Indigenous water management

Jackson, Sue; Moggridge, Bradley

doi:10.1080/14486563.2019.1661645

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Engaging with First Nations people is particularly important, to ensure that decisions reflect their knowledge, culture, and priorities. 92,93 These social insights will help city stake-holders plan, design, and manage hybrid systems, and identify points of cooperation and conflict as cities transform. We need new strategies for empowering participation in city shaping, collaborative governance, and climate resilience initiatives.…”

Section: Ll Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Cities through Water-Sensitive Principles and Practices

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many global cities and towns are facing complex and interrelated challenges associated with population growth, resource constraints, aging infrastructure, and degraded environments, exacerbated by increasing climate uncertainty. The United Nation's Agenda 2030 is a global call to action with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Water is the common currency linking nearly every SDG. SDG 11 aspires to ''Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable'' and the water-sensitive city represents an aspirational future state for water management where servicing strategies deliver long-term sustainability, liveability, resilience, and prosperity. This social-technical endeavor is based on three principles of practice proposed in 2009. They have since been operationalized and adapted in many projects globally, and across a range of social, institutional, and biophysical contexts. In this Perspective, we reflect on lessons learned, required actions for mainstreaming water-sensitive practices, the next-wave research agenda, and opportunities to catalyze actions in sectors beyond water. ll

show abstract

Section: Ll Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Cities through Water-Sensitive Principles and Practices

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dargin 1976), respect cultural values (e.g. Ginns 2012;Jackson et al 2014;Jackson and Moggridge 2019;Moggridge et al 2019) and provide a traditional ecological management viewpoint for restoration (Trueman 2012b;Pascoe 2017). This knowledge, along with other historical information (e.g.…”

Section: Improvements To Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

A compendium of ecological knowledge for restoration of freshwater fishes in Australia

Koehn

Raymond

Stuart

et al. 2020

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many freshwater fishes are imperilled globally, and there is a need for easily accessible, contemporary ecological knowledge to guide management. This compendium contains knowledge collated from over 600 publications and 27 expert workshops to support the restoration of 9 priority native freshwater fish species, representative of the range of life-history strategies and values in south-eastern Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. To help prioritise future research investment and restoration actions, ecological knowledge and threats were assessed for each species and life stage. There is considerable new knowledge (80% of publications used were from the past 20 years), but this varied among species and life stages, with most known about adults, then egg, juvenile and larval stages (in that order). The biggest knowledge gaps concerned early life stage requirements, survival, recruitment, growth rates, condition and movements. Key threats include reduced longitudinal and lateral connectivity, altered flows, loss of refugia, reductions in both flowing (lotic) and slackwater riverine habitats, degradation of wetland habitats, alien species interactions and loss of aquatic vegetation. Examples and case studies illustrating the application of this knowledge to underpin effective restoration management are provided. This extensive ecological evidence base for multiple species is presented in a tabular format to assist a range of readers.

show abstract

“…In Australia, Indigenous peoples engage in ILSM with multiple stakeholders (governments, scientists, producer groups, conservationists, philanthropists and others) through a range of mechanisms: formal government-supported natural resource management (NRM) projects (Roughley and Williams 2007); Indigenous and co-managed protected areas (Muller 2003;Ross et al 2009); endangered species initiatives (Nursey-Bray 2009); water planning processes (Jackson and Altman 2009;Hemming et al 2019;Jackson and Moggridge 2019;Jackson and Nias 2019;Moggridge, Betterridge, and Thompson 2019;Mooney and Cullen 2019;Poelina, Taylor, and Perdrisat 2019;Williams, Connolly, and Williams 2019); and the pursuit of cultural objectives conventionally undertaken in the absence of non-Indigenous actors (La Fontaine 2006). ILSM was first identified as an important area for investment by governments in the mid-1980s because it provided motivation for Indigenous peoples, and offered opportunities for work that extended into remote regions, where formal labour markets were often poorly developed or non-existent (Miller 1985;Rowse 2002;Johnston et al 2007).…”

Section: History Of Ilsm Investment In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%