A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for...

Copyright copy 2012 by the author(s) Published here under license by the Resilience AllianceHill R C Grant M George C Robinson S Jackson and N Abel 2012 A typology of indigenousengagement in Australian environmental management implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability Ecology and Society 17(1) 23httpdxdoiorg105751ES-04587-170123

Research part of a Special Feature on Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural ResourceManagement Perspectives from Australia

A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian EnvironmentalManagement Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System SustainabilityRosemary Hill 12 Chrissy Grant 3 Melissa George 4 Catherine J Robinson 1 Sue Jackson 1 and Nick Abel 1

ABSTRACT Indigenous peoples now engage with many decentralized approaches to environmental management that offeropportunities for integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and western science to promote cultural diversity inthe management of social-ecological system sustainability Nevertheless processes of combining IEK with western science arediverse and affected by numerous factors including the adaptive co-management context the intrinsic characteristics of thenatural resources and the governance systems We present a typology of Indigenous engagement in environmental managementderived through comparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies and consider its implications for the integration of IEK withwestern science Sociological and rational choice institutionalism underpin our analytical framework which differentiates onthree 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) interculturalpurpose incorporating purposes of environmental management Indigenous engagement Indigenous development and capacitybuilding 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 knowledgeintegration across the types we argue that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospectsfor integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems Supporting Indigenous governancewithout or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous culturalpurposes underpinning IEK and benefits knowledge integration We conclude by advocating that the typology be applied totest its general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchers to develop robust governance for Indigenous knowledgeintegration in environmental management

Key Words environmental planning Indigenous ecological knowledge integration intercultural governance natural resourcemanagement

INTRODUCTIONIndigenous peoplesrsquo engagement in environmental managementis increasing globally as a result of recognition of their rightsinterests and the worth of their Indigenous EcologicalKnowledge (IEK) (Hill et al 1999 Houde 2007 Nakanura2008) Recent developments in considering environmentalmanagement as an aspect of complex social-ecological systemdynamics has identified that integration of IEK with westernscience can enhance system attributes associated withsustainability (Berkes 2004 Folke 2004 Walker and Salt2006 Carpenter et al 2009 Chapin III et al 2010) Werecognize that sustainability has many dimensions andmeanings and adopt here Dawson et alrsquos (20102845)definition that ldquoa sustainable SES is one that over the normalcycle of pressures and disturbance events maintains itscharacteristic diversity of major functional groups processesservices and utility thereby ensuring its capacity to endurerdquoBohensky and Marursquos (2011) review of a decade ofinternational literature on the integration of Indigenousknowledge and science concluded that there remains a lack ofclarity and empirical evidence that can help distinguish how

indigenous knowledge and knowledge integration contributemost to resilience Resilience is recognized alongsideadaptability and transformability as a key determinant ofsystem dynamics and sustainability (Walker et al 2006 Goochand Warburton 2009)

In Australia Indigenous peoples engage in environmentalmanagement with multiple stakeholders (governmentsscientists producer groups conservationists and others)through a range of mechanisms natural resource management(Roughley and Williams 2007) native title agreements (Hill2006 Agius et al 2007) Indigenous and co-managedprotected areas (Muller 2003 Nursey-Bray and Rist 2009Ross et al 2009) endangered species initiatives (Nursey-Bray2009) water planning processes (Jackson 2009 Jackson andAltman 2009) and in the pursuit of cultural objectivesconventionally in the absence of non-Indigenous actors (LaFontaine 2006) Understanding approaches to knowledgeintegration in these diverse Australian examples may helpbuild global understanding of the processes of IEK and westernscience integration to manage for sustainability However

1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences 2James Cook University School of Earth and Environmental Sciences 3CTG Services 4Consultant

Ecology and Society 17(1) 23httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol17iss1art23

integration is affected by diverse factors including approachesto inquiry into IEK adaptive co-management context and theintrinsic qualities of the natural resource (Agrawal 2002Davies 2003 Telfer and Garde 2006 Davies and Holcombe2009 Wohling 2009 Davis and Ruddle 2010) Governanceforms including power relationships multi-scalar polycentricconnections orchestration of networks and negotiation ofdiverse Indigenous and state institutions shape interactionsthat block bridge or enable integration of IEK and westernscience (Olsson et al 2004 Folke et al 2005 Olsson et al2006 Ostrom 2007)

Australian Indigenous peoples assert sovereign rights andinterests to collective self-determination and control over theircustomary estates despite profound impacts from the colonialprocesses of territorial acquisition and state formation Thepolicy mechanisms established by Australian governments torespond to Indigenous claims have resulted in Indigenouscontrol and responsibility for the environmental managementof about one-fifth of the continental land mass much of whichis of high conservation significance (Hibbard and Lane 2004Altman et al 2007 Lane and Williams 2009) HoweverIndigenous peoples suffer capacity constraints in meeting theirenvironmental management needs for these lands (Aboriginalamp Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2009)The socioeconomic disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoplesis a key constraint reflected in the life expectancy gap withnon-Indigenous people of twelve years (Australian Instituteof Health and Welfare 2010) Projects that seek to engageIndigenous peoples in environmental management alwaysencounter the politics of Indigenous rights and the context ofIndigenous socioeconomic disadvantage as key determinantsof success (Palmer 2006 Davidson and OFlaherty 2007)These distinctive features suggest that characteristics ofIndigenous peoplesrsquo engagement will differ significantly fromthe general characteristics of ldquopublicrdquo engagement inenvironmental management

Typologies are useful for interrogating characteristics andbuilding practice and theory in environmental managementfor example a recent typology of collaboration providesguidance for conveners on designing types of collaborationfor solving particular types of problems and for theoreticianson choosing between frameworks (Margerum 2008) Manyexisting typologies differentiate on the basis of a power sharingcontinuum of participation from passive informationdissemination to citizen empowerment (Arnstein 1969 Head2007 Reed 2008) Others differentiate on the basis ofpurposes for example between pragmatic versus normativeparticipation between diagnostic versus co-learning andbetween planning-centered and people-centered (Michener1998 Lynam et al 2007 Reed 2008) Reed (2008) found thatthese typologies assist in unpacking the loaded ideologicalinterpretations and diverse methodologies for participationthereby providing assistance in choosing a participatory

method Nevertheless existing typologies do not address theissue of Indigenous rights and the context of Indigenoussocioeconomic disadvantage as previously noted There iscurrently no typology of Indigenous engagement inenvironmental management in Australia despite theproliferation of engagement mechanisms and examples andthe recognized relevance of IEK and western scienceintegration for sustainability (Natural Resource ManagementMinisterial Council 2010)

Our research goal was to develop a typology that would beuseful in interrogating the characteristics of Indigenousengagement in Australian environmental managementanalyze approaches to integration of IEK and western sciencethat occurred organically as part of the engagement andconsider implications for management of sustainability insocial-ecological systems (SES) We first present thetheoretical foundations and definitions of governanceIndigenous governance and IEK from which we conduct ourresearch followed by the methods for case study selection andanalysis A description of the typology the four types anddifferences between them follows We subsequently presentour analysis of the influence of governance type on integrationof IEK and science Our conclusion considers implications ofthe typology for theory and practice of Indigenous engagementand knowledge integration for sustainability in SES

Theoretical foundations and definitionsGovernance is defined as the structures and processes by whichpeople in societies make decisions and share power (Folke etal 2005 Lebel et al 2006 Winter 2006 Ostrom 2007)Environmental governance the making of societal decisionsabout the environment is currently developing newmultilevel polycentric forms partly through government-designed decentralization and also by community-leddevelopment of new multilevel institutions in response toglobal changes (Dietz et al 2003 Selin and VanDeveer 2009Cundill and Fabricius 2010 Hill et al 2010) In Australia thisglobal trend has manifested in significant rescaling ofenvironmental governance mixing ldquotop- downrdquo directivesfrom government with ldquobottom-uprdquo approaches in whichcitizens participate directly in policy formulation andimplementation (Lane et al 2009) These new forms ofgovernance display significant attention to mechanisms forintegrating multiple knowledge systems including IEK tomanage for sustainability (Folke et al 2005 Ballard et al2008)

In considering the features of Indigenous knowledge andgovernance systems we adopt Martinez-Coborsquos (1986)working definition of Indigenous peoples as those who havinga historical continuity with precolonial societies thatdeveloped on their territories consider themselves distinctfrom other sectors of the societies now prevailing on parts orall of those territories These distinct Indigenous societies are


recognized as the holders of IEK defined as a cumulative bodyof knowledge practice and belief evolving by adaptiveprocesses and handed down through generations by culturaltransmission (Berkes 2004) IEK forms part of governanceand cultural systems that encompass language naming andclassification systems resource use practices ritualsspirituality and worldviews (International Council forScience 2002) In Australia Indigenous peoples maintaindistinct forms of governance despite their location in apostcolonial frame in which the nation-state has overarchingsovereign power (Smith and Hunt 2008) Distinctive featuresinclude an emphasis on networks nodal modes of leadershipwithin these networks and dispersed distribution of powersamong self-defined social groups Australian Indigenousgovernance systems connect IEK with cultural rights

Knowledge has a powerful dialectic element itpoints to country and to relationships between thepossessor of knowledge and the country to which itrefers Performance of knowledge (through songdance story history use of country) is aperformance of ownership it identifies the personas one with rights and responsibilities to that country(Rose 19942)

Recognition that diversity in Indigenous governanceinfluences how IEK is integrated into environmentalmanagement stimulated our interest in developing a typology(Ross and Pickering 2002 Fernandez-Gimenez et al 2006Sveiby 2009) Multiple frameworks related to governancewere identified as potentially relevant including multileveleffective adaptive and collaborative governance drawingattention to diverse attributes including legitimacyaccountability cross-scale connectivity problem-solvingarenas and leadership (Folke et al 2005 Head 2009Lockwood et al 2009 Lockwood 2010) We synthesized thesemultiple analytical frameworks of governance in co-management through recognizing their roots in (1) rationalchoice institutionalism drawing on the assumption in neo-classical economics that actors behave as utility maximizersto rank their priorities within institutional constraints and (2)sociological institutionalism drawing on constructivism andthe assumption that political and cultural environments alteractorsrsquo views of utility (Sandstroumlm 2009) Rational choiceinstitutionalism directs attention to structures includingproperty rights other rules and rule-making whilesociological institutionalism emphasizes functions includingproblem-solving processes capacity building and relationships(Plummer and FitzGibbon 2004 Carlsson and Berkes 2005Ostrom 2007 2008 Ostrom and Cox 2010 Hill 2011) Threekey concepts are common to both frameworks power-sharingparticipation and process (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2004Sandstroumlm 2009) We utilized these three concepts in ouranalysis focusing the ldquoprocessrdquo dimension onto interculturalpurposes in recognition of the context of Indigenous rights

Indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage and the distinctivefeatures of Indigenous governance (Porter 2004 Natcher etal 2005 Palmer 2006 Hunt et al 2008) Our use of the termldquointerculturalrdquo draws on recognition of the relationaldimensions of social forms that develop through theinteraction of Indigenous and non-Indigenous societiesproviding opportunities for innovation (Hinkson and Smith2005 Merlan 2005 Bakker and Bridge 2006 Suchet-Pearsonand Howitt 2006)

METHODS

Case study selection and analysisThe typology is based on pattern identification throughcomparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies inenvironmental management (Table 1) The case studies wereselected using a variation sampling method aiming to providegeographical spread (Figure 1) and encapsulate a diversity ofsettings including within protected areas natural resourcemanagement and research projects terrestrial and marinesettings and both government and nongovernment initiatives(Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005) Our selection of case studieswas not specifically influenced by the approaches toknowledge integration that they used and none of the casestudies had knowledge integration as their primary goal Theavailability of data also affected choice of case studies Table1 lists the key organizations and instruments underpinning theIndigenous engagement including an array of agreementslegislation regulations plans frameworks and oral traditionForms of IEK involved in each case study are also listed

Data for the analysis of the case studies included formalpublished plans reports journal articles web pagesnewspaper articles and a range of informal internal reportsmemoranda and meeting minutes At least one author haddirect interaction with each of the case studies either as ascholar or practitioner and contributed participant observationdata andor empirical insight

The data were used to classify each case study according tothe three dimensions of the analytical framework each withseveral categories

1 power-sharing incorporating decision making level andcontrol rules definition resource cultural values andproperty rights

2 participation incorporating participatory processes andfunctions organizations engaged and coordination

3 intercultural purpose incorporating purposes ofenvironmental management project or program ofIndigenous engagement of Indigenous developmentand of capacity building

The method of classification was iterative involvingqualitative techniques of conceptual cluster analysis and


Table 1 The case studies

Case study Key organizations Key instruments for the Indigenous engagement Forms of IEKIndigenous-governed collaborations IGMurray and LowerDarling Rivers IndigenousNations (MLDRIN)

Indigenous Nations of theMurray and Lower Darling

Constitution of the Murray Lower Darling RiverIndigenous Nations

Indigenous use and occupancymapping cultural heritage sitesassessments

Northern Australia Landand Sea ManagementAlliance (NAILSMA)

NAILSMA Board Heads of Agreement between Kimberley Land CouncilNorthern Land Council and Balkanu

On-country digital videorecording language posters ofethnobotany and zoology

Indigenous-driven co-governance ICoGCape York Caring forCountry

Balkanu Cape YorkDevelopment Corporation

Cape York Agenda of the Cape York Institute andpartners

On-country digital videorecording digital databases

Dhimurru IPA SeaCountry Plan

Dhimurru Land ManagementAboriginal Corporation

Indigenous Protected Areas within the National ReserveSystem

Art language story on-countryknowledge transmission

Djabugay IndigenousLand ManagementTechniques

Djabugay Tribal AboriginalCorporation

Indigenous customary lawlore Photographic recording on-country knowledge transmission

Djelk Rangers Bawinanga AboriginalCorporation

Northern Land Council Rangers Program also now anIPA

Indigenous fire management artlanguage

Kimberley AppropriateEconomies Roundtable

KLC ACF EK SteeringCommittee

Kimberley Land Council Australian ConservationFoundation and Environs Kimberley Letter of Agreement2004

Art language photographicrecording

Lake Condah SustainableDevelopment Project

Winda Mara AboriginalCorporation

Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest)Act 1987 (Cth)

Cultural and archaeological siterecording

Miriuwung-GajerrongCultural Planning

MG Corporation Ord Final Agreement MG native title determinations Art language on-countryknowledge transmission

Ngarrindjeri Nation SeaCountry Plan

Ngarrindjeri RegionalAuthority

South-east Regional Marine Plan Regional PartnershipAgreement

Indigenous use and occupancymapping

Victorian Native TitleSettlement Framework

Victorian Traditional OwnerLand Justice Group

Indigenous Management Agreements under theFramework

Indigenous knowledge of rightsover country

Agency-driven co-governance ACoGCape York PeninsulaTenure Resolution

CYP Tenure ResolutionImplementation Group

Cape York Land Use Heads of Agreement Cape YorkPeninsula Heritage Act 2007 (Qld)

On-country knowledgetransmission site documentation

Desert LivelihoodsInlandTM

Desert KnowledgeCooperative Research Centre

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework research agreementsbetween partners

On-country transmission co-research scientists and Indigenouspeoples

Eastern Kuku-YalanjiILUA

Jabalbina AboriginalCorporation

Native Title Acts On-country transmission photosdocuments

Healthy Country HealthyPeople

Joint Australian and NorthernTerritory Government SteeringCommittee

Schedule 25 to the Overarching Agreement onIndigenous Affairs

Rangers on-country transmissionphotodocuments

Mutawintji National Park Mutawintji Board ofManagement

Mutawintji National Park Lease (agreement) On-country transmission culturalheritage site recording

Urannah Station Indigenous Land CorporationUrannah Property Association

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 On-country transmission

Wet Tropics RegionalAgreement

Rainforest AboriginalConsultative Committee

Wet Tropics Regional Agreement Wet Tropics WorldHeritage Protection and Management Act 1993 (Qld)

Indigenous cultural mappingdigital databases

Agency governance AGIndigenous ConservationProgram

The Wilderness Society Native Title and Protected Areas Policy On-country transmission

Mornington Sanctuary Australian WildlifeConservancy

Voluntary conservation plans Plans based on western science

Wild Rivers Declarationsand Rangers

Queensland Department ofEnvironment and ResourceManagement

Wild Rivers Act 2005 (Qld) On-country transmission riversurveys

theme identification to generate initial propositions followedby filtering of the propositions through the case studies andthe literature and subsequent further refinement (afterMargerum 2008 Robinson 1998) The classification wasbased on data sources available in 2009 which were updatedin 2010 and therefore represents the status of each engagementat that time As SESs are recognized as highly dynamic

(Walker et al 2006 Chapin et al 2010) the classification ofeach case study in the engagement might be different at a lateror earlier stage

We identified four types of Indigenous engagement inenvironmental management Indigenous-governed collaborations(IG) Indigenous-driven co-governance (ICoG) agency-driven co-governance (ACoG) and agency governance (AG)


Fig 1 Location of case studies in Australia

Summaries of differences among the types across the threedimensions and associated categories in our analyticalframework are shown in Table 2 The ldquopositionsrdquo of each typeon axes representing the three dimensions in the analyticalframework are shown in Figure 2 We assigned case studies(Table 1) to the type where they demonstrated mostconsistency with these summaries of differences in allcategories within a type (Table 2) The assignments of the casestudies within the typology are best viewed as alignmentswhich may change over time We addressed two questionsrelevant to integration of IEK and western science forenvironmental management (1) what have been the forms ofIEK involved in our case studies and (2) how has IEK andwestern science integration been manifested under eachtypology We again used techniques of conceptual clusteranalysis to consider differences among the case studiesregarding manifestations of IEK and western scienceintegration

RESULTS

The four types of Indigenous engagement inenvironmental managementIndigenous-governed collaborations (IGs)

IGs are formulated through Indigenous initiatives and bringIndigenous peoples together to focus on common

environmental issues actions and policy agendas TheNorthern Australia Indigenous Land and Sea ManagementAlliance (NAILSMA) and the Murray Lower Darling RiversIndigenous Nations (MLDRIN) are the two relevant casestudies New Indigenous governance forms are emergingthrough these collaborations across very large geographicalregions MLDRIN describes itself as a ldquoconfederationrdquo ofIndigenous nations providing an alliance of political entitiesbuilt from precolonization systems of family connectionstrade and exchange (Weir 2009) Delegates to MLDRIN stressthat it does not substitute for the authority of traditionalowners but provides a means of establishing their distinctpolitical status Indigenous-driven co-governance (ICoG)

ICoG approaches are frequently formulated in response togovernment initiatives Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs)for example arose in the context of the AustralianGovernmentrsquos National Reserve System However the powersharing participation and intercultural purposes haverespected and empowered rather than underminedIndigenous interests and authority (Bauman and Smyth 2007)For example Yolngu involved in Dhimurru Aboriginal LandManagement Corporation in North East Arnhem Land wherethere is an IPA have applied symbolism and bonds associatedwith water to create a Garma theory of knowledge sharing anddialogue to guide environmental management (Robinson andMunungguritj 2001) Agency-driven co-governance (ACoG)


Table 2 Summaries of differences among types of Indigenous engagement in environmental management

Indigenous-governedcollaborations (IG)

Indigenous-driven co-governance (ICoG)

Agency-driven co-governance(ACoG)

Agency governance (AG)

Power sharingDecision making leveland control

Decision making betweenIndigenous agencies highIndigenous control

Decision making defined byIndigenous law and culture andpartner requirements substantialIndigenous control

Decision making by agency andIndigenous people according toagreed structures typicallycommittees substantial agencycontrol

Depends on specific projectusually agency controlledbut local scale providesIndigenous input

Rules-definition Rules defined by Indigenousorganizations working togetherto shape contemporaryIndigenous governance

Rules defined by Indigenouspeoples as constrained bypartner requirements

Rules defined by agency asconstrained by legislative andpolicy recognition of Indigenousrights

Rules defined by agencyconstrained only by legallyenforced Indigenous rights

Resource culturalvalues and propertyrights

Resources highly valued byIndigenous societies rightsmay be definedconstrainedbut viewed as open totransformation

Resources of lesser value inindustrial economy (hinterlandsof first world economies)Indigenous property rightsstrong

Resources of contested valuebetween industrial andIndigenous economiesIndigenous property rightsdefined and contained

Resources highly valued byindustrial economy egwater in heavily usedsystems few Indigenousproperty rights

ParticipationParticipatory processesand functions

Inclusivity that engagesIndigenous people in newIndigenous institution building

Inclusivity that engagesIndigenous people in newenvironmental institutionbuilding

Indigenous rights-basednegotiation eg for NativeTitle Acts cultural heritageclearances

Participation throughstakeholder mechanismseg committees projects

Organizations engaged Diverse Indigenousorganizations at multiplescales

Diverse Indigenous andnonindigenous organizations atmultiple scales

Government agencies andNGOs with defined Indigenousroles eg Land Councils

Government agencies andNGOs with definedenvironment managementroles

Coordination Cross-regional and cross-jurisdictional empowerment ofIndigenous groups

Indigenous holistic place-basedcommunity empowerment

Whole-of-governmentcoordination

ldquoSilordquo agency accountabilityfor specific mandate

Intercultural purposeEnvironmentalmanagement projectpurposes

Overall purpose ofstrengthening Indigenoussociety through environmentalmanagement

Multiple purposes reflectingIndigenous-centred holisticcommunity planning

Multiple purposes reflectingoutcomes of negotiatedagreements

Usually single or dualpurpose managing specificthreats species or areas

Purpose of Indigenousroles

Expression of inherent rightsand responsibilities

Reconciliation long-termlasting resolution of issues

Equity plus recognition ofspecifically defined rights

Equity with otherstakeholders inenvironmental management

Purpose of Indigenousdevelopment

Indigenous modernity peopleresist accommodate andreshape interventions

Indigenous empowerment andcommunity development

Human capability developmentsustainable livelihoods throughdeployment of assets

Development asmodernization andtechnology transfer

Capacity-building Focus on building trust andrelationships between diverseIndigenous groups

Focus on Indigenous andnonindigenous functionality inboth Indigenous and settlersociety

Focus on Indigenousfunctionality in settler societyand cross-cultural training fornonindigenous people

Focus on training Indigenouspeoples to ensurefunctionality in settler-society

ACoG approaches usually arise from formal processes torecognize and define Indigenous rights such as through nativetitle or recognition of Aboriginal joint management ofprotected areas Agency-driven models require the power tosit within the organization through mechanisms such asboards or committees of management Indigenous governancemandates sharing power beyond organizations and into widernetworks of families and communities (Smith and Hunt 2008)In the ACoG types the agency seeks to meet the expectationsof a wide array of stakeholders such as conservation groups

fishers tourism operators and others The complexity andcompetition within such an institution may crowd outIndigenous perspectives Agency governance (AG)

AG approaches regard Indigenous people as a stakeholdersector similar to farmers or industry actors rather than as agroup requiring a different approach associated with theirclaims to a distinct political status within the nation-state Forexample The Wilderness Societyrsquos (TWS) IndigenousConservation Program places their goals of environmentalpreservation to the fore in engagement with Indigenouspeople and seeks to build alliances with Indigenous people


Fig 2 Position of types on the three axes namely participation intercultural purpose and power sharing and the zone ofconvergence of western science and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) that emerges in the Indigenous-governed andIndigenous-driven co-governed types

who support their environmental goals similar to alliancesbuilt with farmers or industry actors (Pickerill 2008)Nevertheless through initiatives such as TWS andChuulangan Aboriginal Corporation Cooperation AgreementIndigenous peoples and TWS have established co-governancearrangements for specific projects (Claudie and Esposito2005)

Illustrative examples of differences between the typesTable 2 summarizes the difference between the types acrossthe analytical categories and Table 3 presents examples fromthe case studies that illustrate these differences Spaceprecludes presenting examples from all 40 cells in the matrixgenerated by the four types and ten categories Instead wedescribe the spectrum across the three dimensions of power


Table 3 Illustrative examples of the summarized differences among the case studies according to the categories of analysis forthe typology

Typologycategory

Summarized difference among types Case study illustrative example

Power sharingDecisionmaking leveland control

ICoG Decision making defined byIndigenous law and culture and partnerrequirements substantial Indigenouscontrol

Miriuwung-Gajerrong Cultural Planning the Ord Final Agreement established a formalcommittee with a majority of Miriuwung-Gajerrong people as the decision making body TheYawoorroong Miriuwung Gajerrong Yirrgeb Noong Dawang Aboriginal Corporation supportsthe committee with processes that empower localized decision making by Dawang through anIndigenous governance structure

ACoG Decision making by agencyand Indigenous people according toagreed structures typicallycommittees substantial agency control

Cape York Tenure Resolution process is headed by a decision making committee comprisingthree State Government Ministers the Australian Conservation Foundation The WildernessSociety Balkanu and the Cape York Land Council Decisions on land tenure outcomes areunderpinned by Indigenous Land Use Agreements and require negotiation and Indigenousconsent thereby empowering Indigenous law and custom

Rules-definition

ICoG Rules defined by Indigenouspeoples as constrained by partnerrequirements

Djelk Rangers rules within Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation which host the Djelk Rangersare mediated within the informal institution of the ldquosmokordquo room Local Aboriginal elites withpower based on seniority Indigenous knowledge and customary authority negotiate withAboriginal neo-elites whose power derives from modernizing projects including the duties ofthe Djelk Rangers to protect biodiversity within parameters set by their government fundingagencies

Resourcecultural valuesand propertyrights

ACoG Resources of contested valuebetween industrial and Indigenouseconomies Indigenous property rightsdefined and contained

Eastern Kuku-Yalanji ILUA focuses on recognition and regulation of peoplersquos native title rightsas custodians and managers of traditional country within highly contested tropical landscapeswhile delivering statutory Aboriginal ownership of some areas of land

AG Resources highly valued byindustrial economy eg water inheavily used systems few Indigenousproperty rights

Wild Rivers the marginalization of Indigenous peoples from Wild Rivers decision makingreflects legislative regimes that have placed the control and regulation of water with the Crownand its agencies

ParticipationParticipatoryprocesses andfunctions

ACoG Indigenous rights-basednegotiation eg for Native Title Actscultural heritage clearances

Wet Tropics Regional Agreement Interim Negotiating Forum constituted an AboriginalNegotiating Team and a Government Negotiating Team

ICoG Inclusivity that engagesIndigenous people in newenvironmental institution-building

Dhimurru stresses their pride in their model of partnerships founded in Yolngu culture and thecustomary ways Yolngu care for country This requirement of Indigenous agency to driveparticipation has resulted in the new environmental institution of a formal IPA Advisory Groupof government and other stakeholders

IG Inclusivity that engages Indigenouspeople in new Indigenous institution-building

Murray Lower Darling River Indigenous Nations partnerships all contain acknowledgements ofthe traditional owners their specific relationships with country and the importance of theirdecision making structures

Coordination ACoG Whole-of-governmentcoordination

Healthy Country Healthy People multiple departments coordinate delivery acrossenvironmental socio-cultural and economic goals through a Steering Committee of governmentofficers with Indigenous organizations in an advisory role

ICoG Indigenous holistic place-basedcommunity empowerment

Djabugay Indigenous land management techniques arise from a perspective that places anIndigenous world view at the centre Eleven aspects of Indigenous land management emanatefrom this centre tradition and Lawslores elders spiritual land and sea country employmentyouth health obligation and responsibility community rangers education and cultural training

Intercultural purposeEnvironmentalmanagementpurposes

AG Usually single or dual purposemanaging specific threats species orareas

TWS Indigenous Conservation Program describes their purpose in working with Indigenoustraditional owners as to achieve protection and management of Cape York Peninsula and thereturn of homelands to the control and management of its traditional owners

ICoG Multiple purposes reflectingIndigenous-centred holistic communityplanning

Ngarrindjeri Nation Sea Country Plan has multiple goals ranging across healthy people healthycountry equitable benefit sharing health and spiritual well-being of Ngartjis (special animals)ongoing occupation of country and respect for law

Purpose ofIndigenousroles

ACoG Equity plus recognition ofspecifically defined rights

Urannah Station Indigenous engagement at Urannah Station part of the Indigenous LandCorporationrsquos (ILC) program of works is aimed at achieving equity for Indigenous Australiansthrough halving the employment gap within a decade

ICoG Reconciliation long-termlasting resolution of issues

Victorian Native Title Settlement Framework explicitly recognizes reconciliation within itsobjects which encompass social and economic upliftment grievance resolution and rightsrecognition

(cond)


Purpose ofIndigenousdevelopment

AG Development as modernizationand technology transfer

Mornington Station through the Ecofire Project the Australian Wildlife Conservancy facilitatesinvolvement of Indigenous community members including provision of training in prescribedfire management using aerial incendiaries provided by the Fire and Emergency ServicesAuthority

ICoG Indigenous empowerment andcommunity development

Kimberley Appropriate Economies Roundtable promoted theories of ecological economics andIndigenous governance aimed at empowering Indigenous peoples and other citizens to buildtheir own planning decision making and governance capacity

Capacity-building

ICoG Focus on Indigenous and non-Indigenous functionality in bothIndigenous and settler society

Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project a sophisticated approach to simultaneouslybuild Indigenous and nonindigenous capacity and pathways to sustainability has been developedthrough Lake Condah Learning

IG Focus on building trust andrelationships among diverseIndigenous groups

Northern Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance regularly hosts events thatbring together Indigenous peoples from across the north to build common agendas such as theNorthern Australian Indigenous Experts Water Futures Forum

sharing participation and intercultural purpose withreference to the illustrative examples presented in Table 3

Power sharingThe spectrum from little power sharing in IG and AG types(in which Indigenous peoples and agencies retain powerrespectively) to substantial power sharing in ICoG and ACoGboth determines and reflects the arrangements for decisionmaking rules-definition and resource cultural values andproperty rights (Figure 2) Table 3 illustrates the differencesbetween decision making within the ICoG type (MiriuwungGajerrong Cultural Planning Framework) which promotesIndigenous governance and the ACoG type (Cape YorkPeninsula Tenure Resolution) which promotes negotiatedagreement The complexity of rules-definition in ICoG isillustrated by the Djelk Rangers (ICoG) informal forum fortraditional and modernizing influences to negotiateascendancy (Altman 2008)

In relation to resource values and rights the power sharingspectrum ranges from situations in which the Indigenous rightsare insecure and the natural resource highly valued in industrialeconomies to those in which Indigenous peoples have securedrecognition of ownership of resources generally of lesservalue in industrial economies through native title or otherlegislation Table 3 illustrates the difference between theEastern Kuku-Yalanji (ACoG) with contested resources(Stork et al 2008) and the Wild Rivers case (AG) where thecontrol of water has been vested in agencies of the Australiannation-state (Jackson and Altman 2009) Nevertheless someICoG types are emerging even where Indigenous resourcerights are insecure reflecting a focus on the broaderreconciliation context the Victorian Native Title SettlementFramework is an example

ParticipationParticipation ranges on a spectrum from inclusive to narrowlydefined across the three categories of participatory processesorganizations engaged and coordination approaches (Figure2) The Wet Tropics Regional Agreement illustrates the ACoGtypesrsquo participatory focus on formal processes and those withspecifically defined interests (Table 3) Dhimurrursquos non-

Indigenous Advisory Group illustrates the ICoG focus oninclusivity that builds new environmental institutionswhereas MLDRN illustrates the IG focus on new Indigenousinstitutions (Table 3) The Indigenous Water Policy Groupconvened by NAILSMA is another example of newIndigenous institution building (Jackson and Altman 2009)Approaches to coordination vary from none in the AG types(ldquothe silordquo) through whole-of-government approaches(defined as specific strategies to link government agenciesrsquoroles and overcome the silos) to Indigenous holisticcoordination in the IG types Healthy Country Healthy People(ACoG) illustrates whole-of-government coordination bygovernment agencies developing shared approaches todelivering their sectoral goals The Djabugay (ICoG) casestudy illustrates the Indigenous holistic approach tocoordination through Indigenous worldviews of the inherentlinkages between Indigenous people the environment andIndigenous culture (Talbot 2005)

Intercultural purposeApproaches to intercultural purpose vary across a spectrumfrom IGrsquos focus on advancing distinct Indigenous societiesrsquoand culturesrsquo contributions to the nation-state to AGrsquos focuson achieving Indigenous equity within the culture of thenation-state (Figure 2) Indigenous people consistentlyhighlight the holistic nature of their engagement andknowledge of which environmental purposes form partGovernment environmental agencies on the other handusually have specific responsibilities mandated by legislationsuch as threatened species management without links topolicy arising from other legislation such as education orbusiness development (Boxelaar et al 2006) Environmentalnongovernment organizations (ENGOs) similarly havespecific mandates reflected in their organizational structuresand fundraising appeals Table 3 illustrates these differencesbetween the confined purposes of the TWS IndigenousConservation Program (AG) and the Ngarrindjerirsquos (ICoG)broad goals across healthy people healthy country spiritualwell-being and more The purposes of Indigenous roles varysimilar across a spectrum from AGrsquos concern with equity asillustrated by the ILCrsquos program at Urranah Station to ICoGrsquos


Table 4 Analysis of manifestations of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and science integration according to governancetypes

Dimensions of knowledgeintegration

Means of integrationbetween IEK and science

Appearance of amalgamsrepresenting new convergedforms of IEK and scienceknowledge

Means of managing theintegrity of IEK

Means of integration of IEKand science intoenvironmental management

Governance typeIndigenous-governedcollaborations

Collaboration between IEKand science distinctionbetween the two blurred

Amalgams emphasized egethno-ecology ethno-science digital data-baseswith both IEK and science

Indigenous law and customexercise of traditionalauthority tight contemporarygovernance structuresspecified

Combination of westernscience and Indigenousknowledge tools principles ofapplication specified

Indigenous-driven co-governance

Collaboration between IEKand science joint projects asmeans of integration

Amalgams utilized egmaps that amalgamatepainting of Indigenousknowledge with westernscientific data

Ditto Simultaneous application ofboth into environmentalmanagement principlessometimes specified

Agency-driven co-governance

ldquoValidationrdquo of IEK byscience separatedocumentation of IEK andscience

Jointly authored scientificpapers reports targeting bothscientific and Indigenousaudiences

Protocols agreementsrespect for Indigenous lawinformed consent

Negotiated approachesIndigenous emphasis onpreventing culturalappropriation

Agency governance Separation of IEK andscience little or nodocumentation of IEK

No amalgams identified Loose not specified eginvolvement of elders in on-country knowledge transfer

Management based on westernscience IEK present but itsutilization kept separate

recognition of the broader context of reconciliation as withinthe Victorian Native Title Settlement Framework (Table 3)

This spectrum of intercultural purposes is associated withdiversity in theories about development for and withIndigenous peoples (Hunt 2008) The continuum ranges fromdevelopment as modernization and technology transfer(Sillitoe and Marzano 2009) through human capabilitydevelopment and asset deployment (Sen 2005 Davies et al2008) to concepts of empowerment and participatory practice(Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004 Davies and Holcombe 2009)community development Indigenous hybrid economies(Altman 2007) and Indigenous ldquomodernitiesrdquo as hybridresponses based on Indigenous cultures (Robins 2003 Walkeret al 2007) Table 3 illustrates the differences betweenMornington Stationrsquos (AG) focus on transfer of moderntechnologies for fire management and the KimberleyAppropriate Economies Roundtable (ICoG) focus onempowerment of Indigenous peoples through their ownplanning

Differences in terms of whose capacities most needimprovement the Indigenous or non-Indigenous peoplesemerged across the case studies AG types focus on improvingIndigenous capacities to operate in ldquosettler societiesrdquo wheresettlers are defined as non-Indigenous peoples and theirdescendants in Australia who have multicultural originsACoG and ICoG types recognize the need to improve thecapacity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people tooperate across Indigenous and settler societies while IG

focuses on building capacity of Indigenous peoples Table 3illustrates differences between the Lake Condah SustainableDevelopment (ICoG) focus on both Indigenous and non-Indigenous capacity and NAILSMArsquos (IG) attention tobuilding capacity of Indigenous peoples

Manifestations of IEK and western science integrationVirtually all case studies included trips to the countrysidewhere intergenerational and cross-cultural IEK transferoccurred regarding Indigenous cultural sites bush foodslocation of cultural boundaries storylines and places andhistorical events Many documents included Indigenous artand language names for key features and biota (Table 1)Systematic documentation of IEK through digital videodatabases and spatially-located mapping of Indigenous useand occupancy is underway in several of our case studiesacross the IG ICoG and ACoG types including NAILSMAMLDRIN Ngarrindjeri and the Wet Tropics (Hill andWilliams 2009 Standley et al 2009 Tobias 2010)Nevertheless we found differentiation between the types onfour dimensions methods for integration between IEK andwestern science appearance of amalgams representing newconverged forms of IEK and science knowledge means formanaging the integrity of IEK and means for integration ofIEK and science into environmental management (Table 4)

The IG and ICoG types concentrate on collaboration betweenIEK and western science with an emphasis on amalgams suchas ethnoecology leading to some blurring of the distinctionbetween the two Amalgamated forms are often distinctly


Indigenous such as the highly innovative visual and spatialmodes of communication including paintings of country onscientifically-derived vegetation maps arising from IPAs(Hill et al 2011) Despite this convergence IG and ICoG paygreat attention to Indigenous methods for ensuring theintegrity of IEK For example NAILSMA is engaged inadvocacy for Indigenous rights and titles over IEK Yolnguspecify in the Dhimurru IPA that all decisions must be madeby those who own knowledge under customary law Thisconcern for integrity is reflected in recognition that bothknowledge systems need to be applied to environmentalmanagement MLDRIN for example expresses a specificprinciple ldquothat Indigenous science and Western science eachhave their own value and role in caring for countryrdquo (Weir2009116)

ACoG and AG types typically maintain the distinctionbetween IEK and western science through separatedocumentation initiatives and clearly specified interactionssuch as ldquovalidationrdquo of IEK by science (Evans et al 2009)New amalgams where they do appear are more clearly in thewestern science domain for example jointly authored papersor reports written to target both technical and Indigenousaudiences The AG and ACoG types do not focus as stronglyon ensuring the integrity of IEK where respect for Indigenouslaw is articulated practical means of enabling this are oftenunclear The emphasis is on agreements about IEK utilizationrather than customary law maintenance and enhancement Thecollection of IEK often does not feed into the agencyenvironmental management strategies In the Wet TropicsRegional Agreement example an Aboriginal cultural mappingproject using digital video and spatially-located data undertraditional owner control is not integrated into management(Roder 2008) Aboriginal people in the Wet Tropics are waryof science defining ldquoscientistsrdquo as ldquoknowledge takersrdquo in theRegional Agreement and adopting protocols aimed atcontrolling rather than facilitating access to and integrationof their IEK (Wet Tropics Management Authority et al 2005)Figure 2 highlights the zone of convergence of IEK andwestern science that emerges more strongly in the IG and ICoGtypes Nevertheless SESs are recognized as dynamic (Walkeret al 2006) and we detected increasing convergence in somecase studies although it was beyond the resources of theproject to systematically examine change over time Forexample an Indigenous-driven ethnobotany initiative is arecent manifestation in the Wet Tropics (Hill et al 2011) somedistinctly Indigenous amalgams have appeared in associationwith the Desert Livelihoods initiative (Desert KnowledgeCooperative Research Centre 2009) and The WildernessSociety has supported development of seasonal calendarsrecognized as a valuable tool for knowledge integration(OConnor and Prober 2010 Prober et al 2011) Wehypothesize that Indigenous peoplesrsquo utilization ofopportunities for influence will shift governance toward agreater Indigenous role over time

DISCUSSIONOur analysis of manifestations of knowledge integrationsuggests that IG and ICoG types provide better prospects thanACoG and AG types for integration and convergence of IEKand western science We recognize that both the concept ofIEK and approaches to integration are highly contestedScientists call for greater efforts in the definition and validationof the integrity of IEK knowledge claims and someIndigenous groups have also sought validation of their IEKknowledge claims by science (Evans et al 2009 Gratani et al2011) Other Indigenous people resist scientific efforts tointegrate with IEK as a result of concerns that power relationsembedded in IEK projects will further marginalize theirinterests (Smith 1999 Agrawal 2002 Davis and Ruddle 2010)Nevertheless connections between ownership of IEK andownership of land and sea in Australian Indigenous culturestrigger significant responsibilities for maintaining control(Rose 1994) This issue of control emerged as linked toknowledge integrity in our analysis IG and ICoG typesprovide the customary law authority necessary for Indigenouspeople to develop innovations that deploy their IEK whilemaintaining its integrity Supporting Indigenous governancewithout or with limited requirement for power sharing withother agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous culturalpurposes underpinning IEK and benefits knowledgeintegration (Figure 2)

Previous experiences in the integration of IEK with westernscience have demonstrated that promoting a diverse culturalfoundation can enhance the social-ecological system attributesassociated with sustainability (Berkes et al 2000 Folke 2004Walker and Salt 2006) Our analysis that Indigenousgovernance provides better prospects for such knowledgeintegration potentially links Indigenous governance withsustainability in SES Such links have been suggestedpreviously Delegates at an Australian conference onIndigenous governance in 2002 concluded that socioeconomicsustainability for Indigenous peoples only improves when realdecision making power is vested in their communities througheffective governing institutions that reflect Indigenouscultural values and beliefs (Reconciliation Australia 2002)Policy trials delivering greater Indigenous governance overwelfare and education are now underway in Cape YorkPeninsula reversing a trend elsewhere in Australia for policyinterventions that remove Indigenous control (Altman andJohns 2008 Lane and Williams 2009) The potential linkagesbetween Indigenous governance and sustainability in SES andthe role of knowledge integration in mediating any suchlinkages are worthy of further investigation

Application of the typology is likely to enable both betterdesign and more robust analysis of Indigenous engagement indiverse environmental management contexts Practitionersshould find the AG types suitable to meet a specific agencymandate and accountability where engagement of the


Indigenous polity and culture is not critical (for exampleagency mandates discussed in Hill and Williams 2009 Rosset al 2009) For researchers the theoretical underpinnings oftechnology transfer and development as modernization shouldprovide an appropriate basis for analysis (Servaes andObijiofor 2007) On the other hand the ICoG typersquoscharacteristics of Indigenous time frames traditional decisionmaking and coordination would challenge a situation in whichthe accountability requirements of the agency necessitate thatprojects meet inflexible time frames and pre-determinedoutcomes The theoretical underpinnings of Indigenousempowerment hybrid economies and community developmentshould provide an appropriate basis for analysis of outcomes(Altman 2007 Wilmsen et al 2008 Davies and Holcombe2009) Nevertheless all SESs are recognized as dynamic(Walker et al 2006) including our case studies and thisdynamism will influence application of the typology Forexample we hypothesize that Indigenous influences ongovernance increase over time as previously discussedFurther research is warranted to test the relative advantagesand disadvantages of consistency within each type and toanalyze the driving factors and the conditions to which theyare best suited and which may change with time

CONCLUSIONOur typology based on analysis of 21 Australian case studiesof Indigenous engagement in environment management helpsto distil the impact of governance on integration of IEK andwestern science in the management of SES We differentiatedfour types of engagement Indigenous-governed collaborations(IG) Indigenous-driven co-governance (ICoG) agency-driven co-governance (ACoG) and agency governance (AG)Our analysis of the influence of type on knowledge integrationsuggests that IG and ICoG types provide better prospects thanACoG and AG types The control necessary for Indigenouspeople to deploy their IEK while maintaining its integrity andavoiding risks of the deployment being used to furthermarginalize their interests provides the underpinning logicOwnership of IEK is connected to ownership of andresponsibility for land and sea in Australian Indigenoussocieties (Rose 1994) Supporting Indigenous governancewithout or with limited requirement for power sharing withother agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous culturalpurposes underpinning IEK and benefits knowledgeintegration (Figure 2) The linkage between Indigenousgovernance and social-ecological system sustainabilitysuggested by this research adds weight to the growing bodyof evidence highlighting culturally diverse governance ascritical to sustainability and is worthy of further investigation(Berkes 2004 Folke 2004) We argue that consistency ofdesign across the categories within one type is likely to enableboth better practice and more robust analysis of Indigenousengagement in diverse environmental management contextsWe advocate the application of the typology by policy makersand researchers and look forward to future evaluations of its

general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchersof scientific and Indigenous knowledge integration inenvironmental management

Responses to this article can be read online athttpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol17iss1art23responses

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the fine work ofnumerous people over many years occurring within the casestudies profiled in this study We thank the Marine and TropicalScience Research Facility and CSIROrsquos Building ResilientAustralian Biodiversity Assets Theme for the generous supportthat enabled the conduct of this comparative analysis MarcusFinn Iris Bohnet and two anonymous reviewersrsquo helpfulcomments on earlier versions greatly improved themanuscript We would like to particularly thank the SpecialEdition Editors Jocelyn Davies Erin Bohensky and JamesButler for invaluable advice guidance and support inbringing this paper to completion The ideas expressed in thispaper are those of the authors alone

LITERATURE CITEDAboriginal amp Torres Strait Islander Social JusticeCommissioner (ATSISJC) 2009 Social justice report 2008Australian Human Rights Commission and the ATSISJCSydney Australia

Agius P T Jenkin S Jarvis R Howitt and R Williams2007 (Re)asserting indigenous rights and jurisdictions withina politics of place transformative nature of native titlenegotiations in South Australia Geographical Research 45194-202 httpdxdoiorg101111j1745-5871200700451x

Agrawal A 2002 Indigenous knowledge and the politics ofclassification International Social Science Journal 54287-297

Altman J C 2007 Alleviating poverty in remote indigenousAustralia the role of the hybrid economy Topical issue102007 Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy ResearchAustralian National University Canberra Australia

Altman J C 2008 Different governance for difference theBawinanga Aboriginal Corporation Pages 177-203 in J HuntD Smith S Garling and W Sanders editors Contestedgovernance culture power and institutions in indigenousAustralia Research Monograph No 29 Australian NationalUniversity Canberra Australia

Altman J C G J Buchanan and L Larsen 2007 Theenvironmental significance of the indigenous estate natural


resource management as economic development in remoteAustralia Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy ResearchAustralian National University Canberra Australia

Altman J C and M Johns 2008 Indigenous welfare reformin the Northern Territory and Cape York a comparativeanalysis CAEPR Working Paper No 44 Centre for AboriginalEconomic Policy Research Australian National University(ANU) Canberra Australia

Arnstein S R 1969 A ladder of citizen participationAmerican Institute of Planners Journal 35216-224 httpdxdoiorg10108001944366908977225

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2010Australias health 2010 Australias health series no 12 CatNo AUS 122 AIHW Canberra Australia

Bakker K and G Bridge 2006 Material worlds Resourcegeographies and the matter of nature Progress in HumanGeography 305-27 httpdxdoiorg1011910309132506ph588oa

Ballard H L M E Fernandez-Gimenez and V ESturtevant 2008 Integration of local ecological knowledgeand conventional science a study of seven community-basedforestry organizations in the USA Ecology and Society 13(2)37 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol13iss2art37

Bauman T and D M Smyth 2007 Indigenous partnershipsin protected area management in Australia three case studiesAustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderStudies Canberra Australia

Berkes F 2004 Rethinking community-based conservationConservation Biology 18621-630 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200400077x

Berkes F J Colding and C Folke 2000 Rediscovery oftraditional ecological knowledge as adaptive managementEcological Applications 101251-1261 httpdxdoiorg1018901051-0761(2000)010[1251ROTEKA]20CO2

Bohensky E L and Y Maru 2011 Indigenous knowledgescience and resilience what have we learned from a decadeof international literature on integration Ecology andSociety 16(4)6 httpdxdoiorg105751ES-04342-160406

Borrini-Feyerabend G M Pimbert M T Farvar A Kothariand Y Renard 2004 Sharing power Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world International Institute for Environment and Development(IIED) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) Commission on Environmental Economic andSocial Policy (CEESP) Co-management Working Group(CMWG) Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA)Tehran Iran

Boxelaar L M Paine and R Beilin 2006 Communityengagement and public administration Of silos overlays andtechnologies of government Australian Journal of PublicAdministration 65113-126 httpdxdoiorg101111j1467-8500200600476x

Carlsson L and F Berkes 2005 Co-management conceptsand methodological implications Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 7565-76 httpdxdoiorg101016jjenvman200411008

Carpenter S R H A Mooney J Agard D Capistrano RS DeFries S Diaz T Dietz A K Duraiappah A Oteng-Yeboah H M Pereira C Perrings W V Reid J SarukhanR J Scholes and A Whyte 2009 Science for managingecosystem services beyond the Millennium EcosystemAssessment Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America 1061305-1312 httpdxdoiorg101073pnas0808772106

Chapin F S III S R Carpenter G P Kofinas C Folke NAbel W C Clark P Olsson D M S Smith B Walker OR Young F Berkes R Biggs J M Grove R L Naylor EPinkerton W Steffen and F J Swanson 2010 Ecosystemstewardship sustainability strategies for a rapidly changingplanet Trends in Ecology amp Evolution 25241-249 httpdxdoiorg101016jtree200910008

Claudie D and A Esposito 2005 Chuulangun signagreement Kantri Laif 21-2

Cundill G and C Fabricius 2010 Monitoring thegovernance dimension of natural resource co-managementEcology and Society 15(1)15 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol15iss1art15

Davidson-Hunt I J and OFlaherty 2007 Researchersindigenous peoples and place-based learning communitiesSociety and Natural Resources 20291-305 httpdxdoiorg10108008941920601161312

Davies J 2003 Contemporary geographies of indigenousrights and interests in rural Australia Australian Geographer 3419-45 httpdxdoiorg10108000049180320000066137

Davies J and S Holcombe 2009 Desert knowledgeintegrating knowledge and development in arid and semi-ariddrylands GeoJournal 74363-375 httpdxdoiorg101007s10708-009-9279-4

Davies J J White A Wright Y Maru and M LaFlamme2008 Applying the sustainable livelihoods approach inAustralian desert Aboriginal development The RangelandJournal 3055-65 httpdxdoiorg101071RJ07038

Davis A and K Ruddle 2010 Constructing confidencerational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological


knowledge research Ecological Applications 20880-894 httpdxdoiorg10189009-04221

Dawson T M Rounsevell T Kluvaacutenkovaacute-Oravskaacute VChobotovaacute and A Stirling 2010 Dynamic properties ofcomplex adaptive ecosystems implications for thesustainability of service provision Biodiversity andConservation 192843-2853 httpdxdoiorg101007s10531-010-9892-z

Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (CRC)2009 Apmeraltye ingkerreke People of one land all togetherRecord of conference session from Regional Arts Australia artat the heart 2nd to 4th October 2008 Desert KnowledgeCRC Alice Springs Australia

Dietz T E Ostrom and P C Stern 2003 The struggle togovern the commons Science 3021907-1912 httpdxdoiorg101126science1091015

Evans L H Scott K Muir and J Briscoe 2009 Effectiveintellectual property protection of traditional knowledge ofplants and their uses an example from Australia GeoJournal 74391-401 httpdxdoiorg101007s10708-008-9229-6

Fernandez-Gimenez M E H P Huntington and K J Frost2006 Integration or co-optation Traditional knowledge andscience in the Alaska Beluga Whale CommitteeEnvironmental Conservation 33306-315 httpdxdoiorg101017S0376892906003420

Folke C 2004 Traditional knowledge in social-ecologicalsystems Ecology and Society 9(3)7 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol9iss3art7

Folke C T Hahn P Olsson and J Norberg 2005 Adaptivegovernance of social ecological systems Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources 30441-473 httpdxdoiorg101146annurevenergy30050504144511

Gooch S and J Warburton 2009 Building and managingresilience in community-based NRM Groups an Australiancase study Society and Natural Resources 22158-171 httpdxdoiorg10108008941920801967880

Gratani M J R A Butler F Royee P Valentine DBurrows W I Canendo and A S Anderson 2011 Isvalidation of indigenous ecological knowledge a disrespectfulprocess A case study of traditional fishing poisons andinvasive fish management from the wet tropics AustraliaEcology and Society 16(3)25 httpdxdoiorg105751ES-04249-160325

Head B W 2007 Community engagement participation onwhose terms Australian Journal of Political Science 42441-454

Head B W 2009 From government to governanceexplaining and assessing new approaches to NRM Pages

15-28 in M B Lane C J Robinson and B M Taylor editorsContested country local and regional environmentalmanagement in Australia CSIRO Publishing CanberraAustralia

Hibbard M and M B Lane 2004 By the seat of your pantsindigenous action and state response Planning Theory ampPractice 595-102 httpdxdoiorg1010801464935042000204213a

Hill R 2011 Towards equity in indigenous co-managementof protected areas cultural planning by Miriuwung-Gajerrongpeople in the Kimberley Western Australia GeographicalResearch 4972-85 httpdxdoiorg101111j1745-5871201000669x

Hill R 2006 The effectiveness of agreements and protocolsto bridge between indigenous and non-indigenous tool-boxesfor protected area management a case study from the wettropics of Queensland Society and Natural Resources 19577-590 httpdxdoiorg10108008941920600742310

Hill R D Buchanan and A Baird 1999 Aborigines amp firesin the wet tropics of Queensland Australia ecosystemmanagement across cultures Society and Natural Resources 12205-223 httpdxdoiorg101080089419299279704

Hill R G Turpin W Canendo P Standley D Crayn SWarne K Keith E Addicott and F Zich 2011 Indigenous-driven tropical ethnobotany Australasian Plant Conservation 197-8

Hill R F Walsh J Davies and M Sandford 2011 Ourcountry our way guidelines for Australian Indigenousprotected area management plans Australian GovernmentCSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Department of SustainabilityWater Environment Population and Communities CairnsAustralia

Hill R K J Williams P L Pert C J Robinson A P DaleD A Westcott R A Grace and T OMalley 2010 Adaptivecommunity-based biodiversity conservation in Australiastropical rainforest Environmental Conservation 3773-82 httpdxdoiorg101017S0376892910000330

Hill R and L J Williams 2009 Indigenous natural resourcemanagement overcoming marginalisation produced inAustralias current NRM model Pages 161-178 in M B LaneC J Robinson and B M Taylor editors Contested countrylocal and regional environmental management in AustraliaCSIRO Publishing Canberra Australia

Hinkson M and B Smith 2005 Introduction conceptualmoves towards an intercultural analysis Oceania 75157-166

Houde N 2007 The six faces of traditional ecologicalknowledge challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-


management arrangements Ecology and Society 12(2)17[online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol12iss2art34

Hunt J 2008 Development in indigenous Australiainternational meanings and local approaches Presentation tothe Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research SeminarSeries 11 June 2008 Australian National University (ANU)Canberra Australia [online] URL httphttpcaepranueduausitesdefaultfilesSeminarspresentationsHunt_Development

Hunt J D Smith S Garling and W Sanders editors 2008Contested governance Culture power and institutions inindigenous Australia Research Monograph No 29Australian National University (ANU) Canberra Australia httpdxdoiorg101177096746089900600415

International Council for Science (ICSU) 2002 Sciencetraditional knowledge and sustainable development Series onscience for sustainable development No 4 InternationalCouncil for Science and the United Nations EducationScientific and Cultural Organisation Paris France

Jackson S 2009 Recognition of indigenous interests inAustralian water resource management with particularreference to environmental flow assessment GeographyCompass 2874-898 httpdxdoiorg101111j1749-8198200800103x

Jackson S and J C Altman 2009 Indigenous rights andwater policy perspectives from tropical Northern AustraliaAustralian Indigenous Law Review 1327-48

La Fontaine M 2006 New legend a story of law and cultureand the fight for self-determination in the KimberleyKimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre FitzroyCrossing Australia

Lane M B B Taylor and C J Robinson editors 2009Contested country local and regional environmentalmanagement in Australia CSIRO Publishing CanberraAustralia

Lane M B and L Williams 2009 The Natural HeritageTrust and indigenous lands the trials and tribulations of newtechnologies of governance Australian Geographer 4085-107

Lebel L J M Anderies B Campbell C Folke S Hatfield-Dodds T P Hughes and J Wilson 2006 Governance andthe capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecologicalsystems Ecology and Society 11(1)19 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol11iss1art19

Liamputtong P and D Ezzy 2005 Qualitative researchmethods Oxford University Press Melbourne Australia

Lockwood M 2010 Good governance for terrestrialprotected areas a framework principles and performance

outcomes Journal of Environmental Management 91754-766httpdxdoiorg101016jjenvman200910005

Lockwood M J Davidson A Curtis E Stratford and RGriffith 2009 Multi-level environmental governance lessonsfrom Australian natural resource management AustralianGeographer 40169-186 httpdxdoiorg10108000049180902964926

Lynam T W de Jong D Sheil T Kusumanto and K Evans2007 A review of tools for incorporating communityknowledge preferences and values into decision making innatural resources management Ecology and Society 12(1)5[online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol12iss1art5

Margerum R D 2008 A typology of collaboration efforts inenvironmental management Environmental Management 41487-500 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-008-9067-9

Martinez-Cobo J 1986 Problem of discrimination againstindigenous populations United Nations Permanent Forum ofIndigenous Peoples New York USA

Merlan F 2005 Explorations towards intercultural accountsof socio-cultural reproduction and changes Oceania 75167-182

Michener V J 1998 The participatory approachcontradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso WorldDevelopment 262105-2118 httpdxdoiorg101016S0305-750X(98)00112-0

Muller S 2003 Towards decolonisation of Australiarsquosprotected area management the Nantawarrina IndigenousProtected Area Experience Geographical Research 4129-43

Nakanura N 2008 An effective involvement of indigenouspeople in environmental impact assessment the culturalimpact assessment of the Saru River Region Japan AustralianGeographer 39427-444

Natcher D C S Davis and C G Hickey 2005 Co-management managing relationships not resources HumanOrganization 64240-250

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council(NRMMC) 2010 Australiarsquos Biodiversity ConservationStrategy 2010-2030 National Biodiversity Strategy ReviewTask Group convened under the Natural ResourceManagement Ministerial Council Australian GovernmentDepartment of Environment Water Heritage and the ArtsCanberra Australia

Nursey-Bray M 2009 A Guugu Yimmithir Bam WiiNgawiya and Girrbithi hunting planning and managementalong the Great Barrier Reef Australia Geoforum 40442-453 httpdxdoiorg101016jgeoforum200902002


Nursey-Bray M and P Rist 2009 Co-management andprotected area management achieving effective managementof a contested site lessons from the Great Barrier Reef WorldHeritage Area (GBRWHA) Marine Policy 33118-127 httpdxdoiorg101016jmarpol200805002

OConnor M H and S M Prober 2010 A calendar ofNgadju seasonal knowledge CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsFloreat Australia [online] URL httpwwwcsiroaufilesfilespzpjpdf

Olsson P C Folke and F Berkes 2004 Adaptivecomanagement for building resilience in social ecologicalsystems Environmental Management 3475-90 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-003-0101-7

Olsson P L H Gunderson S R Carpenter P Ryan LLebel C Folke and C S Holling 2006 Shooting the rapidsnavigating transitions to adaptive governance of SESsEcology and Society 11(1)18 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol11iss1art18

Ostrom E 2007 A diagnostic approach for going beyondpanaceas Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 10415181-15187 httpdxdoiorg101073pnas0702288104

Ostrom E 2008 Institutions and the environment EconomicAffairs 2824-31 httpdxdoiorg101111j1468-0270200800840x

Ostrom E and M Cox 2010 Moving beyond panaceas amulti-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecologicalanalysis Environmental Conservation 37451-463 httpdxdoiorg101017S0376892910000834

Palmer L 2006 Nature place and the recognition ofindigenous politics Australian Geographer 3733-43 httpdxdoiorg10108000049180500511954

Pickerill J 2008 From wilderness to WildCountry the powerof language in environmental campaigns in AustraliaEnvironmental Politics 1795-104 httpdxdoiorg10108009644010701811681

Plummer R and J FitzGibbon 2004 Some observations onthe terminology in co-operative environmental managementJournal of Environmental Management 7063-72 httpdxdoiorg101016jjenvman200310005

Porter L 2004 Unlearning ones privilege reflections oncross-cultural research with indigenous peoples in South-EastAustralia Planning Theory and Practice 5104-109 httpdxdoiorg1010801464935042000204222

Prober S M M H OConnor and F J Walsh 2011Australian aboriginal peoples seasonal knowledge a potentialbasis for shared understanding in environmental management

Ecology and Society 16(2)12 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol16iss2art12

Reconciliation Australia 2002 Indigenous GovernanceConference outcomes Reconciliation Australia the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Commission and the NationalInstitute for Governance Canberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwreconciliationorgauigawardspagesabout-governanceconferencephp

Reed M S 2008 Stakeholder participation for environmentalmanagement a literature review Biological Conservation 1412417-2431 httpdxdoiorg101016jbiocon200807014

Robins S 2003 Whose modernity Indigenous modernitiesand land claims after apartheid Development and Change 34265-286 httpdxdoiorg1011111467-766000305

Robinson C J and N Munungguritj 2001 Sustainablebalance a Yolngu framework for cross-cultural collaborativemanagement Pages 92-107 in R Baker J Davies and EYoung editors Working on country indigenousenvironmental management in Australia Oxford UniversityPress Melbourne Australia

Robinson G M 1998 Methods and techniques in humangeography John Wiley amp Sons Chichester UK

Roder C 2008 Cultural heritage mapping project RainforestAboriginal News 115-6

Rose D B 1994 Whose confidentiality Whose intellectualproperty Pages 1-11 in Claims to knowledge claims tocountry Native title native title claims and the role of theanthropologist Proceedings of a conference session on nativetitle at the annual conference of the AustralianAnthropological Society Institute of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Studies Canberra Australia

Ross A and K Pickering 2002 The politics of reintegratingAustralian aboriginal and American Indian indigenousknowledge into resource management the dynamics ofresource appropriation and cultural revival Human Ecology 30187-214 httpdxdoiorg101023A1015640713250

Ross H C Grant C J Robinson A Izurieta D Smyth andP Rist 2009 Co-management and indigenous protected areasin Australia achievements and ways forward AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management 1651-61

Roughley A and S Williams 2007 The engagement ofindigenous Australians in natural resource management keyfindings and outcomes from Land amp Water Australia fundedresearch and the broader literature Land amp Water AustraliaCanberra Australia

Sandstroumlm C 2009 Institutional dimensions of comanagementparticipation power and process Society and Natural


Resources 22230-244 httpdxdoiorg10108008941920802183354

Selin H and S T VanDeveer editors 2009 Changingclimates in North American politics institutionspolicymaking and multilevel governance The MIT PressCambridge Massachusetts USA

Sen A 2005 Human rights and capabilities Journal ofHuman Development 6151-166 httpdxdoiorg10108014649880500120491

Servaes J and L Obijiofor 2007 Special issue indigenouscultures and diffusion of innovations International Journalof Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology 6593-705

Sillitoe P and M Marzano 2009 Future of indigenousknowledge research in development Futures 4113-23 httpdxdoiorg101016jfutures200807004

Smith D and J Hunt 2008 Understanding indigenousAustralian governance - research theory and representationsPages 1-23 in J Hunt D Smith S Garling and W Sanderseditors Contested governance Culture power andinstitutions in indigenous Australia Research Monograph No29 Australian National University Canberra Australia

Smith L T 1999 Decolonizing methodologies research andindigenous Peoples Zed Books Ltd and University of OtagoPress London UK and Dunedin New Zealand

Standley P N J Bidwell T George V Steffensen and JGothe 2009 Connecting communities and the environmentthrough media doing saying and seeing along traditionalknowledge revival pathways Journal of Community Citizensand Third Sector Media and Communication 59-27

Stork N E S Goosem and S M Turton 2008 Australianrainforests in a global context Pages 4-20 in N E Stork andS M Turton editors Living in a dynamic tropical forestlandscape Blackwell Publishing Oxford UK httpdxdoiorg1010029781444300321ch1

Suchet-Pearson S and R Howitt 2006 On teaching andlearning resource and environmental management reframingcapacity building in multicultural settings AustralianGeographer 37117-128 httpdxdoiorg10108000049180500512010

Sveiby K E 2009 Aboriginal principles for sustainabledevelopment as told in traditional law stories SustainableDevelopment 17341-356 httpdxdoiorg101002sd389

Talbot L D 2005 Indigenous land management techniquesof the Djabugay people Thesis School of TropicalEnvironment Studies and Geography James Cook UniversityCairns Australia

Telfer W R and M J Garde 2006 Indigenous knowledgeof rock kangaroo ecology in western Arnhem Land Australia

Human Ecology 34379-406 httpdxdoiorg101007s10745-006-9023-3

Tobias T N 2010 Living proof The essential data collectionguide for indigenous use and occupancy map survey EcotrustCanada and the Union of British Columbia Indian ChiefsVancouver Canada

Walker B H and D Salt 2006 Resilience thinkingsustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world IslandPressWashington DC USA

Walker B H L H Gunderson A P Kinzig C Folke S RCarpenter and L Schultz 2006 A handful of heuristics andsome propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems Ecology and Society 11(1)13 [online]URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol11iss1art13

Walker D J P Jones S M Roberts and O R Frohling2007 When participation meets empowerment The WWFand the politics of invitation in the Chimalapas MexicoAnnals of the Association of American Geographers 97423-444 httpdxdoiorg101111j1467-8306200700546x

Weir J K 2009 Murray River Country an ecologicaldialogue with traditional owners Aboriginal Studies PressCanberra Australia

Wet Tropics Management Authority Queensland EnvironmentalProtection Agency Queensland Parks and Wildlife ServiceQueensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines andThe Commonwealth of Australia - the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage and Rainforest Aboriginal People2005 Wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage AreaRegional Agreement between Rainforest Aboriginal Peopleand the Wet Tropics Management Authority QueenslandEnvironmental Protection Agency Queensland Parks andWildlife Service Queensland Department of NaturalResources and Mines and The Commonwealth of Australia -the Department of Environment and Heritage - ForManagement of Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Wet TropicsManagement Authority Cairns Australia

Wilmsen C W Elmendorf L Fisher J Ross B Sarathyand G Wells editors 2008 Partnerships for empowermentparticipatory research for community-based natural resourcemanagement Earthscan London UK

Winter G 2006 Introduction Pages 1-34 in G Winter editorMultilevel governance of global environmental changeperspectives from science sociology and the law CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge UK

Wohling M 2009 The problem of scale in indigenousknowledge a perspective from Northern Australia Ecologyand Society 14(1)1 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol14iss1art1


integration is affected by diverse factors including approachesto inquiry into IEK adaptive co-management context and theintrinsic qualities of the natural resource (Agrawal 2002Davies 2003 Telfer and Garde 2006 Davies and Holcombe2009 Wohling 2009 Davis and Ruddle 2010) Governanceforms including power relationships multi-scalar polycentricconnections orchestration of networks and negotiation ofdiverse Indigenous and state institutions shape interactionsthat block bridge or enable integration of IEK and westernscience (Olsson et al 2004 Folke et al 2005 Olsson et al2006 Ostrom 2007)

Australian Indigenous peoples assert sovereign rights andinterests to collective self-determination and control over theircustomary estates despite profound impacts from the colonialprocesses of territorial acquisition and state formation Thepolicy mechanisms established by Australian governments torespond to Indigenous claims have resulted in Indigenouscontrol and responsibility for the environmental managementof about one-fifth of the continental land mass much of whichis of high conservation significance (Hibbard and Lane 2004Altman et al 2007 Lane and Williams 2009) HoweverIndigenous peoples suffer capacity constraints in meeting theirenvironmental management needs for these lands (Aboriginalamp Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2009)The socioeconomic disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoplesis a key constraint reflected in the life expectancy gap withnon-Indigenous people of twelve years (Australian Instituteof Health and Welfare 2010) Projects that seek to engageIndigenous peoples in environmental management alwaysencounter the politics of Indigenous rights and the context ofIndigenous socioeconomic disadvantage as key determinantsof success (Palmer 2006 Davidson and OFlaherty 2007)These distinctive features suggest that characteristics ofIndigenous peoplesrsquo engagement will differ significantly fromthe general characteristics of ldquopublicrdquo engagement inenvironmental management

Typologies are useful for interrogating characteristics andbuilding practice and theory in environmental managementfor example a recent typology of collaboration providesguidance for conveners on designing types of collaborationfor solving particular types of problems and for theoreticianson choosing between frameworks (Margerum 2008) Manyexisting typologies differentiate on the basis of a power sharingcontinuum of participation from passive informationdissemination to citizen empowerment (Arnstein 1969 Head2007 Reed 2008) Others differentiate on the basis ofpurposes for example between pragmatic versus normativeparticipation between diagnostic versus co-learning andbetween planning-centered and people-centered (Michener1998 Lynam et al 2007 Reed 2008) Reed (2008) found thatthese typologies assist in unpacking the loaded ideologicalinterpretations and diverse methodologies for participationthereby providing assistance in choosing a participatory

method Nevertheless existing typologies do not address theissue of Indigenous rights and the context of Indigenoussocioeconomic disadvantage as previously noted There iscurrently no typology of Indigenous engagement inenvironmental management in Australia despite theproliferation of engagement mechanisms and examples andthe recognized relevance of IEK and western scienceintegration for sustainability (Natural Resource ManagementMinisterial Council 2010)

Our research goal was to develop a typology that would beuseful in interrogating the characteristics of Indigenousengagement in Australian environmental managementanalyze approaches to integration of IEK and western sciencethat occurred organically as part of the engagement andconsider implications for management of sustainability insocial-ecological systems (SES) We first present thetheoretical foundations and definitions of governanceIndigenous governance and IEK from which we conduct ourresearch followed by the methods for case study selection andanalysis A description of the typology the four types anddifferences between them follows We subsequently presentour analysis of the influence of governance type on integrationof IEK and science Our conclusion considers implications ofthe typology for theory and practice of Indigenous engagementand knowledge integration for sustainability in SES

Theoretical foundations and definitionsGovernance is defined as the structures and processes by whichpeople in societies make decisions and share power (Folke etal 2005 Lebel et al 2006 Winter 2006 Ostrom 2007)Environmental governance the making of societal decisionsabout the environment is currently developing newmultilevel polycentric forms partly through government-designed decentralization and also by community-leddevelopment of new multilevel institutions in response toglobal changes (Dietz et al 2003 Selin and VanDeveer 2009Cundill and Fabricius 2010 Hill et al 2010) In Australia thisglobal trend has manifested in significant rescaling ofenvironmental governance mixing ldquotop- downrdquo directivesfrom government with ldquobottom-uprdquo approaches in whichcitizens participate directly in policy formulation andimplementation (Lane et al 2009) These new forms ofgovernance display significant attention to mechanisms forintegrating multiple knowledge systems including IEK tomanage for sustainability (Folke et al 2005 Ballard et al2008)

In considering the features of Indigenous knowledge andgovernance systems we adopt Martinez-Coborsquos (1986)working definition of Indigenous peoples as those who havinga historical continuity with precolonial societies thatdeveloped on their territories consider themselves distinctfrom other sectors of the societies now prevailing on parts orall of those territories These distinct Indigenous societies are






METHODS





















































































RESULTS


































































Typologycategory







Rules-definition





























(cond)







Capacity-building




















































Acknowledgments






































































































































METHODS





















































































RESULTS


































































Typologycategory







Rules-definition





























(cond)







Capacity-building




















































Acknowledgments














































































































































































































RESULTS


































































Typologycategory







Rules-definition





























(cond)







Capacity-building




















































Acknowledgments






























































































































































































Typologycategory







Rules-definition





























(cond)







Capacity-building




















































Acknowledgments







































































































































Capacity-building




















































Acknowledgments










































































































































































Acknowledgments

































































































































A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for...

Documents

Transcript of A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for...