FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1944366967> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1944366967 endingPage "111" @default.
• W1944366967 startingPage "110" @default.
• W1944366967 abstract "Artok, a small island off the west cost of the island of Efate in Vanuatu, stands testament to the continuing power and influence of Chief Roi Mata. Chief Roi Mata’s Domain (CRMD) was inscribed as Vanuatu’s first World Heritage site in 2008, with this Island being one of three archaeological sites that correlate an extensive body of oral history of the life, death and afterlife of Chief Roi Mata. Through the local indigenous communities’ ongoing association of legend with tangible elements of the environment, this site was deemed an outstanding example of ‘continuing and associative cultural landscape’ worthy of inscription on the World Heritage List. In this landscape, traditional knowledge continues to provide the most powerful protection of both cultural and natural values and remains core to the beliefs of the indigenous communities still living in the vicinity of this World Heritage property. The island has had a tapu prohibition placed over it for more than 400 years since the burial of Roi Mata along with more than 50 members of his community who sacrificed themselves to accompany him to the afterlife in the 17th century (VCC 2007). These prohibitions remain in place out of respect for the continuing power of Roi Mata. Despite this, the area is becoming increasingly threatened by development and the competition for resources in response to global financial pressures and a desire for better living standards. Changes to and the influence of trends in popular culture are beginning to erode the rituals and beliefs that are core to the protection of this area. As for many indigenous peoples, traditional knowledge is gradually disappearing. Although CRMD was inscribed as a World Heritage site for its cultural values, the plan of management recognised that the tapu had also provided protection for natural values, especially on Artok, but research and documentation of these values was limited. In April 2010, we were invited by the community to survey and assess the biodiversity values of Artok for the community to use in the development of management strategies. The survey provided evidence that Artok is a refuge for species that are endangered or have been lost from mainland Efate. This included species listed on the IUCN Red List and under CITES Appendices I and II (http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php) and the likely description of a new subspecies of skink, endemic to Artok. There is also a very low presence of introduced species when compared with nearby Efate. While some of these species are resources and well known to the local people, there are other species that were observed but not necessarily distinguished, for example the two species of blue-tailed skink which were considered to be one species by local community. The scientific assessment provided the community with additional knowledge to supplement their traditional knowledge and strengthen their defence of Artok against damaging development pressures and diminution of adherence to rituals and beliefs by the younger generation. For the local ni-Vanuatu, CRMD is a place of fundamental cultural importance; the scientific assessment added the universal criteria used for valuing its ecological significance, the global reasoning to resist the development pressures. Vanuatu is a country owned and governed by the indigenous people. It remains a strong cultural landscape. In Australia, the indigenous people retain their cultural connection with the land, but population, land ownership and government are strongly dominated by people of non-indigenous background. Population density, size of properties and location of indigenous-owned land vary greatly across the continent. The process of ‘two-way’ collaboration used for Artok was a key component of the ‘Indigenous land and sea management in remote Australia’ special issue of Ecological Management & Restoration (2012, Volume 13 No 1). Central and northern Australia, the focus of papers in the special issue, is sparsely populated, and there are large areas of land owned and managed by indigenous people. The Indigenous Protected Area Program supports these landowners in developing, declaring and managing their country as part of the Australian National Reserve System (Preuss & Dixon 2012). The circumstances are very different in south-eastern Australia where the landscape has been extensively modified, Aboriginal custodians have been dispossessed of their land, and majority ownership and management is in non-indigenous hands. Can ecological management is this landscape follow a similar process of ‘two-way’ collaboration? The challenge for effective ecological management in south-eastern Australia is to bring together all the diverse cultural connections with the landscape. These diverse connections range from the deep cultural and long intimate relationship with the land of the Aboriginal custodians to the present landholders whose families have lived there for several generations and who frequently also have a deep connection with their land. There are more recent land managers who have yet to build that relationship and urban populations which exert additional pressures on natural resources and represent a diversity of modern cultural expectations. There is a great diversity of both knowledge and expectation within this cultural environment. In a previous guest editorial in this journal, Fitzhardinge (2006) observed, ‘Increasingly, conservation is as much about social issues as it is about ecological issues’. This philosophy has been encapsulated into the vision and mission statement of the Central West Catchment Management Authority in NSW: Vision: Vibrant Communities and Healthy Landscapes Mission: To work with the community to conserve, improve and manage natural and cultural resources. This has been embraced within the draft Catchment Action Plan (CAP) (CWCMA 2011), which was developed with community input at the beginning of the process. Four key elements of this CAP are the thresholds and models that underpin community resilience: cultural knowledge, landholder and group Natural Resource Management (NRM) capacity, community adaptive capacity, and farm viability. The resilience of Aboriginal communities in this landscape relies on cultural knowledge being secure, accessible and transmitted; culture being preserved and celebrated; and cultural knowledge being used to support NRM. As Frances Robinson, a traditional owner of the Peak Hill area, has said, ‘I am committed to breaking the barriers and sharing the importance of our culture so we all work towards managing our country better’ and ‘us Koori’s don’t want to take your land but want to protect our bush tucker and sites, to keep the water healthy and be able to access the places we use to camp and or fish at: a general right to keep our culture alive’ (CWCMA 2012). For the community in general, it has been recognised that healthy, vibrant communities have a high adaptive capacity and will embrace the change needed to retain a resilient landscape. Communities remain vibrant when they have economic viability, ongoing learning and reflection, ownership of activities, effective communication and support, and celebration of achievements (CWCMA 2011). The critical connection between traditional knowledge and ecological management of our landscape has always been understood by traditional cultures, but within the European knowledge systems, nature became separated from culture during the ‘Age of Enlightenment’, which occurred in parallel with Chief Roi Mata’s reign in Vanuatu. The enlightenment philosophy, as espoused by Descartes in his 17th Century writings, created a fundamental dichotomy between nature and culture through the promotion of science and intellectual engagement. Humans began to assume domination over nature, rather than living as part of a broader ecosystem. For European settlers in Australia, the dominant ethic was one of defeating the bush, but with the growth of ecological thinking, there has been a reversion to a more holistic approach to land management, a realisation that we need to listen to what the environment is telling us and not try to bend it to our will. While the cultural landscapes of Artok, central and northern Australia and south-eastern Australia have starkly different needs for ecological management, it is evident that the greatest benefit can be obtained when science, traditional knowledge and other local knowledge work in collaboration. The holistic nature of traditional knowledge and its integration with land and reso-urces provides a strong foundation for ecological management. Scientific assessments provide repeatable snapshot measures of diversity and abundance using standardised techniques and a concurrent habitat assessment. Land managers can provide additional species records, unusual records and spatial and temporal changes that are missed by the snapshot assessments. Scientific assessments will also fulfil the legal requirements of state, national and international legislation and agreements. In combination, these approaches will provide the strongest basis for the development of management strategies, restoration procedures and landscape resilience." @default.
• W1944366967 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1944366967 creator A5005810471 @default.
• W1944366967 creator A5020744795 @default.
• W1944366967 date "2012-05-01" @default.
• W1944366967 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1944366967 title "Ecological management in a cultural landscape" @default.
• W1944366967 cites W2067445947 @default.
• W1944366967 cites W2149794061 @default.
• W1944366967 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2012.00650.x" @default.
• W1944366967 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1944366967 type Work @default.
• W1944366967 sameAs 1944366967 @default.
• W1944366967 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1944366967 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1944366967 hasAuthorship W1944366967A5005810471 @default.
• W1944366967 hasAuthorship W1944366967A5020744795 @default.
• W1944366967 hasBestOaLocation W19443669671 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C12429862 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C54286561 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C107826830 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C12429862 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C166957645 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C18903297 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C205649164 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C39432304 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C54286561 @default.
• W1944366967 hasConceptScore W1944366967C86803240 @default.
• W1944366967 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1944366967 hasLocation W19443669671 @default.
• W1944366967 hasOpenAccess W1944366967 @default.
• W1944366967 hasPrimaryLocation W19443669671 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W2038310869 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W2341665333 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W2587128858 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W2787332494 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W3203783640 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W4200299302 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W4206637445 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W4246233833 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W4285184141 @default.
• W1944366967 hasRelatedWork W4319943415 @default.
• W1944366967 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W1944366967 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1944366967 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1944366967 magId "1944366967" @default.
• W1944366967 workType "article" @default.