Abstract Traditional environmental knowledge (usually imparted orally) is beinglost from many regions of the world, requiring novel forms of transmission if thissituation is to be redressed. Loss of this knowledge may be a significant contributoryfactor towards ecological decline. Undoubtedly, disruption to ecosystems and soci-eties that depend on these has impacted on traditional land management practices,with negative ramifications for biodiversity. From an environmental perspective,scientists in northern Australia need to understand traditional Aboriginal methodsof ‘caring for country’, such as burning regimes, so that these can be incorporatedinto strategies today for maintaining Australia’s rich biodiversity. However, infor-mation exchange should be two-way: as well as learning from local people, sciencecan in turn benefit people who may have little experience of, for example, invasivespecies. The challenge is how can the complexity of biological knowledge fromwithin different ontologies be represented and integrated in a way that it can be ofuse to scientists and local people, in order to ensure a sustainable future? The mainaim of this study was to record existing local knowledge of biodiversity for thecommunity of Aurukun (far north Queensland), integrating this knowledge withscientific data, while giving parity to both knowledge systems and protecting intel-lectual property rights. A cross-cultural collaboration between community membersand ethnobiologists resulted in development of the Aurukun Ethnobiology Data-base. An interdisciplinary approach was taken to effectively model autochthonousbiological knowledge and scientific data to create a database with a number ofpractical applications.

Keywords Aboriginal Æ Australia Æ Ethnobiology database Æ Knowledgetransmission Æ Traditional environmental knowledge

S. E. Edwards (&) Æ M. HeinrichCentre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, School of Pharmacy, University of London, 29/39Brunswick Square, London WC1N 1AX, UKe-mail: Sarah.Edwards@ulsop.ac.uk

S. E. EdwardsCentre for Economic Botany, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE, UK

123

Environ Dev SustainDOI 10.1007/s10668-006-9056-1

ORI GI N A L P A PE R

Redressing cultural erosion and ecological declinein a far North Queensland aboriginal community(Australia): the Aurukun ethnobiology database project

S. E. Edwards Æ M. Heinrich

Received: 30 September 2004 / Accepted: 6 December 2005� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Introduction

Research has demonstrated that hotspots of biodiversity often correspond to hot-spots of cultural diversity, indicating that there is an interdependence between thetwo (Bridgewater, 2002; Maffi, 2001). The implications are that traditional landmanagement practices contribute to biodiversity at the landscape level (Gadgil,Berkes, & Folke, 1993). Loss of traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) andpractices therefore may be a significant contributory factor towards ecologicaldecline. Not all traditional land management practices have been sustainable how-ever, with evidence indicating some may have had a negative impact on biodiversity.There are various historical examples whereby over-exploitation of naturalresources has led to ecological decline and collapse of societies, including notably onEaster Island (Anderies, 2000; Reuveny & Decker, 2000). In contrast, where soci-eties have endured for centuries, it has been through sustainable interaction with,and dependence on, local biodiversity. In these societies, TEK and land managementtechniques were often embedded within a sacred framework that maintained andconserved ecosystems (Posey, 2002). Burning regimes, for example, or the use of‘calendar’ plants, are codified in Aboriginal Law to indicate appropriate times ofyear to burn or when particular species can be hunted or collected, thereby pro-moting sustainable use of local natural resources (Latz, 1995; Wightman,Garalnganjak Roberts, & Williams, 1992).

Areas rich in biodiversity are often also poorly known to science, yet a wealth ofautochthonous knowledge is likely to exist on how to manage these habitats sus-tainably. There is still much that scientists can learn from traditional knowledgeholders from these societies—but time is running out. Today many Indigenous andtraditional peoples of the world face difficult challenges such as globalisation,environmental pressures (and often conflict with international companies, migrantsand governments over resources), marginalisation, racism, and economic and healthinequity. These have all compounded to cause major disruption to Indigenous andother marginalised societies resulting in loss of traditional knowledge and languages,which globally are disappearing at an alarming rate (Sutherland, 2003). The UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development has recently urged remedial actionto prevent the loss of traditional knowledge from both developed and developingcountries (Twarog & Kapoor, 2004). In much of the world, including northernAustralia (where this case study is focused), traditional knowledge custodians arenow generally few and elderly and oral inter-generational transmission has beeninterrupted through major changes to societies and lifestyle. As one Wik-AlkanTraditional Owner, recently deceased, lamented in 2002: ‘‘....my parents taught methe name of every tree, every plant, every fish... in twenty years this will all be for-gotten. Young people today prefer to live in the busy world’’. Similarly, a Wik HealthWorker who was interviewed in 2003 stated: ‘‘Young people today do not know muchbush medicine—they forget culture, but old people still have culture’’.

The Indigenous concept of ‘culture loss’ is at odds with current social sciencedefinitions of culture as a continually changing, dynamic process. Kirsch (2001)advocates use of the notion of ‘cultural property’ along with cultural property rights,which by allowing objectification of culture, provides a mechanism to identify theselosses. TEK, which can be considered both an aspect of cultural property and amanifestation of social relations, has increasingly been promoted for use in scientific

Environ Dev Sustain

123

research, impact assessment and ecological understanding (Huntington, 2000;Johannes & Hickey, 2004). Yet information exchange between ‘western’ scientistsand local peoples should not be one-way. While scientists can learn from localpeoples, so too can science benefit local people who, for example, may have littleexperience or knowledge of invasive species such as Mimosa pigra L., a noxiousweed in northern Australia. Local peoples’ knowledge of bush foods and phy-tomedicines can also be enhanced through scientific information on nutritional andchemical composition that may indicate those species particularly beneficial, orconversely, detrimental, to health.

The study of TEK however, is fraught with methodological, theoretical, politicaland practical difficulties. It is a highly politicised act, especially given the relativepolicy and legal vacuum in which ethnobiologists often work, and the highly chargedatmosphere of mistrust that has been generated by fears of biopiracy. Use of digitaltechnology for documenting TEK and related scientific information for the purposeof maintenance and restoration of biocultural diversity correspondingly posesa number of challenges. For example, as TEK is cultural property relating tocustomary land tenure, there are usually issues regarding ownership and control ofdata. Problems can also arise due to the fact that ‘western’ science is part of thedominant culture and parity is often not given to other ontologies (Purcell & Onjoro,2002), including in their digital representations. Centralisation of indigenousknowledge databases in museums, or other academic research institutes, candisempower the local custodians of traditional knowledge.

Knowledge, both scientific and traditional, is intertwined with power and humanrelationships, being constituted of a number of elements, including social, politicaland technical (Murdoch & Clark, 1994). Like scientific knowledge, TEK is alsodynamic and rarely isolated or static, but whereas TEK is based on ‘diachronic’observations, accumulated over generations of detailed observations and interac-tions with local ecosystems, modern scientific observations are usually based on‘synchronic’ observations. TEK is generally qualitative and geographically restricted,in contrast to scientific knowledge, which tends towards the quantitative and global(Gadgil et al., 1993). In order to productively engage traditional knowledge indevelopment, Agrawal (1995) argues that there is a need to move beyond thedichotomy of ‘indigenous’ versus ‘scientific’ and work towards building bridgesacross the traditional and scientific divide. This requires achieving parity and inte-gration between traditional and scientific knowledge systems, demanding a mutualunderstanding of the cultural, material and epistemological basis of each (Purcell &Onjoro, 2002; Sillitoe, 2002). Equitable approaches to research have also increas-ingly led to calls for making scientific data available in accessible and meaningfulformats for people in the regions of study, rather than disseminating researchfindings solely through conventional scientific publications and reports for fundingbodies (Shanley & Laird, 2002).

In an attempt to meet these challenges, the case study presented in this paper hasfocused on development of a local database that integrates both Indigenous andscientific forms of biological and environmental knowledge. It is hoped that this willprove to be a useful tool not only for conservation and land management purposes,but also as a medium to promote transmission of traditional knowledge.

In 2001 the principle author of this paper, who at the time was working with theRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew in London, was personally invited by Aurukun ShireCouncil and Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation (an Indigenous NGO

Environ Dev Sustain

123

based in Cairns) to collaborate with Wik and Kugu traditional knowledge custodiansto both record and develop a database of ethnobiological knowledge for the com-munity. The project was initiated by Aurukun Shire Council’s Land and SeaManagement Centre on behalf of Traditional Owners due to concern at loss of localTEK and environmental degradation. An initial 3 month scoping study led to a PhDfunded project at the University of London, with further fieldwork undertaken overa 12 month period in Aurukun between 2001 and 2003.

Field site

The township of Aurukun was first established as a mission in 1904, and is situatedon the western side of Cape York Peninsula, on the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queens-land, Australia, 75 km south of Weipa, a mining town (see Fig. 1). It has a popu-lation of about 1300, and is the largest Aboriginal community on Cape York.Aurukun is classified as being ‘very remote’ according to the Australian Bureau ofStatistics: overland, access to Aurukun is restricted to 4-wheeldrive vehicles via a dirtroad, which is cut off for a few months each year during the wet season when travel isrestricted to air or sea.

Fig. 1 Map of Cape York Peninsula, showing Aurukun on the Gulf of Carpentaria, far NorthQueensland, Australia

Environ Dev Sustain

123

The Shire of Aurukun covers 7570 km2 and is bounded by Holroyd River andPormpuraaw Deed of Grant in Trust lands to the south, Cook Shire and ArcherBend National Park to the east, and the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cook Shire to thenorth. The area is one of high biodiversity and geological variation. The habitatsaround Aurukun are also diverse: mostly dominated by dense eucalyptus forest, theregion also contains open savanna, riverine gallery forest, mangroves and vastwetlands (Neldner & Clarkson, 1995). Aside from some pastoralism for a cattleindustry established by the mission (which had declined by the 1970s), to date therehas been very little non-traditional use of the land. The country around Aurukun is,from a western perspective, undeveloped (i.e. it lacks basic infrastructure such asroads, aside from some dirt tracks; and there are very few buildings, other than on ahandful of outstations1).

The climate of Cape York is monsoonal, with most rain in Aurukun fallingbetween December and March, when the coastal area is subject to massive flooding.During the wet season humidity is high and temperatures reach 33–36�C, whileduring the dry season in July temperatures can drop to 21�C (Tropical SavannasCRC, undated).

In October 2000, the Australian Federal Court made an order recognising nativetitle to a large part of Wik2 country. Effectively this means that Wik people havelegal rights of access for hunting and ceremonial purposes, including to pastoralleases on Crown Land. However, mining leases which predate the native title claimhave legal precedence. There are currently two mining leases for bauxite depositsfalling within Wik country: a Comalco (subsidiary of Rio Tinto) lease at Pera Headwhich covers 1120 km2; and another lease covering 1730 km2 (Aurukun Land andSea Management Co-ordinator, pers. comm.). Drilling has already begun, and it islikely that mining operations will be fully under way within the next few years.

The Indigenous population of Aurukun consists predominantly of the linguisti-cally related Wik and Kugu groups from south of the Archer River, and theWik-Way people from north of the Archer. People in Aurukun distinguish them-selves according to whether they are ‘top end’ (‘timber country’ origins) or ‘bottomend’ (‘beach side’ or coastal origins). By right of clan or country people own arecognised variety of languages, of which there are about 15 belonging to the familyknown as the Wik group (Sutton, 1994). This includes languages prefixed with ‘Wik’-(which means ‘language’), such as Wik-Mungkan, Wik-Ngathan, and Wik-Alkan,and ‘Kugu’- (which also means ‘language’) such as Kugu-Uwanh and Kugu-Muminh.Knowledge of many of these languages varies, with full competence in up to four orfive in some cases. The lingua franca in Aurukun today is Wik-Mungkan, which hasover 1,000 speakers, but use of the other languages is declining; several were alreadyin stages of decline or extinct by the late 1970s (Sutton, 1978).

Fairly extensive anthropological work has been carried out in Aurukun since the1920s, with earlier work reviewed in detail in von Sturmer (1978) and Sutton (1978).Athol Chase undertook anthropological research in Aurukun in the 1970s (Chase &Sutton, 1981), and Peter Sutton carried out studies in anthropology and linguistics inthe area in the 1970s and 1980s (Sutton, 1978, 1994, 1995). Dermot Smyth carried outsome ethnobotanical studies with Peter Sutton in 1978 and 1979 as part of a mapping

1 Outstations are ‘homeland’ sites on outlying clan estates2 The generic term ‘Wik’ will be used throughout this paper to refer to all the Wik, Kugu andWik-Way peoples of Aurukun unless specifically stated otherwise.

Environ Dev Sustain

123

exercise (Sutton, P., & Smyth, D. 1980, Unpublished notes). In the 1980s archae-ologist Roger Cribb undertook research on shell mounds, which are considered to be‘story places’ and of non-human origin by the Wik custodians (Sutton, 1994). Cribbalso investigated plant distribution at Love River and the Archer-Ward River area(Cribb, Walmbeng, Wolmby, & Taisman, 1988). While anthropological work hasbeen extensive in Aurukun, ethnobotanical research has been limited to date, withexisting published data confined to broader linguistic, material culture and mappingstudies.

Environmental degradation and loss of TEK

Although Australia was perceived as a ‘natural wilderness’ by the early Europeancolonists, who declared it Terra Nullius (empty land), evidence indicates that Aus-tralia’s ecosystems had been modified and managed for thousands of years throughburning regimes and management of natural resources (Johnson, 2005; Jones, 1969;Lewis, 1989; Miller et al., 2005)—although the extent of the modification to eco-systems is hotly debated. According to Aboriginal activist and academic MarciaLangton, there are no wildernesses, just ‘cultural landscapes’ (Langton, 1995).

In northern Australia loss of TEK is being compounded by environmentaldegradation caused by the influx of weeds and feral animals, and changes in land use,such as pastoralism and mining activities. Since colonisation by Europeans just over200 years ago, 13% of Australia’s native vegetation has been cleared, or substan-tially modified (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Although land clearance has amajor impact on Australia’s biodiversity, soil and water, since the mid-1990s the rateof clearance has increased. In 1999, it is estimated that about 470,000 ha werecleared, around 90% in Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). In fact,deforestation figures from the United Nations show that Australia’s land clearing isamongst the worst in the world, with only Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico retainingworse deforestation rates (UNFAO, 2001). Land clearing is a key threat toAustralia’s terrestrial biodiversity, with the continent having one of the highestextinction rates—about 14.8% of Australia’s known 15,638 vascular plants werelisted as threatened by IUCN in 1997 (Mill, 1998).

The impending mining activity in Aurukun Shire added urgency to the need tocollect ethnobiological data, before some of the habitats falling within the mininglease areas are cleared of vegetation. Aboriginal Australians’ relationship with their‘country’ is one of nurturing and responsibility—an obligation that in the same wayas kinship relationships involves mutual co-dependency (Rose, 1996). Health of theland is considered by Wik people to be linked to health of the people. Thus aWik-Mungkan Traditional Owner whose clan estate falls within one of the mininglease areas, stated in 2001: ‘‘... people won’t be able to live on their own countryanymore and will get sick.’’

Complex socio-political factors, including the change from subsistence economiesto one predominantly based on ‘passive welfare’, have contributed to loss of tradi-tional knowledge and practices in Aurukun. Another factor highlighted by WikElders was the breakdown in Wik pedagogy, typified by the closure more than30 years ago of the ‘sacred school’, where young Wik men reaching adulthood weresegregated from the rest of the community and instructed in both sacred andpractical aspects of ‘caring for country’. Wik TEK is inextricably linked to both

Environ Dev Sustain

123

practice and belief: knowing is through doing; traditional pedagogy is through quietobservation and practice, rather than enquiry. One Wik-Mungkan TraditionalOwner and Elder expressed his regret at having such a limited time to learn from hisown parents: due to poor health as a child he was dispatched to a school on Mor-nington Island from a young age; on his return he had only a couple of weeks tolearn traditional knowledge before he was sent away again by the mission authori-ties, at the age of 15, to work on a peal lugger. His instruction was to quietly watchand closely observe the adults’ activities to learn ‘culture’.

Local priorities

As a collaborative project between Wik people and visiting scientists, the scientificframework was developed around local priorities. These were established duringongoing consultation with Wik Elders and Traditional Owners during periods offieldwork in Aurukun. The main priority agreed by Wik people was for the pro-motion of inter-generational transmission of knowledge. Novel methods of knowl-edge transmission using digital media to complement traditional oral methods ofknowledge transfer were considered potentially useful tools to prevent traditionalknowledge from being lost. A number of Wik people felt that using computers tolearn about TEK would also enable youths to be ‘two-way smart’: to simultaneouslylearn about Wik ‘culture’ while developing skills that could assist participation in theglobal economy.

Another priority was to investigate ways in which traditional knowledge could beused to improve local health, by incorporating data from bioscientific studies of localplant species. Health is viewed not just in terms of body, but also applies to societyand environment. Thus recording the location of particular plants, including weedspecies that can have a detrimental effect on local habitats was requested. Anotherrequirement was to record those species occurring in the mining lease areas, forrehabilitation work post-mining. Finally, another priority was identifying local spe-cies which could provide income generation both from sustainable harvesting, andfrom areas due to be clear-felled to make way for the bauxite mines.

Data collection

Being both sensitive to, and understanding, cultural mores is vital in anycross-cultural endeavour, including ethnobiological research. Assumptions thatnon-Aboriginal researchers can apply standard methodologies, however, simply bybeing culturally sensitive are misguided (Holmes, Stewart, Garrow, Anderson, &Thorpe, 2002). It is important for researchers to be aware that what is applicable inone cultural context may not be in another. Standard textbook ethnobiologicalmethods, for example free listing, pile sorts, questionnaires and questioning a broadrange or random sample of ‘informants’ (Cotton, 1996, p. 103; Martin, 1995, p. 97),are generally inappropriate in the Australian Aboriginal context (Edwards, Nebel, &Heinrich, 2005). Although these methods appear logical for gathering quantitativeand statistical data, difficulties arise in applying them in the Wik context as onlypeople with kinship ties to clan estates are allowed to speak on behalf of ‘country’,including about the plants and animals found there. The importance of speaking ‘on

Environ Dev Sustain

123

country’ was explained by a Wik-Mungkan Traditional Owner in 2001: ‘‘It’simportant to talk... [to visiting scientists] ...on own country so ancestors who arewatching can send thoughts—help him with words to say.’’

In the Wik context asking questions can also be deemed disrespectful: you aretold or shown only what it is deemed appropriate for you to know:

‘‘...much of the passing on of knowledge happens within close and ritualrelationships, in ‘yarning’ and traditional stories—the knowledge is ‘shown’ ina context of respect (rather than through direct asking), by relating things tothe local landscape or ‘country’’’ (Craig, 2000).

This no doubt explains why early on during the first fieldwork period in Aurukun,the principal author was ‘adopted’ into a family, by one of the major traditionalknowledge custodians, a Kugu-Uwanh ‘Songman’ (now sadly deceased). Although adistinct honour, it was also pragmatic from a Wik perspective, in order for the authorto have the correct kinship relationship to be able to proceed with the task ofrecording TEK.

Participant-observation (Cotton, 1996, p. 92; Martin, 1995, p. 96; Silverman, 2001,pp. 45, 72, 234), was employed in this study, while living in Aurukun and sur-rounding outstations over three extended fieldwork periods, and sharing many as-pects of daily life including digging for wild yams and dye plants, searching for‘sugarbag’ (wild native honey), attending ceremonies, and camping trips to clanestates. On a practical day-to-day basis, formal data collection ‘on-the-ground’ wasdirected by Wik colleagues, with the scientific framework developed around Wikneeds and aspirations. From a theoretical perspective, a phenomenological-herme-neutic approach was applied to the methodology. Data was allowed to present itself,with the guidance of Wik colleagues; through collation of facts it was then inter-preted and reconstructed; while the researcher attempted to remove any pre-existingcultural filters or presuppositions, by immersion as far as possible in Wik ontologies.

Although a plant may actually exist in our ‘cognitive situation’, how we view it isimposed or constituted by us, a process learnt through our own individual experiencefrom within our society (Schiffman, 1996, p. 187). Thus an individual plant to atrained botanist is not always viewed in the same way by Wik colleagues. Forexample, while it is the case that Dioscorea species are generally dioecious (i.e.separate male and female flowers occur on separate plants), in Wik perception, the‘male’ form of May Wathiy (D. transversa R.Br.) bears seeds, while the ‘female’ formdoes not—as explained, ‘‘like humans’’. Similarly, in contrast to the scientific per-spective, two closely related freshwater bird species, the brolga (Grus rubicunda)and the sarus crane (G. antigone) are discerned as male and female of the sameWik-Mungkan species, Minh Kor’, according to their different markings.

Categorisation of the natural world although based on cognition and context, isalso dependent on one’s level of expertise: proficiency can lead to a convergence ofconceptualisation of the biological world that transcends cultural boundaries andshared experiences (Bailenson, Shum, Atran, Medin, & Coley, 2002). Wik plantexperts were able to discuss kinship relationships between plants, which often alsocorresponded with phylogenetic reasoning (for example Morinda citrifolia L. isrecognised as a relative of Pogonolobus reticulata F. Muell., both from the Rubiaceaefamily). However, it was apparent that other Wik colleagues did not clearly knowthe names or kinship between some plants as this knowledge has fallen into disuse.

Environ Dev Sustain

123

Data was collected with Traditional Owners or their delegates on ‘country’, whichoften involved camping trips to outlying clan estates. When visiting a clan estate forthe first time, the researcher was ‘initiated’ into ‘country’. This entails having the‘smell’ of the Traditional Owner rubbed onto the newcomer, while calling out toancestral spirits, in order to be recognised as not being a stranger. Vouchers werecollected with, or by Traditional Owners or their delegates: this was necessary asthere are a number of ‘poison’ sites and ‘story places’ or totemic centres (‘aw’) whichhave to be avoided, as these are considered particularly hazardous. Voucher speci-mens have been lodged at the Queensland Herbarium (BRI) and James CookUniversity (JCU) with some duplicates at the School of Pharmacy, University ofLondon. These remain the property of Wik Traditional Owners, which is statedclearly on herbarium labels.

A GPS was used to record locations, and local names and cultural information asdescribed by Traditional Owners (or their delegates), were recorded in field note-books, with digital photos taken along with vouchers. Students from Aurukun’sKoolkan School were involved as much as possible in the data collection process,thus learning directly from Traditional Owners, and also acquiring new skills such asuse of GPS and digital camera. Elderly Wik people too frail to travel to outstationswere consulted at the local ‘respite centre’, using books with photos of locallyoccurring plants and animals, and digital images and records in the database.Additional information was gathered in this way, although obviously in these casesvoucher specimens were not collected. In addition to recording traditional knowl-edge about local Wik biodiversity, some ecological surveys were undertaken withWik Rangers to record distribution of weed species such as Parkinsonia aculeata L.,in order to assist in land management plans.

Data management

The Aurukun Ethnobiology Database was developed in order to store the Wikethnobiological information collected, along with corresponding scientific data.Microsoft Access was selected as the relational database management system(RDBMS) which as part of MS Office, the de facto choice for PCs, was available inAurukun without significant extra cost. Additional code was written using VBA andSQL. A structured, systems analysis approach (Kendall & Kendall, 2002) wasundertaken, involving a number of formalised steps, including interviewing stake-holders to draw up a requirements list, entity modeling, and normalisation of fieldsto develop the relational database (Lejk & Deeks, 2002).

Bowker (2000) argues that ‘‘in a biodiverse world we need to be able to manipulateontologically diverse data’’, and in the Aurukun ethnobiology database both Wik andscientific ontologies are represented. The database is a ‘third space’ (as proposed byTurnbull, 1997) in which the disparate knowledge traditions can work together. Atthe fundamental unit of biodiversity, the taxon, differences often exist between localand scientific taxonomic concepts which need to be comprehended to avoidmiscommunication (Cunningham, 2001, pp. 18–19), and to mediate between both thescientific and Wik domains, or etic and emic categories. In logical terms there is amany-to-many relationship between the Wik taxon and scientific taxon entities.Creating an artificial entity in the database, ‘Wik-scientific’ taxon, where the twooverlap, logically provides a one-to-many relationship between the Wik taxon and

Environ Dev Sustain

123

‘Wik-scientific’ taxon, and also between the scientific taxon and ‘Wik-scientific’taxon (see Fig. 2). With this data structure in place it is then possible to query oneither the Wik or scientific taxon, and display the results from both tables (entities).Thus it can permit both Wik people and scientists to search the database and viewthe data from either ontological perspective.

Wik people do not have a separate term specifically meaning ‘plant’, butcategorise plant life into three groups, based on habit (life-form). These areidentified in Wik-Mungkan using the primary lexemes Yuk for tree, Kuuy forvine, and Wak for ‘‘grass’’ (herbaceous plants). However, the data collectedshowed that Wik biological taxonomy is also contextual, rather than static, and inaddition to being based on habit, is classified according to function or food cri-teria and kinship. Similarly, Waddy (1988) suggests that for Groote EylandtAboriginal people of northern Australia plants and animals are conceptualised indistinct but overlapping systems of classification, including hierarchical classifi-cations, binary classifications (such as edible versus inedible), totemic classifica-tions and linguistic classifications. In Wik-Mungkan, a utilitarian classificationdistinguishes between fibre/string (Nhay) and protein and carbohydrate foods(Minh and May respectively). As in scientific taxonomy, in the Wik system thereare often synonyms whereby the same taxon is referred to by different names.Conversely there are homonyms, whereby the same name is applied to differenttaxa.

Data standards including the Taxonomic Database Working Group (TDWG)international standard of economic botany levels 1 and 2 use categories (Cook, 1995)were used in the database with ‘look-up’ tables to facilitate data entry. Theorthography used in the database follows established convention employed in theWik-Mungkan (Kilham, Pamulkan, Pootechemunka, & Wolmby, 1986) andWik-Ngathan (Sutton, 1995) Dictionaries. While the relational database developedhas a complex data structure (see Fig. 3), this is hidden from the user, with front-ends to the database designed to be user-friendly. Clearly labelled buttons and drop-down lists for data entry and querying are provided where appropriate. Termsappropriate to both Wik users and scientists are used. For Wik users, scientific datacan easily be accessed by searching on local language names and uses; collaboratingscientists can access cultural information by searching on scientific names. Digitalimages, hyperlinks to audio files, and site and ecological survey data are also

Fig. 2 Entity model showing relationship between Wik taxon and scientific taxon

Environ Dev Sustain

123

Fig

.3

Au

ruk

un

eth

no

bio

log

yd

ata

ba

sed

ata

stru

ctu

re

Environ Dev Sustain

123

included in the database, with the potential for integration with a GIS. Site data isalso recorded, with name of Traditional Owners and survey data.

A major area of concern by ‘traditional’ peoples today is how to protect theircultural and intellectual property (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,2002). Thus ownership and use of the database is controlled locally in Aurukun byWik personnel in Aurukun Shire Council’s Land and Sea Management Centre. Aread-only version of the database with sensitive records removed was also madeavailable on PCs in Aurukun’s Koolkan School, for students and staff to access Wikethnobiological information. Printable reports from the database with images andtext were seen as useful tools for promoting knowledge transmission and literacyskills. Ultimately, local people decide what can and can not be recorded on thedatabase, as the Songman stated:

‘‘I got memory...of what need.... If I say ‘No’ I don’t want it record; that’s myright. Have to tell you what you can do and what can put in that computer andwhatever radio [audio recorder]. Because I believe that ... to tell what is true.You take the Law [Aboriginal Law].... If you break my Law—see what I’vegiven you, Law...’’ (2002).

All cultural information recorded on the Aurukun ethnobiology database is en-tered against individual information sources. Flags are available to indicate if thisinformation is either ‘sensitive’ or ‘women’s business’. For each Wik culturalrecord a flag is also available to indicate if all the data linked to that particulartaxon is sensitive. These flags highlight that access to these particular data isrestricted.

Community meetings and workshops were held towards the end of each fieldworkperiod to demonstrate the database to Wik people and discuss project outcomes andintellectual property right issues. As part of the on-going collaborative process, italso provided a formal forum in which Elders, Traditional Owners, Justice GroupMembers and Shire Council representatives could provide feedback and raise anyconcerns they might have had.

Although there are databases of published ethnobiological data available over theInternet, such as the University of Michigan’s Native American Ethnobotanydatabase (http://www.herb.umd.umich.edu/), systematic development of localethnobiological databases for communities has to date been lacking. In a survey byTerralingua of current projects world-wide devoted to maintenance and restorationof biocultural diversity, out of 40 only 4 projects (including this) specifically mentionthe use of databases to promote cultural transmission in communities, 3 of which arein Australia (Terralingua, 2005).

The fact that local oral knowledge has now been recorded and entered in thedatabase may actually provide some protection of Wik intellectual property.Without a record there is no ‘proof of ownership’, whereas, although it offerslimited protection, the database is protected by copyright law, in addition toproviding a statement of ownership of cultural knowledge. The Indian Govern-ment, for example, has developed a digital database of traditional Indian plantmedicines that will be referred to routinely by patent offices while reviewing patentapplications where the innovation is of botanical origin. This will enable patentrequests to be rejected where centuries-old knowledge is passed off as innovation(Prasad, 2005).

Environ Dev Sustain

123

Discussion and conclusions

The main outcome of this study has been the development of the AurukunEthnobiology Database. Without undertaking a further study in Aurukun it is dif-ficult to assess the actual impact of the database and how it is being used in practice.Although developed primarily as a Land and Sea Management tool, to assist in itsrole of ‘caring for country’, a recent communication with the community indicatesthat in addition to its original functions, it is being used by Wik youths promotingtheir traditional knowledge in a local eco-tourism initiative. A number of the ori-ginal custodians of the knowledge incorporated into the database have since itsinception passed away, thus the database is a valuable legacy and it is hoped willprevent their knowledge being lost.

While the development of a database of ethnobiological knowledge and acollaborative research approach is not new, Aboriginal control and ownership of adatabase that gives parity to both scientific and local knowledge systems is hopefullypart of the new trend in truly equitable ethnobiological research partnerships. Thedatabase provides users with access to Wik ethnobiological knowledge and corre-sponding scientific data, a syncretic approach linking information between Wik andscientific ontological domains. ‘Hybridisation’ of scientific and Wik knowledgerepresented by the database may also facilitate inter-cultural communication andunderstanding between Wik people and visiting scientists; thus facilitating devel-opment of new synergistic methods to overcome environmental problems, promotesustainable use of biodiversity, and assist with habitat conservation. In the area ofhealth management, one that seriously needs addressing regarding the healthinequity of Aboriginal peoples, integration of knowledge systems may also elevatehealth status by promoting the safe use of local bush foods and phytomedicines.Finally, the database is a useful tool for both conserving traditional knowledge andcomplementing existing oral inter-generational transmission of this knowledge in itsrole as an educational resource in the local school. Other Aboriginal communities innorthern Australia have expressed an interest in development of a database alongsimilar lines, as many of the issues faced in Aurukun are not unique. It is hoped thatthe Aurukun Ethnobiology Database will therefore serve as a prototype for otherareas.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the Wik, Wik-Way and Kugu people ofAurukun who collaborated in this project and Aurukun Shire Council, Aurukun Health Clinic(Queensland Health), Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation (especially Nick Smith andDr. Jenny Carter), Emma Ignjic, James Cook University, and Koolkan School for their support.We would also like to thank the Thriplow Trust who provided initial funding for fieldwork throughthe Centre for Economic Botany, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and the School of Pharmacy,University of London, for their studentship. We are also indebted to British Airways who awardedinternational flights under their Assisting Conservation Scheme, the Hunt Institute for receipt ofthe Lawrence Memorial Award, and the Richard Cannell Travel Fund for assistance withfieldwork costs.

References

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Devel-opment and Change, 26, 413–439.

Anderies, J. M. (2000). The human actor in ecological-economic models: On modeling human behaviorand institutions in simple ecological economic systems. Ecological Economics, 35, 393–412.

Environ Dev Sustain

123

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002). Measuring Australia’s progress: The headline indicators(http://www.abs.gov.au/).

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Year book Australia 2003: Environment extent and clearing ofnative vegetation (http://www.abs.gov.au/).

Bailenson, J. N., Shum, M. S., Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Coley, J. D. (2002). A bird’s eye view:biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition, 84, 1–53.

Bowker, G. C. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30, 643–683.Bridgewater, P. B. (2002). Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and nature. Environmental

Science and Policy, 5, 9–12.Chase, A. K., & Sutton, P. (1981). Hunter-gatherers in a rich environment: Aboriginal coastal

exploitation in Cape York Peninsula. In A. Keast (Ed.), Ecological biogeography in Australia(pp. 1817–1852). Junk: The Hague.

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. (2002). Integrating intellectual property rights anddevelopment policy. London.

Cook, F. E. M. (1995). Economic botany data collection standard. Kew: Prepared for the Interna-tional Working Group on Taxonomic Databases for Plant Sciences (TDWG), Royal BotanicGardens, 146 pp.

Cotton, C. M. (1996). Ethnobotany: Principles and applications. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Craig, D. (2000). Practical logics: The shapes and lessons of popular medical knowledge and

practice – examples from Vietnam and Indigenous Australia. Social Science and Medicine, 51,703–711.

Cribb, R., Walmbeng, R., Wolmby, R., & Taisman, C. (1988). Landscape as cultural artefact: Shellmounds and plants in Aurukun, Cape York Peninsula. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 60–73.

Cunningham, A. B. (2001). Applied ethnobotany: People, wild plant use and conservation. Londonand Sterling, VA: (People and Plants Conservation Manual) Earthscan Publications Ltd. 256 pp.

Edwards, S., Nebel, S., & Heinrich, M. (2005). Questionnaire surveys: Methodological and epis-temological problems for field-based ethnopharmcologists. Journal of Ethnopharmacology,100(1–2), 30–36.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.Ambio, 22(2–3), 151–156.

Holmes, W., Stewart, P., Garrow, A., Anderson, I., & Thorpe, L. (2002). Researching aboriginalhealth: Experience from a study of urban young people’s health and well-being. Social Scienceand Medicine, 54, 1267–1279.

Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods andapplications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274.

Johannes, R. E., & Hickey, F. R. (2004). Evolution of village-based marine resource managementin Vanuatu between 1993 and 2001. Coastal region and small island papers, 15, UNESCO, Paris,48 pp.

Johnson, N. (2005). Anthropology: The remaking of Australia’s ecology. Science, 309, 255–256.Jones, R. (1969). Fire-stick farming. Australian Natural History, 16(7), 224–228.Kendall, K. E., & Kendall, J. E. (2002) Systems analysis and design. New Jersery: Prentice Hall.Kilham, C., Pamulkan, M., Pootechemunka, J., & Wolmby, T. (1986). Dictionary and source-book of

the Wik-Mungkan language. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 425 pp.Kirsch, S. (2001). Lost worlds: Environmental disaster, ‘‘Culture Loss,’’ and the law. Current

Anthropology, 42(2), 167–198.Langton, M. (1995). The European construction of wilderness. Wilderness Society Magazine,

143(Summer 95/96), Hobart.Latz, P. (1995). Bushfires and Bush Tucker: Aboriginal plant use in central Australia. Alice Springs:

IAD Press.Lejk, M., & Deeks, D. (2002). Systems analysis techniques. Harlow: Addison Wesley.Lewis, H. T. (1989). Ecological and technical knowledge of fire: Aborigines versus park managers in

Northern Australia. American Anthropologist, 91, 940–961.Maffi, L. (2001). On the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On

biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment (pp. 1–50). Washingtonand London: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethnobotany: A ‘people and plants’ conservation manual. WWF, London:Chapman & Hall.

Mill, J. (1998). The 1997 IUCN red list of threatened plants – the first global list of the world’sthreatened flora. Danthonia, 7(4), (www.anbg.gov.au/anpc/danv7n1.html).

Environ Dev Sustain

123

Miller, G. H., Fogel, M. L., Magee, J. W., Gaga, M. K., Clarke, S. J., & Johnson, B. J. (2005).Ecosystem collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a human role in megafaunal extinction. Science,309(5732), 287–290.

Murdoch, J., & Clark, J. (1994). Sustainable knowledge. Geoforum, 25(2), 115–132.Neldner, V. J., & Clarkson, J. R. (1995). Vegetation survey and mapping of Cape York Peninsula.

Brisbane, Australia: Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy, Office of the Co-ordinatorGeneral and Queensland Department of Environmental Heritage.

Posey, D. A. (2002). Commodification of the sacred through intellectual property rights. Journal ofEthnopharmacology, 83(1–2), 3–12.

Prasad, G. C. (2005). EU to protect India’s traditional knowledge. The Economic Times Online,India Times. Monday May 16 2005 (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1111159.cms).

Purcell, T., & Onjoro, E. A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge, power and parity. In P. Sillitoe,A. Bicker, & J. Pottier (Eds.), Participating in development – approaches to indigenous knowl-edge (pp. 162–188). Routledge, London: ASA Monographs No. 39.

Reuveny, R., & Decker, C. S. (2000). Easter Island: Historical anecdote or warning for the future?Ecological Economics, 35, 271–287.

Rose, D. B. (1996) Nourishing terrains: Australian aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness.Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission.

Schiffman, H. R. (1996). Sensation and perception: An integrated approach (4th ed.). New York:Wiley, 581 pp.

Shanley, P., & Laird, S. (2002). Giving back: Making research results relevant to local groups andconservation. In S. A. Laird (Ed.), Biodiversity and traditional knowledge equitable partnershipsin practice (pp. 102–124). London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Sillitoe, P. (2002). Globalizing indigenous knowledge. In P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker, & J. Pottier (Eds.),Participating in development: Approaches to indigenous knowledge (pp. 108–137). Routledge,London: A.S.A. Monographs 39.

Silverman, D. (2001). What is qualitative research? Chapter 2. In Interpreting qualitative data(pp. 25–41). London: Sage Publications.

Sutherland, W. J. (2003). Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species.Nature, 423(6937), 276–279.

Sutton, P. (1978). Wik: Aboriginal society, territory and language at Cape Keerweer, Cape YorkPeninsula, Australia. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.

Sutton, P. (1994). Material culture traditions of the Wik people, Cape York Peninsula. Records of theSouth Australian Museum, 27(1), 31–52.

Sutton, P. (1995). Wik-Ngathan dictionary. Adelaide: Caitlin Press.Terralingua. (2005). Report on the global source book on biocultural diversity [http://www.terralin-

gua.org/GSBBCD.htm (10 October 2005)].Tropical Savannas CRC. (undated). Savanna explorer, Northern Territory University, Darwin,

Australia, 3 October 2005 (http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/information/cy/cy_at.html).Turnbull, D. (1997). Reframing science and other local knowledge traditions. Futures, 29(6),

551–562.Twarog, S., & Kapoor, P. (Eds.), (2004). Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge: Systems,

national experiences and international dimensions. United Nations, New York and Geneva:United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 420 pp.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2001). Forest resources assessment 2000.UNFAO.

von Sturmer, J. R. (1978). The Wik region: Economy, territoriality and totemism in Western CapeYork Peninsula, North Queensland. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.

Waddy, J. A. (1988). Classification of plants and animals from a Groote Eylandt Aboriginal point ofview (Vol. 1, 231 pp). NT, Australia: Australian National University, North Australia ResearchUnit.

Wightman, G., Garalnganjak Roberts, J., & Williams, L. (1992). Mangarrayi ethnobotany aboriginalplant use from the Elsey area Northern Australia. Darwin: Northern Territory Botanical BulletinNo. 15, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory.

Environ Dev Sustain

123