Copyright © 2013 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

Bohensky, E. L., J. R. A. Butler, and J. Davies. 2013. Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and
science in natural resource management: perspectives from Australia. Ecology and Society 18(3): 20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05846-180320

Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural Resource
Management: Perspectives from Australia
Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural
Resource Management: Perspectives from Australia
Erin L. Bohensky 1, James R. A. Butler 1 and Jocelyn Davies 1

Key Words: Australia; indigenous knowledge; knowledge integration; natural resource management; resilience

Ecology and Society’s 2004 special feature on Traditional 2013) and erosion of much of the depth and detail of IEK has
Knowledge in Social-Ecological Systems (http://www. been one consequence. Australian indigenous communities
ecologyandsociety.org/issues/view.php/feature/13) marked continue to face great disadvantage arising from a complex
one of the first efforts to view traditional, local, and Indigenous web of historical and contemporary social and environmental
knowledge and their roles in managing ecosystems through pressures (Moran 2009, Sutton 2009, Wohling 2009). The
the lens of social-ecological systems (SES) resilience. This conjunction of densely connected kinship networks, historical
view acknowledges the importance of experimentation, exclusion from access to resources, and coercive external
learning, and pluralism to cope with uncertainty in complex interventions has generated codependent rigidity and poverty
adaptive systems (Folke 2004, Folke et al. 2005, Berkes and traps (Maru et al. 2012). At a psychological level, structural
Turner 2006, Davidson-Hunt 2006, Berkes 2009). As a frame and cultural violence (Galtung 1969, 1990) from colonialism
for understanding knowledge, SES resilience provided new and its legacies has driven some Indigenous people to adopt
inspiration for scientists seeking to understand Indigenous disadvantage as part of their identity, and to fear that
livelihoods and resource management, increasingly against improvements in material circumstances will necessarily be
the backdrop of rapid global change (Armitage and Johnson accompanied by loss of culture or identity (Pholi 2012).
2006, Mercer et al. 2012, Raygorodetsky 2013).
Conversely, integration of Indigenous knowledge and science
Yet, we observed a remarkable void in the 2004 special feature has been accelerating in recent years, as part of a marked
and in SES resilience scholarship more generally: experience recoupling of Indigenous relationships with traditional lands
from Australia was largely absent, despite this country’s and sea country throughout Australia. Indeed, the increased
extraordinary indigenous cultural diversity and innovative formal involvement (e.g., through participation in forums,
research at the interface of indigenous and conventional bodies and implementation processes) of indigenous
science knowledge in a variety of traditions (Jones 1969, Australians in natural resource management (NRM) has been
Newsome 1980, Kimber 1984, Burbidge et al. 1988, Burrows noted as one of four standout trends in environmental
and Christensen 1990, Christie 1990, Walsh 1990, Jones 1991, management in the first decade of the 21st century (Australia
Baker and Mutitjulu Community 1992, Williams and Baines State of the Environment Committee 2011:9). Such settings
1993, Bomford and Caughley 1996, Raymond et al. 1999, form the context of most of the papers in this Special Feature.
Horstman and Wightman 2001, Howitt 2001). With this Policy drivers for increased formal involvement have included
Special Feature we strive to further understanding of theory the sheer extent of indigenous landholdings that has resulted
and practice for integration of Indigenous Ecological from government actions since the 1960s to recognize
Knowledge (IEK) and conventional science relevant to the indigenous land rights. Biodiversity and other environmental
Australian context. We aim to: 1) examine examples of values ascribed to these lands by nonindigenous people (see
knowledge integration in Australia; 2) understand conditions Davies et al. 2013), along with the low financial capital and
and enabling environments for knowledge integration; 3) lack of employment or enterprise opportunities amongst
suggest processes and tools for practically achieving landowners, has driven government investment in indigenous
knowledge integration. environmental management. Other ultimate causes include
international instruments, notably the Convention on
Current measures of well-being largely continue to ignore that
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the
the relationship between ecosystems and well-being is more
Convention on Biological Diversity’s Article 8(j); and belated
direct, complex, and fundamental to indigenous ontologies
legal recognition since 1992 that indigenous native title
than for mainstream Australian society (Sangha et al. 2011).
survived colonization of Australia and continues to exist in
Decoupling of intimate relationships between Indigenous
some circumstances (Nettheim and Craig 2002).
groups and their lands and “sea country” (deKoninck et al.

1
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
 Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/

Knowledge integration has been noted as problematic, often Kakadu National Park managers towards feral animals, and
because of disparate power relations (e.g., Nadasdy 1999, the absence of knowledge integration in decision-making, has
Wohling 2009). Tensions arise in part because the term is used driven recent cross-cultural tensions. Walsh et al. (2013)
in various ways, often loosely, such that its meaning is unclear. suggest that little of the richness and interconnected
The common definitions of integration as ‘combining one understandings inherent in Arrernte ecological knowledge has
thing with another to form a whole’, and, in social contexts, been engaged in projects which claim to have complemented
as the ‘intermixing of people or groups previously separated’, science knowledge of land and species.
can readily subvert another important dimension of meaning:
The contribution that the Special Feature’s papers makes to
that the outcome of such processes is equal participation
our three aims has ultimately been determined by their specific
(Oxford English Dictionary and New Oxford American
contexts, guiding questions and methods. Examples of
Dictionary). Each paper in this Special Feature has been
knowledge integration in Australia, our first aim, are presented
concerned with the integrity of indigenous knowledge in
most directly in three papers: Hill et al. (2012) synthesize
integration processes. This has undoubtedly been strengthened
features of indigenous engagement in environmental
by the involvement of indigenous people as authors and
management where IEK and science are being integrated, and
coresearchers in the research reported herein: of the 36
others where there is little or no integration. Butler et al. (2012)
contributing authors, nine are Indigenous.
found that government managers and scientists considered
Many of the papers specifically highlight that the use and IEK had been applied in management of four of seven fisheries
management of knowledge is a situated social process in which in Torres Strait, and describe the types of knowledge
indigenous people interface with more powerful actors. Such concerned; and Davies et al. (2013) examine recent
settings are central to how the meaning of integration has been management plans for Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs),
critically understood in broader social contexts: as the which have integrated the ontologies and governance systems
appropriate strategy for nondominant groups to engage in of Indigenous landowners with conservation objectives.
when they seek to maintain relationships with larger society,
Several papers contribute particularly to our second aim:
and to maintain their own identity and characteristics (Berry
understanding conditions and enabling environments for
1997). In Berry’s (1997) framework, integration contrasts with
knowledge integration. Bohensky and Maru (2011) reviewed
assimilation, which does not maintain distinctive cultural
selected international literature to distill lessons learned from
identities in a nondominant group’s interactions with broader
integration efforts over the past decade. Themes that they
society; and with separation, which maintains distinctive
identify resonate with lessons emerging in Australia, including
cultural identities without broader social interaction. Further,
the benefits and challenges of integrating IEK (Prober et al.
the mutual accommodation required to achieve integration
2011, Holmes and Jampijinpa 2013, Walsh et al. 2013);
includes widespread acceptance of the value of knowledge
recognizing the social context of IEK (Hill et al. 2012, Holmes
diversity for NRM by both nondominant and dominant groups.
and Jampijinpa 2013, Walsh et al. 2013); and evaluating IEK
Absence of such conditions precipitates marginalization
and the degree of integration (Gratani et al. 2011, Butler et al.
because nondominant groups have no interest in engaging with
2012).
dominant institutions, which may enforce cultural loss (Berry
1997). Notably, this social context includes power relations. For
example, Butler et al. (2012) consider the roles of depleted
Notwithstanding the trend to increased formal involvement of
fishery stocks, limited scientific knowledge, and community
Indigenous people in Australian environmental management,
ownership of resources in the application of TEK in the Torres
several papers note that lack of integration between IEK and
Strait Islands. They find that unlike other Melanesian regions
conventional science knowledge was a starting point for their
(Johannes 1998, Johannes 2002), these factors do not
contributions. For example, Prober et al. (2011) draw attention
determine the application of IEK in fisheries, and instead the
to inadequate cross-cultural means to communicate IEK as
evolutionary stage of comanagement and the degree of power-
limiting achievement of knowledge integration in NRM.
sharing is more influential. They also find the concept of
Davies et al. (2013) recount how the first generation of
cultural keystone species (Garibaldi and Turner 2004)
management plans for Indigenous-owned and managed
valuable in explaining why knowledge integration is more
protected areas maintained distinctions between nature and
evident in fisheries for species with highest cultural values,
society, which are characteristic of dominant Australian
and how this has catalyzed IEK application more widely.
ontologies but the antithesis of Indigenous world views.
Gratani et al. (2011) note that traditional owners in their study Conditions and enabling environments for knowledge
considered that NRM decisions do not always respect their integration are discussed by Hill et al. (2012) on the basis of
cultural values or IEK, despite their comanagement role in a typology of Indigenous engagement in NRM. They note that
their traditional country. Robinson and Wallington (2012) note the distinction between IEK and conventional science is
that differences in the values of Indigenous peoples and blurred in Indigenous-led collaborations, and these
 Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/

governance types were found to be maintaining the integrity Lastly, we hoped in this Special Feature to gain insight into
of IEK, and applying both sets of knowledge. In contrast, different dimensions of the relationship between knowledge
governance types where agencies have the lead role raise the integration and resilience, not only for the benefit of
threat that IEK will be misappropriated such that the scholarship but also for global policy processes on which
Indigenous partners are more concerned with protecting their diverse knowledges are now being brought to bear (e.g., the
knowledge against unauthorized or ill-informed use. Concern Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
with validating Indigenous knowledge by science is Services). Reiterated is the central role of institutions that
characteristic of agency-led initiatives (Hill et al. 2012). embed social and ecological linkages, diversity, empowerment,
Indeed, Gratani et al. (2011) report on a process to validate learning, and adaptive approaches. A range of perspectives is
Indigenous knowledge of plant-derived poisons to manage given on resilience, underscoring the richness of this
invasive fish in one region subject to such agency-led framework while also highlighting that the meaning and utility
governance, the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Power of the concept varies between users and contexts. A particular
relationships are again highlighted, with Indigenous elders’ challenge for advancing empirically-based understanding of
control over the validation process found to be critical to their how IEK builds resilience is that discussions between
sense of empowerment. scientists and IEK holders around resilience, adaptation,
change, and thresholds may be contentious, echoing
Our third aim, processes and tools for integrating knowledge,
previously-voiced concerns (Rotarangi and Russell 2009).
is noted by Bohensky and Maru (2011) as an expanding area
This implies the need for careful processes, time
in recent international literature. Research by Ens et al. (2012)
commitments, underlying trust, and sound tools that are
describes a similar trend in Australia, and several papers in
adaptable across social and ecological contexts. A further
this Special Feature extend these contributions. Prober et al.
challenge is to identify when knowledge integration is being
(2011) focus on ecological calendars developed in a number
achieved, given the ambiguity of the term noted above, and
of cross-cultural collaborations to organize IEK, effectively
the limited availability of evaluative measures. Herein lies a
correlating climate, astronomy, resource availability, and
further opportunity for greater interaction between the
cultural practices. They argue for calendars’ potential to be
academic, policy, and place-based stakeholders that have often
more directly used as adjuncts to spatial and social frameworks
been addressing knowledge integration independently.
for comanagement. Robinson and Wallington (2012) describe
mapping and narrative tools applied to resolve uncertainties
about feral animal management in Kakadu National Park. The Responses to this article can be read online at:
effectiveness of knowledge integration relied on boundary http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
agents, people with the capacity to communicate equitably php/5846
across knowledge systems. Davies et al. (2013) also highlight
the key role played by brokers in the development of IPA
management plans that integrate knowledge.
Acknowledgments:
Two papers, Walsh et al. (2013) and Holmes and Jampijinpa
(2013) have resulted from deep collaborations in central This special feature was made possible by the generous
Australia over many years between Indigenous and assistance of the communities and organisations that have
nonindigenous authors wanting to overcome ineffective collaborated in this research, as indicated in the articles
presentation of IEK, so that it becomes only, as Houde (2007) herein. We thank Yiheyis Maru for constructive comments on
cautions, “a collection of data about the environment”. The this Introduction, as well as the reviewers who gave their time
papers each present their IEK frameworks as tools for cross- to provide feedback on other articles. CSIRO’s Ecosystem
cultural engagement and for intergenerational teaching and Sciences Division, Climate Adaptation Flagship, Sustainable
learning. Each framework emphasizes the interconnections Agriculture Flagship, Wealth from Oceans Flagship and the
between elements and domains of knowledge, including Building Resilient Australian Biodiversity Assets Theme
reciprocated cross-linkages between particular groups of provided financial support to the three special feature editors.
people and particular natural resources and land areas. The United Nations University Traditional Knowledge
Through such interconnections, IEK simultaneously Initiative and Ian Nigh are thanked for their research support.
encompasses both what is known and who has the Lastly, we thank participants in the Resilience Alliance
responsibility to know, to make decisions, to take action, and Workshop on Indigenous Resilience and Social-Ecological
to learn. Several other papers (Gratani et al. 2011, Robinson Systems at Hinchinbrook Marine Cove in 2009 for
and Wallington 2012, Davies et al. 2013) also highlight that inspirational discussions.
knowledge integration is a social process that must recognize
the identity of, and relationships amongst, the people whose
knowledge might be integrated.
 Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/

LITERATURE CITED Catalytic Role of Turtles and Dugong as Cultural Keystone

Armitage, D. R. and D. Johnson. 2006. Can resilience be Species. Ecology and Society 17(4): 34. http://dx.doi.
reconciled with globalization and the increasingly complex org/10.5751/ES-05165-170434
conditions of resource degradation in Asian coastal regions?
Christie, M. J. 1990. Aboriginal science for the ecologically
Ecology and Society 11(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.
sustainable future. Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art2/.
Aboriginal Education November 1990: 56-68.
Australia State of the Environment Committee. 2011.
Davidson-Hunt, I .J. 2006. Adaptive learning networks:
Australia state of the environment 2011. Independent report
developing resource management knowledge through social
to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability,
learning forums. Human Ecology 34: 593-614. http://dx.doi.
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
org/10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1
DSEWPaC, Canberra. [online] URL: http://www.environment.
gov.au/soe/2011/report/. Davies, J., R. Hill, F. J. Walsh, M. Sandford, D. Smyth, and
M. C. Holmes. 2013. Innovation in management plans for
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of
community conserved areas: experiences from Australian
knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social
indigenous protected areas. Ecology and Society 18(2): 14.
learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692–
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05404-180214
1702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
deKoninck, V., R. Kennett, and P. Josif. 2013. National
Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and
Indigenous Sea Country Workshop Report. NAILSMA
the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological
Knowledge Series 014/2013. North Australian Indigenous
system resilience. Human Ecology 34: 479-494. http://dx.doi.
Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), Darwin.
org/10.1007/s10745-006-9008-2
[online] URL: http://nailsma.org.au/hub/resources/publication/
Baker, L. M. and Mutitjulu Community. 1992. Comparing two national-indigenous-sea-country-workshop-report-2012
views of the landscape: Aboriginal traditional ecological
Ens, E.J., M. Finlayson, K. Preuss, S. Jackson and S.
knowledge and modern scientific knowledge. The Rangeland
Holcombe. 2012. Australian approaches for managing
Journal 14(2): 174-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ9920174
‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge.
Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1): 100-107. http://
Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x
Appliquee-Revue Internationale 46: 5-34.
Folke, C. 2004. Traditional knowledge in social–ecological
Bohensky, E. L. and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous Knowledge, systems. Ecology and Society 9(3): 7. [online] URL: http://
Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
Decade of International Literature on "Integration"? Ecology
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive
and Society 16(4): 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406
governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of
Environmental Research 30: 441-473. http://dx.doi.
Bomford, M. and J. Caughley, editors. 1996. Sustainable Use org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
of Wildlife by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.
Galtung, J. 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. Journal
Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian Government
of Peace Research 6(3): 167-191. http://dx.doi.
Publishing Service, Canberra.
org/10.1177/002234336900600301
Burbidge, A. A., K. A. Johnson, P. J. Fuller, and R. I.
Galtung, J. 1990. Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research
Southgate. 1988. Aboriginal knowledge of the mammals of
27: 291-305.
the central deserts of Australia. Australian Wildlife Research
15: 9-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR9880009 Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species:
implications for ecological conservation and restoration.
Burrows, N. and P. Christensen. 1990. A survey of Aboriginal
Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.
fire patterns in the Western Desert of Australia. Fire and the
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/.
Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives, US
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Gratani, M., J. R. A. Butler, F. Royee, P. Valentine, D.
Report SE-69, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station, Burrows, W. I. Canendo, and A. S. Anderson. 2011. Is
Asheville:20-24. Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a
Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing
Butler, J. R. A., A. Tawake, T. Skewes, L. Tawake, and V.
Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics,
McGrath. 2012. Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Australia. Ecology and Society 16(3): 25. http://dx.doi.
and Fisheries Management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the
org/10.5751/ES-04249-160325
 Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/

Hill, R., C. Grant, M. George, C. J. Robinson, S. Jackson, and Small Island Developing States: Integrating Local and
N. Abel. 2012. A Typology of Indigenous Engagement in External Knowledge. Sustainability 4: 1908-1932. http://dx.
Australian Environmental Management: Implications for doi.org/10.3390/su4081908
Knowledge Integration and Social-ecological System
Moran, M. 2009. What job, which house?: Simple solutions
Sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(1): 23. http://dx.doi.
to complex problems in indigenous affairs. Australian Review
org/10.5751/ES-04587-170123
of Public Affairs [online] URL: http://www.australianreview.
Holmes, M. C. C., and W. (S. P.) Jampijinpa. 2013. Law for net/digest/2009/03/moran.html.
country: the structure of Warlpiri ecological knowledge and
Nettheim, G. M., and G. D. Craig. 2002. Indigenous peoples
its application to natural resource management and ecosystem
and governance structures: a comparative analysis of land
stewardship. Ecology and Society 18(3): 19. http://dx.doi.
and resource management rights. Aboriginal Studies Press,
org/10.5751/ES-05537-180319
Canberra, Australia.
Horstman, M., and G. Wightman. 2001. Karparti ecology:
Newsome, A. E. 1980. The eco-mythology of the red kangaroo
recognition of Aboriginal ecological knowledge and its
in central Australia. Mankind 12: 327-333. http://dx.doi.
application to management in North-Western Australia.
org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.1980.tb01207.x
Ecological Management and Restoration 2: 99-109. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2001.00073.x Pholi, K. 2012. Silencing dissent inside the Aboriginal
industry. Quadrant (Sydney) 56: 6-15.
Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological
knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co- Prober, S. M., M. H. O'Connor, and F. J. Walsh. 2011.
management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34. Australian Aboriginal Peoples' Seasonal Knowledge: a
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/ Potential Basis for Shared Understanding in Environmental
art34/. Management. Ecology and Society 16(2): 12. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art12/
Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice,
sustainability and indigenous peoples. Psychology Press. Raygorodetsky, G. 2013. The Skolt Sámi’s path to climate
Routledge. London, UK. change resilience. OurWorld 2.0, 1 February 2013 [online]
URL: http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-skolt-sami-path-to-climate-
Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource
change-resilience/
management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 243-246. http://dx.doi. Raymond, E., J. Blutja, L. Gingina, M. Raymond, O.
org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01384-6 Raymond, L. Raymond, J. Brown, Q. Morgan, D. Jackson, N.
Smith, and G. Wightman. 1999. Wardaman ethnobiology.
Johannes, R. E. 2002. The renaissance of community-based
Pages 1-191. Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural
marine resource management in Oceania. Annual Review of
Resource Management, Northern Territory University,
Ecology and Systematics 33: 317-340. http://dx.doi.
Darwin.
org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150524
Robinson, C. J. and T. J. Wallington. 2012. Boundary Work:
Jones, R. 1991. Landscapes of the mind: Aboriginal
Engaging Knowledge Systems in Co-management of Feral
perceptions of the natural world. Pages 21-48 in D. J.
Animals on Indigenous Lands. Ecology and Society 17(2): 16.
Mulvaney, editor. The Humanities and the Australian
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04836-170216
Environment. Australian Academy of the Humanities,
Canberra. Rotarangi, S., and D. Russell. 2009. Social-ecological
resilience thinking: can indigenous culture guide
Jones, R. M. 1969. Fire-stick farming. Australian Natural
environmental management? Journal of the Royal Society of
History 16: 224-228.
New Zealand 39(4): 209-213.
Kimber, R. G. 1984. Resource use and management in central
Sangha, K. K., J. R. A. Butler, A. Delisle, and O. Stanley.
Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1984: 12-23.
2011. Identifying links between ecosystem services and
Maru, Y. T., C. S. Fletcher, and V. H. Chewings. 2012. A Aboriginal well-being and livelihoods in north Australia:
synthesis of current approaches to traps is useful but needs applying the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework.
rethinking for indigenous disadvantage and poverty research. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 5:
Ecology and Society 17(2): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ 931-946.
ES-04793-170207
Sutton, P. 2009. The Politics of Suffering. Melbourne
Mercer, J., I. Kelman, B. Alfthan, and T. Kurvits.. 2012. University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Caribbean
 Ecology and Society 18(3): 20
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art20/

Walsh, F. J., P. V. Dobson, and J. C. Douglas. 2013.

Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of
indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource
management. Ecology and Society 18(3): 18. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05501-180318
Walsh, F. J. 1990. An ecological study of traditional
Aboriginal use of "country": Martu in the Great and Little
Sandy Deserts, Western Australia. Proceedings of the
Ecological Society of Australia 16: 23-37.
Williams, N. M. and G. Baines, editors. 1993. Traditional
ecological knowledge: wisdom for sustainable development.
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian
National University, Canberra.
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.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art1/.