A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System Sustainability

被引:124
|
作者
Hill, Rosemary [1 ]
Grant, Chrissy [1 ]
George, Melissa [1 ]
Robinson, Catherine J. [1 ]
Jackson, Sue [1 ]
Abel, Nick [1 ]
机构
[1] James Cook Univ, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Townsville, Qld, Australia
来源
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY | 2012年 / 17卷 / 01期
关键词
environmental planning; Indigenous ecological knowledge; integration; intercultural; governance; natural resource management; PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT; GREAT-BARRIER-REEF; COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT; ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE; WET TROPICS; COMANAGEMENT; RESOURCE; PARTICIPATION; RESILIENCE; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.5751/ES-04587-170123
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Indigenous peoples now engage with many decentralized approaches to environmental management that offer opportunities for integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and western science to promote cultural diversity in the management of social-ecological system sustainability. Nevertheless, processes of combining IEK with western science are diverse and affected by numerous factors, including the adaptive co-management context, the intrinsic characteristics of the natural resources, and the governance systems. We present a typology of Indigenous engagement in environmental management, derived through comparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies, and consider its implications for the integration of IEK with western science. Sociological and rational choice institutionalism underpin our analytical framework, which differentiates on three axes: (1) power sharing, incorporating decision making, rules definition, resource values and property rights; (2) participation, incorporating participatory processes, organizations engaged, and coordination approaches; (3) intercultural purpose, incorporating purposes of environmental management, Indigenous engagement, Indigenous development and capacity building. Our typology groups engagement into four types: Indigenous governed collaborations; Indigenous-driven co-governance; agency-driven co-governance; and agency governance. From our analysis of manifestations of knowledge integration across the types, we argue that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems. Supporting Indigenous governance without, or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous cultural purposes underpinning IEK, and benefits knowledge integration. We conclude by advocating that the typology be applied to test its general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchers to develop robust governance for Indigenous knowledge integration in environmental management.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Operationalizing vulnerability for social-ecological integration in conservation and natural resource management
    Thiault, Lauric
    Gelcich, Stefan
    Marshall, Nadine
    Marshall, Paul
    Chlous, Frederique
    Claudet, Joachim
    CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2020, 13 (01):
  • [32] Academic globalization of knowledge for social, economical, environmental and ecological sustainability
    Mukhopadhyay, Pragati
    WMSCI 2007 : 11TH WORLD MULTI-CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL V, POST CONFERENCE ISSUE, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, : 386 - 387
  • [33] From global sustainability research matrix to typology: a tool to analyze coastal and marine social-ecological systems
    Bernhard Glaeser
    Regional Environmental Change, 2016, 16 : 367 - 383
  • [34] From global sustainability research matrix to typology: a tool to analyze coastal and marine social-ecological systems
    Glaeser, Bernhard
    REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, 2016, 16 (02) : 367 - 383
  • [35] Potential Futures for Coastal Wolves and Their Ecosystem Services in Alaska, With Implications for Management of a Social-Ecological System
    Gilbert, Sophie L.
    Haynes, Trevor
    Lindberg, Mark S.
    Albert, David M.
    Kissling, Michelle
    Lynch, Laurel
    Person, Dave
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2022, 10
  • [36] A Social-Ecological Framework to Integrate Multiple Objectives for Environmental Flows Management
    Martin, David
    Harrison-Atlas, Dylan
    Sutfin, Nicholas
    Poff, N.
    JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION, 2014, 153 (01) : 49 - 58
  • [37] Urban Social-ecological Innovation: Implications for Adaptive Natural Resource Management
    Dennis, M.
    James, P.
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2018, 150 : 153 - +
  • [38] Linking social-ecological knowledge with rural communities in Mexico: lessons and challenges toward sustainability
    Castillo, Alicia
    Vega-Rivera, Jorge H.
    Perez-Escobedo, Marcela
    Romo-Diaz, Gabriela
    Lopez-Carapia, Gabriela
    Ayala-Orozco, Barbara
    ECOSPHERE, 2018, 9 (10):
  • [39] Bioeconomic Models for Terrestrial Social-Ecological System Management: A Review
    Jean, Simon
    Mouysset, Lauriane
    INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2022, 16 (01): : 43 - 92
  • [40] A review of social-ecological system resilience: Mechanism, assessment and management
    Li, Ting
    Dong, Yuxiang
    Liu, Zhenhuan
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 723