Fostering change: Listening . . . understanding . . . acting
McDonald, Tein
2001-08-01 00:00:00
I t is almost a truism that protecting and repairing ecosystems will require changes in attitude — cultural changes. But change is not that easy. Edicts and didactic approaches can be important triggers to change; but if we want to do more than simply replace one unthinking action for another, we need to harness the genuine potential of individuals and communities to understand and question both old and new approaches. The obvious implication is that, if genuine questioning and listening is to contribute to change, ecologists and restoration practitioners cannot presume to have all the answers. We must invite other perspectives to the process of devising workable solutions. All parties, then, need to assume that the arguments and criticisms of those whose experiences may differ from our own have their validity; and that — through some form of orderly (if sometimes heated) exchange — a unique solution may be found though improved understanding and cross‐fertilization. Listening to communities : It is against such a background that this issue’s ‘forum article’ was compiled by Max Finlayson on behalf of individual members of the Macquarie‐Cudgegong River Management Committee in New South Wales. As an advocate of local community involvement in wetland management and strongly supportive of the need for scientists to interact with the general public, Max has rolled up his scientist’s sleeves and has compiled a ‘snapshot of views’ from the various stakeholders on the Committee. As such, this is truly a forum article — an exercise in communication. Readers should not, therefore, expect a scholarly review of committee or water reform processes (although such a review is strongly encouraged should anyone care to write it). By acting as a forum in this way, the Journal engages directly with the process of communication in the hope that it may help elicit informed change as well as bring some understanding of diverse perspectives to readers — particularly for non‐science readers interested in contributing practical solutions. It is also against such a background that Rod Safstrom and Margo O’Byrne, in this issue’s invited editorial, call for more informed support of community volunteers involved in the restoration of degraded public reserves. The desire to make a meaningful difference (among other ‘satisfactions’ listed by Rod and Margo) is a critical ingredient of creative community change and needs to be satisfied in some way if volunteer effort is to be sustained. This will strike a chord with many Ecological Management & Restoration readers who appreciate the need to maintain motivation — whether by experiencing some small success, reassurance or timely ‘reality check’— to fuel our collective efforts towards a positive transformation in government, community and individual management actions. It would be hard to find a more explicit example of the value of community listening than that illustrated by Mark Horstman and Glenn Wightman in their article on their ‘ karparti ’ approach to maintaining traditional ecological knowledge in the Kimberley (p. 99). Their article emphasizes that the content of knowledge cannot be gained without observing particular processes of information exchange that are traditional to Indigenous communities; that is, they point out a need for an unhurried and respectful approach to discussions or research with senior custodians, on mutually beneficial terms. Importantly, the authors point out that maintaining and regularly exercising this process is essential for the survival of that knowledge. While the article characterizes Aboriginal knowledge as being rooted in culture, it also makes the essential point that Aboriginal knowledge is based on thousands of years of direct observation and trial and error — a process that contemporary science has refined and neatly packaged as ‘rules’ of experimentation. Harnessing science as a tool for change : Traditional experimental method can contribute much to our understanding of whether change is needed; what attributes the change should have; how we might best go about effecting such change; and assessing whether change has occurred to the standard required. In this issue, Kath Williams and John Cary (p. 139) report on their use of experimental method to assess community perceptions of native vegetation, and found evidence of a need for higher levels of education about the values of native grassland. Other articles in this issue demonstrate the use of science as a tool for evaluating the extent and quality of changes that have occurred after restoration treatments. Examples include an evaluation of river restoration programmes in New South Wales (see Erskine, p. 116) and an evaluation of changes that have occurred after controlling pest species on subantarctic Macquarie Island (see Copson and Whinam, p. 129). It is well known, however, that (despite the increasing appreciation of the role of science in restoration) far too many opportunities to harness scientific method are still being missed. For this reason, readers are urged to read Sam Lake’s comment piece in this issue (p. 110) on ways that increased engagement between researchers and managers can help us draw maximum knowledge from field restoration.
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.pngEcological Management & RestorationWileyhttp://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/fostering-change-listening-understanding-acting-MbChxaBwq4
I t is almost a truism that protecting and repairing ecosystems will require changes in attitude — cultural changes. But change is not that easy. Edicts and didactic approaches can be important triggers to change; but if we want to do more than simply replace one unthinking action for another, we need to harness the genuine potential of individuals and communities to understand and question both old and new approaches. The obvious implication is that, if genuine questioning and listening is to contribute to change, ecologists and restoration practitioners cannot presume to have all the answers. We must invite other perspectives to the process of devising workable solutions. All parties, then, need to assume that the arguments and criticisms of those whose experiences may differ from our own have their validity; and that — through some form of orderly (if sometimes heated) exchange — a unique solution may be found though improved understanding and cross‐fertilization. Listening to communities : It is against such a background that this issue’s ‘forum article’ was compiled by Max Finlayson on behalf of individual members of the Macquarie‐Cudgegong River Management Committee in New South Wales. As an advocate of local community involvement in wetland management and strongly supportive of the need for scientists to interact with the general public, Max has rolled up his scientist’s sleeves and has compiled a ‘snapshot of views’ from the various stakeholders on the Committee. As such, this is truly a forum article — an exercise in communication. Readers should not, therefore, expect a scholarly review of committee or water reform processes (although such a review is strongly encouraged should anyone care to write it). By acting as a forum in this way, the Journal engages directly with the process of communication in the hope that it may help elicit informed change as well as bring some understanding of diverse perspectives to readers — particularly for non‐science readers interested in contributing practical solutions. It is also against such a background that Rod Safstrom and Margo O’Byrne, in this issue’s invited editorial, call for more informed support of community volunteers involved in the restoration of degraded public reserves. The desire to make a meaningful difference (among other ‘satisfactions’ listed by Rod and Margo) is a critical ingredient of creative community change and needs to be satisfied in some way if volunteer effort is to be sustained. This will strike a chord with many Ecological Management & Restoration readers who appreciate the need to maintain motivation — whether by experiencing some small success, reassurance or timely ‘reality check’— to fuel our collective efforts towards a positive transformation in government, community and individual management actions. It would be hard to find a more explicit example of the value of community listening than that illustrated by Mark Horstman and Glenn Wightman in their article on their ‘ karparti ’ approach to maintaining traditional ecological knowledge in the Kimberley (p. 99). Their article emphasizes that the content of knowledge cannot be gained without observing particular processes of information exchange that are traditional to Indigenous communities; that is, they point out a need for an unhurried and respectful approach to discussions or research with senior custodians, on mutually beneficial terms. Importantly, the authors point out that maintaining and regularly exercising this process is essential for the survival of that knowledge. While the article characterizes Aboriginal knowledge as being rooted in culture, it also makes the essential point that Aboriginal knowledge is based on thousands of years of direct observation and trial and error — a process that contemporary science has refined and neatly packaged as ‘rules’ of experimentation. Harnessing science as a tool for change : Traditional experimental method can contribute much to our understanding of whether change is needed; what attributes the change should have; how we might best go about effecting such change; and assessing whether change has occurred to the standard required. In this issue, Kath Williams and John Cary (p. 139) report on their use of experimental method to assess community perceptions of native vegetation, and found evidence of a need for higher levels of education about the values of native grassland. Other articles in this issue demonstrate the use of science as a tool for evaluating the extent and quality of changes that have occurred after restoration treatments. Examples include an evaluation of river restoration programmes in New South Wales (see Erskine, p. 116) and an evaluation of changes that have occurred after controlling pest species on subantarctic Macquarie Island (see Copson and Whinam, p. 129). It is well known, however, that (despite the increasing appreciation of the role of science in restoration) far too many opportunities to harness scientific method are still being missed. For this reason, readers are urged to read Sam Lake’s comment piece in this issue (p. 110) on ways that increased engagement between researchers and managers can help us draw maximum knowledge from field restoration.
Journal
Ecological Management & Restoration
– Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 2001
Recommended Articles
Loading...
There are no references for this article.
Share the Full Text of this Article for FREE
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Sign up for your 14-Day Free Trial Now!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
To get new article updates from a journal on your personalized homepage, please log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.
