Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /sc i totenv
An online spatial database of Australian Indigenous BioculturalKnowledge for contemporary natural and cultural resourcemanagement
Petina L. Pert a,f,⁎, Emilie J. Ens b, John Locke c, Philip A. Clarke d, Joanne M. Packer e, Gerry Turpin g,h
a CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australiab Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australiac Biocultural Consulting Pty Ltd, Maroochydore, Qld 4000, Australiad School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australiae National Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Western Sydney, NSW 2751, Australiaf Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, Centre for Tropical Environmental Sustainability Science, James Cook University— Cairns Campus, Smithfield, Qld 4878, Australiag Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre, Cairns, Qld 4970, Australiah Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation, and the Arts, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australia
H I G H L I G H T S
• We present a world-first compilation of national Indigenous biocultural documents providing a one-stop-shop of Australian IBK knowledge.• IBK was traditionally passed down orally through generations; however, in there is increasing interest in IBK which requires other forms.• Large spatial gaps in Australian IBK documentation illustrate extensive opportunities to expand cross-cultural natural resource management.• IBK can no longer can be ignored in Australia, considering the increasingly large proportion of Indigenous land ownership.• Cross-cultural power sharing in national decision-making is required to allow the uptake of multiple knowledge systems.
⁎ Corresponding author at: CSIRO Land and Water FlagE-mail address: [email protected] (P.L. Pert).
With growing international calls for the enhanced involvement of Indigenous peoples and their bioculturalknowledge in managing conservation and the sustainable use of physical environment, it is timely to reviewthe available literature and develop cross-cultural approaches to the management of biocultural resources.Online spatial databases are becoming common tools for educating land managers about IndigenousBiocultural Knowledge (IBK), specifically to raise a broad awareness of issues, identify knowledge gapsand opportunities, and to promote collaboration. Here we describe a novel approach to the application ofinternet and spatial analysis tools that provide an overview of publically available documented AustralianIBK (AIBK) and outline the processes used to develop the online resource. By funding an AIBK workinggroup, the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS) provided a unique opportunityto bring together cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary and trans-organizational contributors who developedthese resources. Without such an intentionally collaborative process, this unique tool would not havebeen developed. The tool developed through this process is derived from a spatial and temporal literaturereview, case studies and a compilation of methods, as well as other relevant AIBK papers. The onlineresource illustrates the depth and breadth of documented IBK and identifies opportunities for furtherwork, partnerships and investment for the benefit of not only Indigenous Australians, but all Australians.The database currently includes links to over 1500 publically available IBK documents, of which568 are geo-referenced and were mapped. It is anticipated that as awareness of the online resourcegrows, more documents will be provided through the website to build the database. It is envisagedthat this will become a well-used tool, integral to future natural and cultural resource managementand maintenance.
111P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
1. Introduction
The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and EcosystemsServices (IPBES),1 established in April 2012, was chargedwith strength-ening the science–policy interface of biodiversity and ecosystemservices for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term wellbeing and sustainable development. The aims of the IPBESare to: help reduce the gaps in knowledge on declining biodiversityand actions to reverse trends, identify gaps in knowledge, supportpolicy, and build capacity to support the interface between policyand knowledge (Koetz et al., 2012; Diaz et al., 2014). In 2010, partic-ipants from 121 member states at an inter-governmental and multi-stakeholder IPBES meeting in Busan, Korea, recommended that theword ‘knowledge’ should be used throughout, rather than ‘scientificinformation’, as knowledge is a more inclusive notion that encompasseswestern, formal science as well as Indigenous and local knowledge(UNEP, 2010) [see http://www.unep.org/pdf/SMT_Agenda_Item_5-Busan_Outcome.pdf (accessed 11 December 2014)]. Furthermore gov-ernments have agreed that the IPBES was to be guided by a set of operat-ing principles including: ‘… to recognize and respect the contribution ofIndigenous and local knowledge to the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity and ecosystems.’
The key role of Indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity con-servation and management has been consistently highlighted withinmany international directives. For example, Aichi Target 18 of the Con-vention of Biological Diversity states that ‘by 2020, the traditionalknowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local commu-nities, relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject tonational legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully in-tegrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention withthe full and effective participation of Indigenous and local communities,at all relevant levels’.
Like the customary knowledge of Indigenous peoples worldwide,Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge (IBK) exists and is trans-mitted primarily in oral form and is held by Indigenous custodians. Insome places, this knowledge has been documented, often with assis-tance from non-Indigenous collaborators. This documented knowledgeis held in a variety of forms, ranging from ‘grey’ literature such as un-published reports, photos and videos, to more scholarly literature suchas academic journal articles and books. Some of these records are publi-cally available and accessible. However, in most cases they are not, witheven the project collaborators finding access difficult and records oftheir very existence not readily discoverable. In the past, the documen-tation of IBK has largely been facilitated by anthropologists, social scien-tists, historians and geographers, and to a limited extent by biophysicalscientists (Ens et al., 2015). This partly explains why there has been,until recently, only a limited understanding and implementation ofIBK by conservation scientists, management and policy makers. This isdue largely to a long-standing divide between the social and biophysicalscience communities (Snow, 1959, 2012). The Australian IBK WorkingGroup, supported by the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis (ACEAS), has attempted to address this divide by designingand populating an online spatial database and website user interface(www.aibk.info). The aim of this resource is to raise awareness aboutthe IBK that has been documented in Australia, as well as to highlightwhere the strengths, gaps and barriers and opportunities are for furtherengagement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists, landmanagers and decision-makers.
Digital technologies including spatial mapping, electronic data col-lection tools and online databases have become increasingly commontools amongst broader society, not only to disseminate knowledge forlearning, but also to facilitate collation, analysis, strategic development,
1 http://www.ipbes.net/about-ipbes.html.
planning and networking. In the biological sciences, online databasesrange from international genomic databases such as GOLD (Bernalet al., 2001) to species distribution databases such as the Atlas of LivingAustralia,2 the latter incorporating aggregate data from a wide range ofdata providers such as museums, herbaria, community groups, govern-ment departments, individuals and universities.
1.1. Online databases
Online databases are particularly useful for dispersed user groupsand for sharing and mobilizing resources. They have been adopted formany purposes in recent years as programming for online access hasimproved (with the development of SQL, for example). A selection ofrelevant international and open-access databases are listed in Table 1.One database somewhat similar to the novel Australian IndigenousBiocultural Knowledge (AIBK) online database presented here, is theTraditional Ecological Knowledge ∗ Prior Art Database (TEK ∗ PAD),developed by the Science and Human Rights Program of the AmericanAssociation for Advancement of Science. The TEK ∗ PAD provides an in-ternational index andkeyword search engine of existing Internet-based,public domain documentation that focuses on Indigenous knowledge ofuses of plant species. TEK ∗ PAD is a searchable archive of traditionalknowledge documentation, that aims to promote Traditional EcologicalKnowledge to the broader public, to establish and protect Indigenousknowledge as prior art. Data includes taxonomic and other speciesdata, ethnobotanical uses, scientific and medical articles and abstracts,as well as patent applications themselves.
In Australia, databases and cultural information management sys-tems are increasingly being developed by Indigenous natural and cul-tural resource management groups as well as co-managed NationalParks. For example, Cultural Systems Solutions [http://www.culturalss.com.au] have created locally informed and culturally meaningful data-bases for a number of Indigenous co-managedWorld Heritage Areas, in-cluding Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks. These natural andcultural information management systems document place related in-formation and advocate ongoing collection of data such as through theuse of CyberTracker data collection software (Ansell and Koenig, 2011;Ens, 2012b) and hand held multimedia recording devices. As publicand private sector participation in online and electronic data storage,spatial analysis and geographic information systems (GIS) increases,therewill bemore benefits accrued through data collation, communica-tion and networking around spatially explicit topics of interest.
1.2. On-line GIS and knowledge communication
The multidisciplinary nature of desktop GIS technology means thatits diffusion, appropriation and use have been spread across a varietyof domains. The analytical potential of mapping techniques has beenmade more powerful by the introduction and widespread use of GISand the digital databases linked to them. Numerous applications areavailable today to store and distribute spatial data over the Internet,using Web Map Services (WMS), Web Feature Services (WFS) andWeb Coverage Services (WCS).
In a recent review of public participation in GIS, Sieber (2006) notedthat GIS has been used as a tool for community empowerment, capacitybuilding and social change, and that it has facilitated public involvementin policymaking. Sieber (2006) observed that the uptake of GIS has facil-itated an ‘informationally-enabled democracy’, which has beendriven bycommunity groups, academics, and the public and private sectors, whoare engaged in promoting broad access to information and resources.Increasing the accessibility to research and knowledge is consideredvital for development (Chan et al., 2011). As 16th century philosopherFrancis Bacon famously stated, ‘Knowledge is power’ (Bacon, 1597).
Table 1A selection of relevant international and open-access Indigenous knowledge databases.
Database name Content Creators Knowledge locations Link
Traditional EcologicalKnowledge ∗ Prior ArtDatabase (TEK ∗ PAD)
Index and keyword search engine ofexisting Internet-based, publicdomain documentation that focuseson Indigenous knowledge of uses ofplant species
Science and Human RightsProgram of the AmericanAssociation for Advancement ofScience
International http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf
Dr. Duke'sphytochemical andethnobotanical databases
Search engine for plants, chemicalactivity, and ethnobotanicalinformation
Dr. James Duke of the USDA'sAgricultural Research Service
United States ofAmerica
http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/
Database of Indigenousknowledge and practices
Provides users with quick access to acollection of indigenous/traditionalpractices and the possibility tocontribute new cases and tocomment.
World Bank Sub-Saharan Africa www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/datab.htm
Register of best practices onIndigenous knowledge
Best practices examples of projectsillustrating the use of local andIndigenous knowledge in thedevelopment of cost-effective andsustainable survival strategies.
The Netherlands Organizationfor International Cooperation inHigher Education/IndigenousKnowledge(NUFFIC/IK)/UNESCO
Africa, Asia-Pacific,Europe, North Americaand Latin America &Caribbean.
http://www.unesco.org/most/bpikreg.htm
Terralingua's portal onbiocultural diversityconservation.Voices of the earth
Case studies on Indigenous peoples'efforts to document and revitalizetheir oral traditions.
Terralingua World http://www.terralingua.org/bcdconservation/http://www.terralingua.org/voicesoftheearth/
Silene Resources and documents on theworld's intangible spiritual andcultural heritage
specialist group on cultural andspiritual values of protectedareas of the world, Commissionon Protected Areas, IUCN
World http://www.silene.es//introCDocumentacion.asp
Mura®a catalogue Searchable audio-visual and textualarchive of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander subject matter
Australian Indigenous andTorres Strait Islander Institute ofStudies (AIATSIS)
Australia http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/collections/muraread.html
Aboriginal & Torres StraitIslander Data Archive(ATSIDAb)
Indigenous digital research datasets.Search Aboriginal language groupsvia a map interface; links tocommunity case studies and projects
University of Technology Sydney Australia http://www.atsida.edu.au
a Mura is a word from the Ngunnawal language meaning ‘pathway’.b Developed by Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning and the University Library at the University of Technology, Sydney within the Australian Data Archive (ADA).
112 P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
People who hold and profess a recognized knowledge base can usethis knowledge to influence others. The rise of the Internet and otherglobal communication systems has illuminated the worldwide diversityof knowledge systems, and thus more accessible and accepted as hashaving distinct and meaningful epistemologies and ontologies.
The ease of global communication has also enabled the integration(or hybridization) of knowledge and ideas originating from differentcultures, both consciously and unconsciously. Indeed one of the mostsignificant threats posed by a global sharing of ideas is the homogeniza-tion, or alternately dominance of some cultural practices (and theirknowledge systems) over others. This has resulted in the loss of culturaldiversity, including many Indigenous languages, traditions and practices(Posey, 1999; Maffi, 2005; Pieterse, 2009). For many Indigenous groupsthe focus onmaintaining traditional or customary practices and prioritieshas been largely interrupted by the adoption of new technologies andpursuits of innovation and progress, that facilitate faster ways of doingthings and on much bigger scales (Verran and Christie, 2007).
In contrast, there are emerging efforts fromorganizations at all levelsof governance to assert the need to protect and conserve, and to addressthis loss of biological and cultural diversity across theworld (e.g. the IPBESand Aichi targets). Technology and globalization arguably threatenbiocultural diversity, however if Indigenous and local people are involvedin the collaborative development of approaches, they can also be mobi-lized to promote and protect it (see Pieterse, 2009; Verschuuren, 2012).
Indigenous peoples in Alaska and Canada have led theway since the1970s and 1980s with their efforts to map Indigenous Traditional Eco-logical Knowledge for natural and cultural resource management on alarge scale, currently exemplified by the Aboriginal Mapping Network(AMN)3 established in 1998. This online resource contains a Living
3 http://nativemaps.org.
Atlas (an interactive thematic atlas focused on the changing geographyof a place, over time), mapping resources, forums, and news and eventsabout the network. It has a clear mandate to support Aboriginal andIndigenous people facing challenges such as land claims, treaty ne-gotiations and resource development, citing traditional resource usestudies, GIS mapping and other information systems. Through CarletonUniversity's Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre (GCRC), Inuitpeoples have also been involved in innovative digital mapping projectssuch as the creation of atlases of traditional place names, recording thepatterns andmovements of sea ice, and recording previously unchartedtraditional routes over ice and tundra (Engler et al., 2013). The ‘Use andOccupancy’ mapping framework developed with Canadian Indigenouscommunities focuses on tenure and resource use (TRU) mapping(Tobias, 2000). Use and occupancy mapping has also been applied inAustralia to document the environmental, social, economic and spiritualaspirations of Indigenous Peoples from the Murray–Darling River Basin(Ward et al., 2010).
Through the analysis and synthesis facility of the AustralianGovernment's Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), anopportunity was provided to establish a working group to promoteAustralian IBK and bring it into the frame of other national ecologicaldata and synthesis efforts. This paper details opportunities that arosethrough the collaborative development of an online database and spatialand temporal literature review of publically available IBK in Australia. Adescription of the process, limitations and opportunities afforded by thisproject is given. This provides insights into cross-cultural and collabora-tive research for Indigenous groups both locally and in other nations,who are interested in collating the often disparate and multidisciplinarydocumented forms of AIBK. The use of online and GIS technologies tocollate such data can empower Indigenous communities and researchersto promote strategic support, collaboration and further documentation,with the aim of conserving and maintaining biocultural diversity.
113P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Indigenous biocultural knowledge
The Australian IBK working group adopted the term ‘IndigenousBiocultural Knowledge’ (referred to as IBK throughout this paper), as amodified form of the widely recognized terms Indigenous EcologicalKnowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ICSU, 2002). IBKplaces an emphasis on the importance of cultural connections andunderstandings of ecological entities and processes. Gerry Turpin,Mbabaram Traditional Owner and co-author of this paper defined IBKas ‘knowledge that encompasses people, language and culture and theirrelationship to the environment’ (Ens et al., 2015) which is akin to con-temporary discussions about biocultural diversity (Maffi and Woodley,2010) and the widely used working definition of Traditional EcologicalKnowledge by Berkes (2000).
2.2. Study area
There are very few publishedmaps available that identify the natureof pre-colonial occupation by Indigenous peoples across Australia.Today, some Australian Indigenous groups still define themselves by
Fig. 1. Australian Aboriginal languages (Horton, 2002). Reproducedwith permission of the Austallowedwithout permission. The information depicted represents the best information availabl
reference to their language and/or related cultural group/s and theirassociated customary knowledge and land management practices.Australian anthropology pioneers during the late 19th and early 20thcenturies (principally AW Howitt and RH Mathews, but also ALPCameron, John Mathew and William Ridley) drew the boundaries ofAboriginal nations onmaps,whichwere then published in anthropolog-ical journals. At least 250 Indigenous languages existed prior to the col-onization of Australia and around100 languages remain today, althoughall are endangered or critically endangered (McConvell and Thieberger,2006; ATSISJC, 2010).
Although the naming and boundaries of some Australian Indigenouslanguage groups are the subject of disagreements and contest (for ex-ample see Bauman and Glick, 2012), the map developed by Horton(2002) shown in Fig. 1 is an indicative map of pre-colonial Indigenouslanguage group domains. They are not intended to reflect native title in-terests, which are more complex for the reproduction on large-scalemaps.
2.3. Establishment of the ACEAS IBK working group
A proposal to establish an ACEASworking group on AIBKwas devel-oped through conversations between Dr Emilie Ens (a non-Indigenous
ralian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). No reproductione at the time of publication and is not suitable for use in Native Title and other land claims.
114 P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
cross-cultural ecologist), the ACEAS director and Indigenous and non-Indigenous people interested in promoting AIBK through a national(ecological) forum. ACEAS provided funding and logistics for twomeetings for around 15 people per meeting and provided associatedtechnical support, both through the provision of an online wiki re-source and also through the supply of expertise as required. Thisallowed the group to focus their time on discussion and deliveringagreed products.
Two face-to-face week-long workshops were held in November2012 at North Stradbroke Island and in April 2013 at Cairns, respective-ly. The latter was held in association with the Australian Tropical Her-barium at James Cook University. When the proposal was accepted,participants were contacted in several ways. An email was sent throughseveral Indigenous ecology and land management network lists, andpersonal emails were also sent to well-known Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, public servicemanagers and leaders with exper-tise in Indigenous ecology and conservation. We wanted to involveworking group members who were from diverse locations aroundAustralia, including remote and urban areas and of Indigenous back-ground or had strong experience working with Indigenous people;who had demonstrated ability to work in groups and contribute toproduct development; who had a range of skills and experience; whilealso maintaining a gender and age balance.
2.4. Collaborative approaches
Participatory co-research or collaborative research is commonlyadopted to enhance the involvement of a range of stakeholderswith dif-fering worldviews (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004; Roth and Tobin,2004; Rozenszayn and Assaraf, 2011). Our aim was to involve Indige-nous working group members as much as possible in all stages ofproject development, from discussion about the working groups' objec-tives and decisions about final products, to the development of thoseproducts and broader communication about the Working Group andits findings. In line with the requirements of ACEAS funding, theAustralia IBKWorking Group gavemembers the opportunity to synthe-size and analyze ecological data of national importance, in this case In-digenous Biocultural Knowledge (IBK). A requirement of the fundingwas also that tangible outputs were produced.
At the first workshop, the group discussed the target audience andwhat types of output products could be generated that would be usefulto synthesize AIBK, enhance broader community awareness of AIBK andassist in its use in contemporary ecosystem management. The groupdiscussed what could realistically be achieved through two week-longface-to-face workshops and through voluntary time thereafter, consid-ering that all participants had substantive employment elsewhere. Itwas also important for us to consider what the broader Indigenousand scientific populations might find meaningful and useful for theirown aspirations, work and research.
Despite great efforts to involve a large group of participants, ongoingdedicated involvement from participants was a challenge due to stand-ing commitments of many of those interested in participating. The firstworkshop consisted of 11members including five women and six men,only two of whom identified as Indigenous Australians. An additionaltwo Indigenous members had planned to attend, however could notmake it at the last minute due to cultural and other work commitments.This first group contained representatives of a range of age groups (one90 year old) who brought expertise from government, Indigenous landmanagement, and academia.
It was felt that in order to obtain greater involvement of Indigenouspeople including the director and associates of the only Indigenous-ledethnobotany centre in Australia (run by an Indigenous participant of thefirst workshop), the second meeting should be held in Cairns. With ad-ditional support from the Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre(TIEC)/Australia Tropical Herbarium (ATH) at James Cook University(Cairns campus), the second workshop was attended by 17 members,
just five of these having attended the first workshop (as a result of pro-fessional and cultural commitments arising for the other original mem-bers). This group had a much higher direct Indigenous involvementwith 10 Indigenous participants. This secondworkshop had representa-tion from most Australian states and territories (Fig. 2), with member-ship from people working in government, universities, and Indigenousland management organizations and involved scientists, rangers, Indig-enous entrepreneurs, Indigenous leaders, spatial analysts and policymakers.
The Australian IBKWorking Groupwasmade up of a total of 22 par-ticipants across the 2 workshops, represented by 50% identifying as In-digenous Australians, 73% working in remote regions of Australia (50%urbanand 45% regional—withmanyworking inmore than one regionalarea), 59% female and representing a cross section of states (Fig. 2) andage brackets.
2.5. Spatial data layers
The main spatial data layer produced by the AIBK working groupwas a point layer, which describes the primary location of the AIBKdocumentation. This was developed from an Endnote reference data-base (detailed in Ens et al., 2015). To provide website users with accessto the place-based records visualized through aweb-basedmap, a user-friendly interface was created. Records were geocoded using theAustralian Gazetteer (for more details see Ens et al., 2015), edited byACEAS staff, converted to shapefile format and uploaded intoMangoMap4
(Fig. 3). MangoMap was chosen primarily for its open source tools andeasy to useweb interface. TheMangoMapwas subsequently incorporatedinto the AIBKwebsite and allows users to visualize the IBK records and as-sociated research that has been conducted in areas of interest, as well assearch for publications on various topics of interest. The base map usedis a satellite image provided by Bing Map Satellite, as well as variousother base layers from Open Street Map and Natural Earth (Appendix1). Relevant Indigenous spatial datasets were sourced from GeoscienceAustralia5 and the National Native Title Tribunal6 and were manually in-corporated into the AIBK spatial database. These layers include: Indige-nous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs), Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs),Registered Native Title Agreements, Representative Aboriginal/TorresStrait Islander Body (RATSIB) areas, Natural Resource Management re-gions, Interim Biogeographic Regions of Australia (IBRA) and Local Gov-ernment Areas (LGA) boundaries. The user is able to turn on or off anyof these background layers (Fig. 3, Appendix 1).
3. Results
Through the development of the AIBKwebsite, and associated refer-ence database (exported from Endnote) and associated AIBK spatialdatabase (searchable map), we offer a new way to engage Indigenousand non-Indigenous communities in the understanding, preservation,curation and dissemination of AIBK. Through the AIBK working groupand assistance of ACEAS we have developed two main digital products:the AIBKwebsite and the AIBKmap. Details of these are discussed in de-tail below and a summary of the sequence of events and timeline in theformation of the AIBK website are shown in Fig. 4.
3.1. The AIBK website
The AIBK website http://www.aibk.info (Fig. 5) aims to draw atten-tion to the wealth of projects, research and management plans whereAIBK has been used and Indigenous people have added great value toour understanding of contemporary Australian ecology and land man-agement practices (Ens et al., 2015).
Fig. 2. Map showing the origin of ACEAS Australian IBK working group members from around Australia who attended one or both workshops.
115P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
During the second workshop a sub-group of people worked on thewebsite design (via a mock-up version in PowerPoint), while othersworked on the content for each of the following pages. The following10 pages for the AIBK website were developed:
1. Home page: Provides an introduction to the website2. About this site: Describes how the material was produced and
working group team members3. Project Brief: Describes the project brief4. Map: The web-based map delivers a spatial visualization of a geo-
referenced list of publications5. Case studies: Eleven case studies of Australian IBK are given as ex-
amples of caseswhere Indigenous andWestern science are success-fully collaborating
6. Terminology: A list of terms and definitions are provided7. Discussion paper: A discussion paper on Australian IBK is available
for download8. Toolkit. This section contains records of references relating to AIBK
collaborations, selected to provide information under the followingthemes:
a. Review papers — The published literature collated in this sectionacts as a reference point for researchers and Aboriginal communi-ties to understand more about AIBK.
b. Methodology — The published literature collated in this sectionserves as a reference of current leading practices being implement-ed by researchers in collaboration with Aboriginal individuals andinstitutions.
c. Related papers — The published literature collated in this sectionare papers relating to AIBK, but not reviews or discussingmethod-ology and resources
9. Further Information: This page provides links to other usefulwebsites.
10. Contact Us: This form allows users to contact the website adminis-trators to report any mistakes, provide comment or add newinformation.
ACEAS supported the delivery of the website and web-based mapfollowing this second workshop. The final website was launched inApril 2014. From the 1st of April to the 16th of December 2014 (8.5months) the AIBK website has attracted 5069 unique visitors, 10,524visits and 126,637 hits.
3.2. The AIBK map and GIS functionality
In total, 568 records of AIBK documents were mapped demonstrat-ing an extensive collection of publications across Australia, producedby a diverse range of authors (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) since1836 (for more details see Ens et al., 2015 and www.aibk.info) (Fig. 6).
Mapping these records builds awareness of these projects, makingthem more accessible to the general public, and more importantlysearchable by spatial location. Due to the inherently spatial nature ofAIBK, GIS technology can be used to facilitate the inclusion of AIBK inlocal decision-making processes, by illuminating relevant recordspertaining to a specific location. In this way, the AIBK map can be usedto facilitate the inclusion of Indigenous Traditional Owners and accumu-lated ancestral knowledge in natural and cultural resourcemanagementdecision-making. The value of the AIBKmap is largely due to the visual-ization and analysis of relationships offered through the overlay of thesedata over the satellite imagery. This allows the user to take into accountnot only the data/records themselves, but also all the surrounding fac-tors that relate to those data, such as topological information, adjacency,and tenure (provided by the background and base layers — Fig. 3). Toenhance the AIBK map additional layers might include managementlayers containing information on: regulations (such as active burning
Fig. 3. MangoMap user interface — allows users to search for Australian IBK records, with overlays of indigenous protected areas, indigenous land use agreements and native titledeterminations.
116 P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
regimes and feral animal control), tourism visitation in the area, andsocio-economic data such as government funding and service delivery.These are all likely to be valuable for decision-making about effectivebiocultural resource management.
3.2.0.1. Intellectual property considerations. Therewas concern by Indige-nousmembers of the AIBKworking group that past documentationmayhave occurredwithout the full prior informed consent of the knowledgecustodians and that drawing renewed attention to this knowledge maybe compounding Intellectual Property breaches. It was decided thatwhile it was important to promote Australian IBK on the same platformas other forms of ecological knowledge, certain processes were neces-sary to try and protect the rights of original knowledge custodians asmuch as possible in accordance with current best practice methodsthrough drawing attention to these potential breaches. Therefore, inorder to respect the original Indigenous knowledge custodians we in-troduced the following two measures:
1. thewebsitewould openwith a ‘Terms of Use’ box towhich that usersmust agree prior to entering, which reads:
Please read this Intellectual Property and sensitivity message, beforeclicking on the ‘Enter AIBK website’ link below.This website is designedto direct people interested in Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowl-edge (AIBK) to associated materials. For further use of any materialcontained within,we advise that the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
people involved in production of the material (or family members orrepresentative bodies) be consulted to respect the Intellectual PropertyRights of the individuals and families involved.Users of this websiteshould also be aware that the names and/or images of deceased peoplemay be present.I have read and understood the statements given above.
2. that only reference information would be provided and not links tothe full documents; and
3. In the Terms of Use disclaimer, users are encouraged to seek permis-sion from the relevant clan groups or representative bodies if theywanted to further use material from these resources.
4. Discussion
IBK has long been accepted as containing important and uniqueinsight into scientific queries and conservation (Gadgil et al., 1993). Ac-cordingly, the IPBES, likemany other international directives, mandatesfurther uptake of Indigenous knowledge and collaboration between sci-entists and Indigenous people. In recent decades, resource managershave increasingly applied IBK to conservation efforts in various partsof the world (World Commission on Environment and Development,1987, United Nations, 2008). It is hoped that by collating and synthesiz-ing documented Australian IBK via the AIBK website and online spatialdatabase, many users will benefit and subsequently apply AIBK to
Fig. 4. Timeline and sequence of events leading to the establishment of the AIBK.
117P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
contemporary stewardship issues. Belowwe further discuss the benefitsand limitations of this project and associated outputs.
4.1. Benefits of AIBK website and map
The development of the AIBK website and its associated searchabledatabase and map user-interface has resulted in the visualization ofAIBK across Australia. The ability to link information spatially has aunique role in the development of creativity, promoting the assimilationand utilization of pre-existing knowledge, and also plays a unique rolein the development of new knowledge (Kell et al., 2013). Importantly,the deliberate collaborative processes used to develop these resourcesallowed Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to come together to en-gage in a project of common interest and synthesize what is publicallyavailable about AIBK projects and where these have been documentedin Australia to date. Through the map query interface, users are able tonavigate through complex information spaces in order to locate andretrieve relevant subsets of documented AIBK and also see where
information is absent. For example, the spatial distribution of AIBKrecords is clearly not uniform and not random, and there are spatialclusters, e.g. in Arnhem Land and in Cape York (Fig. 6) whichmay be at-tributable to a number of factors such as increases in: a) Australian Gov-ernment funding to NRM programs since the early 1990s supportingindigenous land and sea management; b) recognition of native title,land rights legislation, Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs), and otherconservation co-management arrangements; and c) access to remoteareas. Additionally these areas are known to predominantly AboriginalLands with Aboriginal Shires and high densities of indigenous popula-tion of Australia concentrated here.
By using the map zoom function, users can zoom in and out of areasof interest and click on points to display a list of publications withintheir area of interest. It is through this geographic visualization thatwe have provided a means to organize and display large amounts ofAIBK documents to facilitate exploration of AIBK in Australia. The devel-opment of the AIBKwebsite aims to promote a wider, more holistic, un-derstanding of AIBK and encourage the equitable sharing of benefits
Fig. 5. AIBK website home page.
118 P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
that arise from utilization of such knowledge. Equitable two-wayknowledge engagement between Indigenous and scientific ‘tool-boxes’ for conservation is recognized as important for contemporaryIndigenous land management (Ens, 2012a). We believe that it is crucialthat further linkages are fostered between Indigenous and non-Indigenous natural resourcemanagers and scientists (particularly in re-mote areas). This has been shown to result in numerous benefits for
Fig. 6. Density of AIBK records per 50 ×
protection and management of Australia's unique natural and culturalassets (Ens et al., 2015).
4.2. Limitations
Although geographic visualization is a powerful method for synthe-sis and presentation of large amounts of data as well as community
50 km grid cells across Australia.
119P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
collaboration (Buckingham and Dennis, 2009), it is not without its lim-itations and potentially adverse social impacts (Pickles, 1995; Cramptonet al., 2013). Maps have a long history of facilitating colonization of In-digenous peoples and have been implicated in the marginalization oreven in the case of Australia, the justification of English settler invasion(Ryan, 1994). In the case of the latter, which is also a concern for thepresent map of AIBK documentation, a non-occurrence (‘blank’) is notalways a true representation of the importance of that particularplace. For example, the AIBK map is based on point data, howevereach data point (document) is likely to cover a broad area such as a lan-guage group or clan estate or geographic region. Creation of polygons il-lustrating the likely geographic zone covered by each document wasseen as an impossible task, based on limitations of the documentationitself as well as the probability that the knowledge is not restricted toa static area but one that may have shifted in time. For practical pur-poses, we decided that we could only display points for each document,which generally reside atmain township locations for theparticular lan-guage or region described. By further creating a density grid map, weare able to visualize hotspots of records across the landscape. It shouldalso be noted that a ‘blank’ may also represent the fact that records ofAIBK projects were not readily accessible to the workshop membersconsolidating the data over the workshop periods, rather than no suchwork having been undertaken. It is therefore through the contact formaccessible through thewebsite, thatwe encourage further contributionsfrom users of the website.
Despite the widespread perception that maps are accurate and ob-jective representations, in reality, maps are a product of complex socialforces (Ryan, 1994; Loomba, 2007) and are constrained by the type andquantity of available data. The Australian IBK documentation map is awork-in progress and is presented here as a new approach to bringingAIBK together on a national scale, in a form congruous with other eco-logical data, that are the focus of ACEAS.
In terms of the AIBK database (and map), there are several practicalissues that need to be addressed to maintain its relevance and impact.Firstly, there will need to be a continual investment of time and effortto maintain the datasets behind the map and modify and update addi-tional records. Secondly, it should be recognized that the geographic vi-sualization of AIBK is also a cultural process of creating, rather thanmerely revealing knowledge, and that further advertising and promo-tion of the site are required if it is going to reach the broader population,including remote communities, and encourage their participation.
Findingways to integrate Indigenous knowledge andWestern scien-tific models presents significant difficulties with respect to ownership,control, access and possession issues, where processes need to be nego-tiated to avoid advantaging one knowledge system over the other(Brokensha et al., 1980; Ross and Pickering, 2002; Danielsen et al.,2009; Hill et al., 2012; Bohensky et al., 2013). This is not only a challengefor this project and in Australia, but has been documented worldwide(Liebenberg et al., 1998; Mackinson, 2001; Danielsen et al., 2003; Puri,2007; Reed et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2008; Bohensky and Maru,2011). Integrating IBK with Western scientific knowledge requireslooking beyond merely the collection of IBK but also identifying waysin which the worldviews and IBK holders can be involved in naturaland cultural resource management and planning (Hill et al., 2012).Rather than viewing IBK and Western scientific knowledge as being inopposition (e.g. Wohling, 2009), many argue that the two are comple-mentary (Agrawal, 1995; Houde, 2007; Ens et al., 2012a). Systemswhich incorporate scientific facts and data collection technologies(Kendrick and Manseau, 2008; Murray et al., 2008), and ecological re-search incorporating IBK (Gilchrist et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2009; Bethelet al., 2011; Ens, 2012a; Ens et al., 2012b) are becoming increasinglycommon. The development of tools such as the AIBK website and mapfor understanding and synthesizing existing AIBK provides an initialstep towards recognizing the breadth and depth of existing document-ed projects, which could be emulated by other countries and Indigenouspeoples.
One of the challenges for making AIBK publically available is tocreate richly texturedmultimedia websites or atlases that acknowledgeintellectual property rights, yet do not participate in the further exploi-tation of traditional knowledge. Currently the AIBK website only pointsto material which is already publically available, making it more acces-sible through a ‘one-stop shop’, and recommends to users that they con-sult relevant Traditional Owners or relevant governing bodies forfurther details of listed documents. However, it does not preclude, inthe future, an Indigenous group customizing the site (or other similarwebsites or information management systems) and adding securityand login measures to sections to protect their intellectual propertyand/or sensitive material.
4.3. Finding a way forward
Despite progress in regaining land rights and inclusion in local andinternational conservation programs, Indigenous people continue to ex-perience a sense of domination by Western science and conservationparadigms and struggle to achieve more equitable involvement indecision-making and benefit sharing (Barbour and Schlesinger, 2012;Muller, 2012). The achievement of more respectful and equitable rela-tionships between scientific and Indigenous knowledge holders, chal-lenges partners to attend to tacit and unquantified knowledge and tocreate a language of equals (Muller, 2012). Common problem-framingis a key means of achieving successful engagement between Westernscience and IBK (Cullen-Unsworth et al., 2011). Ultimately addressingunderlying power imbalances and rights-recognition is key to achievingequitable engagement (Hill, 2006).
Contracts, agreements and protocols are particularly useful forprotecting Indigenous knowledge systems, as they offer the flexibility toinclude specific negotiated arrangements for equitable benefit sharing,and can be designed to meet the needs of all parties. The AustralianGovernment's Indigenous Protected Areas program is an initiative,which offers a potential basis for developing systems for the recognitionand protection of Indigenous knowledge and practices relating to envi-ronmental conservation and management. Jointly managed nationalparks offer promise as good models for incorporating and protectingIndigenous knowledge, innovations and practices (e.g. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/jointmanagement/). Land and environmentconservation activities such as land care regimes are also ways in whichIndigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and practices can be harmo-nized. Ultimately, the most effective approach is to establish a dialoguewith key stakeholders: Indigenous communities and organisations, gov-ernments, scientists and conservation groups. The Australian IBK websiteaims to stimulate this dialogue by presenting a database of AIBK docu-ments that are spatially enabled and searchable. Further solutions mustaddress: (i) Indigenous peoples’ role in further development of the AIBKwebsite, and (ii) the protection of any recorded information from improp-er exploitation by users of the AIBK website.
5. Conclusions
Established in 2012 through the support of ACEAS, the primary aimof the AIBKWorking Groupwas to synthesize AIBK andmake this avail-able to the general public via an online website. This online resourcenow provides users with links to a wealth of publicly available, docu-mented AIBK information (largely written but also some audio-visualdata) and invites users to further contribute records. Through a map in-terface users are able to search and zoom into their areas of interest andlocate AIBK records. There are many widely acknowledged benefits ofcombining AIBK for enhanced environmental management and this on-line tool provides both researchers and the public with a means to bet-ter understand existing documentation, hotspots and gaps, to informmore holistic management and understanding of country, furthercollaboration and a common base for sharing data across scientificdisciplines.
120 P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.073.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge and respect all Australian Indigenous peoples andcustodians of Australian IBK past, present and future. This work wassupported by theAustralian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis(ACEAS), a facility of theAustralian Government-funded Terrestrial Eco-system Research Network (http://www.tern.org.au/). We particularlythank ACEAS staff Luke Houghton for his work on the creation of theMangoMap and the ACEAS Facility Director, Alison Specht, for her sup-port throughout, particularly including website development. Wethank the reviewers of this manuscript for their insightful comments.The authors thank the Quandamooka and Gimuy Walubara Yidinji Tra-ditional Owners of North Stradbroke Island and Cairns, Queensland re-spectively, on whose lands the two meetings were held. We alsothank our respective institutions and funding bodies for allowing ustime to develop the Working Group products.
References
Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.Dev. Chang. 26, 413–439.
Anderson, C.B., Likens, G.E., Rozzi, R., Gutierrez, J.R., Armesto, J.J., Poole, A., 2008. Integrat-ing science and society through long-term socio-ecological research. Environ. Ethics30, 295–312.
Ansell, S., Koenig, J., 2011. CyberTracker: an integral management tool used by rangers inthe Djelk Indigenous Protected Area, central Arnhem Land, Australia. Ecol. Manag.Restor. 12, 13–25.
ATSISJC, 2010. Native Title Report 2009. Australian Human Rights Commission and theAboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Sydney.
Bacon, F., 1597. Meditationes sacrae. Excusum impensis Humfredi Hooper.Barbour, W., Schlesinger, C., 2012. Who's the boss? Post-colonialism, ecological research
and conservation management on Australian Indigenous lands. Ecol. Manag. Restor.13, 36–41.
Bauman, T., Glick, L. (Eds.), 2012. The Limits of Change: Mabo and Native Title 20 YearsOn. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Research Pub-lication, Canberra.
Berkes, F., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge and resource manage-ment. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1251–1262.
Bernal, A., Ear, U., Kyrpides, N., 2001. Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD): a monitor of ge-nome projects world-wide. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 126–127.
Bethel, M.B., Brien, L.F., Danielson, E.J., Laska, S.B., Troutman, J.P., Boshart, W.M., Giardano,M.J., Phillips, M.A., 2011. Blending geospatial technology and traditional ecologicalknowledge to enhance restoration decision-support processes in Coastal Louisiana.J. Coast. Res. 27, 555–571.
Bohensky, E.L., Maru, Y., 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what havewe learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”. Ecol. Soc. 16, 6.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, G., 2004. Indigenous and Local Communitiesand Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Brokensha, D.W., Warren, D.M., Werner, O., 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems andDevelopment. University Press of America, United States.
Buckingham,W.R., Dennis Jr., S.F., 2009. Cartographies of Participation: How the ChangingNatures of Cartography Has Opened Community and Cartographer Collaboration.
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., Arunachalam, S., 2011. Towards open and equitable access to researchand knowledge for development. PLoS Med. 8, e1001016.
Crampton, J.W., Graham, M., Poorthuis, A., Shelton, T., Stephens, M., Wilson, M.W., Zook,M., 2013. Beyond the geotag: situating ‘big data’ and leveraging the potential of thegeoweb. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 40, 130–139.
Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Hill, R., Butler, J.R.A., Wallace, M., 2011. A research process for inte-grating Indigenous and scientific knowledge in cultural landscapes: principles anddeterminants of success in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia. Geogr. J.178 (4), 351–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00451.x.
Danielsen, F., Mendoza, M.M., Alviola, P.A., Enghoff, M., Poulsen, M.K., Jensen, A.E., 2003.Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are trying to achieve? Oryx37, 407409.
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., McDonald, P.F., Funder, M., Jones, J.P.G., 2009.Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches.Conserv. Biol. 23, 31–42.
Diaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabis, J., Lavorel, S., López, B.M., Hill, R., 2014. The IPBES Concep-tual Framework and how to use it. In: Diaz, S., Demissew, S. (Eds.), Guide to IPBES As-sessments. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Engler, N.J., Scassa, T., Fraser Taylor, D.R., 2013. Mapping traditional knowledge: digitalcartography in the Canadian North. Cartographica 48, 189–199.
Ens, E.J., 2012a. Monitoring outcomes of environmental service provision in low socio-economic Indigenous Australia using innovative CyberTracker technology. Conserv.Soc. 10, 42–52.
Ens, E.J., 2012b. Conducting two-way ecological research. In: Altman, J.C., Kerins, S. (Eds.),People on Country, Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures. The Federation Press,Annandale, Sydney, pp. 45–64.
Ens, E.J., Finlayson, M., Preuss, K., Jackson, S., Holcombe, S., 2012a. Australian approachesfor managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge. Ecol.Manag. Restor. 13, 100–107.
Ens, E.J., Towler, G.M., Daniels, C., 2012b. Looking back to move forward: collaborativeecological monitoring in remote Arnhem Land. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 13, 26–35.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.Ambio 22, 151–156.
Gilchrist, G., Mallory, M., Merkel, F., 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute towildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecol. Soc. 10, 20.
Hall, G.B., Moore, A., Knight, P., Hanley, N., 2009. The extraction and utilization of local andscientific geospatial knowledge within the Bluff Oyster Fishery, New Zealand.J. Environ. Manag. 90, 2055–2070.
Hill, R., 2006. The effectiveness of agreements and protocols to bridge between Indige-nous and non-Indigenous tool-boxes for protected area management: a case studyfrom the Wet Tropics of Queensland. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19, 577–590.
Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S., Abel, N., 2012. A typology ofIndigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implicationsfor knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecol. Soc.17, 23.
Horton, D., 2002. Aboriginal Australia Wall Map. Australian Institute of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Studies and Sinclair Knight Merz, Canberra.
Houde, N., 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and oppor-tunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol. Soc. 12, 34.
ICSU, 2002. International Council of Science (ICSU) Series on Science for Sustainable De-velopment No. 4: Science. Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development.,ICSU and UNESCO.
Kell, H.J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P., Steiger, J.H., 2013. Creativity and technical innovation:spatial ability's unique role. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1831–1836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615.
Kendrick, A., Manseau, M., 2008. Representing traditional knowledge: resource manage-ment and Inuit knowledge of Barren-Ground Caribou. Soc. Nat. Resour. 21, 404–418.
Koetz, T., Farrell, K.N., Bridgewater, P., 2012. Building better science–policy interfaces forinternational environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovern-mental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Int. Environ. AgreementsPolitics Law Econ. 12, 1–21.
Liebenberg, L., Blake, E., Steventon, L., Benadie, K., Minye, J., 1998. Integrating traditionalknowledge with computer science for the conservation of biodiversity. 8th Interna-tional Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, Osaka, Japan.
Loomba, A., 2007. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge.Mackinson, S., 2001. Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an example in fisheries
599–617.Maffi, L., Woodley, E., 2010. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook.
Earthscan/James & James.McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2006. Keeping track of Indigenous language endangerment
in Australia. In: Cunningham, D., Ingram, D.E., Sumbuk, K. (Eds.), Language Diversityin the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK,p. 54.
Muller, S., 2012. ‘Two Ways’: bringing indigenous and non-indigenous knowledgestogether. In: Weir, J. (Ed.), Country, Native Title and Ecology. Australian NationalUniversity e-press and Aboriginal History Incorporated (Monograph 24), Canberra,pp. 59–79.
Murray, G., Neis, B., Palmer, C.T., Schneider, D.C., 2008. Mapping cod: fisheries science, fishharvesters' ecological knowledge and cod migrations in the Northern Gulf of St. Law-rence. Hum. Ecol. 36, 581–598.
United Nations, 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, March 2008. United Nations.
Pickles, J., 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Sys-tems. Guilford Press.
Pieterse, J.N., 2009. Globalization and Culture: Global mélange. Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.
Posey, D.A., 1999. Introduction: culture and nature—the inextricable link. In: Posey, D.A.(Ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Intermediate Technology Publica-tions, London, pp. 3–16.
Puri, S.K., 2007. Integrating scientific with Indigenous knowledge: constructing knowl-edge alliances for land management in India. MIS Q. 31, 355–379.
Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Taylor, M.J., 2007. Integrating local and scientific knowledge foradaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. LandDegrad. Dev. 18, 249–268.
Ross, A., Pickering, K., 2002. The politics of reintegrating Australian Aboriginal andAmerican Indian Indigenous knowledge into resource management: the dynamicsof resource appropriation and cultural revival. Hum. Ecol. 30, 187–214.
Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K.G., 2004. Co-generative dialoguing and metaloguing: reflexiv-ity of processes and genres. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum. Qual. Soc.Res. 5, 7.
121P.L. Pert et al. / Science of the Total Environment 534 (2015) 110–121
Rozenszayn, R., Assaraf, O.B.-Z., 2011. When collaborative learning meets nature: collab-orative learning as a meaningful learning tool in the ecology inquiry based project.Res. Sci. Educ. 41, 123–146.
Ryan, S., 1994. Inscribing the emptiness. Cartography, Exploration and the Construction ofAustralia. Tiffin, Chris, pp. 115–130.
Sieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literature reviewand framework. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96, 491–507.
Snow, C.P., 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University,Cambridge.
Snow, C.P., 2012. The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Tobias, T.N., 2000. Chief Kerry's Moose: A Guidebook to Land Use and Occupancy Map-
ping, Research Design and Data Collection. Ecotrust Canada and Union of BC IndianChiefs, Vancouver.
UNEP, 2010. Busan Outcome. Third Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-stakeholderMeeting on an Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. United Nations Environment Programme, Busan, Republicof Korea.
Verran, H., Christie, M., 2007. Using/designing digital technologies of representation inAboriginal Australian knowledge practices. Hum. Technol. 3, 214–227.
Verschuuren, B., 2012. Layered landscapes, cultural and spatial dimensions in a digital era.TOPOS 3, 8–11.
Ward, N., Roots, J., Tobias, T.N., 2010. Use-and-occupancy mapping in theMurray–DarlingBasin: articulating contemporary connection to country. 50th Ecological Society ofAustralia Conference, Sustaining Biodiversity — the Next 50 years. Ecological Societyof Australia (ESA), Canberra.
Wohling, M., 2009. The problem of scale in Indigenous knowledge: a perspective fromNorthern Australia. Ecol. Soc. 14, 1.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. World Commission on En-vironment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
