Synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Natural resource management in Australia is beset with complex “wicked” problems, particularly on privately held lands. This socioeconomic-ecological complexity is very evident in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), where lands have been extensively cleared, modified, and used for agriculture. This has resulted in drastic reductions in native biodiversity and water quality and increased salinization in the MDB (Holland et al. 2015), further complicated by the post-colonial social, legislative, and legal legacy in which we attempt to address these ongoing issues. We consider these issues as “wicked” problems because they lack certainty, involve many local and related stakeholder groups with differing worldviews, and in solving one aspect may reveal new problems (Lönngren and van Poeck 2021).

This requires urgent action on private lands including the revegetation of stream catchments, re-designing farm dams, and linking remnant vegetation patches with corridors of replanted native trees and shrubs (Lindenmayer et al. 2022). Holland et al. (2015) highlighted the trade-offs that have occurred with the subsequent decline of ecosystem services, recommending greater collaboration to ensure synergies are developed to overcome the difficulties with past trade-offs. Addressing these significant NRM issues requires applied science and ecological research, local knowledge, access to research sites, as well as collaboration and effective relationships between researchers, communities, and farmers (Ward et al. 2022), as well as researchers across biophysical and social science disciplines (Mitchell et al. 2017).

Importantly, there is an increasing acknowledgement and recognition of the benefits of including local First Nations peoples and their knowledge to address complex ecological problems (Ens et al. 2016, Moggridge et al. 2019). The MDB encompasses the Countries of over 50 First Nations peoples (MDBA 2023), who through colonization over the past two centuries have faced dispossession and isolation from their Country. Despite the failed 2023 Voice referendum in Australia, which sought official recognition for First Nations peoples in the Australian constitution, First Nations peoples continue to seek to take part in natural resource management (NRM) research that impacts them and their Country, including in the MDB (e.g., Yalmambirra 2013, Moggridge et al. 2019, Weir et al. 2024).

In this paper, we review concepts from NRM and First Nations studies across Australia in the context of collaborative research into biodiversity conservation on private farmland in the New South Wales (NSW) Mid-Murray region in the MDB. We propose that communities-of-practice (CoPs; Wenger 1998) that include local First Nations peoples and farmers will provide an opportunity for Indigenous voice and role in local NRM research and more effective NRM on private land based on knowledge. We also consider how CoPs might be established in the local context to enable collaboration.

First Nations researchers (Weir et al. 2024) recommend that researchers working on natural resource management with First Nations peoples incorporate reflexivity into their practice. With this in mind, our paper builds on our collective experiences of First Nations peoples in NRM around Australia. We are equal authors of this paper, with one co-author a Wiradjuri First Nations Elder. All authors have personally worked with local communities and First Nations peoples around Australia over many decades.

First Nations peoples in the Murray-Darling Basin

Rowley (1970) and Yalmambirra (2013) highlighted that Australia’s First Nations peoples have been invaded, colonized, and dispossessed of their Countries, for the main part through the doctrine of terra nullius, or “land belonging to no one” (Yalmambirra 2013), and aqua nullius or “water belonging to no-one,” particularly in the MDB (O’Donnell et al. 2023). In response, they were then relocated to reserves or missions, resulting in their dislocation and isolation from Country (Rowley 1970, Jones et al. 2024). In extreme cases, they were massacred by the colonizers (Ryan 2021).

Non-Indigenous people, led by early British settlers, wanted to free up land to graze livestock and grow crops; the removal of local peoples was important in this process (Jones et al. 2024). Pastoral companies developed extensive leases forcing more removal of First Nations peoples from Country (Jones et al. 2024). Lands were cleared, and traditional food and medicinal resources were either destroyed or reduced dramatically (Pascoe 2018). In the MDB, significant sites including ceremonial places, birthing areas, burial sites, and secret and sacred places were destroyed or their use forbidden (Yalmambirra 2013). Traditional knowledge, including ecological knowledge, observed and refined by First Nations peoples over tens of thousands of years, was denied and branded as fictional myths and legends by the colonizers and relegated behind Western science as less credible knowledge (Moggridge et al. 2022, Roos 2024).

First Nations peoples in NRM research

After years of disregard in NRM research, First Nations peoples are increasingly being included in research projects (Barbour and Schlesinger 2012). Collaborations that recognize and incorporate Indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) systems as well as Western science (WS) are considered by NRM researchers and managers as an important next step for effective and inclusive co-design and co-management by local communities (Ens et al. 2012, Weir et al. 2024). Using case studies in water management in northern Australia, Jackson et al. (2012) outlined principles to increase First Nations peoples’ role and involvement in NRM including seeking IEK, co-planning projects that include all interests, building capacity in First Nations communities, and addressing First Nations peoples’ cultural needs for water (Moggridge et al. 2019). Furthermore, Moggridge et al. (2022) have proposed Indigenous research methodologies for water research based on Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies that radically differ to Western science incorporating local First Nations peoples’ knowledge and experiences.

In an example from the MDB, Weir et al. (2013) considered differences in environmental philosophy and approaches to NRM between First Nations and non-Indigenous cultures, criticizing the “hyper-separation” of nature and culture by managers informed by Western science, as demonstrated by water management in the Mid-Murray region. harriden et al. (2024) explained the importance of relationality in First Nations knowledge systems, and the destructive impact of WS natural and social scientific disciplines on these systems. In their example from the Murray Darling Basin, Weir et al. (2013) explored the role of the Yarkuwa Indigenous Knowledge Centre in documenting cultural-environmental values for the Wamba Wamba and Perrepa Perrepa peoples in their relationship with Country, including the Werai forests along the Murray (Mile) River.

Hill et al. (2012) recognized that collaboration between First Nations peoples and Western researchers varied according to relative levels of power sharing, inter-cultural purpose, and participation by each group, particularly where non-Indigenous researchers were implored to release their power over the planning and management of ecological research, and the prior knowledge that is recognized in the development of such research, which should include IEK as well as WS. In an overview of the use of traditional knowledge for NRM in Australia, Knight (2021) outlined opportunities for knowledge exchange between IEK and WS through local landcare groups, institutions, and individual experts. However, Vella et al. (2015) has observed that declining public funds and institutional collaboration in NRM has resulted in few regional NRM plans in NSW that include official involvement or representation of First Nations peoples.

Prior examples of research collaboration

The authors implemented a search of peer-reviewed academic literature between 2000 and 2024, using the Google Scholar and Scopus online databases to identify examples of research collaborations and knowledge sharing between Western scientists and First Nations peoples. The search terms are provided in Table 1.

The searches identified 32 papers that detailed research collaborations between FN knowledge holders and WS researchers in northern and central Australia, particularly on marine and coastal management (e.g., Dobbs et al. 2016, Austin et al. 2019); in NRM in tropical savannas (e.g., Duff et al. 2009, Ens et al. 2016); and on the consequences of Indigenous ontologies for co-management of resources (e.g., Poelina et al. 2023). However, when our search was narrowed to the Murray-Darling Basin for the same period, only 14 peer-reviewed studies were identified (see Table 2). Cited examples included co-management of MDB freshwater resources involving First Nations peoples directly (Moggridge et al. 2019, O’Donnell et al. 2023) and indirectly (Weir et al. 2013, Conroy et al. 2019), managing bushfires and biodiversity (McKemey et al. 2019, Neale et al. 2019), and impact of First Nations knowledge on travelling stock routes (Spooner et al. 2010).

Although limited in number, these studies demonstrate how IEK could inform research and natural resource planning and management in the MDB (Weir et al. 2024). However, the destructive processes of colonization over more than two centuries have dramatically increased the complexity of First Nations people’s role and involvement in NRM research in the region.

NRM on private lands in the MDB

The MDB (see Fig. 1) is a complex and productive agricultural region, separated from most of Australia’s capital cities. It is a major source of Australia’s food security and export income (Holland et al. 2015), with 40 percent of Australia’s irrigated land (Baumgartner et al. 2020), and some of the nation’s most productive broadacre cropping and livestock landholdings on private land or long-term government lease holds (Holland et al. 2015). Climate varies considerably across the MDB, from the subtropical north to the temperate south, with increasing aridity from east to west (MDBA 2025). MDB agriculture varies from intensive irrigated dairying and rice-growing in the south to extensive cotton plantations in the north, and irrigated horticultural crops including grapes, nuts, and fruits scattered across the MDB (Quiggin et al. 2010).

Applied research addressing complex ecological problems in NRM have correspondingly complex needs for research expertise, local and technical knowledge, research site access, and effective ongoing relationships and collaboration between researchers, organizations, landholders, and, more recently, First Nations peoples (Knight 2021); this is particularly applicable in the MDB. In addition, families who own farms in this region and elsewhere feel increasingly isolated from government decision making and planning regarding the land and water resources on which they depend for their businesses (Royal 2021), as well as the management of biodiversity and natural resources on their properties. This has increased conflict between farmers and governments (Ward et al. 2022). Decision makers, and those undertaking the research they initiate, should consider and balance the aims and roles of competing experts and communities when addressing such complex NRM issues (Allen and Ross 2024).

For traditional settler farmers, this conflict is exacerbated by increasing competition from corporate farms; absentee landholders; mechanization and automation; social pressures including declining rural populations, employment, and educational opportunities for younger people; and increasing competition for services from “tree-changers,” or people buying farms to resettle from metropolitan to rural areas (Luck et al. 2010). Across the MDB, changing weather patterns due to climate change exacerbate these pressures, impacting water availability for agriculture and the environment (Pittock et al. 2023). Consequently, farmers particularly feel pressure from metropolitan-based politicians, mining companies, government agencies, and environmental groups to modify their production practices to address these challenges, with little understanding, support, or recompense for the changes they are required to make (Ward et al. 2024); concurrently, these institutions often undervalue or ignore farmers’ local knowledge, and their past and ongoing efforts in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management (Ward et al. 2022).

Four issues in particular have divided MDB communities and increased conflict between rural and metropolitan based groups in recent decades: declining access to and availability of limited water resources (Pittock et al. 2023); declining biodiversity through land clearing for agriculture (Lindenmayer 2022); the dispossession and need for land and water justice for First Nations peoples (Moggridge et al. 2019); and declining federal government investment and services in NRM (Royal 2021). These issues are increasingly exacerbated by climate change impacts and greater frequency and severity of droughts, bushfires, and floods on their properties and businesses. This conflict has increased impetus for farmers to seek alternative paths to achieve greater balance and utilize relevant local knowledge for practical NRM on their lands (Ward et al. 2024).

LOCALLY LED NRM RESEARCH ON PRIVATE LANDS IN THE MDB

Researchers at Charles Sturt University, Australia, including three authors of this paper, were approached by a farmer group titled the National Agricultural Production and Reconciliation Ecology Centre (NAPREC) based around Deniliquin, southern NSW, to help them address issues regarding sustainable agricultural production while conserving biodiversity on their properties. From initial meetings with NAPREC (see Vanderzee et al. 2018), farmers stated their desire to identify and develop trusted, credible information and science relevant for their context and situation, including location and production circumstances, and not from studies undertaken elsewhere in Australia or overseas. They also wanted their knowledge and experience acknowledged, respected, and included in research. They wanted local research to inform management practices to sustain their current businesses; protect and manage biodiversity on their lands for their grandchildren; and demonstrate their determination to pass on their properties in better ecological condition than when they started (Vanderzee et al. 2018).

During subsequent meetings in Deniliquin, farmers and researchers compiled stories identifying past research projects involving local ecology and NRM on local private properties; some scientists were hailed by the farmers for effective collaboration with researchers, while others created conflict; see Ward et al. (2022) for examples. Interviews were then conducted with NAPREC members, and written transcripts analyzed using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz 2014). In this analysis, Ward et al. (2024) reported that these farmers,

• felt devalued and isolated from the decision making for environmental management, particularly at state and federal levels (Robins and Kanowski 2011);
• felt isolated from the ecological research relevant for them, their families, their businesses, and their properties;
• observed a lack of mutual trust and respect between themselves and some researchers and government institutions; and,
• desired to co-design and co-manage research that would benefit their businesses, their environment, and their communities.

The issues highlighted by farmers in NAPREC indicated a need for alternative approaches to planning and conducting NRM research on private lands. Interestingly, Neale et al. (2019) reflect on parallel challenges for First Nations peoples in engaging with NRM research and WS researchers in the MDB, including the continued power differential between colonial settlers and First Nations peoples; their isolation from political decision making around land and water management, particularly NRM and bushfire issues; and the positive power of collaborative projects to potentially decolonize settler thinking and “promote more holistic socio-ecological systems thinking” (Ens et al. 2015:133). Figure 1 depicts locations of previous collaborative research implemented to date in the MDB, demonstrating the spread across the region and contact with various First Nations peoples.

CoPs for NRM research

NAPREC was seeking a framework that would allow them to co-design and co-manage specific research that addressed their concerns. The authors suggested that a community-of-practice, or CoP (Wenger 1998) could effectively address these challenges. Wenger (1998:48) describes CoPs as places where we as CoP members “develop, negotiate and share ... our own theories and ways of understanding the world” to develop practices. In a hypothetical group, ecological and social researchers would be invited to provide their expertise to participate in a CoP comprising locally based farmers and community, and private and public organizations including local First Nations peoples, to address local NRM issues (see possible participants from the Mid-Murray region in Vanderzee et al. 2018). First Nations peoples as holders and stewards of important local IEK and connection could play a key role in local NRM research and management, through the processes of co-design and co-management and sharing of IEK.

The authors suggested that the hypothetical CoP could utilize Roome and Wijens’ (2006) “double-loop” learning process to address the complex context in which past NRM has occurred; corrections could be possible after organizational and researcher assumptions have been revealed, examined, and revised where necessary. This cycle also embeds collaboration from the commencement of the research. For example, Mitchell (2013) outlined how organizational and social learning in two Mid-Murray region organizations involved with NRM extended their knowledge to communities within which they were embedded using such learning. In an extension of this model, the proposed CoP could utilize elements of double-loop organizational learning detailed in Mitchell (2013) to enable the co-design and co-management of NRM research and management projects (see Fig. 2).

First Nations peoples and non-First Nations individuals and community organizations, as CoP members, could respectfully impart and demonstrate their respective knowledge and experience for other CoP members. These types of knowledge could then inform the co-design of the governing assumptions for the design and implementation of collaborative projects. In this way, all CoP members could be part of research projects on the basis of mutually agreed governing assumptions and limitations (see Fig. 2).

First Nations’ people and NRM research

Before involving local First Nations peoples in a research CoP, Yalmambirra (2002) contended that three questions should be addressed from a First Nations perspective:

1. Why should First Nations peoples be involved? Inclusion can allow for cultural knowledge to be passed on and can allow for specific aspects of cultural continuity (Davis and Soeftestad 1995). This can also foster better relations between First Nations and non-First Nations peoples. This should be discussed and confirmed by all parties prior to commencing a project, particularly regarding its governing assumptions (see Fig. 2).
2. When should First Nations peoples be involved? Such involvement must take place from the conceptualization of research questions for projects and programs (see Fig. 2), not “tokenistic” and added after undertaking the project. First Nations peoples should be included in all aspects, from the ground up, from research planning and management to implementation and activities (see examples in Kaiejin 2024 and MDBA 2024).
3. Who should be involved and how? CoPs need to identify and ascertain the First Nations organizations or individual knowledge holders who can “speak for Country,” and to start consultation that is a truly participatory process from the beginning of the project.

Implementing consultation with First Nations peoples

Yalmambirra (2002) believed all consultation that addressed these questions should allow for three major ingredients for successful interaction with First Nations groups:

1. Communication particularly refers to the initial consultation process whereby non-First Nations people and organizations contact relevant First Nations stakeholders to ascertain their interest, identify specific and relevant knowledge holders, and establish bona fides and trust. This should be at the start of any research program and completed face-to-face on Country.
2. Negotiation may be required to enable consultation processes to proceed, particular where research is about, on, and into First Nations peoples and their interests. Not all consultation processes are as smooth sailing as might be expected. Not all people, First Nations or non-First Nations, think the same or have the same priorities. They should recognize that consulting on NRM issues will take time, especially in building trust between individuals and organizations.
3. Compromise, and the need for respect and accommodation of a range of interests, should be recognized by all stakeholders in NRM. Various interests need to be accommodated in starting and completing projects to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. Interests may change and differ depending on local conditions and involvement of external stakeholders. There is no right or wrong approach, just a range of approaches, whereby some approaches that work in one part of Country may not work in other parts, or on other Countries. Environments are not all the same, so there will be instances where the thoughts, ideas, and concerns of all must be heeded and respected. In the Hybrid Research Model, we advocate for the principles of partnership.

Timing is an important consideration for First Nations groups as well as funding and implementing organizations (Moggridge et al. 2019, Poelina et al. 2023). Trusting relationships between parties from the commencement of the project assists in planning for delays (Moggridge et al. 2022). The authors believe all parties require clear, agreed expectations for project timing or milestones, or funding over longer time frames. Acknowledgement of the types of delays that might arise, and agreed processes for dealing with them, should be integral to project planning. The importance of time and timing for research with First Nations communities was reinforced in research collaborations with native Māori peoples in New Zealand in Ruwhiu et al. (2022), and in the Arctic region in Ellam Yua et al. (2022).

A COMPOSITE PERSPECTIVE

Currently, the conventional researcher-driven model involves research done “into” or about First Nations peoples (Jones et al. 2024), and research protocols have been developed in Australia to address the cultural and human research ethics aspects likely to arise in this model (AIATSIS 2020). Another common approach involves consultancies and contracts, where First Nations organizations or individuals (for example, Land Councils and Corporations) commission research with terms of engagement established through contractual terms and conditions (e.g., Moggridge et al. 2019).

Following the path of “right-way” science that advocates for “bringing Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge and methods together to create ethical, productive and mutually beneficial research” (McKemey et al. 2022:75), we propose a third, collaborative Hybrid Research Model, which draws on the collective expertise, experience, and knowledge of First Nations peoples and Western academic researchers via a CoP, and who share a common interest in the proposed research as equal parties in the conceptualization, design, research conduct, interpretation, and reporting, as is becoming more common in collaborative, multi-authored research (van Eeden et al. 2024).

The authors, based on their experiences working with local communities and from the literature, recommend that an effective CoP would need to accomplish the following:

1. Recognize the value of all knowledge systems:

We suggest the establishment of CoPs that are willing to acknowledge the source ownership and importance of all local knowledge, including the IEK of local First Nations peoples (Moggridge et al. 2022, harriden et al. 2024) and knowledge of other CoP members such as local farmers, ecological and social scientists, and the local community (Mitchell 2013, Ward et al. 2022). The IEK should include differences in gender-based knowledge, social hierarchies, and other variations within and between First Nations peoples (Poelina et al. 2023), while First Nations peoples cannot and should not be held responsible for the problems being addressed. Such important variations in Indigenous ecological knowledge are supported in recent studies completed in a particular location, e.g., Laptander (2023) in Arctic Russia, or differences by gender, e.g., Hartmann and Pearson (2024).

2. Develop active partnerships:

We suggest the CoP could invite and include other experts and organizations such as state and federal government agency and private business staff to actively participate in the CoP rather than simply represent their organization. These invitations would be issued as deemed necessary or desirable and agreed by all CoP members. According to Yalmambirra (2002), from a Wiradjuri perspective, by including all people with an active stake and interest in NRM, partnerships are developed with ongoing local ownership in a research project, with greater personal commitment and reduced member turnover in response to organizational imperatives. Such ownership could also see more community members willing to participate and pass on project knowledge (Yalmambirra 2002). Weir et al. (2013) documented such active partnerships during the cultural mapping exercise for the Werai forest in the Mid-Murray region.

3. Include IEK perspectives in research planning and implementation:

We suggest a CoP with active and diverse local membership that includes local First Nations and farmer representatives could assist to address local NRM issues on private lands from a composite perspective that amalgamates IEK and WS. Drawing on work on freshwater management in the MDB from a First Nations perspective (e.g., Conroy et al. 2019, MDBA 2024), the authors propose a composite research framework following Moggridge et al. (2022). The Hybrid Research Model in Figure 3 could be used by a CoP for developing local research that addresses local NRM issues while including First Nations peoples in research co-design and co-management.

Prior to planning a research project, the CoP and associated groups such as proposed funding agencies and participating researchers should first meet with local First Nations peoples to start building trust and respect between the parties, using principles outlined previously. The CoP could also play an important role in brokering informal meetings between groups and individuals to assist in building mutually beneficial relationships and building trust as a prelude to Step 1 in the model.

In implementing the Hybrid Research Model, some steps require further explanation. The investigations and stories in Steps 7.1 and 7.2 play vital roles in providing a comprehensive investigation of a local NRM problem, incorporating IEK and WS that is reviewed and respected by all project participants (see, for example, Kaiejin 2024). In addition, the First Nations representatives in Step 9 should be enabled to act on behalf of local community(s) and Elders. Note they may not be directly involved in the project, particularly in Steps 5–8, but may act as peer reviewers for the project.

The Hybrid Research Model provides a mechanism to further address the principles outlined in Ens et al. (2012) for improved NRM outcomes involving First Nations and non-First Nations communities in Australia. These principles are summarized as the following:

1. Recognizing the equal validity of First Nations and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies (Hill et al. 2012);
2. Creating opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, trust, respect, and collaborations (see Poelina et al. 2023);
3. Involving First Nations people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of NRM projects or research, including recognizing co-authorship of FN as research partners (e.g., McKemey et al. 2022), and actively encourage FN researchers to publish their research as authors in peer-reviewed literature (Step 11.1);
4. Ensuring that time and resources are available to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building between communities and public institutions, using the three principles of communication, consultation, and compromise described previously; and,
5. Establishing high-level support to maintain continuity of government commitment to involving First Nations peoples in NRM in Australia, as already demonstrated in Canada (Williams et al. 2020).

Although these principles are not all specifically investigated in the hypothetical CoP proposed, they could be considered as part of the CoP and to corroborate steps in the Hybrid Research Model, particularly as it is impacted by government policies, legislation, and institutions (Weir et al. 2024).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we highlight the role of local people, including First Nation peoples and private landholders, in addressing complex local NRM issues. First, the authors proposed principles for engaging local First Nations peoples in trusting and respectful relationships in a highly contested space such as the MDB using double loop learning. Specifically, we suggested principles for consulting and engaging First Nations peoples in local CoPs, from a First Nations perspective, highlighting the importance of the time required for these activities. Finally, we propose the Hybrid Research Model be used to enable IEK and WS to be combined to address local NRM issues.

Time and place play vital roles in designing and implementing effective applied research. In implementing such research projects, research managers should consider the aftermath of a project at the planning stage; if a researcher applies for project funding, the long-term needs of the project and all stakeholders should be considered, and contingency planning should be in place if a research partner leaves. Research and funding institutions—government agencies and academic institutions—and researchers should consider the long-term implications of a project, particularly in ensuring support for the continued participation of First Nations peoples and farmers who remain on lands impacted by projects, recognizing the time required to build enduring trust between researchers and First Nations and farming communities.

Participants also need to focus on ensuring the benefits for all communities involved, rather than, for example, emphasizing the career progression and academic processes that researchers may bring from their institutions (Ruwhiu et al. 2022). This shift in focus would support further co-design and participation of researchers in projects that address the wicked problems that have characterized biodiversity conservation and NRM on private lands around Australia’s MDB, and globally.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, B. L. and H. Ross. 2024. Implementing a novel process for solving contentious conservation problems: the genetic status of K'gari wongari (Fraser Island Dingoes) as a case study. Ecological Management & Restoration 25(3):168-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12611

Austin, B. J., C. J. Robinson, D. Mathews, D. Oades, A. Wiggin, R. J. Dobbs, G. Lincoln and S. T. Garnett. 2019. An Indigenous-led approach for regional knowledge partnerships in the Kimberley region of Australia. Human Ecology 47(4):577-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00085-9

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). 2020. AIATSIS code of ethics. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research/code-ethics

Barbour, W., and C. Schlesinger. 2012. Who's the boss? Post-colonialism, ecological research and conservation management on Australian Indigenous lands. Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1):36-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00632.x

Baumgartner, L. J., P. Gell, J. D. Thiem, M. Finlayson, and N. Ning. 2020. Ten complementary measures to assist with environmental watering programs in the Murray-Darling river system, Australia. River Research and Applications 36(4):645-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3438

Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. SAGE, London, UK.

Conroy, C., A. R. Knight, S. Wassens, and C. Allan. 2019. Consequences of changed water management for Aboriginal Australians in the Murrumbidgee catchment, NSW. Australian Geographer 50(2):169-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2018.1545275

Davis, S. H., and L. T. Soeftestad. 1995. Participation and Indigenous Peoples. Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.

Dobbs, R. J., C. L. Davies, M. L. Walker, N. E. Pettit, B. J. Pusey, P. G. Close, Y. Akune, N. Walsham, B. Smith, A. Wiggan, et al. 2016. Collaborative research partnerships inform monitoring and management of aquatic ecosystems by Indigenous rangers. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 26(4):711-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-015-9401-2

Duff, G., D. Garnett, P. Jacklyn, J. Landsberg, J. Ludwig, J. Morrison, P. Novelly, D. Walker, and P. Whitehead. 2009. A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape Ecology 24(8):1135-1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9236-5

Ellam Yua, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, D. Raychelle Aluaq, and C. Behe. 2022. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society 27(1):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12960-270134

Ens, E., M. Finlayson, K. Preuss, S. Jackson, and S. Holcombe. 2012. Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge. Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1):100-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x

Ens, E., M. L. Scott, Yugul Mangi Rangers, C. Moritz, and R. Pirzl. 2016. Putting indigenous conservation policy into practice delivers biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodiversity and Conservation 25(14):2889-2906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1207-6

Ens, E. J., P. Pert, P. A. Clarke, M. Budden, L. Clubb, B. Doran, C. Douras, J. Gaikwad, B. Gott, S. Leonard, et al. 2015. Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: review and insight from Australia. Biological Conservation 181:133-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008

harriden, K., J. Weir, and K. Cunio. 2024. Looking to see, listening to hear, learning to understand: centring Indigenous relationality to pursue a more-than-disciplinary academy. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 20(4):766-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801241290058

Hartmann, J. Z., and J. Pearson. 2024. Indigenous and local values of nature through a gender lens: a literature review. Ecosystem Services 69:101654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101654

Hill, R., C. Grant, M. George, C. J. 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

Holland, J. E., G. W. Luck, and C. M. Finlayson. 2015. Threats to food production and water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. Ecosystem Services 12:55-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.008

Jackson, S., P. L. Tan, C. Mooney, S. Hoverman, and I. White. 2012. Principles and guidelines for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. Journal of Hydrology 474:57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

Jones, R. L., J. Waghorne, and M. Langton. 2024. Introduction. Pages xiii-xxviv in R. L. Jones, J. Waghorne, and M. Langton, editors. Dhoombak Goobgoowana: a history of Indigenous Australia and the University of Melbourne. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Kaiejin, T. T. 2024. Margooya Lagoon: Tati Tati Purinya Kaiejin Marnmarnepu (Tati Tati Cultural Water Futures). Murray Darling Basin Authority, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/margooya-lagoon-tati-tati-purinya-kaiejin-marnmarnepu-tati-tati

Knight, A. R. 2021. Environmental knowledge exchange in Australia and Oceania: how researchers and practitioners are working together to bring change. Pages 413-452 in C. C. Ferreira and C. F. C. Klütsch, editors. Closing the knowledge-implementation gap in conservation science. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_14

Laptander, R. 2023. The Yamal Nenets’ traditional and contemporary environmental knowledge of snow, ice, and permafrost. Ecology and Society 28(3):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14353-280306

Lindenmayer, D. 2022. Birds on farms: a review of factors influencing bird occurrence in the temperate woodlands of south-eastern Australia. Emu 122(3-4):238-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2022.2106875

Lindenmayer, D., S. M. Macbeth, D. G. Smith, and M. L. Young. 2022. Natural asset farming: creating productive and biodiverse farms. CSIRO, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1071/9781486314843

Lönngren, J., and K. van Poeck. 2021. Wicked problems: a mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 28(6):481-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415

Luck, G. W., R. Black, and D. Race. 2010. Demographic change in rural Australia: future opportunities and challenges. Pages 375-384 in G. W. Luck, R. Black, and D. Race, editors. Demographic change in Australia’s rural landscapes: implications for society and the environment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9654-8_16

McKemey, M. B., Banbai Rangers, Yugul Mangi Rangers, O. Costello, J. T. Hunter, and E. J. Ens. 2022. ‘Right-way’ science: reflections on co-developing Indigenous and Western cross-cultural knowledge to support Indigenous cultural fire management. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):75-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12532

McKemey, M. B., M. Patterson, Banbai Rangers, E. J. Ens, N. C. H. Reid, J. T. Hunter, O. Costello, M. Ridges, and C. Miller. 2019. Cross-cultural monitoring of a cultural keystone species informs revival of Indigenous burning of country in South-Eastern Australia. Human Ecology 47(6):893-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00120-9

Mitchell, M. 2013. From organisational learning to social learning: a tale of two organisations in the Murray-Darling Basin. Rural Society 22(3):230-241. https://doi.org/10.5172/rsj.2013.22.3.230

Mitchell, M., S. A. Moore, S. Clement, M. Lockwood, G. Anderson, S. M. Gaynor, L. Gilfedder, R. Rowe, B. Norman, and E. C. Lefroy. 2017. Biodiversity on the brink: evaluating a transdisciplinary research collaboration. Journal of Nature Conservation 40:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.08.002

Moggridge, B. J., L. Betterridge, and R. M. Thompson. 2019. Integrating Aboriginal cultural values into water planning: a case study from New South Wales, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 26(3):273-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2019.1650837

Moggridge, B. J., R. M. Thompson, and P. Radoll. 2022. Indigenous research methodologies in water management: learning from Australia and New Zealand for application on Kamilaroi country. Wetlands Ecology and Management 30(4):853-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-022-09866-4

Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2023. Water for First Nations. MDBA, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/water-use/water-first-nations

Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2024. Stories of First Nations delivering benefits to Country and communities. MDBA, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/stories-first-nations-delivering-benefits-country-and

Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2025. Basin location. MDBA, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin/basin-location

Neale, T., R. Carter, T. Nelson, and M. Bourke. 2019. Walking together: a decolonising experiment in bushfire management on Dja Dja Wurrung Country. Cultural Geographies 26(3):341-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474018821419

O’Donnell, E., M. Kennedy, D. Garrick, A. Horne, and R. Woods. 2023. Cultural water and Indigenous water science. Science 381(6658):619-621. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0658

Pascoe, B. 2018. Dark emu: Aboriginal Australia and the birth of agriculture. Magabala Books Aboriginal Corporation, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.

Pittock, J., S. Corbett, M. J. Colloff, P. Wyrwoll, J. Alexandra, S. Beavis, K. Chipperfield, B. Croke, P. Lane, A. Ross, and J. Williams. 2023. A review of the risks to shared water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australasian Journal of Water Resources 27(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2023.2190493

Poelina, A., M. Perdrisat, S. Wooltorton, and E. L. Mulligan. 2023. Feeling and hearing country as research method. Environmental Education Research 29(10):1486-1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2239531

Quiggin, J., D. Adamson, S. Chambers, and P. Schrobback. 2010. Climate change, uncertainty, and adaptation: the case of irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 58(4):531-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01200.x

Robins, L., and P. Kanowski. 2011. ‘Crying for our country’: eight ways in which ‘caring for our country’ has undermined Australia’s regional model for natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 18(2):88-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2011.566158

Roome, N., and F. Wijen. 2006. Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies 27(2):235-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057669

Roos, R. 2024. Researchers’ perceptions of their collaboration with indigenous and local people in environmental change research. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 29(8):79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10174-w

Rowley, C. D. 1970. The destruction of Aboriginal society. ANU Press, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Royal, T. 2021. Private land conservation policy in Australia: minimising social-ecological trade-offs raised by market-based policy instruments. Land Use Policy 109:105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105473

Ruwhiu, D., H. Arahanga-Doyle, R. Donaldson-Gush, C. Bragg, J. Kapa, and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki. 2022. Enhancing the sustainability science agenda through Indigenous methodology. Sustainability Science 17:403-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01054-2

Ryan, L. 2021. Newspaper evidence of colonial frontier massacres in Australia. History Australia 18(4):845-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/14490854.2021.1993747

Spooner, P. G., M. Firman, and Yalmambirra. 2010. Origins of travelling stock routes. 1. Connections to Indigenous traditional pathways. Rangeland Journal 32(3):329-339. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ10009

van Eeden, L. M., K. Borg, E. A. Gregg, M. Hatty, S. Kaufman, S. Kneebone, A. M. Kusmanoff, N. Lauren, K. Lee, P. E. Lentini, et al. 2024. A researcher-practitioner driven framework and research agenda for promoting conservation behaviours. Biological Conservation 296:110710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110710

Vanderzee, M., J. Bond, C. M. Finlayson, and W. Ward. 2018. National agricultural productivity & reconciliation ecology centre conference. Ecological Management & Restoration 19(3):E11-E12. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12320

Vella, K., N. Sipe, A. Dale, and B. Taylor. 2015. Not learning from the past: adaptive governance challenges for Australian natural resource management. Geographical Research 53(4):379-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12115

Ward, W. S., J. Bond, L. Burge, J. Conallin, C. Finlayson, D. Michael, S. Scoullar, M. Vanderzee, and A. Wettenhall. 2022. Biodiversity on private land: lessons from the Mid-Murray Valley in South-eastern Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(2):175-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12560

Ward, W. S., C. Finlayson, and M. Vanderzee. 2024. Managing biodiversity on private land: directions for collaboration through reconciliation ecology. Ecological Management & Restoration 25(2):85-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12606

Weir, J. K., D. R. J. Crew, and J. L. Crew. 2013. Wetland forest culture: Indigenous activity for management change in the Southern Riverina, New South Wales. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 20(3):193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2013.819303

Weir, J. K., R. Morgain, K. Moon, and B. J. Moggridge. 2024. Centring Indigenous peoples in knowledge exchange research-practice by resetting assumptions, relationships and institutions. Sustainability Science 19:629-645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01457-3

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932

Williams, K. J., U. Umar, and S. Brant. 2020. Advancing Indigenous research sovereignty: public administration trends and the opportunity for meaningful conversations in Canadian research governance. International Indigenous Policy Journal 11(1):1-25. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2020.11.1.10237

Yalmambirra. 2002. Heritage management in Wiradjuri country: Indigenous perceptions of consultation. Thesis. Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia.

Yalmambirra. 2013. Indigenous cultures in contemporary Australia: a Wiradjuri case study. Dissertation. Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia.