CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Indigenous Studies and EcologyEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights

A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System Sustainability

Open access
Hill, Rosemary, Grant, Chrissy, George, Melissa, Robinson, Catherine J., Jackson, Sue, Abel, Nick·2012·Ecology and Society
DOI 10.5751/es-04587-170123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Hill, R., C. Grant, M. George, C. Robinson, S. Jackson, and N. Abel. 2012. A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(1): 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04587-170123

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5751/es-04587-170123

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Co-learning and co-production processes do not guarantee fairness, equal standing or address power asymmetries.

    “Co-learning and co-production processes do not guarantee fairness, equal standing or address power asymmetries (Hill et al. 2012).”

    From Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation (2013) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2012

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says power relations in Indigenous ecological knowledge projects can further marginalize Indigenous interests, and the Results warn that agency-driven co-governance may crowd out Indigenous perspectives. These support the caution about power asymmetries, but the paper does not specifically assess whether co-learning and co-production guarantee fairness or equal standing. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems than agency-driven co-governance and agency governance.

    “They concluded that “indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems” than agency-driven co-governance and agency governance.”

    From Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation (2013) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2012

  • A review of 21 case studies of natural resources management in Australia resulted in a classification of resource management initiatives as indigenous governed collaborations, indigenous-driven co-governance, agency-driven co-governance and agency governance.

    “A review of 21 case studies of natural resources management in Australia resulted in a classification of resource management initiatives as indigenous governed collaborations, indigenous-driven co-governance, agency-driven co-governance and agency governance (Hill et al. 2012).”

    From Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation (2013) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2012

  • Processes that support indigenous governance and do not vest power in government agencies but instead distribute decision making in wider networks of families and communities are important.

    “They stress the importance of processes that support indigenous governance and do not vest power in government agencies but instead distribute decision making in “wider networks of families and communities” (Hill et al. 2012).”

    From Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation (2013) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 95 · Cited by 262

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. Agius, P., T. Jenkin, S. Jarvis, R. Howitt, and R. Williams. 2007. (Re)asserting indigenous rights and jurisdictions within a politics of place: transformative nature of native title negotiations in South Australia. Geographical Research 45:194-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00451. · DOI
  2. x · DOI
  3. Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal 54:287-297.
  4. Altman, J. C. 2008. Different governance for difference: the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation. Pages 177-203 in J. Hunt, D. Smith, S. Garling, and W. Sanders, editors. Contested governance. culture, power and institutions in indigenous Australia. Research Monograph No. 29. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
  5. Altman, J. C., G. J. Buchanan, and L. Larsen. 2007. The environmental significance of the indigenous estate: natural Ecology and Society 17(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art23/ resource management as economic development in remote Australia. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
  6. Bakker, K., and G. Bridge. 2006. Material worlds? Resource geographies and the 'matter of nature'. Progress in Human Geography 30:5-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph588oa · DOI
  7. Ballard, H. L., M. E. Fernandez-Gimenez, and V. E. Sturtevant. 2008. Integration of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society 13 (2):37. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/ iss2/art37/
  8. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18:621-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x · DOI
  9. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251-1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1 890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  10. Bohensky, E. L., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on "integration". Ecology and Society 16(4):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Boxelaar, L., M. Paine, and R. Beilin. 2006. Community engagement and public administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public Administration 65:113-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8500.2006.00476.x · DOI
  12. Carlsson, L., and F. Berkes. 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75:65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2 004.11.008 · DOI
  13. Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. S. DeFries, S. Diaz, T. Dietz, A. K. Duraiappah, A. Oteng- Yeboah, H. M. Pereira, C. Perrings, W. V. Reid, J. Sarukhan, R. J. Scholes, and A. Whyte. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:1305-1312. http://dx.doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2010. Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-management. Ecology and Society 15(1):15. [online] URL: http://www.eco logyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art15/
  15. Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and O'Flaherty. 2007. Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Society and Natural Resources 20:291-305. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08941920601161312 · DOI
  16. Davies, J. 2003. Contemporary geographies of indigenous rights and interests in rural Australia. Australian Geographer 34:19-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049180320000066137 · DOI
  17. Davies, J., and S. Holcombe. 2009. Desert knowledge: integrating knowledge and development in arid and semi-arid drylands. GeoJournal 74:363-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10708-009-9279-4 · DOI
  18. Davies, J., J. White, A. Wright, Y. Maru, and M. LaFlamme. 2008. Applying the sustainable livelihoods approach in Australian desert Aboriginal development. The Rangeland Journal 30:55-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ07038 · DOI
  19. Davis, A., and K. Ruddle. 2010. Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological Ecology and Society 17(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art23/ knowledge research. Ecological Applications 20:880-894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09-0422. · DOI
  20. Dawson, T., M. Rounsevell, T. Kluvánková-Oravská, V. Chobotová, and A. Stirling. 2010. Dynamic properties of complex adaptive ecosystems: implications for the sustainability of service provision. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:2843-2853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1053 1-010-9892-z Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). 2009. Apmeraltye ingkerreke: People of one land, all together. Record of conference session from Regional Arts Australia art at the heart, 2nd to 4th October, 2008. Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs, Australia. · DOI
  21. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907-1912. http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1126/science.1091015 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Evans, L., H. Scott, K. Muir, and J. Briscoe. 2009. Effective intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge of plants and their uses: an example from Australia. GeoJournal 74:391-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9229-6 · DOI
  23. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., H. P. Huntington, and K. J. Frost. 2006. Integration or co-optation? Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Environmental Conservation 33:306-315. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1017/S0376892906003420 · DOI
  24. Folke, C. 2004. Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(3):7. [online] URL: http://ww w.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
  25. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Gooch, S., and J. Warburton. 2009. Building and managing resilience in community-based NRM Groups: an Australian case study. Society and Natural Resources 22:158-171. http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801967880 · DOI
  27. Gratani, M., J. R. A. Butler, F. Royee, P. Valentine, D. Burrows, W. I. Canendo, and A. S. Anderson. 2011. Is validation of indigenous ecological knowledge a disrespectful process? A case study of traditional fishing poisons and invasive fish management from the wet tropics, Australia. Ecology and Society 16(3):25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-0 4249-160325 · DOI
  28. Head, B. W. 2007. Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science 42:441-454.
  29. Head, B. W. 2009. From government to governance: explaining and assessing new approaches to NRM. Pages 15-28 in M. B. Lane, C. J. Robinson, and B. M. Taylor, editors. Contested country: local and regional environmental management in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, Australia.
  30. Hibbard, M., and M. B. Lane. 2004. By the seat of your pants: indigenous action and state response. Planning Theory & Practice 5:95-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000 · DOI
  31. 204213a · DOI
  32. Hill, R. 2011. Towards equity in indigenous co-management of protected areas: cultural planning by Miriuwung-Gajerrong people in the Kimberley, Western Australia. Geographical Research 49:72-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.20 10.00669.x · DOI
  33. Hill, R. 2006. The effectiveness of agreements and protocols to bridge between indigenous and non-indigenous tool-boxes for protected area management: a case study from the wet tropics of Queensland. Society and Natural Resources 19:577-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920600742310 · DOI
  34. Hill, R., D. Buchanan, and A. Baird. 1999. Aborigines & fires in the wet tropics of Queensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Society and Natural Resources 12:205-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419299279704 · DOI
  35. Hill, R., K. J. Williams, P. L. Pert, C. J. Robinson, A. P. Dale, D. A. Westcott, R. A. Grace, and T. O'Malley. 2010. Adaptive community-based biodiversity conservation in Australia's tropical rainforest. Environmental Conservation 37:73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000330 · DOI
  36. Hill, R., and L. J. Williams. 2009. Indigenous natural resource management: overcoming marginalisation produced in Australia's current NRM model. Pages 161-178 in M. B. Lane, C. J. Robinson, and B. M. Taylor, editors. Contested country: local and regional environmental management in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, Australia.
  37. Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co- Ecology and Society 17(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art23/ management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2):17. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/ art34/
  38. Hunt, J., D. Smith, S. Garling, and W. Sanders, editors. 2008. Contested governance. Culture, power and institutions in indigenous Australia. Research Monograph No. 29. Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096746089900600415 International Council for Science (ICSU). 2002. Science, traditional knowledge and sustainable development. Series on science for sustainable development No. · DOI
  39. Jackson, S. 2009. Recognition of indigenous interests in Australian water resource management, with particular reference to environmental flow assessment. Geography Compass 2:874-898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2 008.00103.x · DOI
  40. Jackson, S., and J. C. Altman. 2009. Indigenous rights and water policy: perspectives from tropical Northern Australia. Australian Indigenous Law Review 13:27-48.
  41. Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hatfield- Dodds, T. P. Hughes, and J. Wilson. 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):19. [online] URL: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
  42. Liamputtong, P., and D. Ezzy. 2005. Qualitative research methods. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
  43. Lockwood, M. 2010. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management 91:754-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005 · DOI
  44. Lockwood, M., J. Davidson, A. Curtis, E. Stratford, and R. Griffith. 2009. Multi-level environmental governance: lessons from Australian natural resource management. Australian Geographer 40:169-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049180 902964926 · DOI
  45. Lynam, T., W. de Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1):5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/ art5/
  46. Margerum, R. D. 2008. A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41:487-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9067-9 · DOI
  47. Michener, V. J. 1998. The participatory approach: contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development 26:2105-2118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305 -750X(98)00112-0 · DOI
  48. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). 2010. Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030. National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group convened under the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Australian Government, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia.
  49. Nursey-Bray, M. 2009. A Guugu Yimmithir Bam Wii: Ngawiya and Girrbithi: hunting, planning and management along the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Geoforum 40:442-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.02.002 Ecology and Society 17(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art23/ · DOI
  50. Nursey-Bray, M., and P. Rist. 2009. Co-management and protected area management: achieving effective management of a contested site, lessons from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Marine Policy 33:118-127. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.05.002 · DOI
  51. Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social ecological systems. Environmental Management 34:75-90. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of SESs. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. [online] URL: http://www.eco logyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
  53. Ostrom, E. 2008. Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs 28:24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008 .00840.x · DOI
  54. Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37:451-463. http://dx.d oi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834 · DOI
  55. Palmer, L. 2006. 'Nature', place and the recognition of indigenous politics. Australian Geographer 37:33-43. http://d x.doi.org/10.1080/00049180500511954 · DOI
  56. Pickerill, J. 2008. From wilderness to WildCountry: the power of language in environmental campaigns in Australia. Environmental Politics 17:95-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09644010701811681 · DOI
  57. Plummer, R., and J. FitzGibbon. 2004. Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 70:63-72. http://dx.do i.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.10.005 · DOI
  58. Porter, L. 2004. Unlearning one's privilege: reflections on cross-cultural research with indigenous peoples in South-East Australia. Planning Theory and Practice 5:104-109. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000204222 · DOI
  59. Prober, S. M., M. H. O'Connor, and F. J. Walsh. 2011. Australian aboriginal peoples' seasonal knowledge: a potential basis for shared understanding in environmental management. Ecology and Society 16(2):12. [online] URL: http://www.eco logyandsociety.org./vol16/iss2/art12/ Reconciliation Australia. 2002. Indigenous Governance Conference outcomes Reconciliation Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and the National Institute for Governance, Canberra, Australia. [online] URL: http://www.reconciliation.org.au/igawards/pages/about-governance/ conference.php
  60. Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 · DOI
  61. Robins, S. 2003. Whose modernity? Indigenous modernities and land claims after apartheid. Development and Change 34:265-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00305 · DOI
  62. Robinson, C. J., and N. Munungguritj. 2001. Sustainable balance: a Yolngu framework for cross-cultural collaborative management. Pages 92-107 in R. Baker, J. Davies, and E. Young, editors. Working on country: indigenous environmental management in Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
  63. Robinson, G. M. 1998. Methods and techniques in human geography. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
  64. Rose, D. B. 1994. Whose confidentiality? Whose intellectual property? Pages 1-11 in Claims to knowledge, claims to country. Native title, native title claims and the role of the anthropologist. Proceedings of a conference session on native title at the annual conference of the Australian Anthropological Society. Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra, Australia.
  65. Ross, A., and K. Pickering. 2002. The politics of reintegrating Australian aboriginal and American Indian indigenous knowledge into resource management: the dynamics of resource appropriation and cultural revival. Human Ecology 30:187-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015640713250 · DOI
  66. Ross, H., C. Grant, C. J. Robinson, A. Izurieta, D. Smyth, and P. Rist. 2009. Co-management and indigenous protected areas in Australia: achievements and ways forward. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 16:51-61.
  67. Sandström, C. 2009. Institutional dimensions of comanagement: participation, power and process. Society and Natural Ecology and Society 17(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art23/ Resources 22:230-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0894192080 2183354 · DOI
  68. Selin, H., and S. T. VanDeveer, editors. 2009. Changing climates in North American politics: institutions, policymaking and multilevel governance. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  69. Servaes, J., and L. Obijiofor. 2007. Special issue: indigenous cultures and diffusion of innovations. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 6:593-705.
  70. Sillitoe, P., and M. Marzano. 2009. Future of indigenous knowledge research in development. Futures 41:13-23. http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.004 · DOI
  71. Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous Peoples. Zed Books Ltd and University of Otago Press, London, UK, and Dunedin, New Zealand.
  72. Standley, P., N. J. Bidwell, T. George, V. Steffensen, and J. Gothe. 2009. Connecting communities and the environment through media: doing, saying and seeing along traditional knowledge revival pathways. Journal of Community, Citizen's and Third Sector Media and Communication 5:9-27.
  73. Stork, N. E., S. Goosem, and S. M. Turton. 2008. Australian rainforests in a global context. Pages 4-20 in N. E. Stork, and S. M. Turton, editors. Living in a dynamic tropical forest landscape. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1002/9781444300321.ch1 · DOI
  74. Suchet-Pearson, S., and R. Howitt. 2006. On teaching and learning resource and environmental management: reframing capacity building in multicultural settings. Australian Geographer 37:117-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049180 500512010 · DOI
  75. Sveiby, K. E. 2009. Aboriginal principles for sustainable development as told in traditional law stories. Sustainable Development 17:341-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.389 · DOI
  76. Talbot, L. D. 2005. Indigenous land management techniques of the Djabugay people. Thesis. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
  77. Telfer, W. R., and M. J. Garde. 2006. Indigenous knowledge of rock kangaroo ecology in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Human Ecology 34:379-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1074 5-006-9023-3 · DOI
  78. Walker, B. H., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press,Washington, D.C., USA.
  79. Walker, D., J. P. Jones, S. M. Roberts, and O. R. Frohling. 2007. When participation meets empowerment: The WWF and the politics of invitation in the Chimalapas, Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97:423-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00546. · DOI
  80. x · DOI
  81. Weir, J. K. 2009. Murray River Country: an ecological dialogue with traditional owners. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, Australia.
  82. Winter, G. 2006. Introduction. Pages 1-34 in G. Winter, editor. Multilevel governance of global environmental change: perspectives from science, sociology and the law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  83. Wohling, M. 2009. The problem of scale in indigenous knowledge: a perspective from Northern Australia. Ecology and Society 14(1):1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandso ciety.org/vol14/iss1/art1/

Authors
Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N.
Affiliations
Australian Human Rights Commission (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Ecology and Society
Publisher
Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Published
2012
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5751/es-04587-170123
OpenAlex
W2055464537
Cited by
262
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 5
FWCI
33.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Ecology and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Keywords
Indigenous engagement, indigenous knowledge, knowledge integration, social-ecological systems, sustainability, environmental management, typology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review