Rewards for providing environmental services - Where indigenous Australians' and western perspectives collide

Kerstin Zander, D DUNNETT, Christine Brown, O CAMPION, Stephen Garnett

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Rewards for environmental service provision, couched under market-based instruments, are widely touted in Australia as a means of improving natural resource management while empowering indigenous people. We document here the views of indigenous Australians in a community in Arnhem Land about their motivations for, and ways to provide, such services. Most respondents (93%) said that they 'look after country' to fulfil cultural responsibilities. Natural resource management, they said, should be carried out communally, primarily under the direction of elders and family. Sixty percent of respondents preferred direct payments such as cash or salaried remuneration like that commonly offered in return for ranger-like activities such as feral animal/weed control, coastal surveillance and prescribed burning. Some (14%) either did not want or did not need rewards for environmental service provision. Others (19%) preferred rewards in a form that benefited their community or family rather than themselves as individuals. There was agreement that outcomes should be monitored, consistent with the principle that reward payments should be conditional on performance. We suggest that a reward system that is too narrowly defined could thwart the potential for win-win outcomes from indigenous incentive-based natural resource management but that their articulation could allow solutions to be negotiated.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)145-154
    Number of pages10
    JournalEcological Economics
    Volume87
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

    Fingerprint

    service provision
    resource management
    natural resource
    prescribed burning
    weed control
    incentive
    market
    animal
    family
    services
    Reward
    Environmental services
    Natural resource management
    land
    management of natural resources
    document
    need
    surveillance
    responsibility
    Service provision

    Cite this

    @article{8a3e097076e04f68a30231e8b235ebed,
    title = "Rewards for providing environmental services - Where indigenous Australians' and western perspectives collide",
    abstract = "Rewards for environmental service provision, couched under market-based instruments, are widely touted in Australia as a means of improving natural resource management while empowering indigenous people. We document here the views of indigenous Australians in a community in Arnhem Land about their motivations for, and ways to provide, such services. Most respondents (93{\%}) said that they 'look after country' to fulfil cultural responsibilities. Natural resource management, they said, should be carried out communally, primarily under the direction of elders and family. Sixty percent of respondents preferred direct payments such as cash or salaried remuneration like that commonly offered in return for ranger-like activities such as feral animal/weed control, coastal surveillance and prescribed burning. Some (14{\%}) either did not want or did not need rewards for environmental service provision. Others (19{\%}) preferred rewards in a form that benefited their community or family rather than themselves as individuals. There was agreement that outcomes should be monitored, consistent with the principle that reward payments should be conditional on performance. We suggest that a reward system that is too narrowly defined could thwart the potential for win-win outcomes from indigenous incentive-based natural resource management but that their articulation could allow solutions to be negotiated.",
    keywords = "economic conditions, economic development, empowerment, market development, natural resource, performance assessment, resource management, Arnhem Land, Australia, Northern Territory, Animalia",
    author = "Kerstin Zander and D DUNNETT and Christine Brown and O CAMPION and Stephen Garnett",
    year = "2013",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.029",
    language = "English",
    volume = "87",
    pages = "145--154",
    journal = "Ecological Economics",
    issn = "0921-8009",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Rewards for providing environmental services - Where indigenous Australians' and western perspectives collide. / Zander, Kerstin; DUNNETT, D; Brown, Christine; CAMPION, O; Garnett, Stephen.

    In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 87, 03.2013, p. 145-154.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Rewards for providing environmental services - Where indigenous Australians' and western perspectives collide

    AU - Zander, Kerstin

    AU - DUNNETT, D

    AU - Brown, Christine

    AU - CAMPION, O

    AU - Garnett, Stephen

    PY - 2013/3

    Y1 - 2013/3

    N2 - Rewards for environmental service provision, couched under market-based instruments, are widely touted in Australia as a means of improving natural resource management while empowering indigenous people. We document here the views of indigenous Australians in a community in Arnhem Land about their motivations for, and ways to provide, such services. Most respondents (93%) said that they 'look after country' to fulfil cultural responsibilities. Natural resource management, they said, should be carried out communally, primarily under the direction of elders and family. Sixty percent of respondents preferred direct payments such as cash or salaried remuneration like that commonly offered in return for ranger-like activities such as feral animal/weed control, coastal surveillance and prescribed burning. Some (14%) either did not want or did not need rewards for environmental service provision. Others (19%) preferred rewards in a form that benefited their community or family rather than themselves as individuals. There was agreement that outcomes should be monitored, consistent with the principle that reward payments should be conditional on performance. We suggest that a reward system that is too narrowly defined could thwart the potential for win-win outcomes from indigenous incentive-based natural resource management but that their articulation could allow solutions to be negotiated.

    AB - Rewards for environmental service provision, couched under market-based instruments, are widely touted in Australia as a means of improving natural resource management while empowering indigenous people. We document here the views of indigenous Australians in a community in Arnhem Land about their motivations for, and ways to provide, such services. Most respondents (93%) said that they 'look after country' to fulfil cultural responsibilities. Natural resource management, they said, should be carried out communally, primarily under the direction of elders and family. Sixty percent of respondents preferred direct payments such as cash or salaried remuneration like that commonly offered in return for ranger-like activities such as feral animal/weed control, coastal surveillance and prescribed burning. Some (14%) either did not want or did not need rewards for environmental service provision. Others (19%) preferred rewards in a form that benefited their community or family rather than themselves as individuals. There was agreement that outcomes should be monitored, consistent with the principle that reward payments should be conditional on performance. We suggest that a reward system that is too narrowly defined could thwart the potential for win-win outcomes from indigenous incentive-based natural resource management but that their articulation could allow solutions to be negotiated.

    KW - economic conditions

    KW - economic development

    KW - empowerment

    KW - market development

    KW - natural resource

    KW - performance assessment

    KW - resource management

    KW - Arnhem Land

    KW - Australia

    KW - Northern Territory

    KW - Animalia

    U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.029

    DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.029

    M3 - Article

    VL - 87

    SP - 145

    EP - 154

    JO - Ecological Economics

    JF - Ecological Economics

    SN - 0921-8009

    ER -