Mapping the Marine Environment Through a Cross-Cultural Collaboration

Abstract

There is a growing emphasis on formally recognizing the connection to the marine environment of Indigenous peoples and the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) these strong connections cultivate. The potential for TEK to significantly enrich the scientific comprehension of the marine environment, whilst also celebrating the rich biocultural knowledge in its own right, is indisputable. Here, we present a scientifically robust and culturally appropriate participatory mapping methodology for the marine environment which can effectively achieve genuine cross-cultural ecological knowledge transfer between scientists and Indigenous Peoples. Through a case study working with the Anindilyakwa people of the Groote Eylandt Archipelago, we mapped the TEK of benthic habitats off Australia's poorly surveyed northern coast. Representatives from 14 Anindilyakwa clan groups participated in the marine mapping (n = 53), resulting in 22 individual maps. Eleven broad-scale habitat classifications, predominately in the intertidal and nearshore marine environment, were described in both Anindilyakwa and English. The information gathered was then used to develop benthic habitat maps covering a combined area of ∼1800 km 2 and was assessed for accuracy against in situ observations. We found that despite the difficulties in working across two different world views, through the application of this carefully refined methodology, scientists can effectively document the rich TEK of the marine environment in a manner suitable for conservation and management planning while also supporting the prioritization of Indigenous values within the decision-making process.

Learning together: developing collaborative monitoring of intertidal invertebrates in the Karajarri IPA, north‐western Australia

“…As other non‐Indigenous collaborators have found, while pace of projects can be slower than anticipated by WS, it is ultimately very rewarding to dedicate sufficient time to respect and embrace different cultural approaches (Davies 2007; Davies et al . 2020). More time invested into trialling the protocol and co‐developing the field guide would have been greatly beneficial to build Rangers’ confidence in conducting the new methods and allowed researchers to spend more time on Country conducting the trials.…”

Being ECR in marine science: Results of a survey among early-career marine scientists and conservationists

“…We must be careful not to fight discrimination with punishment or to tokenize people to build a more positive image of the field, rather, we should construct a better, more inclusive value system. Fostering true diversity in science and conservation must include and reward various roles (e.g., local guides, technicians, diverse specialists) and viewpoints (such as non-western or niche ways of thinking; e.g., Matulis and Moyer, 2017;Davies et al, 2020;Chaudhury and Colla, 2021;Davis et al, 2021). Perhaps the most needed and straightforward tool to do this is by providing adequate funding.…”

Look Who’s Asking—Reflections on Participatory and Transdisciplinary Marine Research Approaches

“…Hence, how can we move toward having local communities as agents that help identify meaningful research questions and co-develop research protocols? And how can research institutions accommodate projects and allocate funding that integrate local knowledge and requests, and use these for innovative future research pathways (e.g., Outeiro et al, 2019;Davies et al, 2020).…”

“…Transdisciplinarity has become part of marine conservation, although it still needs to properly integrate both different disciplines and knowledge systems (e.g., Davies et al, 2020;Vierros et al, 2020). This means rethinking transdisciplinary approaches from question framing to interpretation of results (Bracken et al, 2015;Partelow et al, 2019;Davies et al, 2020;Freitas et al, 2020;Wisz et al, 2020).…”

“…Insights from social science have led to a more emancipatory outlook, by pointing out conservation-related misunderstandings, unfulfilled expectations and social injustices, including exclusionary decision-making processes, failure to consider equity and local people's needs and livelihoods, or even dispossession of areas and resources (West, 2006, Filer, 2014Clifton and Foale, 2017;Bennett, 2018). Since natural and social sciences have started to develop stronger dialogue around shared interests, it is expected that the next steps will be both more transdisciplinary and participatory (Davies et al, 2020).…”