Identifying and categorizing cobenefits in state-supported Australian indigenous environmental management programs: international research implications

Barber, Marcus; Jackson, Sue

doi:10.5751/es-09114-220211

Cited by 31 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proper assessment of programs is thus a non-trivial task-and reducing uncertainty and complexity in the identification, evaluation, and monitoring of co-benefits is emerging as a research priority [16]. Overwhelmingly, assessments focus on financial impacts (which may typically not be of intrinsic importance to Indigenous people, [17] and on impacts which are perceived as important by non-Indigenous people (i.e., government targets in 'closing the gap' [5]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs) Enhance the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians

Larson

Stoeckl

Jarvis

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation and environmental management have been reported as offering opportunities to substantially improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people. Using the holistic wellbeing impact evaluation (W-IE) approach—well suited for use in Indigenous communities—we interviewed 190 Indigenous Australians across four communities. All communities were involved in the Indigenous land and sea management programs (ILSMPs). Our study explored the conceptualisation of ‘wellbeing’ by participants. In particular, we were interested in the aspects of wellbeing perceived to be affected by ILSMPs. Out of the 26 wellbeing factors explored, ‘Health centres’; ‘Language’; ‘Schools’; and ‘Safe community’ emerged as being of highest importance to the largest percentage of the respondents. When grouped using principle components analysis (PCA), the ‘Community and society’ domain emerged as the most important; accounting for 52% of the overall importance of all wellbeing factors. The second most important domain was the ‘Country and culture’, contributing 31%. Lastly, ‘Economic aspects’ contributed only 17%. Respondents believed that ILSMPs have played a considerable causal role in improving wellbeing, by positively changing factors most important to them. Specifically, 73% of perceived causal links were related to improvements in the ‘Country and Culture’ and 23% to ‘Community and Society’ domain. We thus conclude that land management for Indigenous people is much more than ecological or environmental management with ILSMPs, perceived to cause a wide range of cultural and social benefits. We also propose ways in which the future design of such programs could be improved to further increase benefits.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs) Enhance the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians

Larson

Stoeckl

Jarvis

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…); weed and feral animal control; improved survival of native species; and improved biosecurity. Employment of indigenous people in land management also reduces welfare dependency in indigenous communities (Barber & Jackson ) and leads to tangible savings on healthcare costs (Campbell et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying current and potential contributions of Australian indigenous peoples to threatened species management

Leiper

Zander

Robinson

et al. 2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal engagement of indigenous peoples in conservation is increasing globally and leads to multiple benefits to communities while contributing to national and international biodiversity goals and obligations. This and ongoing declines in biodiversity have led to calls to increase opportunities for indigenous people to engage in managing their estates. However, there is no overarching understanding of indigenous peoples' involvement in conservation, which limits the identification of new opportunities. We amalgamated information across governments and large nongovernmental organizations in the megadiverse country of Australia to quantify the involvement of indigenous people in management of threatened species. We identified 153 Australian-based projects undertaken by different indigenous groups around the nation in 2015 and 2016 that included explicit funds for management of threatened species or threatened ecosystems. Most were in remote parts of western and northern Australia. Almost one-quarter of all threatened animals and 2% of threatened plants were the subject of some formal conservation action by indigenous people. Occurrence records for 1574 threatened species showed that 823 (89.2%) of 923 species recorded on indigenous peoples' lands were not listed in management projects. This gap may represent new opportunities for conservation initiatives. Because at least 59.5% of Australia's threatened species occur on indigenous peoples' lands, efforts to build appropriate and effective indigenous conservation alliances are vital. However, it is also important to recognize that threatened species are part of complex social, ecological, economic and cultural systems, and to achieve successful outcomes requires consideration of indigenous peoples' priorities, rights, and obligations and relationships with their traditionally owned land and sea.

show abstract

“…) as cultural cobenefits are increasingly becoming a critical metric for demonstrating triple bottom line outcomes associated with ecosystem service payments and reporting on government funding (Robinson et al . 2016a; Barber & Jackson ). There is also opportunity to leverage substantial financial benefit on open carbon markets if cobenefits (benefits accrued above the greenhouse gas abatement) can be established (Mason & Plantinga ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, much of the evidence for biodiversity and cultural cobenefits are in the context of nuanced traditional burning practices (Yibarbuk et al 2001;Vigilante & Bowman 2004;Murphy & Bowman 2007). Understanding the link between the practical implementation fire management and its cultural legitimacy is important (Petty et al 2015) as cultural cobenefits are increasingly becoming a critical metric for demonstrating triple bottom line outcomes associated with ecosystem service payments and reporting on government funding (Robinson et al 2016a;Barber & Jackson 2017). There is also opportunity to leverage substantial financial benefit on open carbon markets if cobenefits (benefits accrued above the greenhouse gas abatement) can be established (Mason & Plantinga 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The divergence of traditional Aboriginal and contemporary fire management practices on Wik traditional lands, Cape York Peninsula, Northern Australia

Perry¹,

Sinclair²,

Wikmunea³

et al. 2018

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Fire has been a critical component of Aboriginal culture and natural resource management in Australia for millennia. Aboriginal fire management in Northern Australia is widespread and, in some more remote areas, has continued relatively undisrupted despite widespread changes in tenure and land use. For the Wik people of Western Cape York, there has been a continued connection to their culture and traditional lands. Recently, Wik traditional owners have formed a ranger program which has secured funding to manage contemporary land management issues. This includes the landscape‐scale management of fire for biodiversity conservation and greenhouse gas abatement. Because the work is being conducted by Aboriginal people, with consent from traditional owners and on their traditional lands, there is an assumption that the activities are compatible with historical traditional land management and cultural practices. In this study, we use participatory action research to compare contemporary fire management with the current understanding of traditional Aboriginal fire management to assess objectively the compatibility of these two paradigms. We do this by combining the experience and understanding of traditional owners with anthropological and ecological perspectives. We find that contemporary fire management is applied across traditional cultural boundaries using methods such as aerial incendiaries. Financial incentives and contractual obligations associated with fire management are externally driven or include modern considerations such as the protection of infrastructure. In contrast, traditional fire management was the prerogative of traditional owners and was applied at fine scales for specific outcomes. Fire management was governed by rules that determined how people moved across the landscape and how resources were partitioned and shared. Supporting the implementation of Aboriginal burning alongside current fire management practices could lead to significant community engagement in such activities and is likely to have much better biodiversity and social outcomes.

show abstract

Identifying and categorizing cobenefits in state-supported Australian indigenous environmental management programs: international research implications

Cited by 31 publications

References 81 publications

Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs) Enhance the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians

Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs) Enhance the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians

Quantifying current and potential contributions of Australian indigenous peoples to threatened species management

The divergence of traditional Aboriginal and contemporary fire management practices on Wik traditional lands, Cape York Peninsula, Northern Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About