Content uploaded by Erin Bohensky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erin Bohensky
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2013 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Bohensky, E. L., J. R. A. Butler, and J. Davies. 2013. Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and
science in natural resource management: perspectives from Australia. Ecology and Society 18(3): 20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05846-180320
Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural Resource
Management: Perspectives from Australia
Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural
Resource Management: Perspectives from Australia
Erin L. Bohensky 1, James R. A. Butler 1 and Jocelyn Davies 1
Key Words: Australia; indigenous knowledge; knowledge integration; natural resource management; resilience
Ecology and Society’s 2004 special feature on Traditional
Knowledge in Social-Ecological Systems (http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/issues/view.php/feature/13) marked
one of the first efforts to view traditional, local, and Indigenous
knowledge and their roles in managing ecosystems through
the lens of social-ecological systems (SES) resilience. This
view acknowledges the importance of experimentation,
learning, and pluralism to cope with uncertainty in complex
adaptive systems (Folke 2004, Folke et al. 2005, Berkes and
Turner 2006, Davidson-Hunt 2006, Berkes 2009). As a frame
for understanding knowledge, SES resilience provided new
inspiration for scientists seeking to understand Indigenous
livelihoods and resource management, increasingly against
the backdrop of rapid global change (Armitage and Johnson
2006, Mercer et al. 2012, Raygorodetsky 2013).
Yet, we observed a remarkable void in the 2004 special feature
and in SES resilience scholarship more generally: experience
from Australia was largely absent, despite this country’s
extraordinary indigenous cultural diversity and innovative
research at the interface of indigenous and conventional
science knowledge in a variety of traditions (Jones 1969,
Newsome 1980, Kimber 1984, Burbidge et al. 1988, Burrows
and Christensen 1990, Christie 1990, Walsh 1990, Jones 1991,
Baker and Mutitjulu Community 1992, Williams and Baines
1993, Bomford and Caughley 1996, Raymond et al. 1999,
Horstman and Wightman 2001, Howitt 2001). With this
Special Feature we strive to further understanding of theory
and practice for integration of Indigenous Ecological
Knowledge (IEK) and conventional science relevant to the
Australian context. We aim to: 1) examine examples of
knowledge integration in Australia; 2) understand conditions
and enabling environments for knowledge integration; 3)
suggest processes and tools for practically achieving
knowledge integration.
Current measures of well-being largely continue to ignore that
the relationship between ecosystems and well-being is more
direct, complex, and fundamental to indigenous ontologies
than for mainstream Australian society (Sangha et al. 2011).
Decoupling of intimate relationships between Indigenous
groups and their lands and “sea country” (deKoninck et al.
2013) and erosion of much of the depth and detail of IEK has
been one consequence. Australian indigenous communities
continue to face great disadvantage arising from a complex
web of historical and contemporary social and environmental
pressures (Moran 2009, Sutton 2009, Wohling 2009). The
conjunction of densely connected kinship networks, historical
exclusion from access to resources, and coercive external
interventions has generated codependent rigidity and poverty
traps (Maru et al. 2012). At a psychological level, structural
and cultural violence (Galtung 1969, 1990) from colonialism
and its legacies has driven some Indigenous people to adopt
disadvantage as part of their identity, and to fear that
improvements in material circumstances will necessarily be
accompanied by loss of culture or identity (Pholi 2012).
Conversely, integration of Indigenous knowledge and science
has been accelerating in recent years, as part of a marked
recoupling of Indigenous relationships with traditional lands
and sea country throughout Australia. Indeed, the increased
formal involvement (e.g., through participation in forums,
bodies and implementation processes) of indigenous
Australians in natural resource management (NRM) has been
noted as one of four standout trends in environmental
management in the first decade of the 21st century (Australia
State of the Environment Committee 2011:9). Such settings
form the context of most of the papers in this Special Feature.
Policy drivers for increased formal involvement have included
the sheer extent of indigenous landholdings that has resulted
from government actions since the 1960s to recognize
indigenous land rights. Biodiversity and other environmental
values ascribed to these lands by nonindigenous people (see
Davies et al. 2013), along with the low financial capital and
lack of employment or enterprise opportunities amongst
landowners, has driven government investment in indigenous
environmental management. Other ultimate causes include
international instruments, notably the Convention on
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s Article 8(j); and belated
legal recognition since 1992 that indigenous native title
survived colonization of Australia and continues to exist in
some circumstances (Nettheim and Craig 2002).
1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/
Knowledge integration has been noted as problematic, often
because of disparate power relations (e.g., Nadasdy 1999,
Wohling 2009). Tensions arise in part because the term is used
in various ways, often loosely, such that its meaning is unclear.
The common definitions of integration as ‘combining one
thing with another to form a whole’, and, in social contexts,
as the ‘intermixing of people or groups previously separated’,
can readily subvert another important dimension of meaning:
that the outcome of such processes is equal participation
(Oxford English Dictionary and New Oxford American
Dictionary). Each paper in this Special Feature has been
concerned with the integrity of indigenous knowledge in
integration processes. This has undoubtedly been strengthened
by the involvement of indigenous people as authors and
coresearchers in the research reported herein: of the 36
contributing authors, nine are Indigenous.
Many of the papers specifically highlight that the use and
management of knowledge is a situated social process in which
indigenous people interface with more powerful actors. Such
settings are central to how the meaning of integration has been
critically understood in broader social contexts: as the
appropriate strategy for nondominant groups to engage in
when they seek to maintain relationships with larger society,
and to maintain their own identity and characteristics (Berry
1997). In Berry’s (1997) framework, integration contrasts with
assimilation, which does not maintain distinctive cultural
identities in a nondominant group’s interactions with broader
society; and with separation, which maintains distinctive
cultural identities without broader social interaction. Further,
the mutual accommodation required to achieve integration
includes widespread acceptance of the value of knowledge
diversity for NRM by both nondominant and dominant groups.
Absence of such conditions precipitates marginalization
because nondominant groups have no interest in engaging with
dominant institutions, which may enforce cultural loss (Berry
1997).
Notwithstanding the trend to increased formal involvement of
Indigenous people in Australian environmental management,
several papers note that lack of integration between IEK and
conventional science knowledge was a starting point for their
contributions. For example, Prober et al. (2011) draw attention
to inadequate cross-cultural means to communicate IEK as
limiting achievement of knowledge integration in NRM.
Davies et al. (2013) recount how the first generation of
management plans for Indigenous-owned and managed
protected areas maintained distinctions between nature and
society, which are characteristic of dominant Australian
ontologies but the antithesis of Indigenous world views.
Gratani et al. (2011) note that traditional owners in their study
considered that NRM decisions do not always respect their
cultural values or IEK, despite their comanagement role in
their traditional country. Robinson and Wallington (2012) note
that differences in the values of Indigenous peoples and
Kakadu National Park managers towards feral animals, and
the absence of knowledge integration in decision-making, has
driven recent cross-cultural tensions. Walsh et al. (2013)
suggest that little of the richness and interconnected
understandings inherent in Arrernte ecological knowledge has
been engaged in projects which claim to have complemented
science knowledge of land and species.
The contribution that the Special Feature’s papers makes to
our three aims has ultimately been determined by their specific
contexts, guiding questions and methods. Examples of
knowledge integration in Australia, our first aim, are presented
most directly in three papers: Hill et al. (2012) synthesize
features of indigenous engagement in environmental
management where IEK and science are being integrated, and
others where there is little or no integration. Butler et al. (2012)
found that government managers and scientists considered
IEK had been applied in management of four of seven fisheries
in Torres Strait, and describe the types of knowledge
concerned; and Davies et al. (2013) examine recent
management plans for Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs),
which have integrated the ontologies and governance systems
of Indigenous landowners with conservation objectives.
Several papers contribute particularly to our second aim:
understanding conditions and enabling environments for
knowledge integration. Bohensky and Maru (2011) reviewed
selected international literature to distill lessons learned from
integration efforts over the past decade. Themes that they
identify resonate with lessons emerging in Australia, including
the benefits and challenges of integrating IEK (Prober et al.
2011, Holmes and Jampijinpa 2013, Walsh et al. 2013);
recognizing the social context of IEK (Hill et al. 2012, Holmes
and Jampijinpa 2013, Walsh et al. 2013); and evaluating IEK
and the degree of integration (Gratani et al. 2011, Butler et al.
2012).
Notably, this social context includes power relations. For
example, Butler et al. (2012) consider the roles of depleted
fishery stocks, limited scientific knowledge, and community
ownership of resources in the application of TEK in the Torres
Strait Islands. They find that unlike other Melanesian regions
(Johannes 1998, Johannes 2002), these factors do not
determine the application of IEK in fisheries, and instead the
evolutionary stage of comanagement and the degree of power-
sharing is more influential. They also find the concept of
cultural keystone species (Garibaldi and Turner 2004)
valuable in explaining why knowledge integration is more
evident in fisheries for species with highest cultural values,
and how this has catalyzed IEK application more widely.
Conditions and enabling environments for knowledge
integration are discussed by Hill et al. (2012) on the basis of
a typology of Indigenous engagement in NRM. They note that
the distinction between IEK and conventional science is
blurred in Indigenous-led collaborations, and these
Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/
governance types were found to be maintaining the integrity
of IEK, and applying both sets of knowledge. In contrast,
governance types where agencies have the lead role raise the
threat that IEK will be misappropriated such that the
Indigenous partners are more concerned with protecting their
knowledge against unauthorized or ill-informed use. Concern
with validating Indigenous knowledge by science is
characteristic of agency-led initiatives (Hill et al. 2012).
Indeed, Gratani et al. (2011) report on a process to validate
Indigenous knowledge of plant-derived poisons to manage
invasive fish in one region subject to such agency-led
governance, the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Power
relationships are again highlighted, with Indigenous elders’
control over the validation process found to be critical to their
sense of empowerment.
Our third aim, processes and tools for integrating knowledge,
is noted by Bohensky and Maru (2011) as an expanding area
in recent international literature. Research by Ens et al. (2012)
describes a similar trend in Australia, and several papers in
this Special Feature extend these contributions. Prober et al.
(2011) focus on ecological calendars developed in a number
of cross-cultural collaborations to organize IEK, effectively
correlating climate, astronomy, resource availability, and
cultural practices. They argue for calendars’ potential to be
more directly used as adjuncts to spatial and social frameworks
for comanagement. Robinson and Wallington (2012) describe
mapping and narrative tools applied to resolve uncertainties
about feral animal management in Kakadu National Park. The
effectiveness of knowledge integration relied on boundary
agents, people with the capacity to communicate equitably
across knowledge systems. Davies et al. (2013) also highlight
the key role played by brokers in the development of IPA
management plans that integrate knowledge.
Two papers, Walsh et al. (2013) and Holmes and Jampijinpa
(2013) have resulted from deep collaborations in central
Australia over many years between Indigenous and
nonindigenous authors wanting to overcome ineffective
presentation of IEK, so that it becomes only, as Houde (2007)
cautions, “a collection of data about the environment”. The
papers each present their IEK frameworks as tools for cross-
cultural engagement and for intergenerational teaching and
learning. Each framework emphasizes the interconnections
between elements and domains of knowledge, including
reciprocated cross-linkages between particular groups of
people and particular natural resources and land areas.
Through such interconnections, IEK simultaneously
encompasses both what is known and who has the
responsibility to know, to make decisions, to take action, and
to learn. Several other papers (Gratani et al. 2011, Robinson
and Wallington 2012, Davies et al. 2013) also highlight that
knowledge integration is a social process that must recognize
the identity of, and relationships amongst, the people whose
knowledge might be integrated.
Lastly, we hoped in this Special Feature to gain insight into
different dimensions of the relationship between knowledge
integration and resilience, not only for the benefit of
scholarship but also for global policy processes on which
diverse knowledges are now being brought to bear (e.g., the
Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services). Reiterated is the central role of institutions that
embed social and ecological linkages, diversity, empowerment,
learning, and adaptive approaches. A range of perspectives is
given on resilience, underscoring the richness of this
framework while also highlighting that the meaning and utility
of the concept varies between users and contexts. A particular
challenge for advancing empirically-based understanding of
how IEK builds resilience is that discussions between
scientists and IEK holders around resilience, adaptation,
change, and thresholds may be contentious, echoing
previously-voiced concerns (Rotarangi and Russell 2009).
This implies the need for careful processes, time
commitments, underlying trust, and sound tools that are
adaptable across social and ecological contexts. A further
challenge is to identify when knowledge integration is being
achieved, given the ambiguity of the term noted above, and
the limited availability of evaluative measures. Herein lies a
further opportunity for greater interaction between the
academic, policy, and place-based stakeholders that have often
been addressing knowledge integration independently.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/5846
Acknowledgments:
This special feature was made possible by the generous
assistance of the communities and organisations that have
collaborated in this research, as indicated in the articles
herein. We thank Yiheyis Maru for constructive comments on
this Introduction, as well as the reviewers who gave their time
to provide feedback on other articles. CSIRO’s Ecosystem
Sciences Division, Climate Adaptation Flagship, Sustainable
Agriculture Flagship, Wealth from Oceans Flagship and the
Building Resilient Australian Biodiversity Assets Theme
provided financial support to the three special feature editors.
The United Nations University Traditional Knowledge
Initiative and Ian Nigh are thanked for their research support.
Lastly, we thank participants in the Resilience Alliance
Workshop on Indigenous Resilience and Social-Ecological
Systems at Hinchinbrook Marine Cove in 2009 for
inspirational discussions.
Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/
LITERATURE CITED
Armitage, D. R. and D. Johnson. 2006. Can resilience be
reconciled with globalization and the increasingly complex
conditions of resource degradation in Asian coastal regions?
Ecology and Society 11(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art2/.
Australia State of the Environment Committee. 2011.
Australia state of the environment 2011. Independent report
to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
DSEWPaC, Canberra. [online] URL: http://www.environment.
gov.au/soe/2011/report/.
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of
knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social
learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692–
1702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and
the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological
system resilience. Human Ecology 34: 479-494. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10745-006-9008-2
Baker, L. M. and Mutitjulu Community. 1992. Comparing two
views of the landscape: Aboriginal traditional ecological
knowledge and modern scientific knowledge. The Rangeland
Journal 14(2): 174-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ9920174
Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation.
Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie
Appliquee-Revue Internationale 46: 5-34.
Bohensky, E. L. and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous Knowledge,
Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a
Decade of International Literature on "Integration"? Ecology
and Society 16(4): 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406
Bomford, M. and J. Caughley, editors. 1996. Sustainable Use
of Wildlife by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.
Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Burbidge, A. A., K. A. Johnson, P. J. Fuller, and R. I.
Southgate. 1988. Aboriginal knowledge of the mammals of
the central deserts of Australia. Australian Wildlife Research
15: 9-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR9880009
Burrows, N. and P. Christensen. 1990. A survey of Aboriginal
fire patterns in the Western Desert of Australia. Fire and the
Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives, US
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical
Report SE-69, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station,
Asheville:20-24.
Butler, J. R. A., A. Tawake, T. Skewes, L. Tawake, and V.
McGrath. 2012. Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge
and Fisheries Management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the
Catalytic Role of Turtles and Dugong as Cultural Keystone
Species. Ecology and Society 17(4): 34. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05165-170434
Christie, M. J. 1990. Aboriginal science for the ecologically
sustainable future. Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of
Aboriginal Education November 1990: 56-68.
Davidson-Hunt, I .J. 2006. Adaptive learning networks:
developing resource management knowledge through social
learning forums. Human Ecology 34: 593-614. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1
Davies, J., R. Hill, F. J. Walsh, M. Sandford, D. Smyth, and
M. C. Holmes. 2013. Innovation in management plans for
community conserved areas: experiences from Australian
indigenous protected areas. Ecology and Society 18(2): 14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05404-180214
deKoninck, V., R. Kennett, and P. Josif. 2013. National
Indigenous Sea Country Workshop Report. NAILSMA
Knowledge Series 014/2013. North Australian Indigenous
Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), Darwin.
[online] URL: http://nailsma.org.au/hub/resources/publication/
national-indigenous-sea-country-workshop-report-2012
Ens, E.J., M. Finlayson, K. Preuss, S. Jackson and S.
Holcombe. 2012. Australian approaches for managing
‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge.
Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1): 100-107. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x
Folke, C. 2004. Traditional knowledge in social–ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 9(3): 7. [online] URL: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive
governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of
Environmental Research 30: 441-473. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Galtung, J. 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. Journal
of Peace Research 6(3): 167-191. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/002234336900600301
Galtung, J. 1990. Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research
27: 291-305.
Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species:
implications for ecological conservation and restoration.
Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/.
Gratani, M., J. R. A. Butler, F. Royee, P. Valentine, D.
Burrows, W. I. Canendo, and A. S. Anderson. 2011. Is
Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a
Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing
Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics,
Australia. Ecology and Society 16(3): 25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04249-160325
Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/
Hill, R., C. Grant, M. George, C. J. Robinson, S. Jackson, and
N. Abel. 2012. A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in
Australian Environmental Management: Implications for
Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System
Sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(1): 23. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04587-170123
Holmes, M. C. C., and W. (S. P.) Jampijinpa. 2013. Law for
country: the structure of Warlpiri ecological knowledge and
its application to natural resource management and ecosystem
stewardship. Ecology and Society 18(3): 19. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05537-180319
Horstman, M., and G. Wightman. 2001. Karparti ecology:
recognition of Aboriginal ecological knowledge and its
application to management in North-Western Australia.
Ecological Management and Restoration 2: 99-109. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2001.00073.x
Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological
knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-
management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/
art34/.
Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice,
sustainability and indigenous peoples. Psychology Press.
Routledge. London, UK.
Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource
management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 243-246. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01384-6
Johannes, R. E. 2002. The renaissance of community-based
marine resource management in Oceania. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 33: 317-340. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150524
Jones, R. 1991. Landscapes of the mind: Aboriginal
perceptions of the natural world. Pages 21-48 in D. J.
Mulvaney, editor. The Humanities and the Australian
Environment. Australian Academy of the Humanities,
Canberra.
Jones, R. M. 1969. Fire-stick farming. Australian Natural
History 16: 224-228.
Kimber, R. G. 1984. Resource use and management in central
Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1984: 12-23.
Maru, Y. T., C. S. Fletcher, and V. H. Chewings. 2012. A
synthesis of current approaches to traps is useful but needs
rethinking for indigenous disadvantage and poverty research.
Ecology and Society 17(2): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-04793-170207
Mercer, J., I. Kelman, B. Alfthan, and T. Kurvits.. 2012.
Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Caribbean
Small Island Developing States: Integrating Local and
External Knowledge. Sustainability 4: 1908-1932. http://dx.
doi.org/10.3390/su4081908
Moran, M. 2009. What job, which house?: Simple solutions
to complex problems in indigenous affairs. Australian Review
of Public Affairs [online] URL: http://www.australianreview.
net/digest/2009/03/moran.html.
Nettheim, G. M., and G. D. Craig. 2002. Indigenous peoples
and governance structures: a comparative analysis of land
and resource management rights. Aboriginal Studies Press,
Canberra, Australia.
Newsome, A. E. 1980. The eco-mythology of the red kangaroo
in central Australia. Mankind 12: 327-333. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.1980.tb01207.x
Pholi, K. 2012. Silencing dissent inside the Aboriginal
industry. Quadrant (Sydney) 56: 6-15.
Prober, S. M., M. H. O'Connor, and F. J. Walsh. 2011.
Australian Aboriginal Peoples' Seasonal Knowledge: a
Potential Basis for Shared Understanding in Environmental
Management. Ecology and Society 16(2): 12. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art12/
Raygorodetsky, G. 2013. The Skolt Sámi’s path to climate
change resilience. OurWorld 2.0, 1 February 2013 [online]
URL: http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-skolt-sami-path-to-climate-
change-resilience/
Raymond, E., J. Blutja, L. Gingina, M. Raymond, O.
Raymond, L. Raymond, J. Brown, Q. Morgan, D. Jackson, N.
Smith, and G. Wightman. 1999. Wardaman ethnobiology.
Pages 1-191. Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural
Resource Management, Northern Territory University,
Darwin.
Robinson, C. J. and T. J. Wallington. 2012. Boundary Work:
Engaging Knowledge Systems in Co-management of Feral
Animals on Indigenous Lands. Ecology and Society 17(2): 16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04836-170216
Rotarangi, S., and D. Russell. 2009. Social-ecological
resilience thinking: can indigenous culture guide
environmental management? Journal of the Royal Society of
New Zealand 39(4): 209-213.
Sangha, K. K., J. R. A. Butler, A. Delisle, and O. Stanley.
2011. Identifying links between ecosystem services and
Aboriginal well-being and livelihoods in north Australia:
applying the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework.
Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 5:
931-946.
Sutton, P. 2009. The Politics of Suffering. Melbourne
University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/
Walsh, F. J., P. V. Dobson, and J. C. Douglas. 2013.
Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of
indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource
management. Ecology and Society 18(3): 18. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05501-180318
Walsh, F. J. 1990. An ecological study of traditional
Aboriginal use of "country": Martu in the Great and Little
Sandy Deserts, Western Australia. Proceedings of the
Ecological Society of Australia 16: 23-37.
Williams, N. M. and G. Baines, editors. 1993. Traditional
ecological knowledge: wisdom for sustainable development.
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian
National University, Canberra.
Wohling, M. 2009. The problem of scale in indigenous
knowledge: a perspective from northern Australia. Ecology
and Society 14(1): 1. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art1/.
