Reconciling risk and responsibility on Indigenous country: bridging the boundaries to guide knowledge sharing for cross-cultural biosecurity risk management in northern Australia

IF 0.7 Q3 GEOGRAPHY
Kirsten Maclean, Cathy J. Robinson, Ellie Bock, P. Rist
{"title":"Reconciling risk and responsibility on Indigenous country: bridging the boundaries to guide knowledge sharing for cross-cultural biosecurity risk management in northern Australia","authors":"Kirsten Maclean, Cathy J. Robinson, Ellie Bock, P. Rist","doi":"10.1080/08873631.2021.1911078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Risks posed by new species entering local environments have instigated Indigenous peoples’ efforts to develop new knowledge and land management strategies in many regions. Working to share responsibility for the management of these risks requires new information, prompting government agencies, Indigenous organisations, industry groups, and others to advance new knowledge and different biosecurity practices. Tensions can exist between diverse interest groups advocating different versions of “biosecurity risk.” For example, which organisms should be governed as harmful, what kind of knowledge is useful to inform management practices, and what constitutes “risk”? We draw on research conducted with Indigenous organisations in northern Australia to better understand what risks they associate with “caring for [sick] country.” We argue that effective biosecurity practice in cross-cultural settings can navigate the bridge between different kinds of knowledge and capabilities to support diverse values, notions of responsibility to country, and related understandings of risk. Further, we argue that “biosecurity risk” as a boundary concept could provide the means for creating improved knowledge partnerships that value all interpretations of “biosecurity risk”. Partnerships that recognise multiple approaches for taking responsibility for the management of identified risks could support innovation for cross-cultural and collaborative approaches to biosecurity practice and management.","PeriodicalId":45137,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cultural Geography","volume":"39 1","pages":"32 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08873631.2021.1911078","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cultural Geography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2021.1911078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT Risks posed by new species entering local environments have instigated Indigenous peoples’ efforts to develop new knowledge and land management strategies in many regions. Working to share responsibility for the management of these risks requires new information, prompting government agencies, Indigenous organisations, industry groups, and others to advance new knowledge and different biosecurity practices. Tensions can exist between diverse interest groups advocating different versions of “biosecurity risk.” For example, which organisms should be governed as harmful, what kind of knowledge is useful to inform management practices, and what constitutes “risk”? We draw on research conducted with Indigenous organisations in northern Australia to better understand what risks they associate with “caring for [sick] country.” We argue that effective biosecurity practice in cross-cultural settings can navigate the bridge between different kinds of knowledge and capabilities to support diverse values, notions of responsibility to country, and related understandings of risk. Further, we argue that “biosecurity risk” as a boundary concept could provide the means for creating improved knowledge partnerships that value all interpretations of “biosecurity risk”. Partnerships that recognise multiple approaches for taking responsibility for the management of identified risks could support innovation for cross-cultural and collaborative approaches to biosecurity practice and management.
协调土著国家的风险和责任:弥合边界,指导澳大利亚北部跨文化生物安全风险管理的知识共享
摘要新物种进入当地环境所带来的风险促使土著人民在许多地区努力发展新知识和土地管理战略。分担管理这些风险的责任需要新的信息,这促使政府机构、土著组织、行业团体和其他人推进新知识和不同的生物安全实践。主张不同版本“生物安全风险”的不同利益集团之间可能存在紧张关系。例如,哪些生物应该被视为有害生物,什么样的知识对管理实践有用,什么是“风险”?我们借鉴了与澳大利亚北部土著组织进行的研究,以更好地了解他们与“照顾生病的国家”相关的风险。我们认为,跨文化环境中的有效生物安全实践可以在不同类型的知识和能力之间架起桥梁,以支持不同的价值观、对国家的责任观念,以及对风险的相关理解。此外,我们认为,“生物安全风险”作为一个边界概念,可以为建立更好的知识伙伴关系提供手段,重视对“生物安全危险”的所有解释。认识到负责管理已识别风险的多种方法的伙伴关系可以支持生物安全实践和管理的跨文化和协作方法的创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
22.20%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Since 1979 this lively journal has provided an international forum for scholarly research devoted to the spatial aspects of human groups, their activities, associated landscapes, and other cultural phenomena. The journal features high quality articles that are written in an accessible style. With a suite of full-length research articles, interpretive essays, special thematic issues devoted to major topics of interest, and book reviews, the Journal of Cultural Geography remains an indispensable resource both within and beyond the academic community. The journal"s audience includes the well-read general public and specialists from geography, ethnic studies, history, historic preservation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信