Erratum to: Local assessments of marine mammals in cross-cultural environments

Perceptions, Motivations and Practices for Indigenous Engagement in Marine Science in Australia

“…It also identifies a number of challenges for marine research institutions, marine researchers and Indigenous communities if positive aspirations for engagement are to be matched with respectful and effective engagement that delivers mutual benefits. Although there are signs of growth and maturation in inclusive marine research in Australia (e.g., Carter, 2008;Grech et al, 2014;Jackson et al, 2015;Dale et al, 2016;Simpendorfer et al, 2016;Austin et al, 2017) results from our study suggest the majority of engagements could be considered consultation or passive participation (as described in Carter, 2008) where participation was largely confined to a few specific stages in the research process.…”

“…Incentives could include allocating time for both parties involved in mentoring and formally establishing an Indigenous engagement mentoring initiative. Jones et al (2008) and Grech et al (2014) point out that establishing and maintaining trusted and respectful relationships is important to effective engagement of Indigenous people in marine research in Australia. These requirements have also been reported by researchers focused on engagement in other countries (e.g., Drew, 2005;Shakeroff and Campbell, 2007;Castleden et al, 2010;Koster et al, 2012) and in other research disciplines, including human health and medicine (e.g., Jamieson et al, 2012;Fitzpatrick et al, 2017), water and land management (e.g., Ens et al, 2012;Escott et al, 2015;Woodward and McTaggart, 2016;Lynch, 2017), climatology (e.g., Green et al, 2010) and archaeology (e.g., Mitchell et al, 2013).…”

Regional Assessment of the Conservation Status of Snubfin Dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni) in the Kimberley Region, Western Australia

“…As anthropogenic impacts are not distributed evenly everywhere and management actions are commonly administered at local levels rather than globally (Brito et al, 2010;Pagel et al, 2014;Jenkins and Van Houtan, 2016), several countries around the world have begun to develop their own regional RL schemes aimed at quantifying threats within discrete parts of species' ranges (Gärdenfors, 2001;Gärdenfors et al, 2008;Nourani et al, 2017). To be rigorous, such efforts ought to be supported by systematic monitoring programs designed around standardized scientific surveys, yet these remain difficult to execute and sustain over the long term in most remote areas (Grech et al, 2014). A promising solution to fill information gaps is to combine different data types from alternative sources, which are often opportunistic in nature (Cheney et al, 2013;Pagel et al, 2014).…”

“…These can be particularly valuable in biogeographical studies of coastal cetaceans, and can complement or even replace dedicated surveys for tracking distributional changes over broad spatial extents (Embling et al, 2015;Lodi and Tardin, 2018;Alessi et al, 2019). Similarly, community-based approaches that harness the skills, interests, and capacity of Indigenous Ranger organizations are supporting conservation efforts locally, including the monitoring of trends in species and habitats (Grech et al, 2014;Jackson et al, 2015). The latter is particularly relevant where Indigenous people are recognized as land managers in their own right through Native Title, and where they have developed and implemented Healthy Country Management Plans that articulate their vision, objectives and targets for Indigenous Protected Areas (Rist et al, 2019).…”