| dc.contributor.author |
Ens, E. J. |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2012-02-21T21:04:00Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2012-02-21T21:04:00Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2012 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/7832 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
"Payments for environmental services (PES) are increasingly promoted as an economic mechanism that could potentially address socio-economic and environmental conservation objectives in developing regions. However, the reporting and conditionality requirements of PES projects can be inhibitory, particularly for people with low environmental monitoring or administration capacity. Here, I provide five case studies where Indigenous Land and Sea Management groups in remote northern Australia, have combined Indigenous ecological knowledge, Western science, and the innovative CyberTracker technology to record and monitor the ecological outcomes of their land management activities to facilitate engagement with mainstream economies in Australia. The case studies elucidate methods of data collection and recording for established and potential PES projects where environmental monitoring and adaptive land and sea management are clear objectives, with longer term prospects for socio-economic benefits of Indigenous community education, empowerment and development. Similar monitoring and reporting methods could be applied in other contexts where individuals or community groups want to engage in emerging mainstream environmental service markets, but lack environmental monitoring and reporting capacity, such as other Indigenous groups, people from economically poor regions, or farmers in environmentally valuable regions." |
en_US |
| dc.language |
English |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
indigenous institutions |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
environmental services |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
ecology |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
capacity building |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Monitoring Outcomes of Environmental Service Provision in Low Socio-Economic Indigenous Australia using Innovative CyberTracker Technology |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
published |
en_US |
| dc.type.methodology |
Case Study |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.region |
Pacific and Australia |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.country |
Australia |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
General & Multiple Resources |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Information & Knowledge |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Social Organization |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationjournal |
Conservation & Society |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationvolume |
10 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationpages |
42-52 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationnumber |
1 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationmonth |
January-March |
en_US |