indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and...

Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /biocon

Review

Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem scienceand management: Review and insight from Australia

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.0080006-3207/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 98508405.E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Ens).

Emilie J. Ens a,⇑, Petina Pert b, Philip A. Clarke c, Marita Budden d, Lilian Clubb d, Bruce Doran e,Cheryl Douras d, Jitendra Gaikwad f, Beth Gott g,h, Sonia Leonard i, John Locke j, Joanne Packer k,Gerry Turpin d,l, Steve Wason d

a Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australiab CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australiac School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan 4111, Qld, Australiad Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre, Cairns 4970, Qld, Australiae Fenner School, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australiaf iDiv-Biodiversity Informatics Unit, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena 07743, Germanyg German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germanyh Monash University, Clayton 2800, VIC, Australiai James Cook University, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australiaj Biocultural Consulting Pty Ltd, Brisbane 4000, Qld, Australiak Indigenous Bioresources Research Group, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australial Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation, Arts, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 June 2014Received in revised form 19 October 2014Accepted 5 November 2014Available online 1 December 2014

Keywords:Indigenous ecological knowledgeTraditional knowledgeCross-cultural ecologyBiocultural diversitySocio-ecological systemsSustainable development

a b s t r a c t

Worldwide, environmental conservation directives are mandating greater inclusion of Indigenous peopleand their knowledge in the management of global ecosystems. Colonised countries such as the UnitedStates of America, New Zealand and Australia have responded with an array of policy and programs toenhance Indigenous involvement; however, balancing Indigenous and non-Indigenous priorities andpreferred management methods is a substantial challenge. Using Australia as a case study, we investigatepast documentation and use of Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) and assess the main contributionsto ecosystem science and management. Focussing on the terrestrial environment, this innovative paperpresents an integrated review of IBK documentation (IBKD) by conducting a spatial, temporal and contentanalysis of the publically available literature. A spatial analysis of the place-based documents identifiedAustralian IBKD hotspots, gaps and opportunities for further collaboration. Sixty percent of IBKD hasoccurred off the Indigenous estate with only 19% of the total coinciding with current IndigenousProtected Areas. We also found that IBKD hotspots were different to Australia’s biodiversity hotspots sug-gesting opportunity for development of integrated biological and cultural hotspots. A temporal analysisof IBKD showed exponential growth since the 1970s and typical involvement of non-Indigenousresearchers. Indigenous authorship remained negligible until the 1990s when there was an obviousincrease, although only 14% of IBKD to date has acknowledged Indigenous authorship. Working throughAustralia’s broad biological conservation priorities, we demonstrate how IBK has and can be used toinform research and management of biodiversity, threatened species, aquatic ecosystems, fire, invasivespecies, and climate change. We also synthesise documented suggestions for overcoming cross-culturalawareness and communication challenges between Indigenous people and biologists, environmentalmanagers and policy makers. Lastly, we suggest that inclusion of both tangible and philosophical engage-ment of Indigenous people in national conservation agendas may promote more holistic socio-ecologicalsystems thinking and facilitate greater progress towards addressing the Indigenous engagement directiveof international conservation agreements.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

134 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
1.1. Indigenous biocultural knowledge and Western ecological knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
2. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2.1. Spatial analyses of place-based literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1362.2. Living knowledge case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1362.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3. Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.1. Spatio-temporal analyses of place-based literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.1.1. Intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373.1.2. Intersection of IBKD and IBRA regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1383.1.3. Comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversity hotspots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1383.1.4. IBKD temporal analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

3.2. Living knowledge case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1393.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

3.3.1. Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1393.3.2. Threatened species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423.3.3. Aquatic ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423.3.4. Fire management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1433.3.5. Invasive species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1433.3.6. Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.1. Breaking down cultural and communication barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

1. Introduction

Indigenous knowledge systems contain detailed representa-tions of the forces that have shaped the diversity and conditionof past and current environments (Gadgil et al., 1993; Drew andHenne, 2006; Berkes, 2012). The potential contribution of Indige-nous knowledge to contemporary ecosystem science and manage-ment is irrefutable; the complex challenge we face worldwide, ishow to integrate the knowledge, preferred management methodsand inclusion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to reachlocal to international biological and cultural conservation objec-tives (ICSU, 2002). In recognition of this significant challenge,many international and national agencies and agreements focus-sing on environmental conservation, such as the 1992 Conventionon Biological Diversity, UNESCO’s 1999 Declaration on Science andthe Use of Scientific Knowledge, the United States of America Envi-ronmental Protection Authority’s Tribal Science Council (1999),the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conserva-tion Act 1999 and the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000, sim-ilarly advocate for enhanced engagement of Indigenous societies inrespect of their rich environmental knowledge, land ethic and theneed for more equitable benefit sharing (Langton and Ma Rhea,2005; Sachs et al., 2009). Notably, these authorities place muchresponsibility upon wider society, including scientists, to createinclusive approaches to biodiversity conservation and sustainableuse of the world’s resources. There are calls for a new ‘‘social con-tract’’ for science (Lubchenco, 1998; Gallopín et al., 2001) toencourage a shift towards more applied and holistic socio-ecolog-ical systems thinking, also described as sustainability science(Kates et al., 2001; Cash et al., 2003).

Biological diversity is increasingly being linked to culturaldiversity suggesting that combined biocultural resources are inte-gral to the survival of life on Earth (Maffi, 2001, 2007; Loh andHarmon, 2005; Maffi and Woodley, 2010; Hill et al., 2011a;Gorenflo et al., 2012). For example, the Australian Governmentreports on the state of Indigenous knowledge in Australia to the

International Convention on Biological Diversity (Langton et al.,2003). Deeper consideration of biocultural diversity and knowl-edge as a mechanism for enhanced understandings of diversehuman perceptions and values of biodiversity, ecosystem dynam-ics and natural resource use, offers a constructive approach forgreater inclusion of Indigenous people (and other local knowledgeholders) in conservation pursuits. Indigenous and local knowledgeof a particular place, especially when it has been accumulated,tested and adapted over generations, can make great contributionsto ecosystem understanding and management particularly at thelocal level (ICSU, 2002; Raymond et al., 2010).

However, Nadasdy (1999) and Agrawal (2002) caution thatwell-intentioned advocates of broader uptake and use of Indige-nous biocultural knowledge must be careful to avoid ‘‘scientising’’or ‘‘distilling’’ Indigenous knowledge into static, transferrable andnon-contextual forms which remove the localised essence of Indig-enous knowledge as ‘‘a way of life’’, thereby arguably rendering itas non-Indigenous knowledge. Similar sentiments are asserted byHemming et al. (2007, 2010) and Smith (2012) who discuss theneed to develop de-colonising methodologies and promote Indige-nous ways of knowing and doing rather than continually trying tostructure Indigenous knowledge around ‘Western’ pedagogical andresearch frameworks. Although Agrawal (2002) notes that thereare benefits from databasing and making generalisations aboutIndigenous knowledge to enhance recognition by dominant soci-ety. However, he also argues that there are substantial ethicalproblems associated with such syntheses, for example possible lostopportunities for people whose knowledge has not been docu-mented but still exists in living forms and therefore may not gainequitable recognition. He suggests that these issues should becounteracted by active lobbying for enhanced Indigenous rightsand involvement in ecosystem science, management and deci-sion-making at local to global levels, as well as lobbying for agreater awareness of different knowledge systems other than thoseof dominant Newtonian and Popperian ‘Western’ science. This isthe goal of this paper.

E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 135

In view of these ethical issues and international pressure, Aus-tralia has made substantial progress in building Indigenous-focussed conservation initiatives from local to national scales thataim to serve both environmental and cultural objectives. However,we argue that progress has largely been in tangible forms ofengagement (such as land and jobs) rather than philosophicalengagement of Indigenous knowledge in conservation agendas.Currently, about 30% of Australia is legally recognised as Indige-nous owned land, with another approximately 45% under landclaims, or in shared or co-management arrangements (Grechet al., 2014). The Australian Government has also provided increas-ing support for Indigenous land and sea management through thenational Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) (1992) and Working onCountry (2007) programs. The IPA program is based on voluntarydeclarations of Indigenous owned land to the National Reserve Sys-tem (NRS) where the land owners are remunerated for continuedmanagement of land according to IUCN guidelines (Szabo andSmyth, 2003). To date, 52 IPAs have been declared in Australia,adding over 36 million hectares to the NRS which equates to4.75% of the continent (Australian Government, 2013). The Work-ing on Country program currently employs 680 Indigenous Rangersacross 95 Australian Indigenous land and sea management groups(Australian Government, 2013).

Australia’s national biodiversity conservation strategy is strati-fied and assessed through the NRS’s Interim Biogeographic Region-alisation of Australia (IBRA) which was developed to ensurecomprehensive, adequate and representative protection of thenation’s biological resources. There are 89 IBRA regions, with con-servation prioritised for IBRA regions that have less than 10% pro-tected in reserves (including IPAs). In fact, government obligationsto meet the 10% target gave support to the IPA program as somebioregions are entirely owned by Indigenous people (Langton andMa Rhea, 2005). Therefore, IPAs offer local to international benefitsby contributing to Australia’s international conservation commit-ments and providing land management funding opportunity toIndigenous people. At the local scale, hundreds of community-dri-ven Indigenous natural and cultural resource management (INC-RM) enterprises have emerged over the last few decades as aresult of the convergence of customary obligations with increasinglegislative support for Indigenous land ownership and self-deter-mination, so much so that INCRM has recently been described asthe fastest growing sector of Australia’s conservation effort (Hillet al., 2013). The large Indigenous estate and increasing supportfor INCRM in Australia make an assessment of Indigenous biocul-tural knowledge documentation (IBKD) and the contributions tothe national biological conservation agenda a significant, timelyand unique case study.

Despite achievements in Australian INCRM generally, there arewidespread cross-cultural tensions in the planning, governanceand preferred types and methods of on-ground activity on Indige-nous controlled estates and jointly managed areas. These tensionsare largely attributed to the lack of understanding of alternativeIndigenous knowledge systems by mainstream society and thecontinual privileging of ‘Western’ scientific approaches (Langtonand Ma Rhea, 2005; Barbour and Schlesinger, 2012; Hill et al.,2013). These tensions are correspondingly reflected in the dispro-portionately low funding and resourcing for INCRM (Hill et al.,2013). For example, the recent Australian Government funded Ter-restrial Ecosystem Research Network, made of up Australia’s mosteminent ecologists, has largely ignored the large proportion ofIndigenous land ownership and wealth of Indigenous knowledgein their development of a national long-term ecological researchand management strategy (Ens et al., 2014). Lack of Indigenousinvolvement in long-term ecosystem science and managementplanning, and social considerations more broadly, are also evidentin other international Long Term Ecological Research Network’s,

such as in the United States of America and Europe (Ohl andSwinton, 2010).

The challenge for contemporary Indigenous people is how tomaintain their biocultural knowledge, customary obligations andlivelihoods in the future amidst increasing pressures from domi-nant society to conform to ‘Western’ modes of living and environ-mental conservation. Indigenous elders recognise the challenge ofmaintaining their cultural identity in the face of these changes. Forexample in his book titled Gagadju Man (Neidjie, 2002), Bill Neijdje,Bunitj clan elder and Traditional Owner of jointly managed WorldHeritage Area Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory ofAustralia states:

People. They can’t listen for us. They just want money. Money. Wewant goose, we want fish. Other men want money. Him can makemillion dollars, but only last one year. Next year him want anothermillion. Forever and ever him make million dollars. Him die.

Million no good for us. We need this earth to live because we’ll bedead, we’ll become earth. This ground and this earth, like brotherand mother.

Trees and eagle. You know eagle? He can listen. Eagle our brother,like dingo our brother. We like this earth to stay, because he wasstaying forever and ever. We don’t want to lose him. We say‘Sacred, leave him.’

A major challenge for the broader population is to understandthe crucial enabling factors that are required to facilitate self-determination and endogenous development – the developmentthat is generated by the community for the community (Ristet al., 2011; Van der Ploeg and Long, 1994). To achieve this, thereneeds to be greater recognition by non-Indigenous people of thevalue and diversity of knowledge systems other than Western sci-ence that operate within society, as stated in the 2002 UNESCODeclaration on Science and the Use of Science. Senior Custodians ofAustralian IBK also emphasize this:

. . .We believe that our traditional knowledge has not been recogni-sed. However we need to be engaged and take full control of ourheritage. Goal is to protect our lore and custodial rights for thefuture generation, which has been passed down from ancestor’sknowledge.

Indigenous custodian, Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany CentreAdvisory Board (Personal communication).

1.1. Indigenous biocultural knowledge and Western ecologicalknowledge

We adopt the term Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) as amodified version of the widely known terms Indigenous Ecologicalknowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (see ICSU, 2002),with an emphasis on the importance of cultural connectionsbetween humans and what Western science identifies as the bio-physical world. Gerry Turpin, Mbabaram Traditional Owner andco-author of this paper, describes IBK as ‘knowledge that encom-passes people, language and culture and their relationship to the envi-ronment’. We found no other documented definition of the term‘‘biocultural knowledge’’ in the literature, although we note anddraw from the increasing use of the term ‘‘biocultural diversity’’defined by Maffi (2001, 2007) as ‘the diversity of life in all its man-ifestations: biological, cultural, and linguistic — which are interrelated(and possibly coevolved) within a complex socio-ecological adaptivesystem’. Turpin’s definition of IBK is also akin to the widelyacknowledged working definition of Traditional Ecological Knowl-edge by Berkes (2000) as ‘a cumulative body of knowledge, practiceand belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down throughgenerations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living


beings (including humans) with one another and with theirenvironment’.

Interconnectedness is also a feature of the ‘Western’ scientificdiscipline of ecology, which is defined as the study of the interac-tions within the environment, and includes sub-disciplines includ-ing human and fire ecology. Considering these overlapping areas ofinterest in holistic and interactive knowledge systems, it is surpris-ing that ‘Western’ ecologists have not worked more closely withIndigenous knowledge Custodians to better understand and man-age Country (Bohensky and Maru, 2011). For further explanationon Australian Indigenous people’s use and meaning of the wordCountry, see Smyth (1994), Rose (1996, 2000) and Turner andMcDonald (2010).

Worldwide, IBK (or its equivalent) has long been touted as valu-able to ecosystem science, policy and management (Gadgil et al.,1993; Agrawal, 1995; UNESCO, 1999; Huntington, 2000; Berkes,2012). While IBK expresses localised interconnections of the bio-physical, social, spiritual and cosmological, ‘Western’ ecologicalknowledge is restricted to bio-physical entities and is rigorouslybound by hypothetico-deductive methodological constraints(Agrawal, 1995, 2002; ICSU, 2002; Berkes, 2000, 2012). The twoforms of knowledge are distinct but also have many commonalitiesand they can complement each other if diversity in knowledge sys-tems and approaches is valued (Berkes, 2000, 2008; ICSU, 2002;Christie, 2006; Nakata, 2007). It is also important to note that thedistinctions between Indigenous and ‘Western’ science are notalways clear. Neither knowledge system is static; both have beenand will continue to be influenced by cultural, social, economic,political and environmental factors. The meanings and compari-sons of IBK and ‘Western’ science have been the subject of muchdebate and we refer the reader to these texts (e.g. Agrawal,1995; Nadasdy, 1999; Bohensky and Maru, 2011; Drew andHenne, 2006; Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007; Wohling, 2009).We also acknowledge that use of these simplistic terms is not idealbut they are employed for concise delivery of our key messages.

Although IBK exists largely in oral forms held by Indigenouscustodians, in many instances, this knowledge has been docu-mented. This knowledge tends to be held in widely dispersedrecords such as artworks, private journals, linguistic dictionaries,unpublished reports, community publications, academic journalarticles, books, photos and videos. Many records are not publicallyavailable or in accessible forms, and sometimes, Indigenous peoplethemselves cannot access archived material about their own fam-ilies due to author copyright or privacy laws. For more informationabout intellectual property issues and documentation of Indige-nous knowledge’s see Nakata and Langton (2006) and Janke(2009). To provide an indicative overview of IBKD to inform eco-system science and management in Australia this paper presents:

1. spatio-temporal syntheses of publically available AustralianIBKD involving Indigenous people;

2. a case study to demonstrate that IBK is ‘living knowledge’ thatis still being used and documented; and

3. an overview of how IBK has informed Australia’s broad biolog-ical conservation priorities.

2. Methodology

We conducted an integrated (systematic and narrative) reviewof the publically available and accessible literature on IBK in Aus-tralia. A group of sixteen experienced Indigenous and non-Indige-nous researchers reviewed the literature over two years as partof the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis(ACEAS) Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge working group. To beincluded in this review of IBKD in Australia, documents neededto directly address the relationship between Indigenous people

and the environment, and have explicitly involved Indigenous peo-ple (either as an author, co-author or informant). Therefore, forexample, archaeological work conducted by non-Indigenousresearchers alone was not included. Anthropological documentsthat detail biocultural information provided by Indigenous peoplewere included. Although art and multimedia projects are richsources of IBK, the authors agreed that inclusion of these formsof documentation was beyond the scope of the project timeframe,although we note that this would be a worthwhile pursuit forfuture research.

To collate the documents, all the author’s literature databaseswere searched. We also searched Scott’s (2004) bibliography ofIndigenous Ecological Knowledge in Australia, CSIRO’s Indigenousland and sea management database (provided by one of theauthors) and performed Google and Google scholar searches (usingterms: Australia AND Indigenous/Aborigin⁄/or ethno). A public callfor contributions to known experts in the field (via email) was alsoconducted. The list of references was reviewed and categorisedbased on the experience of the authors into place-based docu-ments, reviews, methodology and related resources (such as legalissues). Place-based or localised documents that identified particu-lar Indigenous clans, tribes, regions, towns or homelands wereattributed a ‘place-name’ and were geo-referenced (given a lati-tude/longitude) using the Australian Gazetteer (http://www.ga.go-v.au/place-name). This subset of data enabled a spatial analysisand display of material using ArcGIS.

2.1. Spatial analyses of place-based literature

The following spatio-temporal analyses were conducted on theplace-based literature:

(i) the intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estate;(ii) the intersection of IBKD and Australia’s IBRA regions and

identification of IBRA regions with the highest representa-tion of IBKD (which we define as Australia’s IBKD hotspots);

(iii) a comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversityhotspots; and

(iv) a temporal analysis of IBKD.

For (i) we quantified the intersection of the Indigenous estate(Native Title, Indigenous Protected Areas) and the place-basedIBKD data. Indigenous estate data was sourced from the NativeTitle register (National Native Title Register, 2013) and the Collab-orative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD, 2012). For (iv)we conducted a cumulative frequency of IBKD against time (year)analysis as well as a specific analysis of IBKD with clearly identifi-able or known Indigenous author/s.

2.2. Living knowledge case study

To highlight that IBK is living knowledge that is actively beingdocumented and used by Indigenous people we conducted a casestudy of the work of the Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre(TIEC) in Cairns, Australia. The TIEC was established in 2011 as aunique Indigenous-driven initiative established to engage, support,and build the capacity of Traditional land owner groups to main-tain IBK, mainly in tropical Queensland (Hill et al., 2011b). Themain aim of the TIEC is to record and utilise Indigenous ethnobio-logical knowledge for cultural use on Country. The Centre is man-aged by ethnobotanist Gerry Turpin (Mbabaram clan) and anIndigenous Cultural Advisors Working Group consisting of fivemembers from various clans in northern Queensland (many ofwhom are co-authors of this paper). For the present paper, the TIECsupplied location data for their established and emerging projects.These were cross referenced with the publically available

http://www.ga.gov.au

http://www.ga.gov.au


place-based IBKD for the region to assess the contributions of TIECs‘‘living knowledge projects’’ to the IBKD database.

2.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservationpriorities

Lastly, we conducted a narrative literature review of all collatedIBK documents to assess the past and potential contributions toAustralia’s biological conservation priorities (assets and threats)that are broadly identified in Australia’s Biodiversity ConservationStrategy (NRMMC, 2010) as biodiversity, threatened species, aqua-tic ecosystems, invasive species, fire and climate change. The nar-rative literature review is not a definitive review of the strengthsand weaknesses of all the literature as this would be exorbitant.Rather, we selected outstanding examples where IBKD has contrib-uted or has the potential to contribute to Australia’s biological con-servation priorities. The purpose of this review is to challengecurrent thinking, which according to Green et al. (2006), is a legit-imate goal of narrative reviews.

3. Results

Our desktop literature search resulted in a representative list of1325 documents that contained information on Australian IBK. Ofthese references, 568 were ‘place-based’, 245 contained methodo-logical or instructional content, 255 were review materials and 267were related resources (not directly containing IBK material).These reference lists are available on the ACEAS Australian IBK

Fig. 1. Map of place-based IBK material in Australia

(AIBK) website (www.aibk.info). This database does not includeall IBK documents as many IBK documents are not easily accessibleor in the public domain and some may not have been capturedthrough our literature search methodology. It is our intention totry and build this database in the future through the AIBK website.We also acknowledge that the IBK content of each document var-ied in quality and quantity. This review is therefore indicative ofthe available and past IBKD activity and does not suggest that allIBK for each location has been recorded.

3.1. Spatio-temporal analyses of place-based literature

3.1.1. Intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estateA spatial analysis of the place-based IBKD against Indigenous

owned land (under Native Title determinations and the NorthernTerritory Aboriginal Lands Rights Act 1976) and declared IPAs isshown in Fig. 1. We found that 40% of materials originated fromwithin legally recognised areas of Indigenous owned land and19% from within areas declared as IPAs.

The year of IPA declaration was not related to the quantity ofavailable IBKD. For example, we found the highest number of pub-lically available IBKD for the Djelk IPA that was declared in 2006,some 14 years after the first IPA, Nantawarrina, was declared(1992), for which we found no publically available IBKD. Publica-tion of IBK appeared to be largely dependent upon partnershipsbetween Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, especiallyresearchers. The top two published IPA’s, Djelk and Dhimurru, haveestablished relationships with several University and government

on the Indigenous and non-Indigenous estate.

http://www.aibk.info

Table 1The top 15 IBRA regions with the highest number of IBK materials and suggested asbiocultural knowledge hotspots.

IBRA name Count of materials

Arnhem coast 79Gulf fall and uplands 47Cape York peninsula 29Darwin coastal 25Murray darling depression 21Wet tropics 21Central ranges 20Arnhem plateau 18Dampierland 18Burt plain 16MacDonnell ranges 16Tanami 15


researchers (e.g. Altman, 1982; Haynes, 1985; Kennett et al., 1997;Griffiths et al., 2003; Smyth, 2007; Hoffmann et al., 2012).

3.1.2. Intersection of IBKD and IBRA regionsWe found that 69% of the IBRA regions had at least one publical-

ly available piece of IBKD. The IBRA regions with the highest IBKDwere the Arnhem Coast, Gulf Fall and Uplands, and Cape York Pen-insula regions which are all in northern Australia (Fig. 2). The IBRAregions which were not well represented in the publically availableIBKD were mainly in Australia’s agricultural zones (south WesternAustralia, central Queensland and central New South Wales) andTasmania.

3.1.3. Comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversityhotspots

There was no overlap between the top 15 IBKD hotspots (Fig. 2;Table 1) and Australia’s 15 national biodiversity hotspots (Fig. 3).

3.1.4. IBKD temporal analysisTemporal analysis of the place-based IBKD showed a general

trend for early documentation of IBK in eastern Australia movingtowards central and Western Australia and more recently buildingin northern Australia (Fig. 4). Many of the earliest documents con-tained the observations and experiences of explorers and much ofthis material covered large geographical areas and contained snip-pets of IBK (e.g. Eyre, 1845; Leichhardt, 1847; Orton, 1836). Themost detailed pre-1900 place-based IBKD came from New SouthWales (Baylie, 1843; Howitt and Fison, 1880), Victoria(Beveridge, 1889; Cary, 1899; Curr, 1883; Dawson, 1881), South

Fig. 2. Density analysis of place-based IBK materials in IBRA

Australia (Cawthorne, 1926) and northern Queensland (Palmer,1884; Roth, 1897) corresponding with early settler regions.

Following the early period of colonial ‘exploration’ by non-Indigenous authors, there was a period of early ethnography andanthropology during the first of the 20th century where muchmore concerted efforts to better understand Indigenous people,customs and culture were evident. Much of the published materialin this period came from several key non-Indigenous researchers:the detailed and comprehensive ethnographic work of Roth innorth Queensland (e.g. Roth, 1897, 1910); the collaborative workof Hale, Tindale, Cleland and Johnston in southern and central Aus-tralia (e.g. Cleland, 1966; Cleland and Johnston, 1937; Hale andTindale, 1925; Tindale, 1974); and the work of Basedow, Thomson,

regions, showing biocultural hotspots as darker areas.

Fig. 3. Place-based IBK materials (circles) over Australia’s national biodiversity hotspot bioregions (shaded areas).


Mountford and Specht in Arnhem Land (Basedow, 1929; Spechtand Mountford, 1958; Thomson, 1939).

In the 1970s there was an exponential increase in IBKD (Fig. 5)which occurred across Australia (Fig. 4). The increase in publicationrate appears to be the result of many new researchers engagingwith Indigenous people and their knowledge. The rise in documen-tation continued to the present with a clear shift towards identifi-able Indigenous authorship from the 1990s (Fig. 5). Some notableprolific publishers dominate the IBK literature of recent decades:Bradley and the Yanyuwa people (e.g. Bradley, 1988, 2005;Yanyuwa familes et al., 2013); Clarke (e.g. Clarke, 1985, 2012);Wightman and northern Australia clans (e.g. Roberts et al., 2011;Wightman and Smith, 1989); the Alice Springs CSIRO researchgroup (e.g. Baker et al., 2001; Davies et al., 1999; Dobson, 2007;Walsh and Douglas, 2011; Walsh and Mitchell, 2002; Young,1987); and the wet tropics research group (e.g. Smyth, 1981; Hilland Smyth, 1999; WTAPPT, 2005; Hill et al., 2011b).

Using our search methodology, the earliest documents withclearly identifiable Indigenous authors were publications on bushmedicines (Dhamarrandjai and Guyamirrilili, 1979; Henshallet al., 1980; Nabarula et al., 1978). Although there was a clear shiftin practice in the 1990s to acknowledge Indigenous co-authorship,to date only 14% of documents have done so (Fig. 5).

3.2. Living knowledge case study

The previous spatial analyses suggest that for many areas ofAustralia, IBK has not been documented, although it certainly isnot absent. Indigenous knowledge is customarily transmittedorally and is still retained, modified and used by many Indigenouspeople. The TIEC offers a unique case study on living knowledge asthe only active Ethnobiology Centre in Australia that is runby Indigenous people. To date, the TIEC has engaged with 11

Indigenous communities in north Queensland through 27 estab-lished or emerging projects (Fig. 6). Projects include an electronicethno-botanical database, traditional plant use of the Dulabed fam-ily and a seasonal information for a climate change eco-tourismenterprise. If we consider these ‘living’ IBK projects alongside theIBKD for this region, the TIEC has clearly made significant contribu-tions in only a couple of years, especially for the IBRA region sur-rounding the TIEC (Wet Tropics) and the agricultural regions ofthe Mount Isa Inlier and Einasleigh Uplands IBRA regions (Fig. 7)for which there has been limited IBKD.

3.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservationpriorities

Australia’s biodiversity conservation priorities (resources andthreats) were broadly identified in Australia’s Biodiversity Conser-vation Strategy 2010–2030 (NRMMC, 2010) as biodiversity, threa-tened species, aquatic ecosystems, fire, invasive species andclimate change. The following section contains a narrative reviewusing key examples of how IBK has and could contribute to thesecontemporary ecosystem science and management priorities inAustralia.

3.3.1. BiodiversityDue to the intimate, life-sustaining and enduring connections of

Indigenous people to their ancestral clan estates, Indigenousknowledge custodians often hold rich knowledge of local biodiver-sity, especially species that were useful or essential to survival(Rose, 1996, 2000). IBK is an oral tradition (Ross, 1986) andalthough some of this knowledge has been written about, as theprevious spatial analyses show, much has not been documentedin written forms and is at great risk as senior knowledge holderspass away and traditional culture is influenced by modern

Fig. 4. Map of documented place-based IBK material sorted by time period.


societies. Although we note again here that much IBK has beendocumented in artistic, audio-visual and musical forms and is also‘‘written in the land’’ (e.g. Field and McKenzie, 2008; Ayre andMackenzie, 2013). There is anecdotal evidence suggesting thatthe prevalence of cross-cultural biological surveys involving Indig-enous and non-Indigenous people has recently risen since theadvent of the Australian Government Indigenous Protected Area(1992) and Working on Country (2007) programs of the; however,most of this research is not publically available (due to IntellectualProperty rights and sensitive cultural information, for example)and has only been conducted with some of Australia’s Indigenouslanguage groups. Much of this data is contained within local andgovernment databases which duly serve local needs; however, alsoresult in apparent data ‘‘gaps’’ or underestimations of biodiversityvalue. Unknown or underestimated biodiversity value can trans-late to lower biodiversity conservation funding allocations of gov-ernment and non-government agencies.

Biodiversity surveys that target species significant to Indige-nous people (those that are totemic and/or used for material cul-ture, bush tucker and bush medicine), were the earliest IBKdocuments produced by Indigenous authors (Nabarula et al.,1978; Dhamarrandjai and Guyamirrilili, 1979) and have becomemore common (e.g. Clarke, 1985, 2007, 2012; Wightman andSmith, 1989; Latz and Green, 1995; Dobson, 2007; Packer et al.,2011; Roberts et al., 2011); although, are still considered vastlyunder-prescribed considering that about 250 Indigenous language

groups occurred across Australia (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001,2006). Surprisingly, with the exception of the productive NorthernTerritory Herbarium, the ethnosciences (biology, ecology and phar-macology) have not featured prominently in any other Australianstate or territory government institution until very recently, suchas through the TIEC (Hill et al., 2011b), Nura Gili at the Universityof New South Wales, and Macquarie University (e.g. Packer et al.,2011). From our literature search it also evident that the ethno-sciences tended to be documented for cultural posterity ratherthan an exploration of biocultural values that could be monitoredand managed as part of active biological conservation strategies(Horstman and Wightman, 2001). However, we suggest that thelatter would offer substantial gains towards philosophical andpractical engagement of Indigenous knowledge systems in ecosys-tem science that could inform Indigenous focussed adaptive man-agement of Country.

From a ‘Western’ science perspective, biodiversity surveys canencompass a range of forms from species inventories and system-atic spatial ecological monitoring to repeat monitoring of particu-lar species through time. A recently documented example of thebenefits for ‘Western’ science from cross-cultural biodiversity sur-veys was illustrated by a group of Western Australian Governmentbiologists who worked with the Pila Nguru (Spinifex people) of theGreat Victoria Desert (Brennan et al., 2012). This research greatlycontributed to the documented biodiversity knowledge of theregion and included the ‘‘discovery’’ of several new species to

Fig. 5. Cumulative frequency curve for all collated IBK materials (black line) and those with an identifiable Indigenous author/s (dashed line).

Fig. 6. Living knowledge projects of the TIEC in relation to documented publically available literature (1. Mt Isa Inlier region; 2. Einasleigh Uplands region).


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

South Eastern

Queensland

Wet Tropics Cape York Peninsula

Einasleigh Uplands

Mount Isa Inlier

Gulf Plains

Livi

ng a

nd d

ocum

ente

d IB

K

IBRA region

TIEC projects

IBK publica�ons

Fig. 7. Number of TIEC Living knowledge projects and documented IBK materialsfor Queensland IBRA regions.


science and of conservation interest. Notably, these authors reiter-ated that such projects can be more productive when both localIndigenous and ‘Western’ knowledge and survey methods areemployed. They also drew attention to the paucity of publicallyavailable documentation on cross-cultural biodiversity researchwhich was suggested as stifling progress towards development ofbest practice methods that promote cross-cultural biologicalconservation.

A rare example of documented comprehensive and collabora-tive ethnoecological research was published by Telfer and Garde(2006) who conducted a review of Indigenous knowledge of sev-eral species of rock kangaroos in western Arnhem Land. Again, thiswork greatly expanded the ecological literature for several speciesof conservation interest, including information on diet, habitat use,distribution, behaviour and predation. A feature of this work wasthat it involved a linguist who ensured that the nuances of localIndigenous knowledge were correctly documented. This documentalso cited the importance of recording Indigenous knowledge ofspecies to respect the millennia of accumulated knowledge thatis embedded in language and provide meaningful employment.Our review of the literature revealed that there are enormousunderexplored opportunities for collaborative biodiversity surveysacross Australia, especially on the Indigenous estate and in littledocumented remote parts of Australia where multiple benefitsfor conservation, cultural maintenance and socio-economic out-comes are possible (Altman et al., 2007; Moritz et al., 2013).

3.3.2. Threatened speciesThere have been some significant, albeit few, long-term docu-

mented partnerships where Indigenous people have worked with‘Western’ scientists to better understand the distribution, ecologyand status of threatened species, and they all focussed on fauna.We suggest there is great potential here for future collaborationconsidering the well-known animal tracking skills of Indigenouspeople (e.g. Southgate and Moseby, 2008).

One of the first and most publicised collaborative studiesbetween Indigenous people and ‘Western’ scientists was that ofthe declining mammals of the central Australian deserts(Burbidge et al., 1988). Indigenous people were shown museumskins and provided information about local names, the biologyand ecology and the current and past status of the animals. Duringthis research new data were collected on the distribution, biologyand ecology of many species. Recently, Ziembicki et al. (2013) rep-licated this method and supplemented it with on-Country trips andmammal trapping with Indigenous people in northern Australia toexpand the knowledge of declining species. This ‘expert knowl-edge’ research has been used to inform collaborative managementand planning in the region, especially for fire and feral animals (e.g.Moorcroft et al., 2012).

Some linguists have also conducted research into threatenedfauna when building Indigenous language dictionaries. For exam-ple, when compiling a dictionary for the Adnyamathanha Peopleof the Flinders Ranges, Tunbridge became interested in Indigenousknowledge of the mammal fauna which had largely disappearedfollowing European settlement in the late 1800s. Tunbridge’sbook ‘The story of the Flinders Ranges mammals’ (1992) recordsdetailed information on the habit, diet and behaviour of 58 species.In a review of this book in Australian Mammalogy, Burbidge (1992)commented on the significant range extensions of many species aswell as the ‘amazing ability of Aborigines to identify mammalsfrom skins, and to relate information about animals and places thatthey have never seen but which had been passed onto them by ear-lier generations.’ He concluded the review by stating that he hopedthe book ‘would encourage others to record Indigenous knowledgein other parts of the country, particularly knowledge of extinct andthreatened species of mammals, before it is too late.’ Twenty yearson there has been some continuation of this work; however, suchcollaborations are far from reaching their potential with progresswarranting even more urgency as feral animals, altered fireregimes, disease and habitat destruction continue to threaten Aus-tralia’s small mammals and reptiles (e.g. Woinarski et al., 2007).

In terms of pro-active management of threatened species, theAnangu People of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY)Lands offer an outstanding example. They have shared knowledgeand developed management approaches for the threatened Black-footed Rock Wallaby (warru, Petrogale lateralis) with scientistssince the first biological survey in the region in 1985 (Muhicet al., 2012; Read and Ward, 2011). When a rapid decline wasdetected in populations from 1999, Anangu have worked alongsidescientists to try and protect this species. In 2007, the Anangu War-ru Recovery Team was established as part of the Threatened Spe-cies Recovery Plan for the warru. The team, including AnanguWarru Rangers, established a breeding colony at the Monarto Zooin southern South Australia and have recently translocated joeysback to the APY Lands into large feral animal exclosures. The WarruRangers monitor the fence, conduct traditional burning, predatorbaiting and monitor warru populations. In 2011, the warru teamwon the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observerance Com-mittee (NAIDOC) Caring for Country Award for their work on thisthreatened species. Anangu have played critical roles in this projectthrough their use of traditional knowledge of warru behaviour, pre-ferred habitat and spiritual connections and practices (includingsong) to facilitate project success (Muhic et al., 2012).

3.3.3. Aquatic ecosystemsIndigenous people have long had a spiritual and vital connec-

tion to aquatic ecosystems (Bayly, 1999; Humphries, 2007;Clarke, 2009a; Ayre and Mackenzie, 2013), which according toHumphries (2007), is not well understood and appreciated bymainstream aquatic ecologists. An outstanding example of IBKDcontribution to aquatic ecosystem research and policy in Australiais the demonstration of Indigenous occupation, understanding anduse of the land and waters in the Murray-Darling Basin (e.g. Weir,2009; Clarke, 2009a; Birckhead et al., 2011). This work has resultedin landmark contributions of Indigenous perspectives in large-scale water management strategies (Birckhead et al., 2011), suchas the National Water Initiative (Jackson and Morrison, 2007);although controversy and calls for greater Indigenous involvementcontinue (Weir, 2009; Birckhead et al., 2011; Bark et al., 2012).

Similarly, Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders havemade substantial headway into promoting Indigenous waterrights, planning and customary water uses in northern Australia(e.g. Jackson et al., 2005; Altman et al., 2009; Kennett et al.,2010). Socio-economic studies on the contributions of freshwaterresources to the Indigenous customary economy (e.g. Jackson,


2004; Barber and Jackson, 2011; Woodward et al., 2012) providesubstantial evidence for the imperative to honour Indigenous peo-ple’s rights to use their ancestral Country to support wellbeing andlivelihoods, especially in the absence of adequate essential servicedelivery to Indigenous communities by governments.

Our literature review suggested that the majority of IBKD con-tributions to aquatic ecosystem research and management haveprimarily centred on Indigenous water rights and involvement inplanning. However, by international standards, recognition ofIndigenous water rights in Australia is considered poor (Durette,2008; Bark et al., 2012). Therefore, there is substantial potentialto further document and expand public awareness of IBK of aquaticenvironments, which would certainly have positive implicationsfor more holistic understanding and management of aquatic natu-ral and cultural resources as well as Indigenous-driven socio-eco-nomic development opportunities related to the customaryeconomy and eco-tourism (Altman et al., 2007).

3.3.4. Fire managementThe IBKD of fire is an outstanding example of how IBK has

informed conservation and ecosystem management in Australia(e.g. Jones, 1969; Gill and Groves, 1981), particularly in northernAustralia over the last few decades (e.g. Haynes, 1985; Russell-Smith et al., 1997; Yibarbuk et al., 2001; Hill et al., 2004; Russell-Smith et al., 2009). Thirteen percent of the collated IBKD materialin this review directly related to fire. One of the earliest and mostinfluential examples of IBK use in fire management is the innova-tive Western Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project innorthern Australia. For over 20 years, Northern Territory Govern-ment scientists and bushfire staff, the Northern Australian Indige-nous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) andIndigenous land and sea management (Ranger) groups have collab-orated to promote early-dry season burns to prevent intensivelate-dry season fires, protect fire sensitive species, communityinfrastructure and concurrently abate carbon emissions (Russell-Smith et al., 2009). This project hinges on recreating customarymosaic burning practices which have been shared with scientistsby senior knowledge custodians of the region (e.g. Garde et al.,2009). The collaboration inherent to this project was recognisedwith a prestigious national Banksia Award in 2011 and was thebasis for the first formal carbon–offset agreement in Australia(Russell-Smith et al., 2009).

Recently, there has also been a wealth of collaborative researchand application of Indigenous fire management practices in thewet tropics region of northern Queensland (e.g. Hill et al., 1999,2004). Here, senior knowledge custodians have worked with Indig-enous Rangers and researchers to record Indigenous burning prac-tices using audio-visual technologies and multi-disciplinarytechniques to promote the benefits of customary Indigenous firemanagement. Participatory action research has been a key featureof this work which aims to build the capacity of Indigenous andnon-Indigenous participants to better understand and manage fireusing both knowledge systems. A key product of this work is ‘Yal-anji-Warranga Kaban: Yalanji people of the rainforest fire manage-ment book’ (Hill et al., 2004). Following from the successes of theseprojects, many other Indigenous groups across Australia aspire toinitiate collaborative cross-cultural fire management projects.

3.3.5. Invasive speciesThere was relatively limited publically available IBKD related to

invasive species, despite great potential for Indigenous insight intotheir historical distributions, impacts and ecology, particularlywhere Indigenous people have had enduring connection to Coun-try. The relatively limited IBKD about invasive species has primar-ily focused on large exotic animals (e.g. camel, buffalo and pig) andcomparisons of perceptions and preferred management

approaches by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders(Rose, 1995; Robinson et al., 2005; Edwards et al., 2008; Trigger,2008). These studies clearly demonstrated differences in worldviews and are very useful for building cross-cultural awareness.

Few publicly available documents went on to offer practicalsuggestions or guidelines for working with different perceptionsand values of Invasive species, which is particularly necessary toinform management in co-managed areas and the Indigenousestate where management is often funded by non-Indigenousagencies. Three exceptions to this were evident: the lengthy collab-orative work to control invasive ants in north eastern Arnhem Land(Hoffmann et al., 2012), multi-agency feral camel management incentral Australia (Edwards et al., 2008; Vaarzon-Morel andEdwards, 2012; Ninti One Limited, 2013), and buffalo, pig andhorse exclusion fencing around culturally significant billabongsby Indigenous Rangers in south eastern Arnhem Land (Ens et al.,2012). Perhaps the most thorough explorations of managementoptions have been researched and documented by a consortiumof 20 government, University, private sector, non-governmentand Indigenous organisations to manage feral camels over 1.3 mil-lion km2 of remote and culturally significant central Australia. Thisextensive collaborative research and management project was lar-gely funded by an Australian Government grant ($15 million) from2010 to 2013 which allowed for a structured and inclusive studyinto management options and stakeholder perceptions of feralcamels over the vast multi-tenure management area. The extensiveresearch was used to develop best-practice decision making toolsthat defined a range of management suitability areas for camelswhich significantly reduced the feral camel population (Ninti OneLimited, 2013).

For invasive plants there was far less IBKD, and for microbialinvaders, we found nothing. Of the limited IBKD on invasive plantsmost focussed on management and eradication (Storrs et al., 1996;CSIRO, 2012; Grice et al., 2012). Several materials contained infor-mation on the positive values and uses of invasive plants by Indig-enous people, species that ‘Western’ science view as damaging andhaving negative impacts (e.g. Wightman et al., 1994; Smith, 2000;Packer et al., 2011; Clarke, 2012). Again, there is ample opportunityto expand our understanding of different world views in relation toinvasive species and development of integrated managementapproaches that serve alternate views.

3.3.6. Climate changeClimate change is expected to have significant social, economic

and environmental impacts, particularly for Indigenous communi-ties who are least resourced to adapt (Green et al., 2009; Low-Choyet al., 2013). The predicted effects of rising sea levels and changingseasonality include: a loss of community and environmentalassets, loss of cultural heritage sites, a significant downturn inthe human quality of life, and the establishment of potentialfavourable conditions for the spread of invasive weeds, pests andplant diseases (Green et al., 2009).

Recently, many Indigenous groups across Australia have begunto document their seasonal knowledge (e.g. Hoogenraad andRobertson, 1997; Clarke, 2009b; Green et al., 2010; Woodwardet al., 2012).There is a growing body of published literature dis-cussing the importance of IBK and differing worldviews in the cli-mate change debate (e.g. Green and Raygorodetsky, 2010;Petheram et al., 2010; Alexander et al., 2011; Leonard et al.,2013), although there has been limited documented use of thisknowledge by Australian climate scientists. However, we note thatthe Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology has recentlypromoted the IBK of weather on their high-use website (seewww.bom.gov.au/iwk). Indigenous communities have longobserved and recorded the phenology of flora and the seasonalbehaviour of fauna through biocultural knowledge systems. IBK

http://www.bom.gov.au


paradigms, as described earlier in this paper, have high levels ofsocio-ecological complexity that help explain the changing rela-tionships between cycles of inter-annual weather patterns, wateravailability and the subsequent response of flora and fauna in thelandscape. The use of illustrative Indigenous seasonal calendarshas the potential to highlight culturally meaningful bio-temporalindicators of landscape response to climatic change and providea basis for developing detailed climatic monitoring and evaluationprograms (e.g. Leonard et al., 2013), particularly for the growingextent of Indigenous owned and managed lands.

4. Discussion

Langton and Ma Rhea (2005) assert that ‘the documentation oftraditional or Indigenous knowledge is fundamental to the capacityof traditional knowledge holders to promote, protect and facilitatethe proper use of their knowledge’. As Foucault (1980) discusses,knowledge and power are inseparable. For continued documenta-tion and use of IBK to occur, IBK custodians and non-Indigenouspeople must see the value in documenting IBK and understandand respect Intellectual Property rights (see Janke and Frankel,1998; Janke, 2009). From our collective experiences and evidencefrom the literature as this paper attests, many Indigenous Austra-lian people are keen to document their biocultural knowledgeand maintain cultural traditions. To facilitate the funding and sup-port for IBKD, arguably a great impediment is the hegemonic atti-tude of dominant non-Indigenous society and the resultant valuesand priorities of funding bodies. Therefore, a shift in society’s val-ues towards more inclusive, diverse and equitable (decolonising)approaches to knowledge documentation and use is required(Barbour and Schlesinger, 2012; Ens et al., 2014). In ecosystem sci-ence and management this will require broadening the acceptanceof different knowledge systems, values and priorities to facilitategreater cross-cultural or two-way learning approaches (Marikaet al., 2009; Yunupingu and Muller, 2009; LaFlamme, 2011; Ens,2012). We suggest that a focus on biocultural knowledge in broadbiological conservation agendas and use of decolonising methodol-ogies (see Smith, 2012) offer practical ways of promoting theinvolvement of Indigenous people and their cultural values. How-ever, as Agrawal (2002) cautions, Indigenous people and theirsocial and political context must be kept in the foreground so thattheir knowledge does not become a detached commodity for gen-eral use by the public. Discussions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people about culturally specific and more holisticdevelopment aspirations in relation to the environment is requiredto devise approaches that meet local needs (endogenous develop-ment; see Rist et al., 2011) as well as national and internationalobligations.

These issues of Indigenous knowledge appreciation, use andappropriation are not unique to Australia. Worldwide, Indigenouspeoples have struggled to assert their right to maintain and usetheir knowledge and preferred ways of managing and using naturalresources in the face of increasing pressure from dominant colon-ising societies (Smith, 2012). This situation is reflected in manyInternational to national conservation agreements, such as theUN Convention on Biological Diversity, and indeed human rightsagreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenouspeoples. Progress towards greater recognition of Indigenous socie-ties and their right to maintain their chosen knowledge systems,practices and Laws differs across the globe. In Australia, ‘‘progress’’has come largely in the form of Indigenous land ownership, landmanagement rights and corresponding financial support from gov-ernment and non-government sources (albeit proportionally lessthan non-Indigenous conservation sectors; see Hill et al., 2013).However, there are cross-cultural tensions over: the knowledge

and methods used to manage these areas (May, 2010; Muller,2012; Kerins, 2012); accountability constraints (Muller, 2008);and governance structures (Hill et al., 2012). This paper aimed tocollate documented IBK and conduct spatial, temporal and contentanalyses of this literature to challenge current thinking aroundthese tensions, particularly around the value and uses of IBK incontemporary biological conservation research and management.

We note that the review of Australian IBKD presented in thispaper does not include the entire body of IBK in Australia as Aus-tralian Indigenous knowledge is an oral tradition, with documenta-tion only occurring since colonisation of Australia in 1788.Documentation also includes audio and visual forms which thisreview does not include, although such sources would undoubt-edly offer rich contextual insight into traditional methods of com-municating, interpreting and using IBK. It is also likely that themethodology deployed here did not capture all IBKD as many doc-uments may not be publically available (often relating to informa-tion sensitivities, property rights and limited resources). However,an examination of the publically available IBKD is beneficial as thisis what is likely to shape broader community perceptions aboutIBK, unless people have or establish close connections to Indige-nous people and communities themselves.

In our systematic literature review, we found that Indigenousland ownership clearly offered a stable platform for enhanced col-laboration and mobilisation of IBK resources. However land owner-ship has not prevented IBKD on other land tenures as 60% of IBKDoccurred off the Indigenous estate. For example, we illustrated thatthe TIEC works with many Indigenous groups on pastoral leasesand private non-Indigenous owned land in Queensland, signifi-cantly contributing to maintenance and use of IBK in the region.In some cases there has been great incentive to maintain and doc-ument Indigenous knowledge for the Native Title process wherelegal determination of Indigenous land ownership is dependenton demonstration of continuous occupation. There are also clearbenefits to raising public awareness of the biocultural value ofIndigenous owned land (including government supported IPAs)as a perceived higher value by the public and funding bodies canleverage greater investment in these areas (Fitzsimons et al.,2012; Moritz et al., 2013). In support of this supposition, a recentstudy by Hill et al. (2013) showed that between 2002 and 2012the Dhimurru and Djelk IPAs received the highest income of allIPA’s which corresponds with our finding that these two IPAs alsohad two of the highest records of publically available IBKD, andtherefore public awareness and arguably perceived value. This cor-relation between IBKD availability and income may not be causal;nevertheless, it is an interesting co-occurrence when consideringcollaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peopleand their communities.

This review clearly demonstrated that there have been hotspotsof IBKD and these have largely occurred in parts of northern Aus-tralia, central Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin. Most docu-mentation has occurred since the 1970s, off the Indigenousestate and in collaboration with non-Indigenous people. Therewere clear gaps in documentation in Australia’s agricultural zonesand in Tasmania, areas which have experienced devastatinghuman and cultural impacts since colonisation (McConvell andThieberger, 2006). The difference in IBKD hotspots to Australia’stop 15 biodiversity hotspots opens up the potential for dialogueabout the priorities and focus of conservation agendas.

If we are to move beyond simple biodiversity conservation andaccept a new ‘‘social contract’’ for environmental conservation byincorporating socio-ecological systems thinking (e.g. Sachs et al.,2009) that serves to promote more inclusive conservation practice,decision-makers could contemplate our IBKD hotspot concept as apreliminary way of quantifying ‘‘surviving’’ (living or retrievable)biocultural knowledge. A similar concept was developed by Loh


and Harmon (2005) through their Global Index of BioculturalDiversity. Loh and Harmon measured cultural diversity as an aver-age of the summed linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity of aparticular country. This assumes that these cultural elements arestill either practiced or retrievable from documented sources,which may not necessarily always be the case. We acknowledgethat our measure of biocultural knowledge also has flaws for exam-ple, the quantity and quality of IBK that is recorded in each docu-ment varies. However, we suggest that quantification ofdocumented knowledge does offer an indicative measure of ‘‘sur-viving’’ cultural knowledge that can be measured across spaceand time and added to. Further research to explore these conceptsis suggested, particularly in collaboration with the owners andpractitioners of IBK in a respectful ‘‘both-ways’’ methodology fornew knowledge production.

Nevertheless, as a conceptual argument, broadening the biolog-ical hotspot targets to include IBK offers a practical and meaningfulway of enhancing the role of Indigenous people, knowledge andland into the national conservation agenda. IBKD hotspots couldbe targeted for conservation, or alternatively, the gaps in IBKDcould be considered a priority for funding and work as in theseareas IBK may be critically endangered. This line of decision mak-ing could be considered similar to the debates about ecosystemservices, biodiversity and threatened species conservation – dowe conserve the richest ‘intact’ areas, try and maintain or increaserichness in less ‘intact’ areas, or adopt a blend of approaches(Kareiva and Marvier, 2003)? We acknowledge again that the ‘gaps’identified in this study may simply be an artefact of the methodol-ogy as we only used publically available and accessible IBKD andwe encourage expansion of this work to include other forms ofdocumentation. However, we believe that this foundational workclearly challenges current thinking and processes beyond the focuson biodiversity and Indigenous engagement being just about landand work. Considering the increasing interest and effort in Austra-lian IBKD shown in Fig. 6, it is timely to assess the content and geo-graphic spread of the baseline IBKD data and look to develop amore holistic approach to managing Australia’s bioculturalresources, importantly, in collaboration with Indigenous people.

4.1. Breaking down cultural and communication barriers

Globally, the value of ‘cultural brokers’ for negotiating divergentknowledge systems and understanding has been recognised whenworking in complex cross-cultural or cross-disciplinary spaces(Guston, 2001). Use of cultural brokers is of particular relevancefor work on Indigenous land, with Indigenous people or whenusing IBK (Maru and Davies, 2011; Robinson and Wallington,2012). Drawing on ‘champions’ that may be individuals or largergroups or agencies who have the power to drive institutionalchange may also strengthen efforts to raise awareness of the valueof IBK in national conservation decision-making.

It is clear that we need to move beyond tangible participation(people and land) to more active and philosophical engagementof Indigenous knowledge and preferred methods in environmentalconservation initiatives (Colchester, 1996; Howitt, 2001; Hill et al.,2012; Walsh and Mitchell, 2002). There are many examples oftokenistic and limited collaborations between Indigenous peopleand environmental scientists and managers (Sithole et al., 2007;Roughley and Williams, 2007). Generally, in Australia and likelyin other colonised countries, the reasons for limited Indigenousinvolvement can be distilled down to a poor understanding ofIndigenous history and culture by the wider populous and a gen-eral failure to appreciate alternate knowledge systems as a resultof Eurocentric education structures. The result of dominant colo-nial histories has been the development of rigid environmental

project and funding frameworks that tend to work against Indige-nous investment.

In Australia, key principles for effective collaboration betweenIndigenous and non-Indigenous people have been widely docu-mented (e.g. Janke and Frankel, 1998; Davies, 2007; DesertKnowledge Cooperative Research Centre, 2008; Marika et al.,2009; Davies et al., 2011; Ens et al., 2012; Hoffmann et al., 2012).In summary they are:

1. cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity;2. respectful consultation and partnerships from project concep-

tion to completion and communication;3. enough time and adequate resources to discuss, consult and

conduct the work;4. legal advice on Intellectual Property rights;5. prior informed consent of all people involved;6. equitable remuneration and acknowledgement of Indigenous

collaborator’s time and knowledge; and7. that the principles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indig-

enous peoples and the Australian Institute for Indigenous andTorres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) guidelines for researchwith Indigenous people’s be followed.

Indigenous land and sea management corporations are increas-ingly seeking collaborations with non-Indigenous scientists, man-agers and policy makers to fulfil their own research questionsand organisational needs (Hoffmann et al., 2012; Marika andRoeger, 2012). Hemming et al. (2007) comment that governmentprograms and support institutions come and go which ‘. . .meansthat universities are even more important as partner organisationsfor capacity building, knowledge development and knowledgeexchange for Indigenous communities seeking social transforma-tion.’ Development of respectful partnerships with long-term com-mitment has proven to deliver mutual, nationally significant andtransformative benefits for ecosystem science and management,such as for the Djelk and Dhimurru IPAs and the outstanding threa-tened species and fire management projects previously described.

5. Conclusions

Over the last few decades, international mandates for enhancedengagement of Indigenous people and their knowledge in nationalconservation agendas have solidified. Australia offers a unique casestudy based on increasing Indigenous land ownership and govern-ment support for Indigenous natural and cultural resource man-agement. As a world first, this paper presents a foundationalanalysis of the documented Australian IBK that exists in the publicdomain which has been conducted to inform broader public under-standing of what IBK is and what it can offer contemporary envi-ronmental conservation. Our analysis showed that there has beenwidespread documentation of IBK, particularly in northern Austra-lia, since the 1970s, in collaboration with non-Indigenous peopleand off Indigenous land tenure. There have been significant contri-butions to national biological conservation priorities, especiallyaround fire management, threatened fauna and water rights andplanning; however, there are substantial opportunities for furtherengagement that would deliver benefits to both Indigenous peopleand broader ecosystem science and management. From our reviewof Australia, we suggest that globally, inclusion of biocultural val-ues in broader biological conservation agendas necessitatesenhanced engagement of Indigenous people and their knowledgein new knowledge construction and decision-making thatincorporates multiple perspectives. A shift towards inclusion ofIBK in environmental conservation could enable more holistic


socio-ecological systems approaches to managing the earth’sresources that moves beyond tokenistic Indigenous involvement.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and respect all Indigenous people and IBK cus-todians past, present and future. This work was supported by theAustralian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS), afacility of the Australian Government-funded Terrestrial Ecosys-tem Research Network (http://www.tern.org.au/), a research infra-structure facility established under the National CollaborativeResearch Infrastructure Strategy and Education Infrastructure Fund– Super Science Initiative, through the Department of Industry,Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. The authorsthank ACEAS for logistic and financial support of two IndigenousBiocultural Working Groups from which this paper originatedand the Quandamooka and Gimuy Walubara Yidinji TraditionalOwners of North Stradbroke Island and Cairns, respectively, wherethe two meetings were held. We also thank our respective institu-tions and funding bodies for allowing us time to develop the Work-ing Group products.

References

Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientificknowledge. Dev. Change 26, 413–439.

Agrawal, A., 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. Inter. Soc.Sci. J. 54, 287–297.

Alexander, C., Bynum, N., Johnson, E., King, U., Mustonen, T., Neofotis, P., Oettle, N.,Rosenzweig, C., Sakakibara, C., Shadrin, V., Vicarelli, M., Waterhouse, J., Weeks,B., 2011. Linking Indigenous and scientific knowledge of climate change.Bioscience 61, 477–484.

Altman, J., Buchanan, G., Larsen, L., 2007. The Environmental Significance of theIndigenous Estate: Natural Resource Management as Economic Development inRemote Australia. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU,Canberra.

Altman, J., Jordan, K., Kerins, S., Buchanan, G., Biddle, N., Ens, E., May, K., 2009.Indigenous interests in land and water. In: Stone, P. (Ed.), Northern AustraliaLand and Water Science Review 2009. Northern Australia Land and WaterTaskforce, Canberra.

Altman, J.C., 1982. Hunting buffalo in north-central Arnhem Land: a case of rapidadaptation among Aborigines. Oceania 52, 274–285.

Australian Government. 2013. <http://www.environment.gov.au> (accessed09.12.13).

Ayre, M., Mackenzie, J., 2013. ‘‘Unwritten, unsaid, just known’’: the role ofIndigenous knowledge(s) in water planning in Australia. Local Environ. 18,753–768.

Baker, R., Davies, J., Young, E., 2001. Working on Country Contemporary IndigenousManagement of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. Oxford University Press,Melbourne.

Barber, M., Jackson, S., 2011. Aboriginal water values and resource developmentpressures in the Pilbara region of north-west Australia. Aust. Aborigin. Stud.,32–49.

Barbour, W., Schlesinger, C., 2012. Who’s the boss? post-colonialism, ecologicalresearch and conservation management on Australian Indigenous lands. Ecol.Manage. Rest. 13, 36–41.

Bark, R., Garrick, D., Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S., 2012. Adaptive basin governance andthe prospects for meeting Indigenous water claims. Environ. Sci. Pol. 19–20,169–177.

Basedow, H., 1929. Notes on the Aborigines and on the geology of Arnhem Land.Geogr. J. 74, 572–573.

Baylie, W.H., 1843. On the Aborigines of the Goulburn district. Port Phillip. Magn. 1,89–91.

Bayly, I.A.E., 1999. Review of how Indigenous people managed for water in desertregions of Australia. J. Royal Soc. West Aust. 82, 17–25.

Berkes, F., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptivemanagement. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1251–1262.

Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and ResourceManagement, 3rd ed. Routledge, New York.

Beveridge, P., 1889. The Aborigines of Victoria and Riverina. Hutchinson, ML.Birckhead, J., Greiner, R., Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Rigney, M., Trevorrow, G.,

Trevorrow, T., 2011. Economic and Cultural Values of Water to the NgarrindjeriPeople of the Lower Lakes. Coorong and Murray Mouth, River Consulting andCSIRO, Townsville.

Bohensky, E.L., Maru, Y., 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: whathave we learned from a decade of international literature on ‘Integration’. Ecol.Soc. 16 (Article 6).

Bradley, J., 1988. Yanyuwa country: the Yanyuwa people of Borroloola tell thehistory of their land. Greenhouse.

Bradley, J.J., 2005. ‘Same time poison, same time good tucker’: the cycad palm in thesouth west gulf of Carpentaria. J. Aust. Stud. 29, 119–133.

Brennan, K.E.C., Twigg, P.J., Watson, A., Pennington, A., Sumner, J., Davis, R., Jackson,J., Brooks, B., Grant, F., Underwood, R., 2012. Cross-cultural systematic biologicalsurveys in Australia’s Western Desert. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 72–80.

Burbidge, A.A., 1992. Book review: Dorothy Tunbridge 1992. The story of theFlinders Ranges mammals. Aust. Mam. 15, 179–180.

Burbidge, A.A., Johnson, K.A., Fuller, P.J., Southgate, R.I., 1988. Aboriginalknowledge of the mammals of the central deserts of Australia. Wildlife Res.15, 9–39.

CAPAD, 2012. <http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/land/nrs/science-maps-and-data/capad>.

Cary, J.J., 1899. Vocabularies of the Geelong and Colac Tribes, Collected in 1840.Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science.

Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, M., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J.,Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS100, 8086–8091.

Cawthorne, W., 1926. (1842–1843). Rough notes on the manners and customs ofthe natives. Proc. Royal Geogr. Soc. Aust. S. A. Br. 27, 44–77.

Christie, M., 2006. Transdisciplinary research and Aboriginal knowledge. Aust. J.Indig. Ed. 35, 78–98.

Clarke, P.A., 1985. Fruits and seeds as food for southern South Australian Aborigines.J. Anthropol. Soc. South Aust. 23, 9–22.

Clarke, P.A., 2007. Aboriginal People and their Plants. Rosenberg Publishing, NewSouth Wales.

Clarke, P.A., 2009a. Aboriginal culture and the Riverine environment. In: Jennings,J.T. (Ed.), The Natural History of the Riverland and Murraylands. Royal Soc SouthAustralia, Adelaide.

Clarke, P.A., 2009b. Australian Aboriginal ethnometeorology and seasonal calendars.Hist. Anthropol. 20, 79–106.

Clarke, P.A., 2012. Australian Plants and Aboriginal Tools. Rosenberg Publishing,New South Wales.

Cleland, J., 1966. The ecology of the Aboriginal in south and central Australia. In:Cotton, B.C. (Ed.), Aboriginal Man in South and Central Australia. GovernmentPrinter, Adelaide, pp. 111–158.

Cleland, J.B., Johnston, T.H., 1937. Notes on native names and uses of plants in theMusgrave Ranges region. Oceania 8, 208–215.

Colchester, M., 1996. Beyond ‘‘participation’’: Indigenous peoples, biologicaldiversity conservation and protected area management. UNASYLVA-FAO, 33–39.

CSIRO, 2012. Unwelcome strangers: weeds on Aboriginal Country. Film, 14 mins,David Batty and Jeni McMahon, Reel Films.

Curr, E.M., 1883. Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, then called the Port PhillipDistrict (from 1841 to 1851). Robertson.

Davies, J., 2007. Walking Together, Working Together: Aboriginal ResearchPartnerships. Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs.

Davies, J., Campbell, D., Campbell, M., Douglas, J., Hueneke, H., LaFlamme, M.,Pearson, D., Preuss, K., Walker, J., Walsh, F., 2011. Attention to four keyprinciples can promote health outcomes from desert Aboriginal landmanagement. Rangeland J. 33, 17–431.

Davies, J., Higginbottom, K., Noack, D., Ross, H., Young, E., 1999. Sustaining Eden:Indigenous Community based Wildlife Management in Australia. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, London.

Dawson, J., 1881. Australian Aborigines: the languages and customs of several tribesof Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia. G. Robertson.

Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, 2008. Protocol for AboriginalKnowledge and Intellectual Property. DKCRC, Alice Springs.

Dhamarrandjai, D., Guyamirrilili, Y., 1979. Medicinal plants on Elcho Island. AbIslander Health Worker J. pp. 3:50.

Dobson, V., 2007. Arelhe-kenhe Merrethene: Arrernte traditional healing. IAD Press,Alice Springs.

Drew, J.A., Henne, A.P., 2006. Conservation biology and traditional ecologicalknowledge: integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice.Ecol. Soc. 11 (Article 34).

Durette, M., 2008. Indigenous Legal Rights in Freshwater: Australia in theInternational Context. Caepr working paper No. 42/2008, Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra.

Edwards, G.P., Zeng, B., Saalfeld, W.K., Vaarzon-Morel, P., McGregor, M., 2008.Managing the Impacts of Feral Camels in Australia: A New Way of DoingBusiness. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.

Ens, E., 2012. Conducting two-way ecological research. In: Altman, J., Kerins, S.(Eds.), People on Country, Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures. FederationPress, Sydney, pp. 45–64.

Ens, E.J., Burns, E., Russell-Smith, J., Sparrow, B., Wardle, G.M., 2014. The culturalimperative: broadening the vision of long-term monitoring to enhanceenvironmental policy and management outcomes. In: Lindenmeyer, D., Burns,E., Thurgate, N., Lowe, A.J. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Environmental Change:Monitoring, Challenges and Direction. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Ens, E.J., Finlayson, C.M., Preuss, K., Jackson, S., Holcombe, S., 2012. Australianapproaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenousknowledge. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 100–107.

Eyre, E.J., 1845. Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, andOverland from Adelaide to King George’s Sound, in the years 1840–1. T. and W.,Boone.

Field, J.J., McKenzie, Q., 2008. Written in the Land: The Life of Queenie McKenzie.Melbourne Books, Melbourne.

http://www.tern.org.au

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(14)00433-9/h0005


















http://www.environment.gov.au


















































































































Fitzsimons, J., Russell-Smith, J., James, G., Vigilante, T., Lipsett-Moore, G., Morrison,J., Looker, M., 2012. Insights into the biodiversity and social benchmarkingcomponents of the Northern Australian fire management and carbon abatementprogrammes. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 51–57.

Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Writings 1972–1977. HarvesterPress, Brighton.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversityconservation. Ambio 22, 151–156.

Gallopín, G.C., Funtowicz, S., O’Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 2001. Science for the twenty-first century: from social contract to the scientific core. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 53,219–229.

Garde, M., Nadjamerrek, B.L., Kolkiwarra, M., Kalarriya, J., Djandjomerr, J.,Birriyabirriya, B., Bilindja, R., Kubarku, M., Biless, P., 2009. The language offire: seasonality, resources and landscape burning on the Arnhem Plateau. In:Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P., Cooke, P. (Eds.), Culture, Ecology and Economyof Fire Management in North Australian Savannas. CSIRO Publishing,Collingwood, pp. 85–164.

Gill, A.M., Groves, R.H., 1981. Fire and the Australian Biota. Australian Academy ofScience, Canberra.

Gorenflo, L.J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Walker-Painemilla, K., 2012. Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots andhigh biodiversity wilderness areas. PNAS 109, 8032–8037.

Grech, A., Pressey, R., Marsh, H., Ens, E., 2014. Conservation Planning and theMaintenance of Cultural and Natural Heritage: An Australian Case Study (inpreparation).

Green, B.N., Johnson, C.D., Adams, A., 2006. Writing narrative literature reviews forpeer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J. Chiro. Med. 5, 101–117.

Green, D., Billy, J., Tapim, A., 2010. Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weatherand climate. Climatic Change 100, 337–354.

Green, D., King, U., Morrison, J., 2009. Disproportionate burdens: themultidimensional impacts of climate change on the health of IndigenousAustralians. Med. J. Aust. 190, 4–5.

Green, D., Raygorodetsky, G., 2010. Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate.Climatic Change 100, 239–242.

Grice, A.C., Cassady, J., Nicholas, D.M., 2012. Indigenous and non-Indigenousknowledge and values combine to support management of Nywaigi lands in theQueensland coastal tropics. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 93–97.

Griffiths, A.D., Philips, A., Godjuwa, C., 2003. Harvest of Bombax ceiba for theIndigenous arts industry, central Arnhem Land. Aust. Biol. Conserv. 113, 295–305.

Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: anintroduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 26, 399–408.

Hale, H.M., Tindale, N.B., 1925. Observations on Aborigines of the Flinders Rangesand Records of Rock Carvings and Painting. Hassell Press, Adelaide.

Haynes, C.D., 1985. The pattern and ecology of munwag: traditional Indigenous fireregimes in north-central Arnhem Land. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust., 203–214.

Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Berg, S., 2010. Researching on Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar:methodologies for positive transformation. Aust. Aborigin. Stud. 2, 92–106.

Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Wallis, L., Trevorrow, T., Rigney, M., Trevorrow, G., 2007.Caring for Ngarrindjeri country: collaborative research, communitydevelopment and social justice. Indig. Law Bull. 6, 6–8.

Henshall, T., Jambijinpa, D., Kelly, F., Bartlett, P., Granites, L., Price, J., Coulshed, E.,Robertson, G., 1980. Ngurrju Maninja Kurlangu. Yapa Nyurnu Kurlangu. BushMedicine. Warlpiri Literature Production Centre, Yuendumu, NT.

Hill, R., Baird, A., Buchanan, D., Denman, C., Fischer, P., Gibson, K., Johnson, J., Kerry,A., Kulka, G., Madsen, E., 2004. Yalanji-Warranga Kaban: Yalanji people of theRainforest Fire Management Book. Little Ramsay Press.

Hill, R., Buchanan, D., Baird, A., 1999. Aborigines & fires in the wet tropics ofQueensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Soc. Nat.Resour. 12, 205–223.

Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Talbot, L.D., McIntyre, S., 2011a. EmpoweringIndigenous peoples’ biocultural diversity through world heritage culturallandscapes: a case study from the Australian tropical forests. Int. J. HeritageStud. 17, 571–590.

Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S., Abel, N., 2012. A typology ofIndigenous engagement in Australian environmental management:implications for knowledge integration and social–ecological systemsustainability. Ecol. Soc., 17 (Article 23).

Hill, R., Pert, P.L., Davies, J., Robinson, C.J., Walsh, F., Falco-Mammone, F., 2013.Indigenous Land Management in Australia: Extent, Scope, Diversity, Barriersand Success Factors. CSIRO Ecosystem Services, Cairns.

Hill, R., Smyth, D., 1999. Collaborative environmental research with Kuku-Yalanjipeople in the wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, Australia. In:Posey, D. (Ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. United NationsEnvironment Programme. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp.227–232.

Hill, R., Turpin, G., Canendo, W., Standley, P.-M., Crayn, D., Warne, S.-J., Keith, K.,Addicott, E., Zich, F., 2011b. Indigenous-driven tropical ethnobotany. Aust. PlantConserv. 19, 24–25.

Hoffmann, B.D., Roeger, S., Wise, P., Dermer, J., Yunupingu, B., Lacey, D., Yunupingu,D., Marika, B., Marika, M., Panton, B., 2012. Achieving highly successful multipleagency collaborations in a cross-cultural environment: experiences and lessonsfrom Dhimurru Indigenous Corporation and partners. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13,42–50.

Hoogenraad, R., Robertson, G.J., 1997. Seasonal calendars from central Australia.Windows on meteorology. Aust. Perspect., 34–41.

Horstman, M., Wightman, G., 2001. Karparti ecology: recognition of Indigenousecological knowledge and its application to management in north-westernAustralia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 2, 99–109.

Howitt, A.W., Fison, L., 1880. Kamilaroi and Kurnai. Robertson, Melbourne.Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and

Indigenous Peoples. Routledge.Humphries, P., 2007. Historical Indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s

Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecol. Manage.Rest. 8, 106–113.

Huntington, H.P., 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methodsand applications. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1270–1274.

ICSU, 2002. International Council for Science (ICSU) series on science for sustainabledevelopment No. 4: Science, Traditional Knowledge and SustainableDevelopment. ICSU and UNESCO.

Jackson, S., 2004. Preliminary Report on Indigenous perspectives on Land-use andWater Management in the Daly River Region. CSIRO, Northern Territory.

Jackson, S., Morrison, J., 2007. Indigenous perspectives in water management,reforms and implementation. In: Hussey, K., Dovers, S. (Eds.), Managing Waterfor Australia: The Social and Institutional Challenges. CSIRO Publishing,Collingwood, pp. 22–41.

Jackson, S., Storrs, M., Morrison, J., 2005. Recognition of Indigenous rights, interestsand values in river research and management: perspectives from northernAustralia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 6, 107–110.

Janke, T., 2009. Report on the Current Status of Indigenous Intellectual Property.Terri Janke and Company Pty Ltd, National Centre for Indigenous StudiesAustralian National University and Jumbunna Indigenous House of LearningUniversity of Technology Sydney, Canberra.

Janke, T., Frankel, M., 1998. Our Culture our Future: Report on Australian IndigenousCultural and Intellectual Property Rights. Michael Frankel, Sydney.

Jones, R., 1969. Fire-stick farming. Aust. Nat. Hist. 16, 224–228.Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots: recent calls to

direct conservation funding to the world’s biodiversity hotspots may be badinvestment advice. Am. Sci. 91, 344–351.

Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J.,Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., 2001. Sustainability science. Inter.Inst. Appl. Syst. Anal..

Kennett, R., Jackson, M., Morrison, J., Kitchens, J., 2010. Indigenous rights andobligations to management traditional land and sea estates in north Australia:the role of Indigenous rangers and the I-tracker project. Policy Matter 17, 135–142.

Kennett, R., Yunupingu, D., Wunungmurra, B., Munungurritj, N., Marika, R., 1997.Nhaltjan Nguli Miwatj Yolngu Djaka Miyapunuwu: Sea Turtle Conservation andthe Yolngu People of North East Arnhem Land. Australia. Sinauer Assoc. Inc.,Massachusettss.

Kerins, S., 2012. Caring for country to working on country. In: Altman, J.C., Kerins, S.(Eds.), People on Country, Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures. FederationPress, Sydney, pp. 26–44.

LaFlamme, M., 2011. A framework for sustainable rangeland livelihoods. RangelandJ. 33, 339–351.

Langton, M., Rhea, A., Ayre, M., Pope, J., 2003. Composite Report on the Status andTrends Regarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of Indigenous andLocal Communities-Regional Report: Australia. Asia and the Middle East, UNEPSecretariat, Montreal.

Langton, M., Ma Rhea, Z., 2005. Traditional Indigenous biodiversity-relatedknowledge. Aust. Acad. Res. Libr. 36, 45–69.

Latz, P.K., Green, J., 1995. Bushfires and Bushtucker: Indigenous Plant Use in CentralAustralia. IAD Press, Alice Springs.

Leichhardt, L., 1847. Journal of an overland expedition in Australia, from MoretonBay to Port Essington, a distance of upward of 3000 miles, during the years1844–1845. T. & W. Boone, London, reprinted 2000, Adelaide, Corkwood Press.

Leonard, S., Parsons, M., Olawsky, K., Kofod, K., 2013. The role of culture andtraditional knowledge in climate change adaptation: insights from EastKimberley, Australia. Global Environ. Change 23, 623–632.

Loh, J., Harmon, D., 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5, 231–241.

Low-Choy, D., Clarke, P.A., Jones, D., Serrao-Neumann, S., Hales, R., Koschade, O.,2013. Aboriginal reconnections: understanding coastal urban and peri-urbanIndigeous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate chamnge.National Climate Change Facility, Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast,Queensland.

Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contractfor science. Science 279, 491–497.

Maffi, L., 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and theEnvironment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Maffi, L., 2007. Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability. The SAGE Handbook ofEnvironment and Society, pp. 267–277.

Maffi, L., Woodley, E., 2010. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A GlobalSourcebook. Earthscan/James & James.

Marika, M., Roeger, S., 2012. Dhimurru wind bringing change. In: Altman, J., Kerins,S. (Eds.), People on Country, Vital Landscapes. Federation Press, Sydney,Indigenous futures, pp. 119–131.

Marika, R., Yunupingu, Y., Marika-Mununggiritj, R., Muller, S., 2009. Leaching thepoison – the importance of process and partnership in working with Yolngu. J.Rural Stud. 25, 404–413.

Maru, Y., Davies, J., 2011. Supporting cross-cultural brokers is essential foremployment among Indigenous people in remote Australia. Rangeland J. 33,327–338.





































































































































































May, K., 2010. Indigenous Cultural and Natural Resource Management and theEmerging Role of the Working on Country Program. CAEPR, Canberra.

McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2001. State of Indigenous Languages in Australia –2001. Environment Australia. Canberra, Department of the Environment andHeritage.

McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2006. Keeping track of Indigenous languageendangerment in Australia. In: Cunningham, D., Ingram, D.E., Sumbuk, K.(Eds.), Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival.Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK.

Moorcroft, H., Ignjic, E., Cowell, S., Goonack, J., Mangolomara, S., Oobagooma, J.,Karadada, R., Williams, D., Waina, N., 2012. Conservation planning in a cross-cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in theKimberley, Western Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 16–25.

Moritz, C., Ens, E., Potter, S., Catullo, R., 2013. The Australian monsoonal tropics: aunique opportunity to secure biodiversity benefits and secure benefits forIndigenous communities. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 19, 343–355.

Muhic, J., Abbott, E., Ward, M.J., 2012. The warru (Petrogale lateralis MacDonnellRanges Race) reintroduction project on the Anangu PitjantjatjaraYankunytjatjara Lands, South Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 89–92.

Muller, S., 2008. Accountability constructions, contestations and implications:insights from working in a Yolngu Cross-Cultural Institution, Australia. Geog.Compass. 2, 395–413.

Muller, S., 2012. Crazy ants: finding ‘two ways’ to bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges together. In: Weir, K. (Ed.), Country, Native Title andEcology. ANU ePress, Canberra.

Nabarula, A.D., Nabarnardi, C.F., Nambijimba, E.R., Nungari, S.P., 1978. Bushmedicines used at Warrabri. Ab. Islander Health Worker J. 2, 12.

Nadasdy, P., 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the ‘‘integration’’ of knowledge.Arctic Anthrop., 1–18.

Nakata, M., Langton, M., 2006. Australian Indigenous Knowledge and Libraries.UTSePress, Sydney.

Nakata, M.N., 2007. Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines. IndigenousStudies Press, Canberra.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), 2010. Australia’sBiodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030. Australian Government,Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities, Canberra.

National Native Title Register, 2013. <http://www.nntt.gov.au/Applications-And-Determinations/Registers/Pages/default.aspx>.

Neidjie, B., 2002. Gagadju Man: Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory. Australia.JB Books, South Australia.

Ninti One Limited, 2013. In: McGregor, M., Hart, Q., Bubb, A., Davies, R. (Eds.),Managing the Impacts of Feral Camels across Remote Australia – Final Report ofthe Australian Feral Camel Management Project. Australian Government,Canberra.

Ohl, C., Swinton, S.M., 2010. Integrating social sciences into long-term ecologicalresearch. In: Müller, F., Baessler, C., Schubert, H., Klotz, S. (Eds.), Long-termEcological Research: Between Theory and Application. Springer, Netherlands,pp. 399–410.

Orton, J., 1836. The Aborigines of Australia. Thomas, London.Packer, J., Brouwer, N., Harrington, D., Gaikwad, J., Jamie, J., Vemulpad, S., Yaegl

Community Elders, 2011. Yaegl Medicinal and Plant Resources Handbook.Macquarie Lighthouse Press, North Ryde.

Palmer, E., 1884. On Plants used by the Natives of North Queensland, Flinders andMitchell Rivers, for Food, Medicine, etc.. Government Printer, South Africa.

Petheram, L., Zander, K.K., Campbell, B.M., High, C., Stacey, N., 2010. ‘Strangechanges’: Indigenous perspectives of climate change and adaptation in NEArnhem Land (Australia). Global Environ. Change 20, 681–692.

Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A.C., 2010.Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J.Environ. Manage. 91, 1766–1777.

Read, J.L., Ward, M.J., 2011. Bringing back warru: initiation and implementation ofthe South Australian Warru Recovery Plan. Aust. Mam. 33, 214–220.

Rist, S., Boillat, S., Gerritsen, P.R.W., Schneider, F., Mathez-Stiefel, S.L., Tapia, N.,2011. Endogenous knowledge: implications for sustainable development. In:Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H. (Eds.), Research for Sustainable Development:Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives. Perspectives of the SwissNational Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, Universityof Bern, Bern, Switzerland, pp. 119–146.

Roberts, G.J., Conway, S.Y., Morgan, R., Dirn.gayg, A., Harris, S., Farrar, E.B., Roberts,F.B., Merlan, F., Collyer, E., Calnan, T., Wightman, G., 2011. Mangarrayi andYangman Plants and Animals: Indigenous biocultural Knowledge from Elseyand the Roper River, North Australia. Department of Natural Resources,Environment, the Arts and Sport, Diwurruwurru-Jaru Indigenous Corporationand Mimi Indigenous Art and Craft, Darwin.

Robinson, C.J., Wallington, T., 2012. Boundary work: engaging knowledge systemsin co-management of feral animals on Indigenous lands. Ecol. Soc., 17 (Article2).

Robinson, C.J., Smyth, D., Whitehead, P.J., 2005. Bush tucker, bush pets, and bushthreats: cooperative management of feral animals in Australia’s KakaduNational Park. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1385–1391.

Rose, B., 1995. Land management issues: attitudes and perceptions amongstIndigenous people of central Australia. Central Land Council, Alice Springs.

Rose, D.B., 1996. Nourishing Terrains. Australian heritage Commission, Canberra.Rose, D.B., 2000. Dingo Makes us Human: Life and Land in an Australian Indigenous

Culture. Cambridge University Press.

Ross, M.C., 1986. Australian Indigenous oral traditions. Oral Tradition 1, 231–271.Roth, W.E., 1897. Ethnological Studies among the North–West–Central Queensland

Aborigines. Brisbane and London.Roth, W.E., 1910. North Queensland Ethnography. Bulletin No. 16. Huts and

shelters. Records of the Aust Museum. 8, 55.Roughley, A., Williams, S., 2007. The engagement of Indigenous Australians in

Natural Resource Management: Key Findings and Outcomes from Land andWater Australia Funded Research and the Broader Literature. Land and WaterAustralia, Canberra.

Russell-Smith, J., Lucas, D., Gapindi, M., Gunbunuka, B., Kapirigi, N., Namingum, G.,Lucas, K., Giuliani, P., Chaloupka, G., 1997. Indigenous resource utilisation andfire management practice in western Arnhem Land, monsoonal northernAustralia: notes for prehistory, lessons for the future. Hum. Ecol. 25,159–195.

Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P.J., Cooke, P., 2009. Culture, Ecology and Economy ofFire Management in Northern Australian Savannas: Rekindling the WurrkTradition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Sachs, J.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Sutherland, W.J., Armsworth, P.R., Ash, N., Beddington, J.,Blackburn, T.M., Collen, B., Gardiner, B., Gaston, K.J., Godfray, H.C.J., Green, R.E.,Harvey, P.H., House, B., Knapp, S., Kampel, N.F., Macdonald, D.W., Mace, G.M.,Mallet, J., Matthews, A., May, R.M., Petchey, O., Purvis, A., Roe, D., Safi, K., Turner,K., Walpole, M., Watson, R., Jones, K.E., 2009. Biodiversity conservation and themillennium development goals. Science 325, 1502–1503.

Scott, G., 2004. A Bibliography of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge in NorthernAustralia. Charles Darwin University, Darwin.

Shackeroff, J.M., Campbell, L.M., 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge inconservation research: problems and prospects for their constructiveengagement. Conserv. Soc. 5, 343–360.

Sithole, B., Hunter-Xenie, H., Williams, L., Saegenschnitter, J., Yibarbuk, D., Ryan, M.,Campion, O., Yunupingu, B., Liddy, M., Watts, E., Daniels, C., Daniels, G.,Christophersen, P., Cubillo, V., Phillips, E., Marika, W., Jackson, D., Barbour, W.,2007. Aboriginal Land and Sea Management in the Top End: A CommunityDriven Evaluation. CSIRO, Darwin.

Smith, N., 2000. Not from here: Plant invasions on Indigenous lands of the Top End.Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin.

Smith, L.T., 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,2nd ed. Zed books, London.

Smyth, D., 1981. Indigenous Occupation of Inland Cape York Peninsula. AustralianInstitute of Indigenous Studies Newsletter.

Smyth, D., 1994. Understanding Country: The Importance of Land and Sea inAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

Smyth, D., 2007. Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area: sole management withpartners. In: Bauman, T., Smyth, D. (Eds), Indigenous Partnerships in ProtectedArea Management in Australia: Three Case Studies Australian Institute ofIndigenous and Torres Strait Islander Studies in Association with theAustralian Collaboration and the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund),Canberra, pp. 100–126.

Southgate, R.I., Moseby, K., 2008. Track-based monitoring for the deserts andrangelands of Australia. Threatened Species Network, WWF-Australia.

Specht, R.L., Mountford, C.P., 1958. Records of the American–Australian expeditioninto Arnhem Land. Botany and Plant Ecology, vol. 3. Melbourne University Press,Melbourne.

Storrs, M.J., Kenyon, A., Lonsdale, W.M., 1996. Strategic weed management for theIndigenous Lands of the top end. In: Eleventh Australian Weeds ConferenceProceedings. Weed Science Society of Victoria, Melbourne, pp. 402–407.

Szabo, S., Smyth, D., 2003. Indigenous protected areas in Australia: incorporatingindigenous owned land into Australia’s national system of protected areas. In:Jaireth, H., Smyth, D. (Eds.), Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, LocalCommunities and Protected Areas. Ane Books, New Delhi, pp. 145–164.

Telfer, W.R., Garde, M.J., 2006. Indigenous knowledge of rock kangaroo ecology inwestern Arnhem Land. Aust. Human Ecol. 34, 379–406.

Thomson, D.F., 1939. The seasonal factor in human culture: illustrated from the lifeof a contemporary nomadic group.

Tindale, N.E., 1974. Tribal boundaries in Aboriginal Australia. [Catalogue to Map]Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, their Terrain, Environmental Controls,Distribution, Limits and Proper Names. South Australian Museum.

Trigger, D.S., 2008. Indigeneity, ferality, and what ‘belongs’ in the Australian bush:Aboriginal responses to ‘introduced’ animals and plants in a settler-descendantsociety. J. Royal Anthrop. Inst. 14, 628–646.

Tunbridge, D., 1992. The Story of the Flinders Ranges Mammals. Kangaroo Press,Sydney.

Turner, M.K., McDonald, B., 2010. Iwenhe Tyerrtye – What it Means to be anAboriginal Person. IAD Press, Alice Springs.

UNESCO, 1999. Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge and thescience agenda – framework for action. In: Science for the Twenty-FirstCentury: A New Commitment. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Vaarzon-Morel, P., Edwards, G., 2012. Incorporating Aboriginal people’s perceptionsof introduced animals in resource management: insights from the feral camelproject. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 65–71.

Van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., 1994. Born from Within: Practice and Perspectives ofEndogenous Rural Development. Van Gorcum Publishers, Assen, TheNetherlands.

Walsh, F., Douglas, J., 2011. No bush foods without people: the essential humandimension to the sustainability of trade in native plant products from desertAustralia. Rangeland J. 33, 395–416.






































http://www.nntt.gov.au

http://www.nntt.gov.au






















































































































Walsh, F., Mitchell, P., 2002. Planning for country: cross-cultural approaches todecision making on Indigenous lands. Jukurrpa Books/IAD Press, Alice Springs.

Weir, J.K., 2009. Murray River Country an Ecological Dialogue with TraditionalOwners. Indigenous Studies Press, Canberra, Australia.

Wightman, G.M., Brown, J., Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory,Jawoyn Association, 1994. Jawoyn Plant Identikit: Common Useful Plants in theKatherine Area of Northern Australia. Conservation Commission of the NorthernTerritory, Darwin.

Wightman, G.M., Smith, N.M., 1989. Ethnobotany, Vegetation and Floristics ofMilingimbi, Northern Australia. Darwin.

Wohling, M., 2009. The problem of scale in Indigenous knowledge: a perspectivefrom Northern Australia. Ecol. Soc., 14 (Article 1).

Woinarski, J.C.Z., Pavey, C., Kerrigan, R., Cowie, I., Ward, S., 2007. Lost from ourLandscape: Threatened Species of the Northern Territory. Northern TerritoryGovernment, Palmerston, Northern Territory.

Woodward, E., Jackson, S., Finn, M., McTaggart, P.M., 2012. Utilising Indigenousseasonal knowledge to understand aquatic resource use and inform waterresource management in northern Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 58–64.

WTAPPT, 2005. Caring for Country and Culture – the Wet Tropics IndigenousCultural and Natural Resource Management Plan. Wet Tropics Indigenous PlanProject Team, Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM Ltd., Cairns.

Yibarbuk, D., Whitehead, P.J., Russell-Smith, J., Jackson, D., Godjuwa, C., Fisher, A.,Cooke, P., Choquenot, D., Bowman, D.M.J.S., 2001. Fire ecology and Indigenousland management in central Arnhem Land, northern Australia: a tradition ofecosystem management. J. Biogeog. 28, 325–343.

Yanyuwa familes, Bradley, J., Kirton, J., MacDonald, E., 2013. Wuka Nya-nganungaLi-Yanyuwa Li-Anthawirriyarra: Language for us, the Yanyuwa SaltwaterPeople. A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Australia Scholarly Publishing,Melbourne.

Young, E., 1987. Resettlement and caring for the country: the Anmatyerreexperience. Ab Hist. 11, 156–170.

Yunupingu, D., Muller, S., 2009. Cross-cultural challenges for Indigenous seacountry management in Australia. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 16, 158–167.

Ziembicki, M., Woinarski, J., Mackey, B., 2013. Evaluating the status of species usingIndigenous knowledge: novel evidence for major native mammal declines innorthern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 157, 78–92.
































indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and...

Documents