differences between western and native science include their contrasting metaphysical, epistemic and ethical treatments of nature. However, because TEK is heterogeneous and varies from one distinctive indigenous community to another, native sciences also differ significantly by place. Yet, several representative features of TEK can be identified. Traditional ecological knowledge emerges contextually and relationally from communities deeply connected to environments that shape individual and collective identity (Cajete, 2016; Kimmerer, 2002; Martinez, 2018). Cajete describes native science as embracing a ‘kincentric worldview’ that recognizes moral value in all living things and treats human and non-human biota as ecological community members (Cajete, 2018). It exemplifies ‘biophilia, or the innate instinct we and other living things have for affiliation with other life and with the animate world’ (Cajete, 2018: 16).

Native science typically includes materialism and spiritualism, which western science often eschews. Traditional ecological knowledge is a holistic scientific project that is continually amended, welcoming new discoveries, accepting science's work-in-progress nature and accommodating various place-based perspectives (Cajete, 2016, 2018). Like western science, TEK is empirical, verifiable and tested through rigorous observation, analysis and review. However, TEK also integrates philosophy, art, agriculture, spirituality, ritual and ceremony to support sustainable environmental practices (Cajete, 2018). ‘TEK is not just knowledge about the relationship with Creation, it is the relationship with creation, it is the way one relates’ (McGregor, 2004: 394). Because TEK arises from communities and places across generations, it is tested and reliable in ways western science is not (Cajete, 2016, 2018; Martinez, 2018).

While TEK is often considered intellectually equal to western science or scientific ecological knowledge (SEK) and shares some empirical methodology, there are key differences (McGregor, 2018). Whereas SEK claims universality, TEK is place-based. While SEK relies on small groups of professionals linking data from different sites, TEK is sourced openly from community members. ‘Humans are not separated from their environment or from the other creatures inhabiting those environments as they are in western science’ (Cajete, 2018: 25). Traditional ecological knowledge embraces pluralism and diverse knowledge systems, while SEK claims objective and universal correctness. While SEK prides itself on providing value-free data, TEK is intentionally guided by ethical, ecological and spiritual values. Whereas ‘much of the knowledge gathered in the name of modern science is shaped by the values of domination and control’ (Cheney, 1989), TEK is based in moral respect for nature (Deloria et al., 1999; McGregor, 2018).

Another key difference is that TEK includes community narrative: a cultural history of lived experience documented by a community and sustained intergenerationally. It includes creation stories and accounts of collective environmental identity. Through narrative, places are remembered and sustained. Narrative gives structure to memory and binds people and places. Because community members contribute to narrative, it operates as a subjective, intersubjective and objective framework for understanding place and community (Basso, 1996; Malpas, 1999). Narrative is relevant to environmental aesthetics because it helps make places coherent, contributes to a sense of place and reflects place-based knowledge (Saito, 2004). A sense of place enriches experience and makes it possible to see the world in new ways (Basso, 1996; Cheney, 1989).

Sacred places

Understanding place and TEK explains why sites of particular significance are considered sacred. Sacred places command moral responsibility to care for and preserve them ‘so that the earth and all its forms of life might survive and prosper’ (Deloria, 1992: 275). Sacred places reflect the mutual nature of ecological, ethical and aesthetic values and ‘properly inform us that we are not larger than nature and that we have responsibilities to the rest of the natural world’ (Deloria, 1992: 281). In many native religions, ‘tribes, birds, animals, and plants compose “other peoples” of creation’, the relationships of which are honoured through ritual and ceremony at sacred places (Deloria, 1992: 274). For example, Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, is a sacred place that ‘marks the location where the buffalo emerged each spring to begin the ceremonial year of the plains Indians’ (Deloria, 1992: 273). Likewise, ‘several mountains in New Mexico and Arizona mark [sacred] places where the Pueblo, Hopi, and Navajo completed migrations … or where they first established their spiritual relationships with bear, deer, eagle, and other people’ (Deloria, 1992: 273). Moral respect is particularly emphasized in sacred places which exhibit beauty and command awe and reverence (Deloria, 1992). Sacred places operate as loci of moral thought and normativity. Some are sacred for positive events, others for horrific events (Deloria, 1992: 275). A sense of place, maintained through narrative, evokes remembrance of key historical events and encourages respect.

Preston (2003) highlights four types of indigenous sacred places: (1) places made sacred by commemorating important events in tribal history, such as burial sites; (2) places made sacred by an orientation and perception of environments grounded in respect, such as places where animals appear when food is most needed; (3) places sacred in their own special nature, such as those with unique aesthetic character and (4) places made sacred because of their revelatory power, such as majestic mountains, oases or hot springs. In viewing places as sacred, value and importance emerge. Sacred places possess unique spiritual energy and meaning that shape and guide perception and experience, where gratitude and respect are rooted, and environmental beauty and relationality are interlinked (Preston, 2003).

Using TEK and SEK

Thus far, I have contrasted western and native science, but there is also common ground in western approaches that reject dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature. For example, the Gaia hypothesis proposed in the 1970s by the English chemist James Lovelock and developed by the American evolutionary biologist Lynn Marguli posited that ‘all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet’ (Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, no date). While this eco-centric hypothesis was originally met with hostility from the western scientific community, it was eventually accepted and integrated into fields like biogeochemistry and systems ecology. In addition to this ecologically informed approach, there are others within western science.

Canadian forestry scientist Susan Simard's work focuses on uncovering complex and dynamic biogeochemical forms of communication among trees through networks of fungal roots called mycorrhizae (Simard, 2021). Her research demonstrates that trees not only show awareness of other trees but also suggest a form of agency, as trees send nutrients absorbed through fungi to support other trees in need, such as younger trees in shaded areas. Old-growth trees or ‘mother trees’ that have survived for generations effectively teach younger trees how to exist and flourish in the forest by passing nutrients. Not only do these trees recognize others of the same species but some send kin trees more nutrients than to those of different species. Simard's ecological approach values connections inherent in nature, characterized by symbiosis and deep relationships of reciprocation and mutualism. She argues that ecological relationships provide epistemic affordances, allowing us to understand nature as an organic network of various life forms that are deeply connected in interdependent relationships. Humans are just one of Earth's inhabitants and should recognize the moral imperative to respect nature, support its regeneration and sustainability and responsibly use its resources.

While these examples demonstrate that not all western science adopts dualist, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatment of nature, they also reveal that ecologically informed western science is enhanced with it aligns more closely with native metaphysical, epistemic and ethical treatments of nature. However, it would be misguided and disadvantageous to exclude ecologically informed western science from parklands, as it also affords benefits. The optimal approach includes both native and western science. Nelson and Vucetich (2018) emphasize the connections between TEK and SEK, on which additional connections can be built. For example, both TEK and SEK recognize that human well-being is connected to that of nature. Humans should not consider themselves separate from or superior to nature and should recognize their dependence on it. A second connection is moral respect and humility, for the raw power of nature and new discoveries that call into question previous presumptions and highlight how much humans still do not know. A third connection is that research must be long-term, and place-based, requiring deep investment and community engagement. Mazzocchi (2006) argues that dialogue between the two scientific approaches is necessary to maximize the benefits of each. However, he notes that for westerners, this requires reimagining science as value-laden, arising from traditional communities guided by a belief in the interconnections of nature, which reveal knowledge to humans if they know how to perceive it. Having defined and contrasted place and TEK with the western counterparts, while also highlighting shared values and methodologies that can be augmented, I next discuss the advantages of integrating place and TEK in environmental aesthetics.

Advantages of integrating place and TEK in environmental aesthetics

Shifts in perception and experience

For non-natives, incorporating place and TEK in environmental aesthetic encounters would likely require shifts in perspective and perception. The NPS can assist by recognizing and including native concepts of place and TEK at parks. A central role of parklands is to raise awareness of their ecological and cultural history and to encourage respectful perception, appreciation and experience. ‘To promote perception is the only truly creative part of recreational engineering’ (Leopold, 1966: 290). That perception is enhanced by integrating place and TEK, shaped by an orientation of respect for nature and human dependency on it.

Respectful orientation towards nature shapes the perception of landscapes and possibilities of environmental revelation. As Abram suggests, the ‘animistic discourse of indigenous people … is an inevitable counterpart in their immediate synaesthetic engagement with the land they inhabit’, which is inherently ‘participatory and animistic, disclosing the things and elements that surround us not as inert objects, but as expressive subjects, entities, powers, and potencies’ (Abram, 1997: 130). Flora, fauna, soil, waters and air can be seen as alive, with their own kind of agency and intelligence. ‘Our ears and our eyes are drawn together not only by animals, but by numerous other phenomena in our landscape’ (Abram, 1997: 129). Cajete concurs: ‘[t]herefore, a plant, an animal, a mountain, or a place may be said to have intelligence, its own mind and psyche, which is unique to it and with which human intelligence continually interacts’ (Cajete, 2018: 18). Deep empirical and spiritual engagement with land and biotic life enables heightened multi-sensuous perceptions (Cheney and Weston, 1999), which are instructive for non-natives in environmental aesthetic encounters.

In many indigenous philosophies, beauty is not an abstract concept but rather something experienced through cultural, ecological and spiritual engagement (Cajete, 2016; Deloria, 1992). Beauty is inseparable from a landscape's ecological, ethical and spiritual dimensions and is primarily experienced somatically through ecological and spiritual engagement. Including moral respect (ethical value) and a commitment to sustainability (ecological value) in guiding aesthetic appreciation illustrates how these values are interconnected components of a holistic natural and cultural value system. In many native philosophies, aesthetic values are seen as essentially related to ethical and ecological ones, gaining meaning through place and TEK (Cajete, 2018; Deloria, 1999). Moral systems are sustained through community and cultural narrative, and stories bear artistic and aesthetic aspects. ‘The moral efficacy of the landscape – this power of the land to ensure mindful and respectful behaviour in the community – is mediated by stories … recounted in the village’ (Abram, 1997: 156). Unlike western perspectives, in which beauty is a property (Burke, 2015) or a judgment (Kant, 2001), natives often see beauty in environmental relationships based on respect, reciprocity and reverence, which emerge through deep environmental recognition and engagement.

How to include place and TEK in environmental aesthetics

Dualistic, anthropocentric and instrumentalist treatments of nature can be overcome if parklands are understood as places (rather than objects or property) with entwined ecological and cultural history, historically inhabited and sustained by native peoples. Moreover, if parks and recreational design guide perception, then parks can integrate native concepts of place and TEK to improve perception and experience. Escobar (2018) argues that decolonized epistemologies and ontologies can inform environmental design and management. Designs and technologies mediate and create experiences, and perceptions of oneself, community and environments. As humans create designs through social activity, these designs in turn shape human and social activity. Escobar says designs are ontological in that they shape people, communities and environmental perception and experience. If national parks are shaped by decolonized epistemologies and ontologies that incorporate place and TEK, then more metaphysically and epistemically accurate, as well as ethically respectful, experiences become available. Escobar argues that design is just only if community members are allowed to collectively determine the underlying designs and ideas. This reflects the politically contested nature of parklands and raises questions about how native approaches to place and TEK could be integrated into them.

After visiting several national parks, David Treuer (Ojibwe) wrote an article for The Atlantic called ‘Return the National Parks to the Tribes’ (Treuer, 2021). Recognizing parklands as sites of political contestation, he observes that most belonged to native tribes that were defrauded, removed and killed. Because of colonial violence and theft, he argues that lands should be reallocated to natives to manage and steward. While this might seem unlikely given the history of the federal government stealing land and betraying tribal nations, there are hopeful signs. In 2022, four national parks were co-managed by native peoples – Canyon de Chelly National Monument, in Arizona's Navajo Nation, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Southeast Alaska, and Grand Portage National Monument in Minnesota's Grand Portage Indian Reservation (Sams, 2022). Additionally, Sams III (Cayuse and Walla Walla) served as the first Native American director of the NPS from 2020 to 2025. In a congressional address, Sams outlined the value of including native history, a sense of place, and TEK in the NPS in stewarding and managing parklands, but also as a step towards restorative environmental justice (Sams, 2022).

When parklands are understood as originally native lands with sacred place status and are made intelligible through TEK, alternative perceptions and experiences become available. By developing a sense of place and reorientation, non-natives may perceive the environment differently. Environmental beauty may be seen as an aesthetic of environmental engagement, understood not as abstract and conceptual but as experiential and environmental. It would transcend the objective/subjective binary, instead being aesthetically experienced through environmental relationships. Similarly, other aesthetic concepts could be re-contextualized. Awe might have spiritual and reverential valence, elicited through attractive and alluring or dark and gloomy aesthetic properties. Aesthetic characteristics in nature could be seen alongside artistic aspects of environmental design, land management and cultural narrative. Through place and TEK, a relational environmental aesthetic may emerge, beautiful in its reflection of just environmental relationships or ecological justice.

Through place and TEK, ecological and cultural history informs aesthetic perception and appreciation. Environments can be seen as places that are neither historically vacant nor characterized solely by natural history, but as landscapes inhabited and sustained by native peoples, sometimes enabling contemporary encounters. Recognizing the cultural history of landscapes through indigenous narratives offers alternative opportunities for understanding places. This includes recognizing how natives related to landscapes, their place-based practices and their ways of sustaining and being sustained by their environments. Indigenous narratives can reveal why certain areas are sacred and encourage respectful treatment of nature. Integrating place and TEK allows non-natives to understand native perception of landscapes, the knowledge specific to them and their spiritual significance. It encourages non-natives to reflect on their own relationship to nature, cultivate just relationships, seek place-based knowledge in their own environments and explore possibilities for local encounters rather than pursuing environmental aesthetic experiences in distant landscapes of so-called pristine nature.

This is not to say that non-natives can, should or have the right to adopt the metaphysical and epistemic systems of native peoples. Some worldview differences may not be adoptable, and some, particularly religious beliefs, perhaps should not be. Notions of the sacred may carry different meanings in western frameworks, and non-natives risk cultural appropriation of indigenous thought and practices, particularly in ways that risk violating the epistemic sovereignty of native peoples. Despite these concerns, non-natives can incorporate the concepts of place and TEK without engaging in unethical appropriation or violating sacred knowledge. These concepts are pervasive in native philosophy, extensively documented by both native and non-native scholars, and can be practically understood and beneficially applied by non-natives. Seeing humans as part of nature helps avoid inaccuracies and harm, and understanding a place's history as both ecological and cultural encourages environmental respect. Traditional ecological knowledge aids in understanding and appreciating historical events that shape a place's aesthetic character, perspectives that may be encouraged by appropriate environmental stewards, including native peoples. Indigenous stewardship can embody environmental and ecological justice as the case of Ocmulgee National Park illustrates.

Application: Ocmulgee national park and the Muscogee (Creek) nation

The Ocmulgee Mounds and National Park and Preserve in Macon, Georgia, is part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's ancestral homelands before they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma. Ocmulgee has been continuously inhabited by humans for 17,000 years (Hally, 2009). Many of the Muscogee Nation's 94,000 citizens return for pilgrimages or homecomings, including the annual Ocmulgee Indigenous Celebration. Currently, Muscogee members and the Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve Initiative are lobbying for national park designation, which would more than double the size of the park and expand the protected area from 701 to over 3000 acres, including ‘a complex matrix of riparian forests, floodplain pools, pine hammocks, canebrakes, cypress-gum swamps, and mature upland forest’ (Brackemyre, 2023). It would also include greater protections for land and biota and preserve the area's rich cultural history (Dixon, 2022; Ocmulgee, 2023). The collaborative effort involves the City of Macon, the NPS and members of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

As a step toward environmental and ecological justice, native concepts of place and TEK could be included in the Ocmulgee effort, depending on the role of the Muscogee in park stewardship and the knowledge disseminated. Involving nation members in decision-making would ensure their perspectives are represented, which is currently lacking. For example, while the Ocmulgee visitor centre and trail plaques convey the history of tribes including the Muscogee, Mississippians, Cherokee and Chateau, most were not written by nation members and do not reflect native perspectives. Because TEK arises from place-based communities, tribal members could provide comprehensive historical accounts, including colonisation, displacement and genocide. Moreover, native peoples at Ocmulgee are repeatedly described as prehistoric. While the term refers to history before written record, its use exacerbates erasure by perpetuating the misconception that natives lacked culture, civilization and ways of passing down history (Deloria, 1997).

In describing their place history, natives would likely emphasize their knowledge and culture, share insights on the park's ecology and explain how tribes interacted with and used the land's resources. Often, accounts of natives and landscapes include generalities rather than specificities. For example, the Earth Lodge at Ocmulgee, which dates to 1015 CE, is described as serving political and ceremonial purposes, with no further details on the link between these practices and the surrounding ecology – an aspect highlighted through the concept of place, TEK and nation member participation. Narratives may also convey moral and spiritual frameworks about lands and biota, including the significance of particular animals, agricultural practices and rituals.

Incorporating native science would convey a people's history in relation to place, their use of environmental affordances and their stewardship of landscapes. For example, the Muscogee used river cane, a type of bamboo that grows at Ocmulgee, to make baskets, blowguns, arrowheads and other tools. It also provides ecosystem benefits such as stabilizing riverbanks, reducing erosion, filtering water and providing animal habitats. The Muscogee's traditional way of harvesting, processing and cultivating river cane is largely unknown to Ocmulgee park rangers. Traditional ecological knowledge and SEK could provide greater detail, context and recognition of the native history of Ocmulgee, highlighting the spiritual connection to nature and offering solutions to revitalize riparian areas threatened by erosion and invasive species. Additionally, because most Muscogee live in Oklahoma, NPS designation would not only protect parklands but also reconnect displaced peoples to them, while facilitating the use and documentation of lesser-known TEK. In addition to benefiting environmental aesthetics, this would support environmental justice for natives and ecological justice for non-natives.

Conclusion

I outlined two problems with the NPS: its history of displacing and erasing native peoples and the dualism, anthropocentrism and instrumentalism of its ecotourism. I then specified the benefits of incorporating native senses of place and TEK into environmental aesthetics, addressing the shortcomings of other environmental aesthetic theories and mitigating the concerns they raise. Place captures natural and cultural aspects of environments and includes communities situated within them. Traditional ecological knowledge is native science that is pluralistic and contextual; arises from place-based communities; does not sequester ethical, ecological and aesthetic values; and can positively shape perception and experience. Place and TEK are conditioned by a moral orientation towards nature that shapes knowledge derived from it. Moral orientation includes respect for biota and environments, as well as the cultivation of just environmental relationships. Place and TEK may be employed at national parks by appropriate environmental stewards and land managers, including native peoples. Doing so not only enhances environmental aesthetics but also contributes to environmental ethics and ecological justice.

However, this argument faces practical challenges posed by the current political climate and deep-seeded philosophical differences between western and native worldviews. President Trump has shown hostility to the NPS by denying climate change, issuing an executive order to ease predator hunting regulations in national preserves in Alaska, and reducing the size of and eliminating environmental protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, both of which hold critical mineral reserves (Repanshek, 2025; Silversmith, 2025). Sams is no longer the director of the NPS; an interim director is serving until Trump appoints a new one. Additionally, Trump laid off approximately 1000 NPS employees via executive order despite the NPS being underfunded and understaffed for years (Chen, 2025). These unfortunate realities make greater stewardship of national parks by native people and the implementation of indigenous concepts of place and TEK seem like wishful thinking. Underlying the practical limitations are entrenched philosophical differences between western and native metaphysical systems that, for some, are unlikely to change due to their deep connections to other aspects of life, including religious beliefs. Some will reject non-dualist or non-anthropocentric worldviews because these ideas conflict with their belief systems. Others may view colonialism as a bygone phenomenon and point to the successes of certain native communities, rejecting the need for restorative environmental justice. Some persist in the belief that nature exists to serve human interests and deny the need to improve human–nature relationships or pursue ecological justice.

Nevertheless, ongoing environmental crises – exemplified by extreme climate patterns and worsening conditions – must be addressed. Humans must recognize that they are part of and dependent on nature. One way to encourage this is through the ecological and cultural history of parklands in which environmental aesthetic experiences occur. The beauty experienced in these encounters may inspire a greater duty to preserve appropriate relationships between humans and the natural world, with native concepts of place and TEK playing valuable roles in this effort.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Tony Chackal

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abram

(1997) The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York, NY: Vintage Press.

Basso

(1996) Wisdom sits in places. In: Feld

Basso

(eds) Senses of Place. Sante Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 53–90.

Beever

(2015) An ecological turn in American Indian environmental ethics. Environmental Philosophy 12(1): 1–20.

Bengston

(2003) Listening to neglected voices: American Indian perspectives on natural resource management. Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/XII/0373-A1.htm.

Berleant

(2004) The aesthetics of art and nature. In: Carlson

Berleant

(eds) The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 76–88.

Berleant

(2016) Some questions for ecological aesthetics. Environmental Philosophy 13(1): 123–135.

Brackemyre

(2023) Protecting the ancestral landscape of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. National Park Foundation. Available at: https://www.nationalparks.org/stories/protecting-muscogee-creek-nations-ancestral-land (accessed November 2023).

Budd

(1996) The aesthetic appreciation of nature. The British Journal of Aesthetics 36(3): 207–222.

Burke

(2015) A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Oxford: Oxford World Classics.

10.

Butterworth

(2021) Understanding colonial vs Indigenous conceptions of ‘place’ (Article #8 in the ‘Sense of Place’ series). Available at: https://iainbutterworth.com/understanding-colonial-vs-indigenous-conceptions-of-place-article-8-in-the-sense-of-place-series/.

11.

Cajete

(2016) Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Sante Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.

12.

Cajete

(2018) Native science and sustaining indigenous communities. In: Nelson

Shilling

(eds) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–26.

13.

Callicott

(1994) The land aesthetic. In: Chapple

(ed) Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives. Albany: SUNY Press.

14.

Carlson

(1981) Nature, aesthetic judgment, and objectivity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 40(1): 15–28.

15.

Carlson

(2004) Appreciation and the natural environment. In: Carlson

Berleant

(eds) The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 63–75.

16.

Carlson

(2009) Nature & Landscape: An Introduction to Environmental Aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press.

17.

Carlson

(2018) Environmental aesthetics, ethics, and ecoaesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76(4): 3999–3410.

18.

Carlson

Berleant

(2004) The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

19.

Carlson

Lintott

(2008) Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. Peterborough, ON: Columbia University Press.

20.

Cartaga

(1998) New meanings of place: The place of the poor and the loss of place as a center of mediation. In: Light

Smith

(eds) Philosophy and Geography III: Philosophies of Place. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 215–237.

21.

Casey

(2001) Between geography and philosophy: What does it mean to be in the place-world? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(4): 683–693.

22.

Celermajer

Schlosberg

Rickards

, et al. (2021) Multispecies justice: Theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. Environmental Politics 30(1–2): 119–140.

23.

Chen

(2025) How National Park Service layoffs could stretch some parks to their limits. USA Today, 20 February. Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/national-parks/2025/02/20/national-park-service-layoffs-impact-visit/78482159007/.

24.

Cheney

(1989) Postmodern environmental ethics: Ethics of bioregional narrative. Environmental Ethics 11(2): 117–134.

25.

Cheney

(2002) The moral epistemology of First Nations stories. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 7: 2.

26.

Cheney

Weston

(1999) Environmental ethics as environmental etiquette: Toward an ethics-based epistemology. Environmental Ethics 21(2): 115–134.

27.

Cheng

(2013) On the four keystones of ecological aesthetic appreciation. In: Estok

Kim

(eds) East Asian Ecocriticisms: A Critical Reader. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 221–236.

28.

Code

(2006) Ecological Thinking: The Politics of Epistemic Location. New York: Oxford University Press.

29.

Conover

(2019) Numbers of human fatalities, injuries, and illnesses in the United States due to wildlife. Human–Wildlife Interactions 13(2): 264–276.

30.

Cresswell

(2004) Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

31.

Dalaqua

(2020) Aesthetic injustice. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 12(1): 1712183.

32.

Deloria

(1999) Playing Indian. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

33.

Deloria

Jr. (1992) God is Red: A Native View of Religion. 2nd ed. Golden, CO: North American Press.

34.

Deloria

Jr. (1997) Red Earth, White Lies. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

35.

Deloria

Jr. Foehner

Scinta

(eds) (1999) Spirit & Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr. Reader. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

36.

Dixon

(2022) Muscogee (Creek) Nation, conservationists seeking to establish first national park and preserve in Georgia. The Washington Post, 12 February. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/12/oklahomas-muscogee-creek-nation-is-seeking-create-first-national-park-georgia/ (accessed November 2023).

37.

Escobar

(2018) Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

38.

Feld

Basso

(1996) Senses of Place. Sante Fe, NM: James Currey Publishers.

39.

Forbes

(2001) Indigenous Americans: Spirituality and ecos. In: Tucker

Grim

(eds) DÆDALUS Journal of The American Academy of Arts and Sciences Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? MIT Press. Fall; 130(4): 283–300.

40.

Grant

(2021) The lost history of Yellowstone: Debunking the myth that the great national park was a wilderness untouched by humans. Smithsonian Magazine, January. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lost-history-yellowstone-180976518/ (accessed January 2023).

41.

Hally

(2009) Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936–1986. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

42.

Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (no date) Gaia hypothesis. Available at: https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Gaia/Gaia-hypothesis-wikipedia.pdf.

43.

Hester

Cheney

(2001) Truth and Native American epistemology. Social Epistemology 15(4): 319–334.

44.

Howard

(1998) From the inside out: The farm as place. In: Light

Smith

(eds) Philosophy and Geography III: Philosophies of Place. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 147–167.

45.

Isenberg

(2001) The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Kant

(2001) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by Guyer P, Matthews E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Kant

(2017) Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Gregor M, Edited by Denis L, Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Kimmerer

(2002) Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience 52(5): 432–438.

49.

Koh

(1988) An ecological aesthetic. Landscape Journal 7: 177–191.

50.

Kovach

(2010) Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

51.

Krech

(1999) The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

52.

Leopold

(1966) A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books.

53.

MacDonald

(2018) Before Yellowstone: Native American Archaeology in the National Park. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

54.

Malpas

(1999) Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

55.

Martinez

(2018) Redefining sustainability through kincentric ecology. In: MK

Shilling

(eds) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–174.

56.

Mazzocchi

(2006) Western science and traditional knowledge. Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports 7(5): 463–466.

57.

McGregor

(2004) Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly 28(3–4): 385–410.

58.

McGregor

(2018) Toward a philosophical understanding of TEK and ecofeminism. In: MK

Shilling

(eds) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–128.

59.

Millon

(2013) Therapeutic Nations: Healing in an Age of Indigenous Human Rights (Critical Issues in Indigenous Studies). Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

60.

Mills

(1999) The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.

61.

Nabokov

Loendorf

(2016) Restoring a Presence: American Indians and Yellowstone National Park. Reprint edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

62.

National Park Service (2023) New National Park Service report finds shifts in visitation patterns. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/new-national-park-service-report-finds-shifts-in-visitation-patterns.htm (accessed December 2023).

63.

Nelson

Vucetich

(2018) Wolves and ravens, science and ethics: Traditional ecological knowledge meets long-term ecological research. In: Nelson

Shilling

(eds) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–136.

64.

Ocmulgee (2023) Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve Initiative. Available at: https://www.ocmulgeepark.org/ (accessed November 2023).

65.

Orr

Sharratt

Iqbal

(2019) American Indian erasure and the logic of elimination: An experimental study of depiction and support for resources and rights for tribes. Journal of Ethnic and Migration 45(11): 2078–2099.

66.

Parsons

(2002) Nature appreciation, science, and positive aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics 42(3): 279–295.

67.

Plumwood

(1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

68.

Preston

(2003) Grounding Knowledge: Environmental Philosophy, Epistemology, and Place. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

69.

Rawls

(2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70.

Repanshek

(2025) NPS comptroller named acting director. National Parks Traveler, 23 January. Available at: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2025/01/nps-comptroller-named-acting-director.

71.

Saito

(2004) Appreciating nature on its own terms. In: Carlson

Berleant

(eds) The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 141–155.

72.

Sams

III (2022) Tribal co-management of federal lands: Acknowledging the history and considering the path forward. U.S. Department of the Interior for the House Committee on Natural Resources, Regarding Tribal Co-Management of Federal Lands. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/ocl/tribal-co-management-federal-lands (accessed November 2023).

73.

Sarkar

Elliott-Graves

(2016) Ecology. In: Zalta

(ed) The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ecology (accessed May 2022).

74.

Schlosberg

(2007) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

75.

Silversmith

(2025) Trump’s ‘Unleash American Energy’ order sparks concern about the Grand Canyon national monument. AZ Mirror, 17 February. Available at: https://azmirror.com/2025/02/17/trumps-unleash-american-energy-order-sparks-concern-about-the-grand-canyon-national-monument/.

76.

Simard

(2021) Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

77.

Smith

(1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, United Kingdom and Dunedin, New Zealand: Zed Books.

78.

Tourons of National Parks (2025) Available at: https://www.instagram.com/touronsofnationalparks/ (accessed 11 November 2025).

79.

Tourons of Yellowstone (2025) Available at: https://www.instagram.com/touronsofyellowstone_2/ (accessed 11 November 2025).

80.

Treuer

(2021) Return the national parks to the tribes. The Atlantic, May 2021. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/05/return-the-national-parks-to-the-tribes/618395/ (accessed January 2023).

81.

Trosper

(1995) Traditional American Indian economic policy. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19(1): 65–95.

82.

Warren

(2000) Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It is and Why It Matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

83.

Whyte

(2010) An ethics of recognition for environmental tourism practices. Environmental Philosophy 7(2): 75–92.

84.

Wienhues

(2020) Ecological Justice and the Extinction Crisis: Giving Living Beings their Due. 1st ed. Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol University Press.

85.

Wildcat

(2009) Red Alert! Saving the Planet with Indigenous Knowledge. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

86.

Wilson

(2008) Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

87.

Zembylas

(2022) Theorizing aesthetic injustice in democratic education: Insights from Boal and Rancière. Ethics and Education 17(4): 388–402.